[machine translation]
Shinran's Banishment to Echigo as a Turning Point in His Religious Development
in: Zentrum und Peripherie in Japan, iudicium 1992, pp. 163-174
Gerhard Schepers
1. Introduction
Anyone who has visited the Hiei-zan in Kyōto with its extensive temple complexes will perhaps also remember the references there to various personalities of Japanese religious history, some of them very well-known, who all spent at least some time as Tendai monks on the Hiei. In fact, the great new schools of the Kamakura period in particular, which today shape Japanese Buddhism, all started from there. Their founders, Eisai, Dōgen, Hōnen, Shinran and Nichiren, received their basic religious training there and took certain elements of the Tendai tradition as the starting point for their teaching. Here, the central importance of the Hiei-zan for religion at the end of the Heian and the beginning of the Kamakura period becomes very clear.
On the other hand, the five school founders mentioned all left the Hiei, Dōgen after only two years, Nichiren after about ten, Shinran after twenty, Hōnen and Eisai only after about thirty years. The two older ones, Hōnen and Eisai mostly stayed in Kyōto. Both kept in touch with the court aristocracy, Eisai also with the military rulers in Kamakura.
For Shinran, Nichiren and to some extent Dōgen, on the other hand, their life on the periphery becomes decisive. In this, one might say, they represent the spirit of a new age and new social groupings.1 After his return from China and further years in Kyōto, Dōgen finally retires to the newly founded Eihei-ji in far-off Echizen, now Fukui, where he deliberately keeps almost completely away from the powerful. Even after his exile in Echigo, now Niigata, Shinran remained in the Kantō area for more than twenty years before returning to his hometown of Kyōto as an old man. Nichiren's origins as the son of a fisherman from Chiba and the first two
163
decades of his life there, as well as his eventful life with multiple exiles, make him a man of the periphery and a zealous prophet who does not shy away from conflict with other political and social forces, but actually seeks it.2
Of course, there are considerable differences between Dōgen, Shinran and Nichiren, but one can say that in all three of them a tension is visible between the centre and the periphery, between the cultural, social and to a large extent also political centre of Kyōto and partly also Kamakura on the one hand, and the completely different, positive and negative, conditions and possibilities on the periphery on the other. What this means in terms of Shinran's religious development I would now like to examine in more detail.
2. Echigo as a turning point in Shinran's life
Jōdo-shinshū, the "True School of the Pure Land", also called Shin Buddhism, which goes back to Shinran, knows various biographies of Shinran in its tradition, some of them very detailed. However, these have many legendary features and are practically worthless as historical sources. With the onset of historical-critical Shinran research since the end of the 19th century, the search for the historical Shinran began, similar to European Life of Jesus research. Since there were no contemporary historical sources on Shinran outside the Shinshū tradition at that time, it was partly believed that there was no possibility at all to make historically reliable statements about Shinran. It was even doubted that he had really lived. This changed in the 1920s with the evidence of original manuscripts of Shinran and especially with the discovery of letters of his wife Eshinni, which contain various biographical details about Shinran. The latter, along with details and indirect references in Shinran's own works, are the most important source on his life. In addition, there is the relatively reliable oldest biography, written by Shinran's great-grandson Kakunyo 32 years after his death, which, however, is written from the perspective of the Shinshū teachings.3
Shinran's life can be divided into five main periods. The first begins in 1181, when he became a monk on the Hiei-zan at the age of eight, and lasts until 1201, when he disappointedly left the Hiei in his search for a path to salvation and joined Hōnen. The second period
164
ends after only six years in 1207 with the banishment of Hōnen and several of his disciples, including Shinran, which occurred under pressure from the established Buddhist temples. This marks the beginning of the third period, the most important for our context, in Echigo, where Shinran probably remained for a few years longer after the exile was lifted in 1211. This is followed by Shinran's stay of about two decades with missionary activity in Hitachi, today Ibaraki, probably from 1214 to about 1235, and finally the last period of his life in Kyōto until his death in 1263.
The question of the decisive turning point in Shinran's life is much debated. Traditionally, most scholars place it in 1201, the year in which he became Hōnen's disciple. This is undoubtedly Shinran's decisive step towards the Amida faith, towards the conviction that salvation is only possible because of Amida Buddha's vow to lead all people to the Pure Land and thus to enlightenment. However, this does not yet explain the origin of all that constitutes Shinran's historical significance as a radical religious innovator and as the founder of Shin Buddhism, namely above all his insight that only the faith brought about by Amida alone makes entry into the Pure Land possible, and the sometimes radical consequences he draws from this. In the years up to 1207, Shinran was still completely under the influence of Hōnen. Although he apparently had Hōnen's special trust (in 1205 he was allowed to make a copy of Hōnen's main work Senjakushū as well as Hōnen's portrait), he does not otherwise stand out among Hōnen's numerous disciples (cf. Dobbins 25f).
How strongly Shinran was initially influenced by Hōnen is also shown by his earliest works, notes on two sutras,4 written before 1217, perhaps already before 1207 in Kyōto (TSSZ 7:(2)158f). They contain textual extracts and commentaries consisting entirely of quotations from other works, with Shinran, like Hōnen, using mainly Shan-tao (China, 613-681) as a source. The importance of faith is at best hinted at, but what is emphasised in the quotations is also Hōnen's central message, namely that nembutsu, the utterance of the Buddha's name, is the only way to salvation (cf. Dobbins 27f).
This changes significantly in Shinran's main work, the Kyōgyōshinshō, in which his fundamentally new religious experience of salvation solely through the faith bestowed by Amida is now clearly expressed.
165
Before this, then, must lie the decisive turning point in Shinran's thought, which leads him to a partly radical new and re- formulation of the previous tradition. Unfortunately, the date of composition of the Kyōgyōshinshō is highly disputed.5 It is certain that Shinran worked on it for a good two to three decades and that it was essentially completed around 1247. However, there must have been earlier versions. The oldest surviving manuscript was probably written before his return to Kyōto, perhaps considerably earlier,6 so that Shinran had probably already written the first drafts since the beginning of his stay in the Kantō region. In addition, various scholars are of the opinion that several shorter collections of texts with Shinran's commentary were already written before the Kyōgyōshinshō and not later in Kyōto, as is traditionally assumed (Maki 410f).
It follows that Shinran's decisive religious experience definitely took place during his years on the periphery of Japan. There are many indications that it already occurred during his exile in Echigo. In addition to the dates of the writings, this is supported by the fact that Shinran's stay in Echigo marked a decisive turning point unlike any other event in his later life. He was forced to leave not only his familiar surroundings, but also his teacher Hōnen, who meant so much to him. Far from the cultural centre, he had to do without many intellectual stimuli, contacts with like-minded people and in-depth religious studies. In addition to the bitterness about the injustice done to him by his established brothers in the faith, he had to earn a living for himself and his family for the first time and under difficult conditions.
Although a man from the centre with Shinran's social background probably had certain privileges on the periphery (Matsuno 153f),7 and his wife's family in Echigo may have had some wealth (Matsuno 159-162), overall the regulations for exiles and the living conditions in Echigo were very harsh at the time (Matsuno 151f, 162f). Also completely new for Shinran were the experiences of marriage and family8 as well as life among ordinary people in the province, who often had to live in the most degrading conditions and were despised by the educated because of their physical labour, which Shinran now shared (Takahatake 92f). The extent to which all this affected his religious development will be examined in more detail below.
166
First, however, I would like to mention a letter from his wife Eshinni that refers to an important religious experience. It is reported there (TSSZ 3:194-197) that Shinran had recited a sutra continuously during an illness in 1231, until it became clear to him, also in memory of an earlier experience seventeen or eighteen years ago, that this was also an attempt to achieve something through his own strength (jiriki), whereas nothing else was necessary but faith. So he finally stopped the recitation. This experience apparently marks the end of a development in the course of which Shinran realised ever more deeply how much man tries again and again to secure his salvation through his own efforts. Thus, he now consistently rejects all forms of religious practice that are not based on the "other power" (tariki), i.e. that are not a direct expression of the faith given by Amida. It is not possible to determine exactly when this realisation took hold in Shinran. In any case, most scholars assume, rightly in my opinion, that it is considerably earlier than the experience described in Eshinni's letter.9
It is also interesting to note that Shinran usually called himself Gutoku Shinran since his exile. His earlier name, Zenshin, refers to Shan-tao, Japanese Zendō, to whom, as mentioned above, Hōnen primarily referred and who also forms the main source for Shinran's earliest works. Shan-tao particularly emphasises the recitation of the nembutsu as important for salvation. The name Shinran, on the other hand, consists of the second syllables of the Japanese names for Vasubandhu (India, 4th/5th century) and T'an-luan (China, 488-554 [476-542]), Seshin and Donran. Particularly important here is the reference to T'an-luan, to whom Shinran refers in the Kyōgyōshinshō to justify his new insights in contrast to Hōnen (cf. Yasutomi *1990:48). T'an-luan emphasises salvation through tariki and faith, as well as the possibility of salvation for everyone, even the most depraved. The central importance of these thoughts may have become clear to Shinran through his experiences in Echigo (cf. Yasutomi *1990:49f). Even more interesting is the term gutoku, with which Shinran refers to his new status since the exile, which will be discussed further below. These self-designations, which Shinran retained until the end of his life (he had already changed his name three times before), thus also indicate that the decisive turning point in Shinran's life began with the exile.
In view of what has been said so far, it is probably justified to assume with many scholars that
167
Shinran's partly radical transformation and reorganisation of the Buddhist tradition can be traced back to his experiences in Echigo.10 What emerged from these experiences will now be examined in relation to some important aspects of his thought and his religious experience.
3. Shinran as a radical religious innovator
As already indicated, at the centre of Shinran's religious experience stands the conviction that no effort of man's own can lead to salvation, but only the faith bestowed by Amida through the granting of his merits (ekō). The impossibility, at least subjectively experienced, of reaching the goal of enlightenment through the paths offered in the Buddhist tradition had led him to Hōnen. Now, in Echigo, completely on his own, largely cut off from the religious traditions and from the influence of like-minded people, out of the experiences of daily life and with enough time for introspection and reflection, only now did Shinran apparently become aware of the full extent of human inadequacy. Connected with this was a deepened experience of faith in Amida, the realisation that man can be all the more certain of his salvation the more he knows about his own inadequacy, the more deeply he understands that even his faith is not based on his own strength. Shan-tao, in a text quoted by Shinran in the Kyōgyōshinshō, had already described this as the two aspects of the one "deep heart" (jinshin) that constitutes the essence of faith (see Inagaki 91).
Shinran's self-designation as gutoku corresponds to this. The first syllable means "stupid", "ignorant"; the following toku actually means "bald" and was apparently used at that time to designate a priest who did not observe the rules applicable to Buddhist priests.11 As in Christianity, a deeper realisation of one's own inadequacy and a deepened experience of faith thus belong together and are mutually dependent. However, in Shinran's case one cannot speak of consciousness of sin, as many scholars do. The terms he uses mean offence, crime, at best evil or wickedness.12 In addition, there is the emphasis on karma, the inescapable entanglement in the law of cause and effect even in the realm of moral evil (cf. Takahatake 100-104), which differs from the personal consciousness of sin in Christianity. In Shinran, as elsewhere in Buddhism, human inadequacy also encompasses more, namely blind passions and ignorance, which is why salvation is also called enlightenment.
168
The fact that Shinran confesses so openly to his fallen state shows how much he has obviously accepted himself in all his inadequacy, because he knows that he is unconditionally accepted by Amida.
This now has a number of consequences, some of them radical. Salvation for Shinran is a personal experience of faith, an immediate relationship between Amida and the individual to whom Amida turns his merits (cf. Matsuno 173-177). Thus Shinran can say, as it is said in the Tannishō, that Amida's vow is for him, Shinran, alone (Fujiwara 79), quite an astonishing statement within Japanese intellectual history (cf. Yasutomi 1986:71f). The growing self-confidence with which Shinran represents and lives his newly acquired insights is probably also related to this inner experience. Of course, this is not pride in his own power, but trust in the working of the Other Power (tariki) in him.
This is also evident in another well-known word of Shinran's in the Tannishō, namely, "I, Shinran, have not even a single disciple." (Fujiwara 28) This rejection of the traditionally so important teacher-pupil relationship shakes the foundations not only of religious organisations in Japan, but also of the social system in general, especially if one adds Shinran's relativisation of the child-parent relationship (ibid. 26). Thus, one is inclined to add, it has not been able to assert itself even in Shin Buddhism from the beginning.
Shinran justifies the fact that he has no disciple with the fact that he cannot lead anyone to faith through his own strength, because faith is always the work of Amida Buddha (ibid. 28). Before Amida's primordial vow (hongan), all are equal, whether young or old, good or bad, as it says elsewhere in the Tannishō (ibid. 16).13 Shinran even reverses traditional values when he says (to quote the most famous word from the Tannishō): "Even a good man is born in the Pure Land, how much more a bad one!" (ibid. 22) Sentences like these not only meant a challenge to the established Buddhist schools, but could also be seen as questioning the traditional values of a strictly hierarchical
169
society. This could also be the reason why the Tannishō was apparently made accessible to only a few believers in the first centuries after Shinran's death (cf. Dobbins 69f).
Shinran's thinking radically challenges the monopoly on salvation of the established religious groups, namely their claim to possess teachings, practices and rituals that alone can lead people to salvation.14 In contrast, Shinran's path to salvation is accessible to everyone. He does not need to become a monk or change his life, not even a teacher-disciple relationship is necessary. This was Shinran's fundamental experience in Echigo, where he came to a deepened faith entirely on his own, living as a layman and precisely out of the deepest experience of his inadequacy.
The happiness of this experience of faith and the gratitude towards Amida were then, as we also learn from Eshinni's letter mentioned above,15 apparently the motive for the beginning of Shinran's missionary work, which he probably only started in Hitachi. It arose from the desire to enable as many people as possible to have a similar experience of faith. In doing so, he probably turned primarily to peasants and others from the lower classes whose lives he had shared in Echigo. That he also rejects the distinction between priest and layman is demonstrated by his own living as one who is "neither priest nor layman (sō ni arazu zoku ni arazu) “16. The forced laicisation during his exile becomes the occasion for a new way of life where, on the one hand, he does not observe the monastic rules and has a family like a layman, but on the other hand, as a disciple of Buddha, he devotes himself entirely to the study and dissemination of Buddhist teachings. More important than this external aspect, however, is the inner experience expressed in the above formula, namely a new self-awareness of the individual who lives entirely in and from the power of Amida. Only this relationship is decisive, and so distinctions like that between priest and layman lose their validity.
Some scholars try to highlight socially critical elements in Shinran's thought and practice. The impetus for this discussion, which continues to this day, was primarily provided by the works of Ienaga Saburo and Hattori Shisō.17 Because of the sparse evidence, however, it is difficult in many cases to go beyond mere conjecture, so that one's own ideological standpoint often comes strongly into play. Nevertheless, it is astonishing to what extent a religious thinker of the Kama-
170
kura period was able to stimulate the socio-critical discussion of the post-war period in Japan, although the consequences resulting from Shinran's thinking are evidently still incomprehensible to many Japanese today.
Shinran's highly critical attitude towards the religious and secular authorities in Kyōto at the time of his exile is certainly verifiable, an attitude that continued long after his exile in Echigo. The corresponding passage is found in the epilogue of the Kyōgyōshinshō. There, Shinran criticises the priests of the great temples and the Confucian scholars in the capital who, in their blindness, could not distinguish truth from falsehood, and then continues: "The emperor and his followers turned against law (dharma) and justice, let themselves be guided by anger and determined by resentment." (TSSZ 380) The criticism of the emperor in particular apparently still seems so outrageous even over 700 years later that in 1940, at the height of nationalism, the entire above sentence was no longer allowed to be quoted or printed by order of the Nishi-Honganji (see Rogers 15f), and an English edition as late as 1983 obscures the context by simply speaking of "lords" instead of "emperor" (Inagaki 206).18
That the great temples in Kyōto and Nara were not only concerned with religious reservations in their suppression of Hōnen and his disciples, but above all with their position within the socio-political order, is clearly shown in several points of the indictment against Hōnen, which the Kōfukuji submitted to the emperor in 1205 (see Kōfukuji-sōjō). Three of the nine indictments refer to this, and these are further emphasised by the fact that they are placed at the beginning, in the middle and at the end. James C. Dobbins summarises them as follows:
1. Establishing a new school without imperial recognition and without proper lineage.
.....
5. Refusing to revere the illustrious kami, the native deities of the Shinto tradition.
.....
9. Throwing the country into disorder by undermining the teachings of the eight schools which uphold it.19
The first and last points show the close intertwining and mutual support of religious and secular power (cf. Fugen
171
67ff), while in the middle charge it becomes clear that it is not so much a matter of keeping Buddhist teachings pure, but rather of protecting the established religions as a whole from religious innovations and their social consequences. However, the attempt to achieve this through repressive measures failed in the case of Shinran. By exiling him to the periphery of the country, he was allowed, as we have seen, to gain fundamental insights that challenged the traditional religious and, at least indirectly, the social system much more radically than was the case with Hōnen.
Notes
1 Cf. Anesaki 186f u. 204
2 Cf. Anesaki 191 u. 204
3 On the problems mentioned here, cf. for example Dobbins 21f and Kojima 1981:13f.
4 Kanmuryōjukyō-shūchū and Amidakyō-shūchū, in: TSSZ (=Teihon Shinran Shōnin zenshū; see the bibliography) vol. 7.
5 See Maki 409ff and Dobbins 32 and the literature cited there.
6 The so-called Bandō manuscript (cf. TSSZ 1:387ff, Furuta 594-632, Inagaki 3-5 and Dobbins 32).
7 Based on similar considerations, Takahatake sees Shinran as "both a victim and a beneficiary of the aristocracy and its social system" (92).
8 When Shinran married (and whether possibly more than once) is disputed. At the latest, it must have been soon after his arrival in Echigo, but perhaps some years earlier (cf. for example Matsuno 159-162, Takahatake 94f, Dobbins 27).
9 Cf. for example Miyaji 40-43, Kojima 1982:5f. See the overview in Furuta 88ff. Most scholars place Shinran's "turn" (tennyū) to the eighteenth vow of the Muryōjukyō (Sukhāvatî-vyūha-sūtra), i.e. to belief in salvation only through tariki, (on this problem see Dobbins 28-30) in the period around 1201, but some place it considerably later. Furuta, after careful research, comes to the conclusion that it must have taken place in the period immediately after the stay in Echigo (Furuta 124), which also supports my own view.
10 See, for example, Bloom 17, Katō 96, Takahatake 90 and 95-100, Yasutomi 1990:52, also Furuta 124.
11 The exact meaning of the two terms and the sense in which Shinran uses them is much debated and sometimes disputed. See for instance Inagaki 25, Takahatake 89f, Katō 88-92, Dobbins 26f, also Furuta 167-172, Gorai 42.
12 For more details: Schepers 4-6
172
13 Takahatake sees this insight as closely related to Shinran's experiences in Echigo (98-100).
14 Cf. Langer-Kaneko 15f.
15 Believing oneself and leading others to believe (jishin kyōninshin), it says there, is an expression of gratitude to the Buddha (TSSZ 3:195). Cf. Futaba 339ff and Dobbins 30.
16 This is how Shinran has referred to himself since the exile. For the following, cf. Katō 95f.
17 In the works listed below in the bibliography, among others. Cf. for example Bloom 26ff and 56ff, Miyaji 245-290, Furuta 172ff, Kashiwabara, Yasutomi *1980:271-273
18 Takahatake also still has this translation (78).
19 Dobbins 14f. Partly misleading is the summary in Takahatake 76f; for example, that of point 5 reads: "Pure Land followers did not pay proper respect to the Buddhist teachings and practices of the other Japanese schools." (77) On the content, cf. Futaba 74-76.
Bibliography
Anesaki,Masaharu: History of Japanese Religion. With Special Reference to the Social and Moral Life of the Nation. Tokyo: Tuttle 1963 (11930)
Bloom, Alfred: The Life of Shinran Shonin. The Journey to Self-acceptance, in: Numen 15 (1968) 1-62
Dobbins, James C.: Jōdo Shinshū. Shin Buddhism in Medieval Japan. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press 1989
Fugen Kōju: Shinran Shōnin ni okeru ōbō to Buppō. „Kekan*" o chūshin to shite, in: Shinran-kyōaku no sho-mondai, Ryūkoku Daigaku Shinshū Gakkai (Hg.). Kyoto: Nagata Bunshodo 1987, 67-98
Fujiwara Ryōsetsu (Übers. u. Komm.): The Tanni Shō (Text, Übers. u. Komm.). Kyoto: Ryukoku University 21963 (= Ryukoku Translation Series 2)
Furuta Takehiko: Shinran shisō. Sono shiryō hihan. Tokyo: Fuzanbō 1975
Futaba Kenkō: Shinran no kenkyū. Shinran ni okeru shin to rekishi. Kyoto: Hyakkaen 51989 (11962)
Gorai Shigeru und Satō Masahide: Shinran no jitsuzō o motomete, in: Gendai Shisō (Rinji-zōkan, Sōtokushū = Shinran) 13 (1985) 32-59
Hattori Shisō: Shinran nōto. Tokyo: Fukumura Shuppan 1970 (11948)
Ienaga Saburō: Chūsei Bukkyō shisō-shi kenkyū. Kyoto: Hōzōkan 1976 (11947)
Inagaki Hisao u.a. (Übers. und Komm.): The Kyō Gyō Shin Shō (Text, Übers. und Komm.). Kyoto: Ryukoku University 21983
Kashiwabara Yūsen: Shinran ni okeru shakai-kan no kōzō, in: Chiba Jōryū und Hosokawa Gyōshin (Hg.): Shinran. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan 1983 (= Nihon meisō-ronshū 7), 101-134
173
Katō Chiken: Shinran to Rutā. Shinkō no shūkyōgakuteki kōsatsu. Tokyo: Waseda Daigaku Shuppanbu 1987
Kōfukuji-sōjō, in: Dai-Nihon-Bukkyō-zensho, Bd. 124. Bussho Kankōkai 1917, 103-109
Kojima Eijō: Shinran no shisō tenkai to sono haikei (zenpen). Yoshimizu nyūshitsu yori ruzai made (vol. 44/45), in: Dōhō-dai Ronsō 44 (1981) 13-27
Kojima Eijō: Shinran no shisō tenkai to sono haikei (kōhen). Ruzai igo kiraku-bannen made, in: Dōhō-dai Ronsō 47 (1982) 1-15
Langer-Kaneko, Christiane: Das Reine Land. Zur Begegnung von Amida-Buddhismus und Christentum. Leiden: E. J. Brill 1986
Maki Yukako: Shinran to Pauro. Ishitsu no shin. Tokyo: Kyōbunkan 1988
Matsuno Junkō: Shinran. Sono kōdō to shisō. Tokyo: Hyōron-sha 1971 (= Nihonjin no kōdō to shisō 2)
Miyaji Kakue: Shinran-den no kenkyū. Kyoto: Hyakkaen 1968
Rogers, Minor L. and Rogers, Ann T.: The Honganji: Guardian of the State (1868-1945), in: Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 17 (1990) 3-28
Schepers,Gerhard: Shinran's View of the Human Predicament and the Christian Concept of Sin, in: Japanese Religions 15 (1988) 1-17
Takahatake Takamichi: Young Man Shinran. A Reappraisal of Shinran's Life. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press 1987
Teihon Shinran Shōnin Zenshū (TSSZ), hg. von Shinran Shōnin Zenshū Kankōkai, 9+1 Bde. Kyoto: Hōzōkan 1969-1970
Yasutomi Shinya: Shinran ni okeru hihan-seishin, in: Nihon Bukkyō-gakkai Nenpō 48 (*1980) 271-283
Yasutomi Shinya: Shinran to kiki-ishiki. Shūkyō-teki shutai no keisei, in: Ōtani Gakuhō 65 (1986) 66-78
Yasutomi Shinya: Shinran to kiki-ishiki. „Gutoku Shaku Shinran" no tanjō, in: Ōtani Gakuhō 69 (1990) 41-53
174