Discovery of Japanese Idealism

Republishing another public domain work from 1924

INTRODUCTION

This is the complete text (sans appendix, which I will upload in a different post) of Professor Kishio Satomi’s book “Discovery of Japanese Idealism,” written from the perspective of one involved in the Nationalistic Buddhist “Nichirenist” movement of Japan’s early 20th century.

Note that “Nichirenism” is not to be confused with “Nichiren Buddhist” religious institutions. Rather it was a framework that expanded the principles of Nichiren Buddhism out into a more holistic view of religious life, most notably into the sphere of the political (i.e. the religious salvation of the state).

This book is Satomi’s follow-up to “Japanese Civilization: Its Significance and Realization (Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles),” which I have also uploaded to my blog chapter by chapter. You can read the first part here.

However, this particular text was intended to be stand-alone, meaning you don’t have to read the previous work to understand it, but I do believe it may be beneficial, as Professor Satomi briefly summarizes or brushes over complex ideas here that he had covered in detail in “Japanese Civilization.”

Regardless, this text is quite fantastic as an outline of Nichirenism’s comprehensive theory of the “religionized” nation, elaborating on its view of concepts like science and philosophy while providing thorough arguments against rival frameworks like Democratic Liberalism and Communism.

I very much enjoyed editing this text, and I believe that it contains a lot of wisdom that our modern age desperately needs. Even those who have little interest in Buddhism may find something worthwhile in these (digital) pages, as the text covers quite a lot of ground.

If everything goes as planned, I will include it in a hardcover compilation with its companion text “Japanese Civilization” and have that available on Amazon by the end of next month.

Until then, please enjoy.

DISCOVERY OF JAPANESE IDEALISM

by KISHIO SATOMI

PREFACE

The attention among Western peoples paid to civilization in the East is increasing year by year. For the purpose of introducing some important aspects of Japanese civilization, I have lately published a work in London entitled Japanese Civilization: its Significance and Realization. But in that book I confined my statements to Nichirenism and its relation to the Japanese National Principles, and as to other problems I had to refrain from commenting on them.

The present work corresponds to what I have stated in the Preface to my former work, viz. that “I hope to have a chance of introducing under a tentative title ‘The Fundamental Ideas of Japanese/Moral Philosophy.’”

The author has treated his work philosophically, historically, and by way of proof has adduced several important problems concerning Japanese idealism which have as yet not been quite clearly introduced to the West.

Every chapter of the present work seems in itself an independent essay; nevertheless the reader will observe a natural system followed throughout the process of all the chapters. The chapter “Ancient Japanese Idealism and its Development” has been previously published in the German language in Berlin as Altjapanischer Idealismus und seine Entwicklung. I have received many letters about it from readers, and it seems to me that the work has been rather successful. So I include it as a chapter in the present work, but for the English translation (with the exception of the fifth section, “Nichiren's Revival of Idealism and his Philosophy,” which was executed by myself) I am indebted to Mr Kaji, Mr Kawamura, M.A., and Mr Kimitsuka, M.A., for the first draft for which I desire to express my thanks.

I do not know whether the present work will prove a success. It certainly is, at any rate, a thoroughly modern interpretation of Japanese idealism. The time appointed for my departure from Europe is drawing nigh. How numerous my feelings are, and how varied!

KISHIO SATOMI.

PARIS, March, 1924.

I: DISCOVERY OF JAPANESE IDEALISM (CIVILIZATION OF FOOD-STANDARD AND THAT OF PATH-STANDARD)

Germany, the stronghold of Militarism, was beaten by England, France, America, the strongholds of Bourgeoisie. The Great War was, indeed, an evening bell which announces the fall of European States and races which have dominated the world with material forces for over four hundred years. But the Great War is, at the same time, the morning bell which demands the reconstruction on the basis of a new awakening. The great currents which are flowing throughout the modern world are class antagonism within each country, and the racial competition among international relations.

In proportion to the rising of economical life, the class antagonism made itself prominent to the utmost in the struggle between capitalists and labourers. When the Great War was raging, racial and national hatred and feeling were stronger than socialistic internationalism which was vague and traditional, and consequently the class antagonism was forced to take a rest. But the world is now again realizing the battle between the capitalists and labourers.

The industrial systems which Europe underwent — capitalism during its first stage, and socialism during its second stage — are the natural outcomes of material or mechanical civilization. The Bourgeoisie still possess the superior power materially and are solidifying the foundation by influencing the psychology of the people who prefer putting up with the present dissatisfaction to adventuring on the invisible future. At any rate, the European system of civilization has come to an end, at least as far as the industrial system of capitalism in its present state is concerned.

The fundamental idea which runs throughout capitalism and socialism is, indeed, instinctism (if I may coin the word), forgotten spiritualism; in other words, the civilization of the food-standard. This civilization of the food-standard is the view that reduces a man to a beast, a fact which is the cause of all battles. Spiritualization of industry and spiritualism of the conversion of lust are new lights for European civilization. Europeans established civilization by looking upon nature as the object of human conquest, and fighting with nature: thence the birth of modern science. But at the same time their lack of spirit is also the outcome of this attitude.

The cause of fighting is the food-standard view of life, but not of class itself. Class, as a fact of human life, always exists, though nominally we may abolish “class” artificially, as has been done, for instance, in America. Class as order is rather an important factor for the regulation of life. If we construct the class through the way, class will then be the essence of government.

Class, as a fact of social life, does not signify class as the essence of personality. Labourers and capitalists, peers and commoners, all men, are of equal value and elements in the essence of personality. Nor does it signify that a different degree of respect is due for personal value in proportion to the difference of social status.

In fact, every man is another man's equal in his essence. Every evil man has a divine nature as well as a good nature, and, in the same way, evil elements are inherent in every good man.

If God does not possess any evil or hellish elements in his nature, then God is not worthy of his name. In regard to this view, the fundamental contradiction lies in Christianity. Christianity conceives God as absolutely good, that is Christianity eliminates all evil elements from God. According to Christian doctrine, the world was created by a God, who is absolutely good, possessing no element of evil: nevertheless the world is full of evils. Is this not self-contradictory? On account of this fallacious doctrine, Christian theologians make various excuses that are still more contradictory. Be that as it may, how could God create such a world full of evils without possessing evil elements in himself? This is the thought which assumes that something grows from nothing-which is more than primitive.

God created human beings, and let them sin and commit crime, and then God wished to redeem them. How futile! He ought to have created human beings unable to commit crime or sin from their very beginning.

The view of theocratic religion which conceives God and man as being different in their natures does not hold good any longer nowadays. We should look upon God as consisting of the personal elements which we possess, and we ought to open and foster the self-possessed divine nature: thus we can be conscious of God in our life, if we will only realize our own divine nature. In other words, God is nothing else but the highest ideal and standard of our life and the course of human life in the evolutional process of effort to attain Godhead.

On the one hand, we have to cultivate our minds, and, on the other hand, improve our bodily life, thus trying to improve on both sides: we must exalt our life to God's standard in order to attain the highest form of life. From the point of view of “ought to be,” life is the evolutional process of conscious effort to be like God. The Synthetic Creation of value as the true significance of life comes from this movement.

But, from the point of view of “being,” there exists all the different conditions of life. There are distinctions between good and bad men in the moral sense; there are wise and foolish in respect of knowledge and wisdom. Rich and poor, capitalist and labourer, both are the classes of material society. Sovereignty and subjects are the different classes of the social order. Genetically, senior and junior, as also teachers and pupils, and parents and children: thus in every sense there are classes. The world is composed of such different classes; and, if the word “classes” is not appropriate, we might term it the different external appearances of life. The thought which is contriving to bring about equality in everything, destroying these differences, is irrational and ignores facts.

Assuming that we acknowledge a part of communism and make all people share materially alike, we shall easily see the defect contained in such irrationality, making effect and opportunity equal, and thus ignoring the conditions of the real ability of each person. Even if we realized this ideal practically, yet the material inequality will always remain, owing to the different conditions of each individual's ability and necessity of consumption. We learn here that the external differences of life cannot be commanded by men's power, except to a certain extent, because they are the Real Suchness of the existence (See Satomi, Japanese Civilization, pp. 35-6.)

The various differences in our external life result from various causes. There are no two people that are the same: nevertheless they are universal and equal in the inner principles of life. Life is different externally and is equal internally; and, when these two are united into oneness, the true significance of life will be properly conceived. If a man can distinguish between day and night, but does not know the fact that the earth rotates on its own axis and revolves round the sun, it is as if he knew about the differences of life and not about equality.

Or, if a man understands about equality but not about differences, it is as if a man knows about water but cannot distinguish salt water from fresh water. What is democracy? Democracy, as treated by students, theoretically seems to be moral and personal freedom and equality; nevertheless, the democracy of the mob mind and will seems to desire natural freedom and material equality. Briefly, democracy in the latter sense is the thought of the material vulgar, which is the omnipotence of the weak. Besides, the errorlessness of the majority is an error as much as that of a Pope of Rome. As a matter of course, the will of a corporation is not the mechanical accumulation of individual will. Truth is truth, and valid in itself.

Even without one approver, truth is always truth. However the majority may acknowledge and approve the thing which is not truth, it is more impossible for untruth to become truth than for a clam to become a sparrow. The democratic idea which does not acknowledge the will of the minority is not justice any more than the old-fashioned fact which acknowledged the will of a certain minority as righteousness. The majority is not always wise or true. On the contrary, in history the minority has been the discoverer and supporter of truth rather than the majority. As for instances, there are too many to enumerate. Supposing, in these cases, that the will of the majority were acknowledged as truth and the will of minority rejected, society would not develop; the improvement of society always lies in the process of approval of the will of minority by the majority. In other words, the majority of tomorrow depends on the development of the minority of today.

Setting aside these problems, the Great War is a showing up of the Western civilization of food-standard, in other words, it is the outcome of the impulse of material desire which craves for equality and freedom, nay the superiority of economical life being the material and actual view of life. That is the view of life from the food standpoint.

What has the world learnt in the Great War which caused the greatest loss materially as well as spiritually as a reward for European nations for seeking after material desire? Christianity, which is called the highest form of religion by Western people, teaches us that if a man smites you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. All the preachers in the world preach that God is love, Christianity is the religion of love, and so forth; nevertheless did they practise love in the case of the Great War? Not the Great War only, but take the Great War as the best example: “God is with us” is what the British nation said; “God dwells with us” is what the German nation cried; and the French people cried out similarly, too. Every man prayed to God for the victory of his own country. God must have been embarrassed how to act, for are not all the nations Sons of His? What comical wretchedness it was! Once, one of the chief retainers of Frederick the Great said in an emergency: “God, side with us, if thou wilt not favour us, we pray thee do not favour the enemy.”

The case of the Great War and what I have just cited are alike. This is nothing but the sorrow of disillusion of the imperfect religion, which takes love as its essence, excluding righteousness and power. The religion which makes sensual love its essence is the religion of animal instinct; it is not the rival to the religion which makes gratitude its essence. Love or power which does not include righteousness is always of the animal nature. The society of today which is struggling for existence seeks power, but wants in religious benevolence and righteousness. As a matter of fact, there is the word “Righteousness,” even in the present society. However, this righteousness signifies the desire for material satisfaction and antagonism against capitalism, in other words, the process by which the will of living and feeling of the mob is set in motion by blind force is called righteousness. In short, righteousness is determined by the majority.

People who conceive the State as a mere aggregate system understand the State in right and power. We, on the contrary, think that the State is the organ which gives righteousness to the actuation of the power of society, that is to say, we acknowledge the State as the one that is recognized as a system of living synthetically systematizing existing society, and throwing the light of righteousness on it. Thus, the State is the external form, and righteousness is the internal spirit. When the State is ruled by the will of the majority, the State consequently moves towards the satisfaction of blind and instinctive desire for existence, the State thus becoming an incarnation of power. This means that the State is socialized but has lost the mission for which it is intended.

To begin with, the first class was righteous, then the second class took the place of the first, and was believed to be righteousness. Thus gradually, the age of the third class had its turn, and lastly the fourth class became to be the representative of righteousness. What do these signify? The first class or second or third or fourth, each of them contains righteousness to a certain extent, nonetheless from the first to the fourth that is but relative righteousness which is not the perfect path.

There is no need to draw attention to the irrationality of capitalism which distributes unlimited wealth indiscriminately. We must reconstruct the capitalism of today. But, at the same time, we cannot acknowledge retaliative reaction, for instance, Bolshevism, as righteousness.

The people of the world are easily moved by the dissatisfaction caused by material desire while their minds are vacant. As a result of this unsafety and rioting are to be feared. Russia founded the state of Soviets, and seeks her ideal in material satisfaction only for those who will work. This idea appeals to a man who can satisfy with equal effect his desire for sensual matter by food and clothes, houses, and so forth. Accordingly, this thought is obviously one-sided, for it ignores the presence of spiritual desire in us.

Marx's historical materialism recognizes, indeed, man as an animal whose life is merely one of sensual desire. His thought may be useful for the tyrannical capitalism as a truth, nevertheless Marxism is none other than a thought reacting on itself. The kernel of Marx's thought is that every aspect of our life is conditioned by an economical aspect.

Historical materialists assert the absoluteness of economic values, and they deny the existence of religion, art, morals, and so forth. In other words, they think that art, religion, or the like are the reflection of actual life. Above all, reactive historical materialists severely subordinate other aspects of civilization to economic life.

But, if all other aspects of life are mere reflections of economic life, and are conditioned absolutely by economic life, the influence of science, religion, morals, etc., cannot be found in economic life. But this is contradictory to the fact. Such a theory is the view of spiritual cripples.

Doubtless, our bodies are supported by economic life. Man, as the foundation of civilization, is the bodily existence; and the body is conditioned by economic life. In this sense it is true that human life is commanded by economic conditions. But, on the other hand, it is true that the thing which moves the body is the spirit. It is spiritual power which enables the body to create civilization, and which criticizes and appreciates civilization. Without spiritual power, how is material civilization possible? Even Marx's historical materialism is based on spiritual civilization; the irrational defects of the economic life of society. If we eliminate the significance of spiritual power, we are apt to mistake material life for life itself.

If workmen and capitalists, subjects and sovereigns, and any other classes will recognize the path as the ideal, and law of life, there will be only a solution but not a struggle. If we leave the civilization of the food-standard and dwell on the view of the standard of the path, economical life will be enlightened; on the contrary, if we stick to food leaving out the path, life and society will always be in conflict.

Let us consider the following sayings: “Therefore take no thought, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or, ‘What shall we drink?’ or, ‘Wherewithal shall we be clothed?’ For your Heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew vi.)

“However thirsty we may be, we shall not steal water to drink.” “The warrior must not forget himself in poverty.” These golden sayings of old must again be given thorough consideration in the present time. Class antagonism in society turns into international cooperation which is also the striving for interest. Germany, which contended for the Anglo-Saxon's hegemony of the world, was beaten. Lenin, who opposed the Bourgeoisie of England, America, and France, was defeated.

The Sons of God are continuously fighting and hurting each other; still they call themselves the Sons of God. The extension of international competition is racial competition. The so-called white nations are oppressing and conquering the so-called coloured nations. Some superstitious white people think that white people are the superiors, whereas the coloured nations are savages, unconscious that colour is due to nature, and has nothing in common with the quality of culture. There is no reason for oppressing and persecuting other races. The fact that the leaders of the oppression of other races are born in the original place of the religion of Love is the mischief of the Christian God. The civilization of the food-standard is a wild instinctive exposure from which emanate egoism and momentalism. The civilization of the Way-standard moralizes the instinct and pursues the realization of spiritual value from which are born the spirit of self-sacrifice and chivalry.

The idea that a quarrel even between father and son on account of money, and the thought of right and power are the production of the civilization of the food-standard. The thought expressed as of “A scholar whose mind is set on truth, and who is ashamed of shabby clothes and bad food, is not fit to be discussed with,” and the thought expressed that “When I get nice food, first of all I intend to offer it to the Emperor, and when I get precious things, first of all I will dedicate them to the Emperor “ do not result from the civilization of the food-standard.

Self-sacrifice and chivalry must be neither pleasure nor interest for those who are selfish. The thought of deliverance that is “Even if the Master be not Master the follower does not forget his duty” does not come from the view of life of the food-standard. The differences of view of life in Western thought and that of Eastern thought are indeed found herein. But the views of the Way-standard never ignore food nor deny any instinctive material desire. Some thinkers would have it destroy and annihilate lust; this, however, is not the right path, but is too reactive and relative and in which we do not agree.

The Philosophy of life based on the standard of the path purifies and unifies material desire in the idea of the path. Nichiren suggests the conversion of the value of desire as follows:

“Even when in the act of sexual intercourse if one devoted oneself to the Sacred Title, lust would be supreme signification and ‘The Course of Life and Death is Nirvana’ would be found in it.”

When we understand life from the point of view of the path, material desire is no longer the cause of struggle. The world which affirms that flesh alone is of the beast, and also affirms that a mere soul is only spirit. We must build the world by the union of body and soul, by giving the philosophy and faith of the path to the world of flesh. The Heaven of Christianity and the Paradise of Buddhism, etc., are indeed the object of realization of the ideal. When we objectify our subjective law, that is, unite soul and body, this world becomes Buddha's land, the expression of perfect Law and the realization of Heaven. Our life is the one which is able to be God. The world is not the preparatory place of education for God, but the very place where we actually find God and experience Heaven practically.

In short, the civilization of the food-standard throws the human righteousness into confusion and destroys the safety and happiness of society. The future world can realize true peace only by abandoning the civilization of the standard of food. In conclusion, let us cite one of the warnings of an ancient sage:

“The object of the superior man is truth. Food is not his object. There is ploughing even in that there is sometimes want. So with learning; emolument may be found in it. The superior man is anxious lest he should not get truth; he is not anxious lest poverty should come upon him.”

Tsze-kung asked about government. The Master said, “The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.”

Tsze-Kung said, “If it cannot be helped, and one of these must be dispensed with, which of the three should be forgone first?”

“The military equipment,” said the Master.

Tsze-Kung again asked, “If it cannot be helped and one of the remaining two must be dispensed with, which of them should be forgone?”

The Master answered, “Part with the food. From of old, death has been the lot of all men, but if the people have no faith in their rulers, there is no standing for the State” (Confucius, Analects).

II: THE STATE IS THE ORGAN OF EXALTATION AND PROTECTION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

If the home is the expression of human love, then the expression of human power is society. The State is, indeed, the organ which unites love and power and leads them both towards righteousness and thus exalts and protects righteousness.

Love is not always righteous. It is possible for love frequently to ignore righteousness. In a sense love is an instinctive appearance of human nature, and it is liable to obfuscate the reason. To such love the light of righteousness must be given. Power, too, is not always righteous. There are two kinds of power. The one is material force, and the other, spiritual or moral. In an ordinal sense it would seem, however, that “power” signifies material force. Power, in this sense, is not always accompanied by righteousness. It is not rare that “power” is used improperly.

The State must be the function which gives the norm of righteousness to this love and power, uniting the individual home and society. But then, what is the State? It is the laboratory and factory of all civilization which human races ever produced. Philosophy, religion, art, literature, engineering, medical science, and so forth, everything was born from the State and was fostered and protected by the State. In this respect, the State is the principal which makes all other civilization possible. Thus, the State is worthy to be called the fundamental civilization.

It is not from genetical relation. From the genetical point of view, the individual had existed prior to the State, but from the significance of the history of civilization, the State existed prior to each individual. No individual who did not belong to any State has contributed to history. Thus, the State is the fundamental force which makes other civilization possible.

Moreover, the State is situated in such a position as to lead individual civilization, thus properly rationalizing it. The State makes righteousness the principle of its existence and under this principle the State unites love, power, feeling, and will. Thus, the State makes itself an organ of exaltation and protection of righteousness, tying all its accumulated powers in a bundle. The typical State will thus be established.

States in the present age are contrary to this ideal, that is, every State is a great liar, swindler, and burglar, and indeed a haughty mob. The desire of the individual grows into national greediness, which being made the standard, the State lives on animal instinct. Every country has its own laws, government, churches, schools, and religious education, and trains the nation morally; the State, however, which is composed of those who are educated according to these methods of the State, assumes the task of negotiation with trickery, lying, and swindling, which is called diplomacy. When once advantage and disadvantage do not balance on each side, or in the case of absorption of other weak countries, the State robs, deceives, and threatens others openly with its power as if the State has a right to be guilty of misconduct. This is the fundamental malady of the States in the world.

Most of the important events in the history of the world are, ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the history of robbery, intimidation, swindling, and murder on a large scale. Each individual is praised as a patriot for the reason of his fidelity to his country, which is indeed the chief of robbery, intimidation, swindling, and murder, whereas if he should commit even one of those crimes of his own accord he is punished severely. Is this not contradictory? Such an irrational and sentimental patriotism is always the cause of human unhappiness. Such patriotism must not be the rule in the future.

The peace of the world will never be realized as long as such States which do not make righteousness their ideal, or the principles of their existence, gather together and fight each other for their own interests and national greediness. The peace of the world negotiated at The Hague or Versailles, or in Washington, on the basis of compromise will be aimless unless it emanates from the awakening of the States to make righteousness the principle of their existence.

In regard to this point the world must learn the Japanese national principles. Nearly three thousand years have elapsed already since Japan proclaimed “Cultivation of Righteousness,” “Accumulation of Happiness,” and “Achievement of Glory” as the three principles of the foundation of the State, and for these three principles the world should look to Japan.

The theory which understands the State mechanically and physiologically is the theory emanating from the view of the standard-of-diet-view both of which must be recognized as the right view of the State. As I have stated already, the State is the expression of our reason in contrast to the society as the expression of will, and the family as the expression of love. The general view in Europe regarding religion and life which is sentimental and not rational is also the natural result of the standard-of-diet civilization.

But in order to understand life perfectly, the three mental elements must be united into consistency. In this connexion it is a most urgent matter to find out and establish the conception of the state of righteousness which systematizes the individual home and society under rational principles. The State protects the individual home, and all kinds of society from the point of view of righteousness, and at the same time the State endeavours to exalt and protect righteousness internationally with all its accumulated power. The mission of a State consists in respect for righteousness more than in respect for the nation, sovereignty, territory, and even the State itself. The State must prepare, in an emergency, to sacrifice itself for the fulfilment of the mission for the sake of righteousness. When the external form of civilization which is the State, and the internal spirit of civilization which is righteousness, will be united harmoniously then only will the State realize the true significance of the word.

When we consider the States of the present time from the point of view of a State's true significance, we cannot help saying that although there is glittering of the splendid material, civilization, and finely cultivated “ladies” and “gentlemen,” the State nevertheless is almost uncultivated from the moral stand point. Look at A, look at B, it is the same everywhere.

This is indeed caused by the fallacy of ethics and religion, which could not find the law, the law which makes the State the unit of moral training instead of treating merely the individual and vague society as the unit of moral training. With regard to this point, ethics must find the unit and object of moral training in the State itself.

The idea of Plato and Aristotle, who recognized the State's purpose in the moral completion of the human being, the idea of Hume, Kant, and the like, the idea of Confucius, who recognized human ideal in grasping the law behind all beings in respect of knowledge, and in the realization of this law in respect of practice, and the idea of Nichiren, who taught just in opposition to Marx's view, that thought and faith in righteousness are the soul of human life, and that the State or society is the body. All these thinkers teach us about the relations between the State and righteousness.

It follows, therefore, that human beings in the future, on the one hand, will have to subjugate the Anglo-Saxon's thought which makes the State an organ for the satisfaction of self-interest, and, on the other hand, will have to enlighten the socialistic thought which considers the State as the organ of the depredations of the privileged class, in order to establish the State of righteousness. Thus, all individuals as well as all States will be friendly with one another in both cases morally, then will the peace of the world be truly realized. This peace is possible only after the enlightenment and moralization of material life, in other words, this is indeed the civilization of harmony of matter and spirit and, be it added, that this is not play of the imagination.

When military power, economic power, mechanical force, and all things are reduced to the moral path, the ideal synthetic creation will have come into existence. The harmony of matter and spirit is forgotten by the nations of today, the only thing which is the principle of the absolute peace of the world.

Thus, the world will solve everything by creating the standard for the right path. Everything in the path is equal. So there will only be two classes, those who follow the path and those who do not. Then, for the first time, life, the State, and the world will become the existence as the expression of perfect law by solving themselves into synthetic harmonious perfection by the consciousness of the true significance of their existence. Such an individual, such a State, such a world are the things which must be established in the future.

In short, the State which undertakes the task of cultivating and completing human virtuous nature, positively and synthetically as its mission and characteristics, is the State which includes the absolutism of righteousness. That State is the organ for uniting all aims and intentions which cultivates, realizes, and completes the universal valid true self and true personality. In other words, the foundation and purpose of the State consists in the objective realization of the divine nature, which is the highest value of the universal valid true self. When thus significance will be the life of the State the world will realize its ideal, namely, that pluralistic States, as they are, have become monistic.

III: RECONSTRUCTION OF PHILOSOPHY

Politics, art and literature, economics, industries, home, society, and so forth are evidently experiences and beings, prior to any logical abstraction or logical deduction drawn from them.

Of course, these are not the whole of experiences and beings, but doubtless they are some of the most important. Various books on philosophy today treat the terms “Experience” or “Reality” as empty words, neglecting vital experiences and beings. Philosophers are discussing the terms “Experience,” “Reality,” “Value,” “Sollen,” “Sein,” “Norm,” etc., while keeping silence about home affairs or economic troubles which they experience and endure.

The students of Epistemology (Erkenntnisstheorie) speak about experience, and metaphysicians about Reality. But do they really imagine art and literature, education, society, politics, and that sort of thing to be non-reality and non-experience?

The definition of “What is philosophy?” is written in every book of introduction to philosophy. According to the definitions of those books, philosophy might be termed intellectual efforts to recognize and judge reality and all experiences, making them direct objects of philosophy. After we read this definition, we go on to read the whole book, turning over pages one by one, but until we come to the last page we hardly come across the treatment of vital experiences and reality.

Philosophers of this kind accumulate the vacant conception, studying dead essence, or law of a dead universe which is abstracted from the complicated actual life of society.

The way of philosophy must consist in recognition, judgment and valuation according to social connotation and denotation in these days of complicated expanded cases of our social experiences of life and puppets of social life.

To stick to the study of essence and rules of the universe, neglecting actual life, the universe, which is treated by philosophers as existence in the primitive period which was prior to the discovery of society, is pitiful laziness and ignorance of philosophy.

As for metaphysics of today, it is an imperfect being which was used in place of science before the invention of science. Such an imperfect being called Metaphysics has no right to act in these days, at all events, in its present state; therefore, self-recognition and self-criticism are primary duties for metaphysics itself.

Metaphysics in the future must be the intellectual and whole spiritual effort which aims at the perfection of experiences, studying each essence of experience and the relation of each experience with the scientific spirit. Above all, the social experiences which are most useful and greatest for people must be the field where metaphysics open a new realm.

Epistemology, too, must widen and deepen itself, making one step ahead towards social facts, omitting the mere problems of origin, essence and value of knowledge. Epistemology has to evolve into the methodology of social sciences, which studies social experiences, social beings, and social values.

How does ethics stand in the present age? Ethics does not give anything to the troublesome world in spite of its being the science of action. Personality or character are discussed in ethics, nevertheless that personality is nothing but a vacant conception of personality which is abstracted from society, state, and world. Ethics put the unit and standard of moral training on the personality which is entirely abstraction.

It is quite useless to discuss experience, practice, reflection, consciousness of the personality which is non-existent. People who are of this standard of ethics must, first of all, learn the true meaning of personality. The Ethics of Lipps exposes these defects and imperfections representatively. If a man chooses a certain deed, there is then a certain reason to assume that he also selected the result. As far as man lives the life which is composed of experience, if he selects an action, its motive must be limited to a certain extent by the supposed consequence which is reasoned from the experimental facts in the past and the ability of reason in the future. In other words, he must fully recognize and value the effect which is the extension of the action relating to the motive which is the starting point of the deed.

Society contains all the contemporary people spatially and all the lives of past, present, and future. As far as people have the differences of interest and happiness in the effect, then at the beginning of its motive the co-operation for increasing and protection of interest and happiness must in effect be planned.

And as far as society complicates, day by day, internally and externally, and as far as it is the very individual's life in a sense, we must know society widely and profoundly as much as possible in proportion to the internal and external extension and complication of society. Therein lies the endeavour of ethics in the future.

How nonsensical it is to discuss non-existent experiences, ignoring social experiences which are the really important experiences of the world. Empiricists call other theories fantasy, while they assert that all kinds of knowledge come from experiences. But, empiricists must themselves reflect as to whether this fantastic knowledge comes from experience. If it comes from experiences it must be correct as well as other empirical knowledge; if the fantastic knowledge does not come from experience, then this fact that the existence of knowledge does not come from experience must be a great problem for them.

In order to be free from this dilemma, empiricists must assert that all kinds of knowledge come from experiences; however, some of them feel certain and others do not. Thus, empiricists become unable to assume the absolute concerning the judgment of truth and falsehood. If empiricists change the logics to make this also relative, avoiding the acknowledgment of truth and falsehood, then the truth of relativism is also relative, consequently the theory that all kinds of knowledge come from experience cannot be proved, whether it be true or not. Empiricism thus shows its own absurdity and ends in epistemology as a natural consequence of relativism. How can empiricists assert that even the conception of experience is experimental?

Such is only an example. At any rate, such an abstract argument is only a fifth wheel. The necessity of self-recognition is demonstrated by Socrates in olden times and by Kuno Fischer in modern ages. Philosophy must recognize itself evading all ostentations. With new eyes, philosophy must open a new realm in the very complication of the present society, fixing its eyes on vital social experiences and beings.

IV: MORALIZATION OF SCIENCE

Human activity begins first at the instigation of spiritual or personal desire, then it becomes material or impersonal, and in the end returns to the spiritual or personal existence.

In these three processes science belongs to the second. Some people blame the “material” and criticize it as if there were no spiritual element in it. But all desires have equal value and right in primordial elements, and psychologically they are called instinct. Nevertheless, desires are limitless, whereas human life, which fulfils one's desire, is limited; therefore, in order to govern these desires, a central organ of management must be born. After the systematization of this central organ of leadership or management all desires become relative, and superiority and inferiority concerning the value of desires are determined, making this central organ the absolute leader. The matter, the object of the desire, must be constructed through the mental process, through the matter, from the common-sense point of view, and is the objective existence independent of the subjective will.

Prior to stating that the material desires lead people to degeneration, we must recognize the truth that matter is not the object of desire, as far as it is merely material existence. Any material existence becomes the object of desire after it is experienced, in other words, after it is perceived by human consciousness, and not as mere matter which lies within the object. In this sense matter is changed into spiritual value, and taken from this point of view, historical materialism is nothing else than historical spiritualism. Thus, in such a condition, matter becomes the matter of sense stimulation which corresponds to every nature of voluntary desires.

Starting from this axiom we can compare materialism with spiritualism in the following way. Materialism destroys the harmonious life of individuals and society, acknowledging all kinds of desires without discrimination; and spiritualism contributes to the harmonious life of the individual and society, spiritualizing these desires.

There is hardly any difference between the cultured and savages as far as quality and activity of instinct are concerned, but cultured people regulate one another's instincts connotatively, and skilfully invent the method of regulation denotatively. In other words, they have progressed in moral and industrial aspects. Human activity always begins with impulse, but a certain method of realization of the purpose of impulse must be invented, because impulse is rarely satisfied in itself. This method is the desire. But both impulse and desire are similar in their aiming at self-sufficiency and self-activity. Bertrand Russell says that impulse is the activity which has itself as aim, while desire has an aim outside itself, and makes itself the means of realization of the purpose wherein human degeneration originates. But this shows only his insufficient knowledge of psychology.

With regard to this point, the problem of ethics concerning the motive and result, from the English standpoint, contains the fallacious view which takes human will and its background to be an accident. We must first cultivate and purify the impulse and then find the necessary method for the fulfilment of it. For the facts of the history of civilization prove that impulse has developed itself, denotatively, as industry and, connotatively, as morality through the medium of desire.

Industry was born from the ever-constant desire in our minds to improve life; and from industry, science was born. Therefore, science and industry are the outcome of the results of the methodizing of human desires.

According to some philosophers and scientists, for instance the realists, the true aspect of science does not consist in the improvement of the method of satisfaction of our desires, but in the task of discovering the universal law, which exists objectively. But this view is ascribed to ignorance as far as the motive of the science and history of its development is concerned.

Very often, we transform the qualitative existence into quantitative in order to unite various complicated experiences for the sake of convenience, that is to say, the transformation of personal things into impersonal. None the less, judging from the fact of the activity of our subject in that direction, it is obvious that we do not catch the real objective existence. It is only the change of one perceptible experience into another perceptible existence by the action of thinking. In other words, for the convenience of our subject, we converted the events into the subject which had happened in our subjective experience. That is as if we thought for the sake of convenience of the colour sensation in the mathematical relation of the other movement of the subject.

Therefore, we must not forget that the distinction of the personal and impersonal is made by the hypothetical names of convenience.

Internally, we must harmonize and spiritualize the desires of individuals, externally regulating our own desires harmoniously, and comparing them with the desires of others: and so true happiness will be found. In other words, everything must harmonize its own nature with that of others in the relation of union. This is the realization of the Path. Accordingly the fact that science is utilized for war or capitalism is the improper use of science.

V: AWAKENING OF RELIGION (WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SOME ESSENTIAL THOUGHTS ABOUT CHRISTIANITY)

All religions in the world have lost the power of spiritual influence except the fact that religions have still influence on many primitive people in a superstitious sense — by primitive people, I mean those who are primitive as regards the conception of reasonable religion.

The present world is full of competition for power, which is merely a struggle for existence; for instance, international competition and the like. It is the age when the blind will of the majority is substituted for righteousness. Let us suppose there is a religion in this age which merely teaches simple love, but does not possess any power which leads and awakens social power — such a religion would be a powerless and unnecessary one for the present world as well as for the future world. Or, let us suppose that there is a religion which oppresses the people by sheer power and authority without being charitable. It would be as if that religion was washing blood with blood.

The religion which is needed in these days must be the one which possesses great power and profound charity, and, moreover, a religion which is able to rationalize and justify itself. In other words, the religion worthy of the name must be the one which can thoroughly unite love, power, and righteousness, and thus lead the people. I do not intend describing the technical aspects such as the origin of religion, or development of religion, etc., as far as present-day conditions are concerned. But certain important problems of the religion of the future will be treated in later chapters.

Setting aside the definitions which are proclaimed by various scholars concerning religion, it is obvious that religion is one of social experiences and reality as a fact of civilization. But the religion of today as one of the social experiences and reality is blind to society as far as the present circumstance is concerned. It is nonsense to expect a person who does not acknowledge the necessity of any religion to believe in the necessity of religion, because it is the same as asking a colourblind man to discriminate between colours. But, to those who acknowledge the value of religion it is important and necessary to establish a new religion worthy of the name, exposing the social blindness of the religions of today.

Christian preachers as well as Buddhist priests preach the way of God and Buddha to the people, but how do their sermons sound to the people's ears, I wonder? Most people, first of all, satisfy their appetite, then their carnal desire, then material desire, and, having satisfied these yearnings some of them who belong to a rather superior class listen to the preachings of the way of God to stimulate the desire of sleep. They substitute preachings and religious music for lullabies.

It is unreasonable to ask a man to eat a tainted apple, for the mere reason that it is an apple, just as it is unreasonable to ask a colourblind man to distinguish different colours. Religion in the present age is just like this tainted apple, but powerlessness and incompetence of religion are, so to speak, natural consequences of their own. In every book concerning religion the love or the wisdom of God or Buddha is interpreted, and the essential signification of faith, and so forth, is argued. There are plenty of people who read those books, nevertheless religion is powerless to them. What causes this incompetence of religion? I would say that if a religion is contradictory and weak in the sphere of reason, and asserts contradictory love in religious practice, and is indifferent to the experience and actuality of social life, then religion loses its power and significance as a vital civilization.

In order conveniently to illustrate this declaration I will say something about some essential aspects of Christianity. I acknowledge the merit of Christianity, which has cultured numberless people in the past, as a religion of love as well as an ethical religion. I also acknowledge Jesus Christ who is believed as the object of faith, although his existence as one of the greatest characters in history is questionable. I do not doubt his words as being typical deeds of religious expressions. I believe that the teaching which he left to the people is the best medicine for them in some respects, that Christianity is a pure world-religion, though it was a national religion in the beginning, but, at the same time, I, as a student of the subject, believe in the necessity of criticizing Christianity.

It is a careless mistake to think that the essence of Christianity consists in Christian theology. But it is useless to criticize Christianity transcendentally from the opposite religious point of view, because such criticism has no relation to the substance and right of the existence of Christianity. Therefore, I will point out the three fallacies which are contained in the Bible and the actual actions of Christians, according to the method of immanent critique, a critique unrelated to Christian theology, and any opposite religious point of view.

First, let us examine some fundamental doctrines of Christianity. I have already mentioned that Christianity contains an undeniable contradiction in its very basis concerning the conception of God, that is, the fact of falsehood, evil, and ugliness filling the world, while they are created by God who is Almighty, and in whom truth, good, and beauty are united, is evidently a logical fallacy.

Besides, we must not overlook the fact that there is another weak point in the conception of the Christian God, which is that there is no bases for the uniting of monotheism and pantheism in Christianity. Once, von Hartmann pointed out in his Religionsphilosophie that the future religion must be one which unites monotheism and pantheism, just as a house has its foundation in the ground, and is covered by the roof. This view of Hartmann is well worthy of notice.

Monotheism is very pure as a religion, it is, however, difficult to maintain in proportion to the rise of philosophy and science as the results of the development of human reason. For instance, the religious thought which appears in the Genetics of the Bible is pure monotheism, but such a thought, as I have already mentioned, becomes difficult to maintain in proportion to the development of reason. From this consideration, it is clear that we can trace the undeniable efforts of rationalization of religion in John which is evidently influenced by Greek pantheistic philosophy.

But, on the other hand, pantheism too has weak points with regard to religious practice. In the religious thought of pantheism which recognizes the immanency of divine nature, all the being is God. Therefore, the God conception is vast but disunited. Moreover, such a thought cannot establish the religious object as the object of sentiment which is one of the most important elements of religion. If every man be a God and if every thing be a God, then practically there is no God. How then is religious practice possible? The future religion has, therefore, to unite monotheism and pantheism, and thus establish a one God-centric pantheism.

In Christianity, God is the possessor of the highest honour of almightiness, none the less there is no basis in the Christian God conception for the unity of any other gods and Buddhas. Although some Christians assert that there is no other God outside the Christian God, yet that is only a dogmatic superstition which is reasonable only for those who unconditionally believe in the Christian doctrine.

After all, there are Buddhism, Mohammedanism, Confucianism, Brahmanism, and so forth in the world as well as Christianity, and each of them worships its own Divine Existence. Accordingly, if the Christian God is perfect, he must have the ground of unity of these various conceptions of God, which are recognized by many other religions.

The faith in the existence of Buddha in Buddhism exists without having regard to whether it is acknowledged by the Christian conception of God. Allah of Mohammedanism and Brahman of Brahmanism and others do exist, in spite of Christian rejection. These are historical facts, impossible to alter whether acknowledged by Christianity or not. If Christianity is not able to unite them rationally then the Christian conception of God is not worthy of the principle of unity. We cannot find any possibility in the whole Bible of how the Bible unites the Buddha Shakamuni, Confucius, Nichiren, Mohammed, etc., as historic characters, and Amita Buddha, Taho Buddha, and other numerous Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, Brahman, Allah, Zeus, Apollo, and so forth as ideal divine characters. Such being the case, Christianity, in its very fundamental, has no qualification as the principle of unification of all religions, and is not worthy of mention as the future religion.

There is another fallacy in Christianity concerning its doctrine; that is, dualism of body and spirit, and separation of religion and State. Let us examine the following interesting phrase:

Tell us, therefore, what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's. (Matthew xxii.)

This is not to be taken as mere wit of Jesus Christ, but it is indeed his view of separation of religion and State, and dualism of body and spirit. The saying: “Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's” (St. John, 3:6) seems a perfect idea; nevertheless, what will be our fate in the following case:

Supposing a king to whom the nation pays tribute commits crimes, for instance, wages war, and that sort of thing, with his wealth, then how will Christians treat such a State and king? When the State does not acknowledge the teaching of religion, and when we cannot realize faith in actual life, there is no other way than to take part in national crime believing that we are obeying God because we are obeying the doctrine of Christianity. This indeed is the natural consequence of separation of State and religion and dualism of body and soul. The Great War is a natural outcome of such a view of life of Christianity.

Further, let us point out another defect of Christianity. Christianity is the doctrine of the power of another, which is salvation by faith. According to Schreiermacher's words the feeling of absolute dependence is the essence of Christianity. But we must bear in mind that salvation by one's own works, which is by self-power, is also true. For instance, the Zen Sect of Buddhism is an example of the doctrine of self-power.

The religious thought of another's power is very pure in its feeling of dependence and of responsibility in the practical aspect. The feeling of absolute dependence is a very necessary element of religion, as far as trust in the Absolute as one of the fundamental elements of religion is concerned. But, at the same time, the tendency which tries to experience God within one's self by the endeavour to cultivate the divine nature, given to man, has the right to be recognized.

Needless to compare the two here, but suffice it to say that the religion of self-power is an undeniable fact as well as a guarantee of the doctrine of external power. If Christianity is a perfect religion, it must have the basis wherein the doctrine of self-power will be united. Christianity, however, has no basis which is able to give a proper position to the religion of self-power in Christianity itself. Christianity, therefore, is a relative religion of external power. Then, again, one of the defects of Christianity is the fact that Christianity treats man as the object of sentiment, namely, feeling and will, but not as the object of reason. Most illiterate and naïve believers in Christianity are wont to say that religion is not theory. They avoid the rational critique and advocate religion from a sentimental point of view.

In the winter of 1922 I spent some two weeks at a seaside resort in the south of England. There I met an elderly Christian preacher, a Cambridge graduate, with whom I very often discussed religion. The preacher, together with his wife, looked after me so kindly because I was a foreigner as well as a stranger there. He had the kindness and love in him worthy of a preacher. He was, I may say, a highly educated man, and yet he used to discuss religion with superstition and dogmatism, ignoring logical criticism. He flatly persisted to the last that “religion is not philosophy, God is love,” in contradiction of his logical acknowledgment of my thought of religion. I used to talk on religion with other people besides him, but they all agreed in their denial of rationalism. Is this attitude of Christianity right as a religion of the leading principles for the peoples of the future?

The ultimate purpose of religion consists in salvation, obviously enough. The individual is one of the objects of salvation. The individual is a united being of body and soul, and with regard to mental activity he has feeling, will and reason. However sentimental one may be, one must possess will and reason as well. But, of course, it is also natural that there are some people who have more tendency to reasoning than others. If a religion with its sentimentality is able to redeem people but not with its rationability, then that religion is imperfect, so to speak, in regard to the purpose of religion, which is salvation.

Evidently, such a religion will decrease in its ability to save in proportion as the world increases in scientific and philosophical knowledge day by day. Thus the imperfection of Christianity concerning the units of three mental aspects suggests to us that Christianity has no life as a principle for salvation in the future.

Having seen this, let us examine Christianity from the aspects of its practical doctrine. Christianity has no element for religionizing the State. It is natural that Christianity which cannot digest reason is not able to assimilate the State. As I have already stated, if the State is the highest civilization which mankind ever invented, then the religion which cannot religionize the State is of no more use today than tomorrow. Once Mr. Yamakawa of the Kokuchiukai wrote in his “Nichiren and Christ”:

Christianity has almost elements enough for individual and social achievements, but in its foundation Christianity is wanting in the accomplishment of religionizing of the State and the world. This is the cause of Christianity's never having produced a Christian nation, in the proper sense, a Christian race, and a Christian world, in spite of there having already elapsed two thousand years since its establishment, and of its being the great world religion which has influenced various nations.

Mr. Yamakawa's critique is fundamental. I will quote and translate one of the paragraphs of his concerning this point of view:

Right and power given to man emanated from God's will. Therefore, one who strives against right and power must be judged as one who violates God's will. It was on account of this idea that the German ex-Emperor or the late Russian Emperor believed that God gifted them with right and power. This is the theory of the divine right of kings in Christianity, which was preached by Paul. Peter, too, has expressed a similar idea. Still, it is not clear what we are to do in the case of the violation of God's will by a State or King. Thus, there is no definite instruction concerning the State and King, consequently should a King embrace faith, Christianity treats the King as a mere individual. In short, in Jesus himself, in Peter, or in Paul, even in any part of the doctrine, Christianity has no recognition of the State.

The Christian idea of the right of the State, if any, teaches merely obedience. Christianity even looks upon the nation as an individual subject, and not as the entire nation. There is no teaching about the religionizing of the State, much less about the religionizing of the world as a whole. Christianity treats the races and the world from the individual standard, but it does not treat the race or the world itself as a unit of salvation. Moreover, Christianity teaches us blind obedience to the sovereign power, demonstrating that all rights emanate from the Divine Being — therein lies unconstitutionality of religion…

Thus, Rome should become the christianized State, nevertheless the State has retained a beastlike existence in spite of the individuals of the nation having been christianized. Throughout the Middle and Modern Ages there has never been established even one christianized State, though many States have adopted Christianity as the national religion…

Look at the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The Pope interferes in the right of the State in view of his supremacy over the King. The Pope being a sort of state which takes religious taxes and possesses the right of domain. Thus, the Pope was liable to misdeeds and so at last with a blow administered by Luther, Protestantism arose.

The Roman Church is, therefore, not the idealization of religion, nor the religious realization in the State. It was only the modified form of the religious society as a body of right which was similar to the State. It is quite different from Nichiren's thought of the Holy Altar (Hommon Kaidan).

Thus, we find no christianized State and races in history (Extracted from Nichiren and Christ, pp. 74-7).

Christianity puts the units of salvation on the individual, thinking that the world will be christianized if every individual will be religionized. This is an unintelligent thought, just as that of a man who takes one as the unit of a thousand, thus making calculation impossible.

However great numbers may be, we can easily calculate according to the decimal system. Each individual is not the unit of the world, but the State is the unit of the world. So that, if a religion wants to redeem the whole world, first of all the State, the unit of the world, must be religionized. As a matter of course, religion has to redeem the individual. This necessarily results even from this mere fact that the Society or State is composed of individuals.

But, as I have mentioned before, the individual's salvation will not be completed unless the State and society be redeemed. Thus it is necessary to redeem the State, but this does not mean sacrificing the State for the convenience of religion, but, contrarily, it means the identification of State and religion, in the same way as the relation between body and mind. Thus the State which is reconstructed upon this principle is set up for the protection and exaltation of righteousness, with all its accumulated materials and power. Hereupon, the first step of world-salvation is realized.

There are still several more contradictions and defects in the Christian doctrine, but criticizing them must be put off to a future time. Let us now merely point out the contradictory love in the sphere of religious practice.

Love is, in a sense, the whole of Christianity. There is a race which has wandered over the world during those one thousand years. It is called the Gipsy race. Did ever Christianity try to redeem those people? Have not European and American nations, which call themselves Christians, fought one another for profit and interest? Have they not oppressed other races and robbed their fortunes, territory, and so forth? Did they not smite both cheeks of others, instead of turning the left cheek after the right cheek had been smitten? Needless to point out the facts one by one, because real facts are always given to us by History.

Setting aside the people in general for a while, what was the preachers’ attitude during the Great War, the preachers who devote themselves to the holy task? Were the preachers of Germany, of England, of France, of America, true Christians? Did they remonstrate with their countries concerning the crime of war which was fought by God's Sons against God's Sons. The Pope gave advice, but that was all. Philanthropy is preached to every individual, and spreads to society which surrounds the individuals; is such a philanthropy not adaptable to the next country or to other races? It is as impossible for the Sun to rise in the West and to set in the East as it is to call such contradictory love, true love. Christianity is no longer a religion of the future as far as these contradictions are concerned.

The third cause which makes religion dead is the social blindness of religion regarding social existence and experience. The object of religion must be all the aspects of life as far as the purpose of religion consists in salvation. However, a religion may redeem people spiritually; if the religion cannot give any light on the material side of life, then the ability of salvation must be doubted. Is the religion which redeems man individually but not socially able to be the religion of salvation in a proper sense? If merely God or love is preached, without spiritualizing the family, education, life, lust, economics, military affairs, politics, etc., then such a God is a monster which has no relation to human life. How can we judge what is the truth of life, and that is the falsehood of life, if we part with the standard of Man?

Look at those who call themselves typical Christians in the present age, are they really sacrificing themselves for the sake of the peace of the world, parting with vanity, profit, interest, comfort, and the like? Of course, no doubt, there may be men of good deeds, none the less they are mere ripples against the rolling billows. Matrimonial agencies, arbitration of conjugal quarrels, funeral agencies, charities, and so forth are rather secondary in reference to the essential nature of religion.

Preachers and genuine believers attend a service at Church every Sunday, and they modestly pray to God. But what do they pray for? There is more emptiness and nonsense in sitting at prayer for selfish desires, misconceiving a non-existent God as an existence, than in the worship of idols. Prayer in Church, but the strong preying on the weak in society, and at home, luxurious living, and excessive love for dogs, in contrast with suppression for other races. Therein lies the bankruptcy of Christianity.

I have thus pointed out some weak points, fallacies and contradictions of Christian doctrine and practice. But it is not only on Christianity that I am severe. Buddhism and Confucianism are contradictory too, and contain many fallacies. They too are blind, socially blind in particular.

If Christianity or Buddhism will not establish paradise on the very ground on which they stand, what is the use of religion? Emancipate the principle of God from the Church, change heaven and the residence of the preacher into an electric car which runs up and down the street. Realize the spirit of religion in international trade, in diplomacy, in politics, and so forth. When religion becomes the principle of human life, true significance of religion will be realized for the first time.

The preachings about God or a future for the dead who can be compared to meat which has been boiled to make soup, is out of date and useless. One who was after no good, nay had deceived the world, God and even himself, during his life, may become a pig or a snake as he likes. Is the religion which cannot even redeem people in actual life able to redeem them after life?

In short, religion must become the actual power and principle of the reconstruction of life and the world which are vital and putting aside the vacant conception of God and nominal idealism. In order to attain such an existence, religion itself must become the principle of the unity of the three mental elements and the leader of the individual, home, society, state, and the world, which means the generalization of religion into every aspect of life. The difference between the religion which has to be reconstructed and the religion which is awakened consists in these attitudes towards actual life. (Satomi, The Japanese Civilization, its Significance and Realization, pp. 1-8, 77-117. Kegan Paul, London.)

VI: THE MIDDLE PATH

The thought which greatly values differences, or attaches special importance to equality, or likes new ideas, or the thought which likes old things and hates new, all these tendencies are nothing but one-sided theories which are the results of what Bacon called idola specus; lo, how the present world is full of relative and reactive thoughts!

Let us take a few examples. What is democratic politics? It is constitutional politics and politics by the House of Representatives, which means the politics of the Government which is trusted by the majority of the nation. In other words, it signifies an administration agreed upon by the majority of the members of the House of Representatives. This political idea would give equal rights of speech without taking into account the differences of quality of the people who organize the State, except that the difference between the majority and minority is recognized. As a matter of course, democratic political thought expects special knowledge of politics in the people who are in charge of administration, and this thought gives rise to an apology that bureaucratism does not always indicate that the State is not democratic.

But democracy limits the competency of the House of Peers as far as possible. This gives more power to the representatives of the nation and to the nation in general as far as legislation is concerned. So it is obvious that it recognizes the differences of administration, and ignores these differences in regard to legislation. This is indeed the materialistic one-sided thought which attaches importance to number and quantity. That is why I called democracy a thought of foolish majority which is the result of material impulse.

In opposition to democracy, the politics of wise men are of much account as regards the quality of the people. In the state where there is the right of property and differences of titles between the peers and common people, it is quite natural that special right is given to meritorious people in a sense, for instance, to peers, rich people, learned men, and politicians.

We must not forget that there are several faults in the system of concessions which is recognized by the State. But, at the same time, it is evident that there are many dangers in democracy which set the quality of man at naught and attach much importance to the idea of quantity. In this sense it must be recognized that politics by wise men contain much truth, nevertheless, the idea of number cannot be ignored because it is natural that the number must be regarded as an important problem among the wise men themselves. Look at pacifism. Pacifists argue about the possibility of peace on the ground of people's fear and their reflections on the disasters of war, the growth of democracy, the development of humanism, and the extension of economical relations throughout the world. I am not always in opposition to these declarations. Nonetheless, I wonder whether pacifists have ground enough to deny the facts which disprove pacifism.

Militarism takes an opposite view to pacifism and it declares the facts of the impotency of international arbitration, in the present condition of international competition, insincerity of diplomacy, and necessity of self-supporting national economical policy.

Pacifism considers human nature optimistically, and consequently it attaches importance to the ability of reconstruction, while militarism takes quite an opposite view.

Further, we can see the relative thought in every way. Individualists will exclaim that any invention, any reconstruction, or any arrangement could not be realized without awakened consciousness in the individual. Individualists assert individualism on the two grounds, that the individual is the real being as the subject of consciousness, and the modern age has reached the awakening of the individual.

No civilization has been realized except through individuality, that is through individuals making society or country the background to their lives. In this sense, to oppress the individual causes the retrogression of civilization. The historical facts of Sparta are one of the good examples of this kind. Traditionalism which looks upon the Bible and Aristotle as the absolute standard of truth, oppressed the authority and freedom of individual. Was the so-called Dark Age not the result of it? Let us turn our eyes to China. It was in China that the individual creation and discovery of logics were prohibited, making “It is not the way of previous ages” the standard of civilization. Owing to such a view, China was forced to retrogress gradually and fall into the ignorance and dullness of the present days. Is not this true?

Social development has always been accomplished by excellent individualism, for instance, Smith's freedom of profession, Luther's freedom of faith, Rousseau's freedom of politics, and so forth, are indeed the outcomes of individualism. In the above sense and aspect individualism is right, nevertheless it makes itself absolute, and has no broad mind to lead it to unite with others. In other words, individualism is liable to turn to egoism and be the cause of destruction of the co-operative system.

Socialism takes quite an opposite view to individualism. However individual genius may be, Rome was not built in a day. An achievement of genius is the outcome, in a sense, of sacrifice of the flesh and blood of many nameless heroes. The individual's work has always been achieved by the social assistance which has been accumulating force for a long time. We are open to conviction for the recognition of truth which is contained in one side of socialism, nevertheless, we must not overlook its one-sidedness. Turn your eyes to the relative thought, those of optimism versus pessimism, capitalism versus labour, hedonism versus stoicism, and so forth; how relative they are, and yet they are not the principle of unity. Can they ever be the truth which will eventually be kept by people? There is no other way than to take a further step towards generosity whereby all heretical views will be brought into unison.

We must realize the thought of harmonious perfection taking precautions against relative and reactive thought which is apt to make its own conclusions absolute. All things are contradictory to one another, but we must find the regulative harmony in good order under the tension of these contradictions, giving them relative value. Thus we can discover the majestic existence of the absolute value by the unity and systematization of the relative value.

The thought which takes the view that all things are transitory in appearance and disappearance, analyses entity into spiritual being and material being. Consequently this thought asserts that substantially Life is empty and merely the production of the relation of the spiritual and material beings; in other words, of the relation of material cause and motive power, and thought which opposes this, asserts that Being is emptiness is merely objective reality. A philosophical birthlessness and deathlessness, but Being itself is empty. According to this idea “empty” attaches itself to Being, consequently there is no other empty besides the being.

Further, there is a reactive thought which thinks that the being transcends all relativity that is nonbeing, non-empty, but only the Middle-Path. And the being appears as sensible object and empty, according to various causes. This is phenomenon The real substance which is the absolute equality that is nonbeing, non-empty exists behind the phenomenon. This thought seems as if it is the real Middle-Path thought, nevertheless it, also, is a relative thought. Why? Because, it recognizes the Middle-Path against “being” and “empty,” although it denies the relation of relativity of “being” and “empty.” Moreover, it shows nothing about the synthetic law between the substance and phenomenon.

The Middle-Path, which is reality, does not exist apart from the being. Phenomena are reality. If we look at the universe from the point of view of “empty,” everything is empty, and, in the same manner, if we take the world from the point of view of existence, everything is existence. Reality exists in the very phenomena, and these two are two and not two. These two are one and at the same time is two, in other words, these two are the united being of harmonious-perfection which possesses substance and activity all in one.

All conceptional relative destructions are transient, and reality exists in inseparable connexion of phenomena and substance in which all contradictions and opposition are united, that is lust itself is supremacy, and evil itself is righteous. Such an harmonious perfection is indeed reality. Good and evil are also “ego-istic” from the point of view of a prioristic theory and dualistic from the point of view of a posterioristic theory, but true synthetic ultimate civilization opens the good from the internal of evil and finds out truth in the very falsity, thus discovering and establishing true law and activity, and uniting them into a consistent harmonious perfection of life. Is not such a law the very one which must be sought by the people of to-day?

Some thinkers of modern times are looking for liberty on the ground of limited relative ideas. But liberty or freedom which is reflected on the mirror of the relative thought is just like a round egg reflected awry on an uneven mirror.

Look, is the so-called liberty not another name for selfishness and arbitrariness? Is it not an animal liberty which desires an equal satisfaction of the material? If so, liberty is nothing else than a slave of instinct, mean passions and crime. Let us take, for example, a drinker. The drinker thinks that to drink wine is his free will, and thus he sticks to his free will even if he disturbs the lives of others as a result of his drinking. In this case, he is said to know one side of liberty but does not know freedom which controls the actuation of propensity.

Kant understood liberty to be a faculty which is actuated by the inner principle and power. Yes freedom is indeed the realization of our inner value, and the realization of the essence which is one's inner law. If the emancipation of low passions be looked upon as liberty, then liberty is nothing else than the ruin of life.

Rousseau, who thinks that education is negative, says that the proper work of education consists in the elimination of obstacles which obstruct the realization of an infant's nature. This idea is evidently an optimistic dogmatism which regards nature as being rational. The liberty which comes from such a thought is apt to animalize.

Liberty or freedom in its true meaning is autonomy which signifies that the life of inner control against the spiritual motion is less in value. Otherwise, where is the value of freedom? Freedom is, however, the highest aspiration of human beings.

What is economics? It aims at securing the means of subsistence. In other words, economics tries to emancipate men from the oppression of clothes and food by obtaining equal distribution and the maximum of production by the minimum of labour.

What is politics? It is that which tries to realize all values of the individual as well as of society by co-operation, securing the life and fortune of the people and checking the mutual encroachment of wild animal right, which is natural right.

What is science? It eliminates the wonder and insecurity from nature that inconveniences natural people, and by its efforts to acknowledge nature it eradicates exception and finds out the laws of nature, and thus tries to discover what is the reality of nature.

What is morality? Is it not the science which gives us freedom and emancipation from the realization of our idea of value? Morality accompanies bondage always. It is ascribed to the following reason: that a man cannot in his practical life realize and fulfil all his desires at the same time; in other words, realization is possible if negation be a condition of it. Suppression of one desire comes from the comparison of value with other desires. Morality, on the one hand, denies certain kinds of desires, and, on the other, permits one to realize some other desires. This signifies the guarantee of valuable freedom.

What is religion? It is civilization which was born from the desire to emancipate ourselves from impurity into security, trusting and obeying the absolute Being in whom righteousness, love, and power are united.

Seeing that, we may conclude that democracy which is little different from materialistic individualism is the liberalism of low passions; thus, democracy is a mere production of superficial optimism for human nature. According to Lotze, freedom is die Wirklichkeit der Beziehung. It does not signify the nature of actual volition or the facts of actual mental phenomena, but the process of the rationalizing volition to attain something, emancipated from some other thing in accordance with normal law.

“Numberless crimes are committed in the name of freedom,” this is worthy of reflection.

Various kinds of “isms” and thought of today are in nine cases out of ten, relative, reactive, antagonistic, instinctive, and animal, owing to the views of life according to food-standard and right-standard. There is no other way in our future than to make an effort to awaken in the idea of value the centric synthetic unity of life. Hegel's Dialektik, Tendai's Threefold Truth, Nichiren's Enlightenment with the Three Great Laws, and so forth, are indeed the logics and ethics of the reconstruction of relative thought which the people of today must take into account.

VII: CHRIST'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS WHAT IS MORAL, AND THAT OF NICHIREN

In the sphere of moral religion a practical desire which tries to concatenate reason or sentiment with will power is strongly moving towards the realization of the practical value of morality or religion in our life. Sabatier of France says that prayer is the practical religion. His words are evidently merely the suggestion of some essential aspects of practical religion.

Religious commandment is indeed the production of this actual desire for religion. If religion attaches much importance to pure reason, commandment should not be in existence. Every religion which is ethical gives moral rules, for instance, such typical examples as the Buddhist Commandments and the decalogue of Moses.

From the historical point of view, religion has developed generously through the four stages, that is non-ethical, semi-ethical, ethical, and super-ethical ages. The first two belong to the age of natural religion, and the last two belong to that of ethical religion or cultivated religion. Needless to say, this is the rough division from the main currency of religious history. If we investigate in detail, we come across the elements of ethical religion even in natural religion. For instance, the ethical colour in the religion of Apollo of Greece might be mentioned.

In order to realize the moral order, ethical religion invents the commandment. As examples, the facts of Buddhism and Judaism may be taken. The purpose of commandment consists in submitting reasonable examination and fostering the power of rejection of will by the judgment of the reasonable examination, for the external stimulation and our instinctive impulse of importion of the stimulation, and thus the commandment tries to emancipate the people from impurity to which men are liable to fall in. Confucius expresses his valuable experiences as follows:

At fifteen, I was bent on learning. At thirty, I stood firm. At forty, I had no doubts. At fifty, I knew the decrees of heaven. At sixty, my ear was an obedient organ for reception of truth. At seventy, I could follow what my heart desired, without transgressing what was right.

This is indeed the highest world to which he reached after long practice of the moral, and where natural law and moral law are in unison so that the external control of condition, for instance, commandment, is no longer necessary. Even in Confucianism, which is said to be merely moral teaching when it is compared with Buddhism or Christianity, it shows that the zenith of firmness of the moral is to identify with natural law surpassing the artificial rules on conducts and sentiments. How much more in the case of religion which prefers absolute truth to relative truth. Commandments or moral rules must be judged from a higher standard. With regard to this point, the attitude of Christ towards the commandments of the Hebrew religion and that of Nichiren towards the commandments of Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism are an interesting subject for a comparative study.

Both Nichiren and Christ, are very similar in their attitudes towards old commandments. In the time of Christ, Judaism, especially the commandments of Moses were strictly observed and formalized. The vicissitude of time formalized the commandments, though they were once vital and useful for the people throughout a long period. Considering the rules concerning garments which we come across in various chapters of the Bible, for instance, in Matthew, in Numbers, and in Deuteronomy, rules about food and purification which appear in Leviticus, etc., Sabbatarianism, which appears in Exodus, in Leviticus, and in Nehemiah, the rules about marriage and taxes, we can summarize from these materials that Judaism at that time was in degeneration of formalism and left the spiritual attitude of old prophets far away just as it was in the case of the formalization of Brahmanism. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes are the representatives of this dead nomistic religion. The following words of Pharisees are a good example of this kind, saying:

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with his God. (John v.)

But the true spirit and significance of religion does not exist in such external commandments. Jesus, therefore, made a proclamation in order to destroy the fallacy concerning religious morality as follows: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew.)

The spirit of revolution is evident in each word. Pharisees, etc., thought that to do good deeds on the Sabbath day (from Friday evening to Saturday evening) was bad. The Bible describes the criticism of Jesus for such an ignorant thought as under:

And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. (Mark ii .)

How strongly he attacked those who stuck to lifeless rules! He also instructs on the same subject in Matthew, with the allegory of sheep. When one day Jesus was on the mount of Olives “the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in their midst” they spoke to Jesus: “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commands us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?”

In reply, Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

Then Jesus spoke to the woman, calmly: “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?... Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John viii.)

Without doubt, Jesus attached more importance to the spiritual commandment than to formal rules. According to him, those who do not know the spirit of the Commandments are pitiful idiots. As to the fast of Pharisees, as a matter of course, Jesus did not adopt it. The Bible describes Jesus' attitude towards the fast in a very interesting way, as follows:

Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, ‘Why do we and Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?’ And Jesus said unto them, ‘Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the day will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.’

Such an attitude of Jesus towards the dead commandment signifies indeed the revolution of religion. Paul lays stress on this point, as follows: “Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.” (2 Corinthians iii.)

Moreover Paul praised Jesus as follows: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Romans x.)

The thought which is expressed that Law comes from Moses and grace and truth from Jesus is the same idea. The idea that Christ is the end of righteousness also signifies the identification of the natural and the moral law as in the case of Confucius, which I have stated already.

But we must notice that Jesus did not attain such a high state by way of mere moral cultivation and training. Contrariwise, sometimes he denounced the common moral law and cried aloud to attain the most profound law which is indeed the spirit of self-sacrifice, for God. He thought that if one was prepared to sacrifice everything for God, then for the first time the highest aspect and significance of life will be realized. He says:

And everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. (Matthew xix.)

The other precept of Jesus which appears in Luke, etc., is indeed a command to sacrifice everything which belongs to us. That is the religion that Jesus meant. As for the other formal rules, they are merely secondary.

But what is Nichiren's view on commandment? The time of Nichiren was not so simple and uncultivated as the time of Jesus. In Nichiren's time already all doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism as well as Hinayana were studied in the country, and, moreover, the philosophy of Confucianism was spread all over the land. Nichiren was born at a time of full academic mood, and studied philosophy, literature, history, and religion.

Thus he arrived at the conclusion that the Hokekyo centric Buddhism was the highest, and the one which all should believe. There are three Sciences in Buddhism, which are Commandments (ethics), Intuition (psychology) and Wisdom (philosophy). And these three Sciences are one of the most important problems of Buddhism which no school nor sect should neglect. As regards the commandments of the three, Nichiren establishes the law of Hommon Kaidan from a unique point of view.

According to Nichiren, all commandments of Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism are quite useless, at least at, and after, his time. He boldly denied the significance of all Buddhist commandments and the moral precepts of Confucius which were bright externally but dead internally. For various reasons for instance, from the point of view of individual and social psychology, and from the evolutional point of view, etc., Nichiren asserted that all external commandments were absolutely useless in the days of the Latter Law. He proclaimed the adoration of the Perfect Truth of the Hokekyo dedicating one's whole life, is the only commandments to be kept, even if the Buddha is the destroyer of the true significance of Buddhist commandments, if he will not keep this fundamental commandment, though, however he may observe the five commandments or the two hundred and fifty commandments. He exclaims:

Two Hundred and Fifty rules with reference to the first commandment, namely ‘Thou shalt kill no living being,’ in all the Scriptures except the Hokekyo, it is said that the Buddha kept this law. But the Buddha who is revealed in these Scriptures with pious imposition, starts by killing, so to speak, from the point of view of the Hokekyo. Why? Because, although it seemed that the Buddha in these Scriptures kept the law in His daily affairs, yet He did not keep the True Commandment of ‘Kill no living being’: because he killed the possibility of Attainment of Buddhahood of all other beings except Buddhas themselves, so that the beings were not allowed to attain Buddhahood. Thus the leader, the Buddha, is not yet released from the sin of killing, how much less the disciples. (Works, pp. 365-6.)

Therefore, he says: “All the commandments are not effective at all. If so, it is quite useless to observe them even one day.”

As Christ's “For my name's sake,” Nichiren says: “To observe this name is to keep the commandments.” “This name” signifies the title of the Hokekyo which is the virtuous symbol of the truth. In other words, there is no other commandment than to practise the truth of “Myohorengekyo.” As for the words of Paul, Nichiren exclaims: “Observe the significance, but not the letter,” and thus he attacked the primitive thought of commandments which arrange everything externally, neglecting the spirit and deceiving the true consciousness of self.

Jesus did not acknowledge the fast nor any rules about food. Nichiren, too, denied all this formalism. Evidently, Nichiren used to take wine, he loved to ride a horse, and always appreciated a sword. These are indeed the denial of old commandments, and, by doing so, he proved the establishment of new commandments, which are conditioned internally.

The instruction concerning self-sacrifice for the sake of truth is taught more thoroughly by Nichiren than by Jesus. Indeed, he cried aloud about the virtue of self-sacrifice throughout his life wherever he went, and he himself was the very man of self-sacrifice. According to him the true significance of the Buddhist practice consists in the vow of self-sacrifice and protection of righteousness. He sometimes instructed his followers that they should follow the Buddhist law even if they disobey their parents or teachers. These are the aspects of his absolute truth which are in agreement with those ofJesus. Jesus and Nichiren, both in the same way, attacked the formal condition of commandments, and denied the moral of the world which is of secondary importance, and thus tried to realize the true significance of the religious commandments.

Then what are their attitudes in respect of their acknowledgment of relative truth? As Nichiren affirmed that as much as possible he wished to keep measures, Jesus too expressed his idea as follows:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets, I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. (Matthew v.)

On these two commandments depend all the laws and the prophets. (Matthew xxii, see Matthew ii, 23-5 ; vii, 12.)

Jesus attacks only those who are contradictory to the true spirit of the old law. Jesus, who hates hypocrisy, therefore harshly abused the Pharisees as “O degeneration of vipers” (Matthew xii.), just as Nichiren criticized a priest, Ryokan, severely, who was believed by the people of the time to be a second Buddha and an incarnation of Buddhist commandments. Pharisees are men of false legalism and Ryokan too is a man of legalism. (Satomi, The Japanese Civilization, its Significance and Realization, pp. 143-5.)

Jesus who said: “Honour thy father and thy mother” is the very man who said:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (Luke xiv.)

Nichiren who said that “parents support sons and daughters, even ten in number, a son often does not support only one mother. Sons and daughters of men, give comfort to your parents with a smiling face, even one day at least if you have nothing else to give,” is the man who said:

I in no wise dreaded propagating this law, although my parents opposed me by their wild gesticulations, and even my previous master disowned me. (Works, p. 868.)

Again let us cite another example of his doctrine:

Every one of you, my disciples, if you are proud of being my disciples, must not be afraid. Worry not about your parents, family, or households. From eternity to the present day the people who have thrown away their lives for their parents, for their children, or their households, were and are more numerous than the dust on the earth, while no one has died a martyr for the sake of the Truth of the Hokekyo. Although some may have appeared to be practitioners of strong conviction, nevertheless when they met with persecution, they retrograded and yielded…

Prepare, all ye my disciples ! To change our bodies into the Hokekyo is like changing stone into gold or changing excrement into rice… (Works, pp. 392-3.)

There is still a great deal of material on both sides concerning these problems, which we shall leave undiscussed for the moment, but both great men are in accordance in this respect although the times and countries are different. The comparison which I have made above is, however, meant for those who study Christ or Nichiren, and for students of the science of religion.

VIII: GRATITUDE (RETURNING KINDNESS)

Since Buddhism was introduced into Japan, the idea of gratitude became one of the most radical views of life of the Japanese Nation. In opposition to the Christian theory of love, Buddhism teaches us that the principle of ruling life consists in the view of gratitude. At any rate, this idea is now almost the pure Japanese thought as the result of exercise and training of the mind throughout ages.

Regarding gratitude there is, in Buddhism, the theory of the Four Gratitudes which are stated in the Shinji-kan-kyo, which are the gratitude of parents, that of the Sovereign, that of society, and that of teaching. According to the Buddhist doctrine, the universe itself is the manifestation of kindness, or grace, or favour [Editor’s note: this is more often called “compassion” in modern Buddhist translations]. The sun shines. The rain fertilizes the fields. The flowers blossom. Everything is the manifestation of favour. We, human beings, are favoured with this great grace of the universe.

We were born from parents. We are living in the land. We are cultivated by the teaching which was revealed by various sages and wise men. Americans wear silk garments which are made in Japan, the train which was invented in England, is now used all over the world. We live in the house which was built by carpenters. We can buy anything without special labour owing to the manufacturers' and traders' labours. Is not, therefore, everything in the world indeed the expression of favour? If the sun will not shine, all beings must die. If rain will not fall, all beings must die. The universe and human society are composed of the significance of favour. Thus, Buddhism asserts that to learn the significance of favour and to return kindness is virtue.

The condition of love is favouritism. If a person does not love one definite object there is no love. Love is the sentimental expression; accordingly there are naturally differences as to the standard of love, between a person A and a person B. It is possible that A loves C, but B does not love C but D. Setting aside love in a religious sense for a while, love as the practical view of life is selfish. If one likes, then one loves, but if one does not like, one does not love. In short, it depends on one's free will whether to love or not. Such a view cannot possibly be the moral standard. But when love comes from the consciousness of the Way, then love becomes benevolence or love of a religious character. The idea of Grace is the result of the purification of sentimental love with the consciousness of the way.

Ninomiya Sontoku established the doctrine of reciprocating kindness. He was not a Buddhist [Editor’s note: Mostly not Buddhist, anyway. He is considered to have combined the sensibilities of Shintoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism in his philosophy] but acknowledged the necessity of reciprocating kindness and spoke somewhat as follows:

There are many people who do not return kindness in spite of their receiving favour from others. There are many people who do not express their gratitude for favour and virtue received. People who do not know how to reciprocate for virtue received from others, naturally forego happiness because they neglect the foundation while expecting future glory. People who return kindness observe the origin of virtue, postponing future glory, and, consequently, happiness is always with them. Indeed, gratitude is the highest aspect of all deeds and good.

In this opinion there is evidently a fragrance of utilitarianism, nevertheless, he acknowledged the idea of gratitude as the fundamental principle of life. Essentially, the Buddhist doctrine of returning kindness presupposes the doctrine of Mutual Participation, which is constructed through philosophy of one-mind-centric-cosmology. (Ichinen Sanzen.) (Satomi, The Japanese Civilization, its Significance and Realization, pp. 35-7.)

In brief, the universe consists of mutual participation. No one can exist independent of others. By mutual support everything can preserve its existence. Therefore, nothing can exist without having the influence and favour of others. From these metaphysics, the ethics of Gratitude were born. The idea of returning favour is always progressive and creative. It creates value synthetically and universally.

The Buddhist idea of returning Grace does not measure the kindness or favour or grace from the point of view of pleasure, but as the significance of life. What Confucius says in the following words is also a similar expression of this idea:

Someone said, ‘What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be reciprocated with kindness?’ The Master said, ‘With what then will you recompense kindness? Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness.’ (Confucius, Analects.)

The characteristics of this idea will be seen more clearly in the following quotation which was written by Nichiren. But it will be more convenient to the reader to give the following explanation beforehand, which is written by myself (Satomi, The Japanese Civilization, its Significance and Realization, pp. 134-6.):

At the beginning of the following year, Nichiren wrote an essay on his impression of his exile and sent it to one of his followers, Lord Kudo. The essay is called On the fourfold Indebtedness. According to this essay, he received two deep impressions of his exile; on the one hand he was extremely glad of the exile as a result of the persecution for the sake of his propagation; and on the other hand he was distressed about the sins of his opponents, who were the cause of his good fortune in becoming the practitioner of the Hokekyo, in consequence of their persecution. In order to become the practitioner of the Hokekyo, he must naturally have such opponents, hence his benevolent sorrow. Moreover, there is written in the essay much more important matter about his confessing his conviction of the prophesied man, though he had not yet said so conclusively.

Now, my translation of the following extract of Nichiren's essay will show the idea and attitude of Nichiren concerning gratitude:

I, Nichiren, do not keep the Buddhist commandments, bodily, nor am I delivered from the three (mental) virus, nevertheless I took great care of everyday matters, by doing what I thought I ought in order to be able to deepen my faith and give opportunities to others with reference to the Hokekyo. Even married monks are respected by people, and there are some monks who dare eat meat in the Latter Days (the Buddhist commandments forbid monks and nuns to do so, but, with a few exceptions, they do not abstain from meat nowadays). But I, Nichiren, am not married in any sense, nor do I eat meat. For not having a wife and children, I won ill fame as a lawless priest, and again, without killing even an insect, my name was tarnished all over the country. It may have been more than in the case of the Buddha Shakamuni, who had been abused by several kinds of heathen.

[Note: In the olden times, the Buddhist priests did not marry according to the prohibition of sexual intercourse by the Commandments.]

This indeed, is a result of the devil's jealousy on account of my right faith in accordance with the instruction of the Hokekyo, to which faith everybody was less devoted than myself. Nevertheless, in spite of my being low, ignorant, and lawless, I was destined to meet with persecution in the Hokekyo by the Buddha over two thousand years ago, the truth of which words cannot be sufficiently expressed. There have elapsed some twenty-four or five years since I began to study, but it is only for these six or seven years that I have fully believed in the Hokekyo. Though I believed in it, I was prevented from fully practising it owing to my laziness, my studies, and my general occupations ; and thus, all that I could read was one chapter or one volume or often just a mere utterance of the Sacred Title in a whole day.

Now, on the contrary, I believe I practise the Hokekyo ceaselessly throughout the twenty-four hours of the day and the night, during these two hundred and forty odd days, from the twelfth of May last year to the sixteenth of the first month of the current year. Because my present condition was caused through my propagation of the Hokekyo, it can be said, therefore, that I have read and practised the Hokekyo all the hours of the day, even when walking, standing, resting, or lying. I cannot think of greater happiness than this for the whole duration of my life.

Behold! There might exist a man seeking salvation voluntarily, who might hope for a happy future life! And for the sake of such a desire, he might make an effort by snatches. Now, for my part, though I neither think of, nor read, the Scriptures, I dare say I am practising the Hokekyo, am I not? (Works, pp. 420-2.) (Satomi, The Japanese Civilization, its Significance and Realization, pp. 134-6.)

There are still several thinkers who announced that gratitude is the fundamental principle of life, for instance, Yoshida Shoin and Muro Kyuso (A.D. 1658- 1734). The former mentions seven favours and the latter three.

Such a characteristic of Japanese thought has been well realized in the nation's life throughout the ages. The Buddhist doctrine of the four Gratitudes in particular was practised in the aspects of loyalty and filial piety and worship of Buddha more than in those of society in general. Those who study the Japanese idea of loyalty and filial piety, therefore, must not forget this fact.

IX: JAPANESE IDEA OF LOYALTY

As to the conception of loyalty there are various theories in the East and West, but we must bear in mind the fact that the Japanese idea of loyalty is somewhat different in meaning from its usual conception in so far as the Japanese National Principles are concerned. Even in Japanese history of thought we must distinguish the idea of loyalty of feudal ages from the ancient radical conception of loyalty, because the former is rather modified in form by the influence of Confucianism.

The author is not going to treat of the conception of loyalty in general, but will deal more especially with the radical idea of loyalty in Japan, comparing it occasionally with its other conceptions in case of necessity. The Japanese idea of loyalty is not in consideration of the expectation of certain things, nor by way of compensation for certain things, but indeed the result of the Nation's consciousness of the Japanese National Principles. That is to say, the Japanese idea of loyalty originated in the understanding of, and faith in, the Heavenly Task.

The idea of the Heavenly Task is purely a moral one. Essentially, the term “Heavenly Task” has been used from ancient times as the expression of the task of the Japanese Imperial House and the Nation. In brief, the Heavenly Task signifies the extension and cultivation of righteousness as the fundamental principle of human life. According to the historical facts of Japan, the Imperial House is the leader of this Heavenly Task, and the nation is the helper. This has ever been the resolute national faith of the nation throughout the ages. Moreover, in Japan, the Imperial House has been venerated as the keeper of the three virtues for the whole Nation, which are: the Sovereign, the Teacher, and the Father, which are the objects we must respect. From such a national system of Japan, the idea of loyalty was born, as the purest expression of respect for the ideal.

The relation between Sovereign and subjects consists in submission to authority, especially its relation in Japanese thought to the manifestation of submission to the path.

That being so, we must turn our eyes to the relation between filial piety and loyalty. In China, very often, filial piety was observed as the fundamental teaching of life, but in Japan, on the contrary, loyalty was in the main taken as the radical path of national life. But whereas some philosophers have thought that filial piety and loyalty are different, some people have taken the two to be one, though they are different in their external expression; and other thinkers have thought that, according to Japanese national principles, filial piety has a relative value to loyalty, consequently it is included in the very significance of loyalty. Let us examine the historical materials, with regard to various tendencies of the idea of filial piety and loyalty.

In the history of thought in Japan, the first man who treated these two as one thing was Sugawara Michizane (A.D. 845-903). He speaks in his Works as follows:

Loyalty and filial piety are identical; from the home where filial piety reigns come the most loyal sons. The duty of a subject and what of a son are not different. (This translation is adopted from Armstrong's “Light from the East,” p. 24.)

This is what the twenty-first Emperor, Yuryaku, who ascended the throne in A.D. 457 said:

Now the whole land is like unto a family. Our relation is Sovereign and subject in the highest sense but father and sons in feeling. (Nippon Shoki, Vol. 14.)

On the contrary, Nakae Toju (A.D. 1608-48) favours the filial piety standard theory. According to him, filial piety is the radical element of human nature and corresponds to consciousness. From this point of view, he established a sort of ancestor worship. He says that “Heaven, earth, and man are all beings born from filial piety.” (The Spiritual Law of the Sacred Book of Filial Piety.) He considers that loyalty is a part of filial piety, but at any rate in conclusion, he identifies loyalty with filial piety. In other words, he attaches importance to filial piety, but comes to the conclusion of the identification of both.

The identification of filial piety with loyalty is indeed the fundamental idea of Japanese thought in any case. Fujita Toko (A.D. 1806-55) expresses his idea of filial piety and loyalty somewhat as follows:

There are no other important things in our life than the five rules of human relations; and there is no other important thing in the five relations than the Sovereign and father. Then filial piety and loyalty are the foundation of moral teaching and the greatest principle of subjects and sons. Although filial piety and loyalty take different aspects from one another, yet they attain the same purpose. They are one and the same with regard to our sincerity, though filial piety is said for the father, and loyalty for the sovereign... Consequently, it is evident that there is no difference between filial piety and loyalty because they are one in substance.

His interpretation, too, identifies loyalty with filial piety. The identification of both is pure Japanese thought, nevertheless to attach importance to filial piety's being on the same level as loyalty is doubtlessly due to the influence of Confucianism. The original Japanese idea is the loyalty standard, though it includes filial piety.

With regard to this point, Yoshikawa Koretari (A.D. 1616-94) most clearly defines the pure Japanese view:

Confucianism classifies filial piety as the first of the five human relations. In Japan, on the other hand, we look upon loyalty as being the first of the five human relations. In other words, we believe that the Japanese Sovereign-Path is the highest aspect of humanism, therefore, loyalty is the foundation of the five human relations. There can be desertion of one's parents for the Sovereign's sake, but there can be no reason to desert the Sovereign for a parent's sake.

Yoshikawa Koretari was known as the most dutiful son, nevertheless he considered loyalty to be the foundation of the five human relations. With reference to this idea we must refer to Nichiren's assertion. He says:

If the father betrays the Emperor, the son shall remonstrate with the father on his disloyalty; and if the father does not follow his advice, the son shall fulfil his duty in the highest sense, even if the father is to be sacrificed. This is the greatest filial piety to the father. (Works, p. 58.)

Thus the idea of loyalty is the highest aspect of Japanese moral thought, because the conception of loyalty is the outcome of national faith for the Heavenly Task, that is to say, “The Way of God.” Therefore, Watari Enka (A.D. 1615-90) says:

Everything in our daily life is the Way of God. When the Sovereign rules the nation with the Way of God, he is the benevolent Sovereign. When the subjects serve the Sovereign with the Way of God, they are the dutiful subjects. When a father fosters his children with the Way of God, he is the god-like father. When sons and daughters are dutiful to their parents with the Way of God, they are dutiful sons and daughters. As for man and wife, brothers and sisters, and friends, all of them must keep their relationship with the Way of God, also. (The Yofukuki.)

When Tairano-Sigemoni received an order to attack the Emperor from his father Kiyomori, he said: “I am quite at a loss how to act. If I think of filial piety I must be disloyal, if I think of loyalty, I must be undutiful to you.”

This thought is, therefore, evidently anti-Japanese in idea. The absolute nature of loyalty is, therefore, observed as the fundamental principle of the nation. The thought, then, which is expressed as “Fidelity to one's lord is fidelity to oneself” must not be regarded as an original Japanese idea. According to the pure thought of Japan, it is said that, though the lord may be unlordlike, the subject must behave like a subject. This idea evidently suggests to us that the moral part must be observed without expecting any compensation. Even if other men will not observe the moral law, that does not justify us in acting against our own code of morality. We must be righteous without considering what the attitude of others towards us is. Therein is found the moral significance.

When Sugawara Michizane was exiled far away from the Capital Kyoto, on a certain evening he composed a poem in the moonlight, wearing the garment he had received from the Emperor when he was in favour at the great Imperial festival. It runs as follows:

When I remember that last year on this same night I waited at the Imperial Palace, my heart becomes very sad. The robe I received from the Emperor is now here. I hold it up in the attitude of one receiving a gift, and think every day of His Majesty's kindness. (Cited from Armstrong's Light from the East.)

The following paragraph will illustrate this more clearly:

When the views of a subject in service are not adopted by the Sovereign, he may remonstrate and die, he may be imprisoned, he may be starved to death. When these things happened, it seems that there is no achievement nor honour, but he does not lose his way as a subject. But this idea is due to the Japanese national principles. The subjects in China are like unto labourers who work on from place to place. They easily leave one lord and serve another in proportion to the lord's treatment. But in our land, the subjects are hereditary; and, therefore, the subjects cast in their lot with the sovereign or lords, and share their joys and sorrows with the sovereign, thus the subjects are one with their sovereign or lords. If any one does not lead an honourable life in the highest sense, he is not esteemed, be he a genius or otherwise.

It is not uncommon that a wise ruler has many dutiful subjects. To be dutiful to an incapable ruler is indeed true loyalty. In the same way, a benevolent father has very often dutiful children. To serve the impenitent father is true filial piety. When a subject is praised and rewarded, he is often a loyal subject, but if he is loyal when he is punished, then is he loyal indeed.

I quote the above lines from Yoshida Shoin, who was one of the most learned men of modern ages. We can trace from him what is meant by loyalty in Japanese thought. About one hundred years ago, from Yoshida Shoin, there was a prominent philosopher who was called Miura Bai-en (A.D. 1723-89). He says in his Analects as follows:

We were born of our parents. How can we but respect them? We were born under the rule of the Sovereign. Can we do otherwise than respect the Sovereign? The Sovereign and parents, therefore, are the most precious things in human life. To serve one's parents and the Sovereign is, therefore, our heavenly lot which cannot be changed.

Concerning this view, he declares as under:

Even if the Sovereign or Father will look upon the subjects or sons as so much dirt, the subjects or sons must not look upon him as an enemy.

With regard to this idea, it will be well to introduce the following lines which were written by Ninomiya Sontoku (A.D. 1787-1850.):

Loyalty and filial piety are the greatest of virtues and vice versa. The sages respect the Middle path. But the Middle path has various aspects, for instance, sometimes, the middle is the middle, and sometimes the side is the middle. Loyalty and filial piety are the way of the relation between self and others. Without having parents, we cannot be dutiful to parents, without having the Sovereign, we cannot be loyal. Therefore, if we do not concentrate ourselves upon loyalty or filial piety we cannot realize their highest aspects. When we concentrate ourselves upon and dedicate ourselves to the Sovereign in a high degree we realize the highest sense of loyalty, and when we concentrate ourselves upon and dedicate ourselves to our parents, we can realize the highest significance of filial piety. The Way of loyalty and filial piety becomes the Middle Path when they attain this idea. (J. Royce, Philosophy of Loyalty. theory of Bradley and Taylor Taylor.)

Seeing that, we must next examine more precisely what are the contents of Japanese loyalty. I have already discussed Japanese national principles in preceding chapters of this book and in my The Japanese Civilization, its Significance and Realization, therefore I will not repeat it here. But the idea of Japanese loyalty always presupposes Japanese national principles.

At any rate, the Japanese national principles are the universal way which is purely humanistic. As I have already stated, loyalty is the expression of a nation for the realization of its Heavenly Task. Therefore, we may say that loyalty and filial piety are the essence of Japanese civilization. This loyalty and this filial piety are not theoretical but the practical path. All aspects of morality are comprised in loyalty and filial piety. Mr Chigaku Tanaka expresses his view about the Japanese idea of loyalty as follows:

When the Japanese national principles are understood in the moral sense, they are called loyalty and filial piety. Usually, the idea of loyalty as understood in China signifies being dutiful to one's master or being faithful to one's friend. In other words, the object of loyalty exists in a small sphere and, moreover, expects a reward, so that it is somewhat like a formalized moderatism. Therefore, Chinese people attach the complementary letter to loyalty in order to complete the true idea of loyalty. For instance:

Loyalty and sincerity which belong to one's own self.

Loyalty and tenderness which belong to others.

Loyalty and faithfulness which contract friendship.

Loyalty which is for the master.

Loyalty and allegiance which signify principle or constancy.

Loyalty and veracity which mean virtue, etc.

Of course, there are doubtlessly the elements which construct loyalty, but all of them do not constitute the fundamental essence. What Confucius said, “The important thing is Loyalty and faithfulness,” and “Only loyalty and veracity” signify the importance of self-cultivation. Even the conception of loyalty for the sovereign in China means only reciprocal loyalty or loyalty which expects compensation, because the Chinese sovereigns are always feudal and revolutionary, and this is what brought about the custom of leaving the service of one master to serve another.

The idea is that the new master pays and in consequence loyalty increases in proportion. In China, a man who was called Yojo is regarded as the best example of loyalty. When his first master was killed he did not avenge him, but when his second master was killed he avenged this latter. A friend of his asked him why he avenged the second master, whereas he did not avenge his first master. In reply, he answered that the first master did not treat him well, but the second master treated him very well, so he served the second master at the risk of his life. This is the standard of loyalty in China, and it was welcomed especially during the Feudal Ages. What mercenary loyalty!

But the loyalty which comes from the Japanese national principles is quite different. First of all the relation of loyalty to the sovereign is fundamentally different. The object of the Japanese loyalty is the Sovereign who shines on our heads from before our very birth and on our ancestors, nay from the birth of the State. Such a sovereign you will understand is not the sovereign who will be acknowledged as the sovereign from a mercenary point of view. For such a Sovereign loyalty cannot be compensative. In short, fundamentally, loyalty is the significance of life which is indeed the significance of the Japanese national principles.

(The Study of the Japanese National Principles, 50th edition, pp. 81-3. The first edition was published in Tokio in 1922.)

We must now learn what is the ultimate sense of loyalty and filial piety in Japan. Nichiren once proclaimed as follows concerning its essential significance: “It is Loyalty and Filial Piety that are the necessary principles for the security and salvation of the world and one's country.” (Works, p. 448.)

According to Mr Tanaka, he gives another explanation:

The way signifies the practice of truth, and when we observe the practice from the individual point of view, the practice is divided into various kinds of Moral Ways. But when we observe the practice on society as a whole it is called the Moral Way of the State. In Japan, the moral way of the State developed into two aspects, one is the consciousness of the National Principles and the other is the national law. With the awakening of the national mission this consciousness of the National Principles developed into the task of salvation which is called ‘The Heavenly Task’ and ‘The Sovereign Path.’

And the national law developed into various systems of law in history and at last it appeared as the present constitution and the Imperial House law. But the law is the function of the protection of the Way, but not the way itself. As to the Way itself, there is the Sovereign Path on the sovereign's side and the moral on the individual's, of home and of society; and of state on the nation's side; and, in the rescript of National teaching, Meiji the Emperor said the Way included both sides. Moreover, the Emperor proclaimed that this way was indeed the teaching bequeathed by the Imperial ancestor.

The inclusion of all aspects of this Way the Emperor termed the essential glory of the national principles, emphasizing that he called their radical contents loyalty and filial piety... In the ordinary sense virtue for the sake of the King is called Loyalty and for one's parents it is called ‘Filial piety.’ But fundamental loyalty and filial piety in Japan are something deeper, an idea somewhat like Nichiren's idea that ‘To secure the world and one's country is Loyalty and Filial Piety’... In this case, loyalty and filial piety are not meant merely for individual masters or parents but for society and the country at large. Therefore, it is the filial piety that regulates society in the order and in peace, and it is loyalty that secures the country. (The Study of the Japanese National Principles, pp. 146-8.)

Thus the idea of loyalty and filial piety as understood by the Japanese nation is indeed essentially the significance of life. From sheer purity of religious and moral understanding or faith such an idea was born.

Accordingly the Japanese spirit of sacrifice is a pure outcome of the understanding of the National Principles. The Japanese attitude towards the civilization which is the synthetic value of creation comes from the consciousness of the Heavenly Task which is to march on with the sincere practice of loyalty and filial piety. According to Western thought, to be man and wife is the standard of life, but in Japanese thought, the standard of life is indeed the sovereign and father, because of their firm belief in the mission that is the Heavenly Task. If the idea of loyalty and filial piety is eliminated from the Japanese national thought there are no longer any Japanese characteristics. Loyalty and filial piety for the Japanese nation are not a dead theory, but a vital religion.

In conclusion, I must again mention that the loyalty and filial piety of the Japanese nation are by no means a patriotic feeling, but a pure humanistic and valid idealism of the realization of the Heavenly Task.

X: RULES OF LEARNING AND IDEALS OF EDUCATION

The idea and attitude of learning in Japan is very practical. From the ancient ages, students hated the attitude of “learning for the sake of learning.” Therefore, the Japanese way of learning was very practical. On the one hand, we can easily find fault in such an attitude, but, on the other hand, we must be aware that this Japanese attitude was effective enough for their moral training, while, at the same time, it caused lack of development of natural sciences.

Let us examine what were the principles observed by people in Japan. To begin with, I will translate some of the principles of Ito Jinsai (A.D. 1627-1705).

1. “One must not condemn others but blame oneself, one must not regret. This is the ultimate way of learning.”

2. “When one reads books one must read them attentively as if engaged in alluvial mining. Collection as much as possible and selection as deep as possible.”

3. “When we look upon virtuous action as the foundation of life, our wisdom exposes its highest aspect and the way is cleared up, thus the right or wrong is always discriminated without waiting to think.”

Amamori Hoshu (A.D. 1621-1708) says:

1. “The significance of learning consists in learning in order to make oneself a man.”

2. “There are those who become eminent men by reading and those who degenerate.”

The idea of learning is the way to make oneself a man. To know much about obsolete theory and philosophy is rather useless. A man may read several thousand volumes, yet, if he is not a man, then his efforts of learning are in vain.

Oshie Chiusai (A.D. 1764-1837) speaks as follows about what he thinks the principle of learning is:

Reading is the means to enter the way. If a man reads extensively without grasping the essential significance of reading, the evil will increase and destroy virtue. Such learning ruins a man.

The separation of practice from theory is considered the worst method of learning. This is indeed the idea in schools spread all over Japan. The saying, “To know is the beginning of practice” is the proverb which has been propagated to all students throughout the ages. Katayama Kenzan (A.D. 1730-83) points out this idea most clearly in the following words:

Students in modern times do not conceive that learning is reading under the guidance of teachers, and they are indifferent as to the practice of way. Teachers also only read books without knowing that the way of a teacher consists in being a righteous example in life. Such being the case, people of today do not know what learning is in spite of their reading books, etc.

Therefore, he thinks that whatever efforts we may make when reading, if we do not realize the Sage's nature and virtue within ourselves, learning is sheer folly.

Yoshida Shoin asserts the seven rules of learning, and the first three of them are as follows:

1. A man must know what is the difference between man and beast. Essentially there are the five human relations, among which the way of Sovereign and subjects and the way of father and sons are the most important. The ancient people were indeed man, because of their observation of loyalty and filial piety.

2. Every man who is born in our Empire must know first of all the value of our country in the wide world. The Imperial dynasty has been one and the same throughout the ages and the Sovereign fosters the subjects succeeding to the Ancestor's Heavenly Task, and the subjects are loyal and inherit their ancestors' task. The Sovereign and subjects are one in mind, and loyalty and filial piety identify themselves. Such are our unique characteristics.

3. There is no more important thing in our life than righteousness. We act righteously with courage, and courage is fostered by righteousness.

These tendencies concerning the idea of learning doubtlessly came through the influence of Buddhism and Confucianism. It is well known that Confucianism is a most practical doctrine and the theory of Confucianism was studied very widely in Japan in the feudal ages. Buddhism, too, is the religion of practice. People are liable to misunderstand the doctrine of Buddhism as a pure logical theory. Nothing is further from facts than this.

Buddhism, as I have mentioned, is a practical religion. The conception of Buddha is a most practical idea concerning our view of personality. The attainment of Buddhahood is not an imaginative ideal but the vital standard of our cultivation of life. All aspects of Buddhist doctrine are alone useful for the real attainment of Buddhahood. Such practical doctrines, as Confucianism, as Buddhism, greatly influenced the nation throughout the ages. Thus, the Japanese nation looks upon the realization of the ideal as learning. Consequently, for them, dualism of life and learning is the enemy of life.

As one of the best examples of daily instruction, we can mention the wall-precepts of Tokugawa Mitsukuni of Mito. The wall-precepts are not the rules of learning in the proper sense but rather the instruction of how to live, which is very often understood as learning in a broad sense. They are:

1. “Rest comes from unrest and unrest from rest. (No rose without a thorn.)”

2. “Think that master and parents order unreasonably; think that the servant is a fellow not worth serious consideration.”

3. “Sympathize with your parents as much as you love your children.”

4. “Be afraid of rules, be afraid of fire, be afraid of a man without discretion, do not forget the favour for which you are indebted.”

5. “Think that desire, lust and drinking are your enemies.”

6. “Do not sleep late in the morning, do not stay long at others' dwellings, and do not detain your host long with talk.”

7. “Consider thoroughly trifling matters, do not be afraid of serious events.” (Refer: “True greatness consists in being great in little things.” -Johnson)

8. “Nine parts is not enough, but ten means the 9 beginning of want.”

9. “Consideration consists in endurance.”

These only form part of the daily instruction from a commonsense point of view, but, nevertheless, they are instances expressive of the Japanese way of learning about life. From such a point of view, the following four rules were observed by students in the course of learning in the feudal ages.

1. Sweeping and washing.

2. Interview.

3. Behaviour.

4. Learning.

In accordance with this idea, the ancient Japanese students hated those who merely knew about theory but did not practise what they preached. Nichiren once proclaimed: “There is, indeed, no way to attain Buddhahood without having served the Master (or teacher).” (Works, p. 412.)

For him, the fundamental significance of learning consists in the attainment of Buddhahood, not a play of knowledge. The following old poem was one of his favourite recitations:

Through having served the Master,

Amassing wood and herbs for him,

And providing him with water,

Have I acquired the enlightenment of Hokekyo.

Thus the first principles of learning of Nichirenism is to serve the teacher of the Way. To learn without this fundamental preparation in one's mind is to lead people to degeneration. The world is degenerating in proportion to the progress of science. Nothing is a greater contradiction than this. Nichiren says: “The slight knowledge regarding Buddhism of some of my disciples proved their downfall.” (Works, p. 729.)

As far as our knowledge is not put into practice, knowledge is useless. He says:

Our knowledge brings no profit whatever. If one has sufficient knowledge to distinguish between hot and cold, one should explore wisdom. (Works, p. 1609.)

Therefore, he once warned students who were merely seeking knowledge without having faith. The lines run: “One may make oneself a learned man or scholar, but it is of no avail if one goes to hell.” (Works, p. 1358.)

But he took serious attitudes towards scientific study, as well as towards the establishment of the fundamental preparation of learning. He says:

Be diligent in practice and research, if these two become extinct, then Buddhist Law will perish. So strive after them and cultivate other people. But in all circumstances, these are the outcome of faith and belief. (Works, p. 502.)

Summing up the essential view from these various expressions, I will mention that very few abstract theories troubled the mind of Japanese students, the chief purpose of their learning being, as I have already mentioned, the cultivation of character.

Veracity, sincerity, honour, self-control, courage, and benevolence, etc., are indeed the subjects which result from the decision of this fundamental method of learning. If we look upon learning or education as a mere training and cultivation of knowledge, there would be no necessity to mention these virtues as the chief aim of life. But, as far as Japanese idealism is concerned, learning consists in the cultivation of manhood. Such a purpose of learning brings out the realization of idealism in every aspect of life. Let us take a few examples. The following statement is very popular in Japan and, for the sake of convenience, I will cite these lines of Dr. Nitobe:

There is even a sportive element in a courageous nature. Things which are serious to ordinary people, may be but play to the valiant. Hence, in old warfare, it was not at all rare for the parties to a conflict to exchange repartee or to begin a rhetorical contest. Combat was not solely a matter of brute force; it was also an intellectual engagement. Of such character was the battle fought on the banks of the Koromo River, late in the eleventh century. The eastern army routed, its leader, Sadato, took to flight. When the pursuing general pressed him hard and called aloud, ‘It is a disgrace for a warrior to show his back to the enemy,’ Sadato reined in his horse; upon this the conquering chief shouted an impromptu verse:

‘Torn into shreds is the warp of the cloth’ (Koromo).

Scarcely had the words escaped his lips, when the defeated warrior undismayed, completed the couplet:

‘Since age has worn its threads by use.’

Yoshiie, whose bow had all the while been bent, suddenly unstrung it and turned away, leaving his prospective victim to do as he pleased. When asked the reason of his strange behaviour, he replied that he could not bear to put to shame one who had kept his presence of mind while hotly pursued by his enemy. (Bushido, pp. 33-4.)

The warriors of the feudal ages were in bloodshed, yet their character as men was refined on the whole; such characteristics are but the result of the methods of education. The following example is too a popular one in Japan:

In obedience to the Imperial command, General Yoshiie of Minamoto at the head of the expeditionary force, departed from the capital for the northern provinces. Shinra-Saburo Yoshimitsu heard of his brother's (Yoshiie) expedition and overtook him in the mountains of Ashigara running after him to join his forces.

Now, a musician Bun-no-Toshiaki came all the way from afar to bid farewell to Yoshimitsu. Once Yoshimitsu studied the reed-organ under the direction of Bun-no-Toshiaki's father, and mastered the secrets of it. But the father passed away while his son was still a little boy, so this boy could not learn all about music. Then, Yoshimitsu in the camp in the mountains deeply sympathized with Toshiaki. One night in the moonlight making a seat of the shield, he let Bun-noToshiaki into the secrets of the music which was taught by Toshiaki's father. At dawn, Yoshimitsu started for the battlefield with his brother.

The method of education, which is to make manhood, brings about veracity without discussing about the subject. Practising is far better than discussing. It was the custom in Japan to insert the following clauses in a debtor's form of promissory notes: “In default of the repayment of the sum lent to me, I shall say nothing against being ridiculed in public,” or “In case I fail to pay you back, you may call me an inhuman fellow.”

In addition, I may remark one thing more as an example:

The sorrow which overtook Antony and Octavius at the death of Brutus, has been the general experience of brave men. Kenshin who fought for fourteen years with Shingen, when he heard of the latter's death, wept aloud at the loss of ‘the best of enemies.’ It was this same Kenshin who had set a noble example for all times in his treatment of Shingen, whose province lay in a mountainous region quite away from the sea, and who had consequently depended upon the Hojo province of the Tokaido for salt. The Hojo Prince wishing to weaken him, although not openly at war with him, had cut off from Shingen all traffic in this important article.

Kenshin hearing of his enemy's dilemma and being able to obtain his salt from the coast of his dominions, wrote to Shingen that in his opinion the Hojo lord had committed a very mean act, and that although he (Kenshin) was at war with him (Shingen) he had ordered his subjects to furnish him with plenty of salt-adding, ‘I do not fight with salt, but with the sword’ affording more than a parallel to the words of Camillus, ‘We Romans do not fight with gold, but with iron.’ Nietzsche spoke for the Samurai heart when he wrote, ‘You are to be proud of your enemy; for the success of your enemy is your success also.’ (Nitobe, Bushido, pp. 34-5.)

From ancient times till nowadays the Japanese nation has looked upon Mount Fuji as the ideal of education. Therefore, they call it “God-Mountain.” Concerning the cultivation of character, that wonderful appearance of Fuji is conceived as the best example. Fuji is grand, agreeable, and sublime. Therefore, from ancient times, people in various ways have admired Fuji and have always looked upon it as the ideal manifestation of life. Especially Nichiren, from his unique religious point of view, believed Mount Fuji to be the holy place where the Hommon Kaidan must be built.

[Note: The Hommon Kaidan, The Holy See of Hommon centric Hokekyo, is the holy place at which all human beings adore the truth of Hokekyo. (Satomi, The Japanese Civilization, its Significance and Realization, pp. 94-116.)]

He, therefore, himself climbed up to the summit of Fuji and buried therein the eight rolls of the Hokekyo. One of his six elder disciples, Nichiko, dwelt in the outskirts of the Mountain and prepared for the Hommon Kaidan according to Nichiren's will. The reason why Nichiren chose Fuji as the Holy Place for the future will become clear if we understand our national faith for Fujisan. (By the way, Fujiyama in common foreign parlance sounds rather queer to us. We call it Fujisan or simply Fuji.)

Right back from olden times, our nation has dedicated various praises and admiration to Fuji, which was believed to be the symbol of national idealism. One of the oldest poems on Fuji runs:

There on the border where the land of Kai

Doth touch the frontier of Suruga's land,

A beauteous province stretched on either hand,

See Fujiyama rear his head on high!

The clouds of Heaven in reverent wonder pause,

Nor may the birds those giddy heights essay,

Where melt thy snows amid thy fires away,

Or thy fierce fires lie quenched beneath thy snows.

What name might fitly tell, what accents sing,

Thy awful, godlike grandeur? 'Tis thy breast

That holdeth Narusawa's flood at rest,

Thy side whence Fujikawa's waters spring.

Great Fujiyama, towering to the sky!

A treasure art thou given to mortal man,

A god-like protector watching o'er Japan:

On thee forever let me feast mine eye!

[This is one of the earliest odes to Fujisan, compiled in the old lyrical poems of Mannyoshu (Myriad Leaves) by Prince Moroe (died A.D. 757) , and the English translation is quoted from Okakura's “The Japanese Spirit,” p. 110.]

As I have already often mentioned, this idealism of the Japanese nation was influenced by the doctrine of Confucianism, though such idealism had originated in the thought of the ancient Japanese. In respect of doctrinal systematization it was doubtlessly influenced by Confucianism as well as by Buddhism. So, of course, it is not a mere adoption. We can find the Japanese students’ unique critique thereon everywhere, and they evidently Japanized the foreign doctrines, and we seem to find the characteristics of the civilization of synthetic creation in them.

As regards the Buddhist doctrine concerning its ethical aspects which I intend to expound elsewhere and will omit for the present, I will, however, give you, now, in conclusion of this chapter some maxims which are extracts from the Analects of Confucius concerning the ideal of learning and education which, to a certain extent, make up the ground of Japanese thought:

1. “Learning without thought is labour lost ; thought without learning is perilous.” (Book II.)

2. “The mind of the superior man is conversant with righteousness; the mind of the man who is mean is conversant with gain.” (Book IV.)

3. “Where sterling qualities are in excess of accomplishments, we have rusticity, where accomplishments are in excess of solid qualities, we have the manners of a clerk. When accomplishments and solid qualities are equally blended, we then have the man of complete virtue.” (Book VI.)

4. “The superior man, extensively studying all knowledge and keeping himself under the restraint of the rules of propriety, must at the same time not overstep what is right.” (Book VI.)

5. “With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and my bended arm for a pillow, I have still joy in the midst of these things. Riches and honours acquired unrighteously are to me as a floating cloud.” (Book VII.)

6. “When I walk along with two others, they may serve me as my teachers. I will select their good qualities and follow them, their bad qualities I will avoid.” (Book VII.)

7. “There were four things which the Master taught: letters, ethics, devotion of the soul, and truthfulness.” (Book VII.)

8. “Is virtue a thing remote? I wish to be virtuous, and lo! Virtue is at hand.” (Book VII.)

9. “With sincere faith he unites the love of learning, and holding firm unto death, he is perfecting the excellence of his course. Such a man will not enter a tottering state, nor dwell in one that is disorganized. When right principles of government prevail in the empire, he will show himself; when they are protracted, he will keep concealed. When a country is well governed, poverty and a base condition are things to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honour are things to be ashamed of.” (Book VIII.)

10. “Learn as if you could not reach your object, and always fear lest you should lose it.” (Book VIII.)

11. “Hold faithfulness and sincerity as first principles. Have no friends not equal to yourself. When you have faults, do not fear to abandon them.” (Book IX.)

12. “Yen Yuen said: ‘what is perfect virtue?’ The Master said: ‘To subdue oneself and return to propriety, that is perfect virtue. If a man can for one day subdue himself and return to propriety, all under heaven will ascribe perfect virtue to him. Is the practice of perfect virtue of a man's own accord or is it from others?’ Yen Yuen said, ‘I shall be glad to hear the stages of that process.’ The Master replied, ‘Look not at what is contrary to propriety; speak not what is contrary to propriety; listen not to what is contrary to propriety; make no movement which is contrary to propriety.’ Yen Yuen then said, ‘Though I am deficient in intelligence and vigour, I will make it my business to practise this lesson.’” (Book XII.)

13. “By extensively studying all knowledge and keeping oneself under the restraint of the rules of propriety, one may thus likewise not err from what is right.” (Book XII.)

14. “The virtuous will be sure to speak correctly, but maybe those whose speech is good are not always righteous. Men of principles are sure to be bold, but those who are bold may not always be men of principle.” (Book XIV.)

15. “The Master said: ‘Tsze, I suppose you think that I am one who learns many things and keeps them in memory?’ Tsze-Kung replied: ‘Yes, but perhaps it is not so?’ ‘No,’ was the answer, ‘I seek a unity all pervading.’” (Book XV.)

16. “I have been the whole day without eating, and the whole night without sleeping: occupied with thinking. It was of no use. The better plan is to learn.” (Book XV.)

17. “Let every man consider virtue as what falls to himself to do. He may not yield the perform- ance of it even to his teacher.” (Book XV.)

18. “There are three things which the superior man guards against. In youth when his physical powers are still undeveloped, he guards against lust. When he is strong, and his physical powers are in full vigour, he guards against quarrelsomeness. When he is old, and his animal powers are decaying, he guards against covetousness.” (Book XVI.)

19. “Tsze-hea said: ‘He, who from day to day recognizes what he has not yet got and from month to month does not forget what he has attained to, may be said indeed to love learning.’” (Book XIX.)

20. “Tsze-hea said: ‘There is learning extensively, and having a firm and sincere aim, inquiring with earnestness, and reflecting with self application: virtue is in such a course.’” (Book XIX.)

When looking at all this, how I must think about the differences which exist between the ancient method and spirit of learning and that of the mechanical education in modern times.

XI: ANCIENT JAPANESE IDEALISM AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

Since the first movement of ancient Japanese idealism took place there have elapsed three thousand mortal years. It is, undoubtedly, one of the most wonderful things in the world. During these long ages the world has scarcely recognized it. Nay, even during the present age it still remains almost in the dark. I am not going to give minute details of the general history of Japanese civilization, for this subject has already been introduced to Europe by many publications. I want to explain, by citing old authorities, the ancient Japanese idealism and its development, the investigation of which has been neglected even by Japanese thinkers, to say nothing of European. As will become clear afterwards, a perusal of these lines will, I firmly believe, prove useful to the student of the present day.

2. IDEALISM OF TENSHO-DAIJIN (IMPERIAL ANCESTOR, THE SUN-GODDESS)

I can only give very rough descriptions regarding the Idealism which was conceived and practised by the ancient Japanese and its relation to the State. Nor can my explanation regarding its essence and its later development be very minute, as the time for the preparation of my writing has been limited, and, moreover, I have not all the books of reference with me, as I am now travelling.

However, I would like to state that I have pursued my studies from a completely different aspect from the studies of Europeans and other Japanese historians. I am willing to take full responsibilities for my different point of view and the method of my studies.

First I will speak about the Idealism of ancient Japan. The material I will use to describe hereafter ancient Japanese moral civilization is taken chiefly from Nihon-Shoki, which is the oldest Japanese historical publication. This book has already been translated into English by Mr W. G. Aston. The history was compiled by the Government of the time, 1280 years after the first Emperor Jimmu came to the Throne, namely in A.D. 620; consequently, there will be not a few controversies on its merits, if examined from the point of view of the modern advanced scientific study of history. If the merit of this book is seen from the point of view that it carries the thoughts, belief, and ideal of the Japanese race from the ancient age to the time of the compilation, the book will never have lost its worth. Even if it were a fiction or a mythology, the fact that it conveys the ideal of the ancient Japanese race cannot be denied.

First of all, in this book, we notice the Edict of the Imperial Ancestor, the Sun-Goddess, when she gave the country to her grandson Ninigi-no-Mikoto. It is this Edict that explains the idealism of the Imperial Ancestor and expresses the ideal or object in her establishing the State. I introduce the Edict through the translation of Mr Aston:

This Reed-plain-1500 autumns fair rice ear land is the region which my descendants shall be lords of. Do thou, my august grandchild, proceed thither and govern it. Go! And may prosperity attend thy dynasty and may it, like Heaven and Earth, endure for ever!

When she gave this Edict, she handed her grandson a Mirror, a Bead, and a Sword, which are generally called the “Three Sacred Treasures.” She gave advice saying, “When you see this mirror, let it remind you of me.” One may think that she gave these things merely for the sake of giving something as a present to the grandson, but that is not true, there is a deeper meaning attached to the gift. She wanted to symbolize her profound ideal. As she predicted, the three Treasures have been handed down from generation to generation until the present day as the symbol of the dynasty of the Emperor.

The Mirror reflects things faithfully. This means truth. The Sword to destroy all evils. That means courage. The Beads mean love and virtue.

The idea is similar to Faith, Hope, and Charity in Christianity; and Knowledge, Virtue, and Courage in Confucianism. The fact that the three virtues were made the symbol of the Japanese Throne, is itself a proof of idealism existing at the time. Thus, by the Three Treasures, the Imperial Ancestor showed the essence of the Sovereign Virtue.

When you read the Imperial Edict again, you will now find that each sentence conveys a high moral spirit. At this point I must point out that Mr Aston's translation of the Edict is somewhat misleading. He translated “Land is the region which my descendants shall be lords of”, but it would have been better translated if he had said, “Land is the region on which my descendants should exercise beneficent rule”.

The original of this part is pronounced “Ka-ô” and corresponds with King, Emperor or Sovereign, and “Ka-ô” is usually translated as “shall be” or “ought to be” and sometimes as “may” but, in the present case, “Ka- ô” is to be sounded in a fall of the voice “chu-sheng” and then the word means “to exercise” or “to render” , that is to say, the construction of this part of the Edict should be that “The land is the region where you shall exercise the beneficial sovereign rule which is symbolized in the Three Sacred Treasures.” In other words the Imperial Ancestress gave the land to her grandson, in order to attain by ruling it with “The Path”, the highest ideal of human life in which State, Humanity, and Community is one — “The Path”.

Then the Emperor Jimmu who is the grandson of the fifth generation of the Imperial Ancestress established the Country in 660 B.C. Thus, you will see that Japan had a ruler before it was established, and that by that Ruler the country was established under its high ideal.

From the very beginning, the country of Japan was constituted of:

• the Divine Being (“Kami”)

• the Path

• the Land

• the Subject

• and the Sovereign.

I have to explain what is meant by “Kami” . It does not mean “God” as the term is generally used in religion. The meaning can be made clear if I explain what is meant by “Kami” in Buddhistic Philosophy. In Buddhism, “Kami” is classified into four hypostases. First, Divine Being. This corresponds with what is usually called “God”' or the Primeval Buddha in Buddhism.

Secondly, “One's Enlightened Divine Being”. This implies men who attained highest possible virtues. Christ or Shakamuni may be called “Kami” in this sense.

Thirdly, the Supernatural Being out of the fundamental ignorance.

Fourthly, the Supernatural Being out of the Evil Spirit of the Dead.

The “Kami” which is the first element of the Constitution of Japan means “Enlightened Divine Being”. That is, it belongs to the second category. The first Emperor, Jimmu, calls his Ancestor “Like God” and “Like Sage”. From this we can prove that the “Kami” implies “Enlightened Divine Being”. He also says about his ancestors that they “achieved glories and gathered happiness.” This also proves that his ancestors were not the “Kami” of imaginary product. The religious idea that there existed a Supernatural Being who created the Universe should be called philosophically quite an unadvanced one.

Apropos, I would tell you that it cannot be denied that the ancient history of Japan consists mainly of legend and mythology, and, consequently, it is clear that some foreign religious idea and foreign mythology had, to a certain extent, influenced the minds which narrated the story. One can cite many instances of Chinese and Indian influence. For instance, the mythology of “Three Gods of Creation” is clearly the influence of Indian idea. But the words of the Emperor Jimmu, that “Like God” and “Like Sage” make it quite clear that the “Kami” in Japan means the highest realistic perfection of human life, attained by enlarging, improving, and perfecting a given personality.

The next we come to is the second element of the constitution of Ancient Japan! “Michi” — “The Path” (“The Path of Benevolence and Righteousness”). This is the will of the Divine Being, the Principle of Divine Existence.

“The Truth” and “The Path” are one and the same thing, but “The Truth” is an a priori term, while “The Path” is an a posteriori term. We cannot say, for instance, that this truth is the one which was originated by him. “Truth” is universal and uncultivated. On the other hand, “The Path” has always had someone who propounded it or who originated it. Consequently, when we hear of “The Path” the first thing we have to consider is whether the propounder is absolutely reliable, or whether we can safely follow the Path or not. In this sense the Path can be called a moral law. We would investigate (a) the contents, (b) the explanation, (c) its practical precedents, (d) its founder's character. We can follow the “Path” only after we have been convinced of its perfection. The third element is the State. This is the material background on which the Path is propagated and exercised.

The fourth element is “The Subjects”. There have been four sources from which the Japanese nation is traceable. First we name the descendants from the Divine Beings, secondly the descendants of the family of the Emperor Jimmu, and of later Imperial families. Thirdly there were native races which became the loyal subjects of the Imperial family, and fourthly, the naturalized foreigners. Among the native races, some of which were too inferior to be assimilated to the “Nation of Heavenly Task” are, or have been, becoming extinct.

The fifth element, Sovereign, is the proprietor of the land and the leader of the people.

I might mention that the above order of the five elements is not the order of importance, but it is simply the order of convenience for explanation.

Thus, the Japanese sovereignty originated from the Divine Being (the “Kami”). The Path of Benevolence is the will of the Divine Being and that constitutes the sovereignty. The Divine Being and the Path are embodied in the Sovereign.

It will be seen, therefore, that the constitution of the Japanese nation has peculiar characteristics which are quite exceptional. Its nature cannot be explained thoroughly by means of the method of modern political science.

On this ground the Imperial Ancestress selected the land and gave it to her descendants and their subjects, and declared: “It will, like Heaven and Earth, endure forever.”

This is the predict spoken from the firm belief in the eternity of the path. Just as it was predicted, Japan and its rulers’ dynasty continued for three thousand years without a break.

Some scholars in Japan see the special feature of the Japanese nation only in its one continued dynasty. I mean, some people think that Japan can only be proud of the fact that it has been ruled accidentally by one line of sovereign dynasty for three thousand years. I cannot agree with this idea. It is not the one continuous line of sovereign family that is most notable. I think we should give more prominence to the point that the national principles, that is, the nation's high idealism, has been well realized in that country.

3. REALIZATION OF IDEALISM OF THE EMPEROR JIMMU

In the last chapter I spoke about the origin of ancient Japanese Idealism. In the present chapter I am going to relate how this Idealism was enlarged and realized.

The Emperor Jimmu belongs to the fifth generation of the Imperial Ancestress. He is the founder of the Japanese Empire. He was at first in the County Hiuga, which is in Kyushu (Western Island of Japan). He proceeded gradually towards the East and at last he founded a place now called Yamato, the capital of his Empire. The place is about 360 miles from Tokio, the present capital of Japan.

In outward appearance the Emperor's life looks as though he were fighting all the time, but on tracing minutely what he said and how he acted we find that he did not fight merely for the sake of territory. He fought for the sake of “The Path” and his idealism. He fought to realize his idealism in actual life.

When he was forty-five years of age, and was still in Hiuga, he convened a conference of members of the Imperial Family and his followers, and discussed the plan of proceeding to the East. The Conference is described minutely in the Nihon Shoki. I am quoting a part of it (from Mr Aston's translation):

At this time, the World was given over to widespread desolation. It was an age of darkness and disorder. In this gloom, therefore, he fostered justice, and thus governed this Western border. Our Imperial ancestors and Imperial parents, like gods, like sages, accumulated happiness and amassed glory. Many years elapsed. From the date when our Heavenly Ancestor descended until now it is over 1,792,470 years. But the remote regions do not yet enjoy the blessings of Imperial rule. Every town has always been allowed to have its lord, and every village its chief; who, each one for himself, makes divisions of territory, and practises mutual aggression and conflict.

The above shows that the origin of the Imperial Family of Japan can be traced to very ancient times, and they always ruled Japan with a high moral principle — The Path. Hence the accumulation of happiness and achievement of Glory. The Emperor Jimmu did not want to allow the Eastern local lords who were fighting for their own interest to remain as they were. He wanted to bring them all under his moral way.

Following the paragraph of the Edict which I have just cited, there is a passage as follows (Mr Aston's translation):

Now I have heard from the Ancient of the Sea that in the East there is a fair land encircled on all sides by blue mountains. Moreover, there is one who flew down riding in a Heavenly Rockboat. I think that this land will undoubtedly be suitable for the extension of the Heavenly task, so that its glory should fill the universe. It is, doubtless, the centre of the world. The person who flew down was, I believe, “Nigihayahi”. Why should we not proceed thither, and make it the capital?

The reply of the people assembled is described in “The Book” as follows:

All the Imperial princes answered and said: The truth of this is manifest. This thought is constantly present to our minds also. Let us go thither quickly.

Thus the Emperor Jimmu called the extension of his sway “Heavenly Task”. His followers also had a similar idea.

During this march towards the East, one thing which ought to be taken note of is that he always sent messengers to his opponents and invited them to surrender. The biggest battle during his Eastern March was one against “Nagasunehiko”. This battle was at first unfavourable to him. The battle is described in the book as follows:

Summer, fourth month, ninth day, the Imperial forces in martial array marched on Tatsuta. The road was narrow and precipitous and the men were unable to march abreast, so they returned and again endeavoured to go eastward, crossing over Mount Ikoma. This way they entered the inner country (Yamato). Now when Nagasunehiko heard this, he said: The object of the children of the Heavenly Deity in coming hither is assured to rob me of my country. So he straightway levied all the forces under his dominion, and intercepted them at the Hill of Kusaka.

A battle was engaged in and Itsuse-no-Mikoto, the brother of the Emperor, was hit by a stray arrow on the elbow. The Imperial forces were unable to advance against the enemy. The Emperor was vexed, and resolved in his inmost heart a divine plan, saying I am the descendant of the Sun-Goddess, and if I proceed against the Sun to attack the enemy, I shall act contrarily to the way of Heaven. Better to retreat and make a show of weakness. Then sacrificing to the Gods of Heaven and Earth and bringing on our backs the might of the Sun-Goddess, let us follow her rays and trample them down; If we do so, the enemy will assuredly be routed of themselves, and we shall not stain our swords with blood.

The Emperor's idealism is expressed clearly also here. From the passage, “We shall not stain our swords with blood,” his love of peace is perceptible.

In the Emperor's words, which I have already quoted, he said that Nigihayahi-no-Mikoto, one of his relatives, should have arrived in the district before him. Nigihayahi-no-Mikoto is the master of Nagasunehiko, but Nagasunehiko thought that his master was the only descendant of the Sun-Goddess, and that Emperor Jimmu was an impostor. He sent a messenger to the Emperor with the following message:

There was formerly a child of the Heavenly Deity, who came down from Heaven to dwell here, riding in a Rockboat from Heaven. His name was Kushidama Nigihayahi-no-Mikoto. He took to wife my younger sister, of whom he had at length a child. Therefore did I take Nigihayahi-no-Mikoto for my Lord and did service to him. Can it be that there are two seeds of the children of the Heavenly Deity? Why should anyone else take the name of Child of the Heavenly Deity and therewith rob the people of their dominions, etc.

Thus, the Emperor accidentally received tidings of his kinsman and advance guard, Nigihayahi-no-Mikoto. So, he said:

There are many other children of the Heavenly Deity. If he whom thou hast taken as thy Lord were truly a child of the Heavenly Deity, there would surely be some object which thou couldst show to us by way of proof.

As requested, Nagasunehiko brought and showed many proofs. The Emperor found that the proofs doubtlessly bore testimony to his family, and were not things which can come into the possession of the native tribes. In reply, the Emperor showed his own proofs, which were accepted. But Nagasunehiko did not wish to cease fighting. On hearing this, his lord Nigihayahino-Mikoto gave orders to surrender to the Emperor, who was the lineal descendant of the Sun-Goddess. But Nagasunehiko defied even the command of his lord and obstinately intended to keep on fighting. At last Nigihayahi-no-Mikoto killed Nagasunehiko, who was his brother-in-law, and surrendered to the Emperor. He felt that he was justified in slaying his relative, as it was for the sake of high moral obligation, and loyalty.

Nigihayahi-no-Mikoto had the so-called “Ten Sacred Treasures” which represent the duties of the subjects, in contrast to the Three Sacred Treasures which are the symbol of the Ruler's virtues. He had sojourned in this district whilst making preparations for the advance of the forces of the Emperor Jimmu. But he would not surrender at first, because he did not know who the invaders really were.

These traditions about the exchange of proofs and the showing of the Sacred Treasures, etc., enlighten us accurately as to the method of the Emperor in extending his moral attitude over the country. (I might mention that these points have been made clear quite recently by my father, Mr Chigaku Tanaka, after over forty years' investigation.)

After conquering the land, the Emperor devoted himself to the improvement of the welfare of the people. He adopted the most progressive methods, for instance, he taught his people to build houses instead of living in caves. He said:

At present things are in a crude and obscure condition, and the people's minds are unsophisticated. They roost in nests or dwell in caves. Their manners are simply what is customary. Now if a great man were to establish laws, justice could not fail to flourish. And even if some gain should accrue to the people, in what way should this interfere with the Sage's action?

His Imperial Edict on establishing the country, declares most clearly the reason and object of his doing so:

Above, I should then respond to the kindness of the Heavenly powers in granting me the Kingdom, and below, I should extend the mind which will foster righteousness throughout the line of descendants. Thereafter the capital may be extended so as to embrace all the six cardinal points, and the eight cords may be covered so as to form a roof. Will not this be well?

The words are very simple, but declare most clearly his idealism. His idealism cannot be denied by anybody who has read the above and compared it with the Edict of the Sun-Goddess and with the meaning of the “Three Sacred Treasures”. The year of the establishment of the Country was 660 B.C.

The Japanese National Principles which were explained by the Emperor Jimmu have three cardinal elements:

1. Cultivation of Righteousness.

2. Accumulation of Happiness.

3. Achievement of Glories.

These are the reasons of the establishment of the country, and the object of its existence. The first, Cultivation of Righteousness, can be compared to the Mirror of the three Sacred Treasures, and the second, Accumulation of Happiness, to the Bead, and the third, Achievement of Glories, to the Sword.

The idealism of the Emperor Jimmu was to extend these moral principles all over the world. Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and Toyotomi Hideyoshi of Japan, hoped to conquer the world with the object of satisfying their national selfishness which is the enlargement of the selfishness of the individual. That is, to conquer the weak countries by military power the most uncivilized and crudest of ideas.

The idea of the Emperor Jimmu was to make the world like a peaceful family. He realized these three cardinal virtues in eight directions:

1. Harmonious consistency between men and God (“Kami”).

2. Identification of politics and religion.

3. The principle of unifying everything in the centre.

4. Returning gratitude to origin.

5. Self-reflection and self-control.

6. Accumulation and extension.

7. Enlightenment and progression.

8. Absolute peace.

I cannot go into a detailed explanation of the above, as I have to proceed to his idealism as realized on the relation of Sovereign and People.

In ordinary cases there exist people before the State and Sovereign come into existence. In Japan the relation is quite different. The relation between Sovereign and People is not relative but absolute, because it is established on the particular national principles which I have already spoken about. The national principles are “The Path”, and “The Path” is immutable and equal. There is no distinction of classes in connexion with “The Path”. The only distinction is between those who observe the “Path” and those who do not. In the relation of the ruler and the people of Japan, there is a division of duties on the safeguarding of “The Path”. The Sovereign leads and represents “The Path”, and the people exercise and protect it. This is neither a distinction of race nor of class nor of right, simply the division of the duties in dealing with “The Path”.

The relation between the Sovereign and the people of Japan is absolute obedience. But the obedience does not mean the obedience which carries with it a servile idea. It is the obedience which is brought about by the self-consciousness of their mission. Thus the Sovereign and the people realize their own special characters by the relation of obedience regulated by “The Path”, that is, the national principles. In this sense, therefore, Japan is a country where the Sovereign comes before the people. It is not a country where the people call for the existence of their Sovereign. On the other hand, however, the people are regarded as the basis, in conducting the affairs of practical government.

The Emperor Meiji said in his Imperial Edict: “The way here set forth is indeed the teaching bequeathed to our Imperial ancestors, to be observed alike by Their descendants and subjects.”

The relation between the Sovereign and the subject becomes the relation between the Sovereign, the subject and “The Path”. “The Sovereign and the subject” is the term when the country is seen from the racial standpoint, but when it is viewed from the standpoint of attaining the national task, it must advance to a more firm relation. That is to say, the Sovereign should rule, not as a simple proprietor of the State, but as the master of the task, and the subjects should become the missionaries of “The Path”, instead of simply being residents in the land or members of the ruler's family. The above should be the relation between the Sovereign and the people. It should be different from the usual term of “the Sovereign and the subjects.”

In Chinese philosophy the virtues arising between:

• The Sovereign and the subject

• Father and child

• Husband and wife

• Brothers

• Friends

have been usually called the five virtues. These and other ideas relating to human morality are quite different from the idea in Japanese morality. In Japan all the moralities and virtues start and revolve on the basis of the ruling morality in the relation between the Sovereign and the subjects.

The Chinese idea of loyalty can be measured by the service rendered to the Sovereign. The idea of loyalty so called “Bushido” of feudal age of Japan is based on the material relation of the master and servant, although it has been coloured with a little moral explanation.

(Contrary to the above, the idea of loyalty which originated from the Japanese ancient idealism is purely of a moral character. It is the highest and the fundamental human morality originated from the self-realization of national mission.)

4. EXPOSITIONS OF PRINCE SHOTOKU

Having explained the establishment of the country and the realization of the Ideal Principles by Emperor Jimmu, I should now like to say how these were developed in later days.

The Central Government which was opened by Emperor Jimmu, faithfully followed the motto of His August Ancestor and governed successfully. During the Dynasty of the tenth Emperor Sujin, “the Four Governor Generals” were sent out in the four directions. The Emperor then alluded to his Imperial Rescript: “To Govern is to Educate on Culture,” and tried to propagate and realize the motto of His August Ancestor.

In this connexion, I must state that my opinion is different from that of many scholars, both dead and contemporary, who treat these Governors as if they were merely Military Commanders. The Four Governor Generals, of course, undertook military actions, but, at the same time, as the teachers of the subject, they carried out an important task in propagating the Ideal Principles of His August Ancestor. This fact, I think, may be clearly understood, if you refer to the Imperial Rescript, from which I have just quoted.

Later on, the civilization of Corea, China, and India was introduced to Japan, and this naturally had a deep effect in many ways on the thoughts of the Nation. Coming to the dynasty of the thirty-third Emperor Suiko, there appeared a Prince Regent Umayado, on whom the Imperial name of Shotoku Taishi or Prince of Virtue was bestowed in later days. This Prince earnestly studied Buddhism, and published a Commentary book on the Saddharmapundarika Sutra, which has already been recognized as the most important sutra, and he also wrote several other works. He was also an ardent student of Confucianism, thus having combined and harmonized with the three essential doctrines of “Shintoism”, Confucianism, or Chinese Philosophy, and Buddhism, by picking out in each a characteristic point, showed the direction in which the national ideas should flow.

As I mentioned before, the “foster righteousness" was declared in an Imperial Rescript at the time of the establishment of the country by Emperor Jimmu. And, therefore, with an object of fostering righteousness, advantage must be taken of anything that is best in the Human Civilization, from either Confucianism, Christianity, or the like. This attitude, indeed, is composed of the evolutional and aggressive principles of Japan towards the imported civilization, from Ancient times, to the Present.

Above all, Prince Shotoku strictly took into consideration the national principles when adopting civilization, and he successfully realized the Ideal Principles which had been inherited from His August Ancestor. The Military Forces in Japan have been considered necessary for the sake of protecting and developing righteousness. In this connexion, Emperor Jimmu once said: “May I become a Sovereign with my virtue and not with my sword.”

For the Ideal Principle Prince Shotoku said: “There are two kinds of forces. One is the material and the other is the moral force.”

Thus he had clearly made a distinction between the two. Moreover, the Prince put these Ideal Principles into the form of a regulation, and inaugurated the socalled Constitution Law of Seventeen Articles. I must mention, though, that this regulation is far from being similar to that of the present day, and is more or less affected by moral considerations. Nevertheless, this is nothing but a regulation whose object was to endeavour to educate the Nation, derived from the condensed essence of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Shintoism. The Fourth Article runs as follows:

The Ministers and functionaries should make decorous behaviour their leading principle, for the leading principle of the government of the people consists in decorous behaviour. If the superiors do not behave with decorum, the inferiors are wanting in proper behaviour, and then offence is necessarily the consequence. That is why when Lord and vassal behave with propriety, the distinctions of rank are not to be confused: when the people behave with propriety the Government of the Commonwealth goes on of its own accord.

Decorous behaviour, as quoted here, is a translation of the Chinese character of “Lee”. It is to be noted, however, apart from decorous behaviour as generally understood, “Lee” implies the meaning of “Law”.

Now, the Seventeenth Article, the last clause of the Constitution Law, is as follows:

Decisions on important matters should not be made by one person only. They should be discussed among many. But small matters are of less consequence. It is then unnecessary to consult a number of people. It is only in the case of the discussion of weighty affairs when there is a possibility that they may miscarry, that one should settle matters in concert with others, so as to arrive at the right conclusion.

If we carefully examine this article we shall readily understand that this regulation is constructed on the ground of a sense of justice, with which, from Royalty to the lowest, all must participate in governing the country, namely, spreading and realizing the Heavenly Task. It was indeed in the year A.D. 604, when this constitution law was decreed.

Forty years later, an evolution of Taika took place which constitutes a new epoch in Japanese history, when again an excellent arrangement of the state organization, and an evolution of the method of administration was well carried out. In a paragraph of the Imperial Rescript of the evolution in 646, given by the sovereign of the time, Emperor Kotoku, following the ideal principles of the ancient time as the motto of administration is laid down in these words:

He that would be a ruler whether he be Lord or Minister should first correct himself, and then correct others. If he does not correct himself, will he be able to correct others? He, therefore, who does not correct himself, be he Lord or be he Minister, will meet with calamity. Should one not be watchful? If ye, the leaders, are upright, shall we presume to be otherwise? Do ye now be guided by our former commands in dispensing your judgments.

Here again the idea of fostering righteousness is emphatically confirmed. Is it not? The Imperial Rescript dispatched three years later is also very interesting in giving us the tidings of the Ideal Principles. Now let us cite a paragraph:

The Ministers and functionaries offer their congratulations. In as much as Your Majesty governs the Empire with sincere virtue. It is the prayer of the Ministers, functionaries and people that they may serve YourMajesty with the utmost zeal and fidelity. When a sage Ruler appears in the world and rules the Empire, Heaven is responsive to him, and manifests favourable omens.

The evolution of Taika was completed about half a century later, then the regulation of “Taiho-ryo” was introduced. The following is a paragraph of the Imperial message given by the Emperor on that occasion to the Government functionaries:

Do not offend the national laws which have been set forth and practised by our Emperors in the past. Accept with thanks the Imperial order, commanding us to do our own duty with bright, clean, and upright sincerity.

From this time on, Japan has made great strides in the progress of Politics, Literature, and Art, and also in Religion, etc. There arose the literature of the “Heian” and “Nara” epochs and also an art which still survives in the present day and which is regarded with wonder. Buddhism, both Hinayana and Mahayana, and Confucianism were studied and prospered more vigorously than in countries such as India and China, from where they emanated.

It is to be regretted, however, as the study of Buddhism and Confucianism became very popular among the people that they were unconsciously prejudiced by the disgusting doctrine of Buddhism and erroneously interpreted the philosophy of Confucianism. In the meantime, the national principles, namely, the Idealism of ancient days gradually left their minds.

[Editor’s note: By “disgusting doctrine of Buddhism,” I believe Professor Satomi is here referring to the esoteric sects which came into prominence during the Heian era and subsequently utilized corrupt interpretations of Buddhist doctrine in combination with esoteric ritualism to accrue power and justify their own moral failings. These sects grew in popularity among the superstitious nobles who saw the rituals as a way to advance their aims. Satomi elaborates on his critiques in “Japanese Civilization: Its Significance and Realization.”]

The tyranny of the Soga family might be mentioned as the oldest case in this direction, and the domination of the Fujiwara family followed. By and by they forgot the relation between Emperor and Subject and failed to realize the national principles. The Emperor held a vacant title of honour and remained merely a figurehead.

Thus this tendency gradually became rooted in the Imperial Court, until at last in the reign of Emperor Horikawa (A.D. 1087) an exceptional system was introduced by which a young and inexperienced Prince was to be enthroned, and an elderly ex-Emperor was to control the actual administration establishing a Government office outside the Court. Subsequently warriors came, took possession of, and controlled the administration. Hitherto, chiefly peers had been assuming the political power, but gradually they lost the real power in consequence of their indulgence in luxury. Thenceforth, Minamoto Yoritomo brought the whole country under his political rule by establishing the Government at Kamakura helped by the authority of military power.

Since then up to the time of the Imperial Restoration of Meiji, the political power constantly went from clan to clan, that is, from Minamoto to Hojo, Ashikaga, Oda, Toyotomi, and Tokugawa. Nevertheless, no person who possessed political power could snap his fingers at the Imperial Court. Whenever important events occurred they were indeed reported to the Imperial Court at Kyoto in order to be submitted for the Imperial solution and decision. This was strictly adhered to by all politicians throughout the ages till the last period of the Tokugawa Shogunate.

Even Minamoto Yoritomo, the founder of the military clan's politics, and his son, Sanetomo, as was conclusively proved by historical materials, always instructed the people that they should not neglect the Imperial will. And every powerful military commander, however ignorant he might have been, could not help falling prostrate before the Imperial Sovereign. One of the Yoritomo's letters which was given to his brother Noriyori, and poems which Sanetomo composed and published in his poetical work Kinkaishu (The Collection of Golden Mass) and other various historical data prove these facts.

On the other hand, owing to the blind worship of the Buddha by the Imperial family, the priests began to assume a very haughty attitude towards the Imperial Court and often molested them by taking advantage of the holy names of God and Buddha. In the days of Hojo Yoshitoki the disease of neglecting the National Principles attained its climax by unprecedented misconduct in exiling the three ex-emperors. There had been a case in the reign of the forty-eighth Emperor Shotoku (A.D. 769) when Dokyo, a priest, had designs upon the Imperial throne. Since that time, there had been, in all probability, several peers and military families who have acted exceedingly uncivilly towards the Imperial Court. Nevertheless, none of them had a valid reason for want of regard, but only on account of selfishness in seeking power and fame. In their cases, just as with naughty children, there existed no well-grounded evil thoughts.

Hojo Yoshitoki exiled the three ex-emperors in consequence of a decided principle. He issued the Fifty Articles of Joei laws, which are regarded as some of the most complete regulations in the Japanese history of law. Encouraging simple and quiet customs, he became very popular among the people and when the Imperial Court prepared for war to restore the political power, Yoshitoki sent several hundred thousand soldiers to Kyoto, the Western Metropolis, and, having defeated the Imperial Army after one attack, obtained actual power in politics. After ordering off his army he appointed Yasutoki, his brother, as the Commanding General and gave him instructions:

If His Majesty Himself graciously commands the Army and appears on the frontier, throw away your bows and arrows and surrender to him.

Despite his being a man of such excellent judgment, Yoshitoki exiled three ex-emperors, and let an Imperial Prince who had no connexion with the battle, ascend the throne. This was indeed as great an irregularity as ever happened throughout Japanese history. Yoshitoki committed the most serious crime of exiling His Majesty under the pretext of doing so for “the benefit of the people as a whole”. However, considering the relation there is between the Sovereign and the Subject, or the National Principles, the idea of punishing a sovereign for the sake of the happiness of the people cannot be entertained even for a moment. The Ideal Principles in ancient Japan were destroyed temporarily by this incident. This took place in A.D. 1221.

5. NICHIREN'S REVIVAL OF IDEALISM AND HIS PHILOSOPHY

In conformity with the old saying, “When confusion is at its highest, then peace begins to grow,” Nichiren was born in the year following the war said to have been caused by Yoshitoki, namely, in 1222. The letters and literary works of Nichiren have been well preserved for the last seven hundred mortal years, and they amount to about four hundred articles; more than a quarter of which are found to be in his own handwriting. This enables us to trace historically and philologically what his thoughts really meant to convey. Two serious questions came into his mind when he reached his eleventh year. The first was one concerning Buddhism. At that time, the development and researches of Buddhism were at their climax, and many thousand temples were built with the glorious essence of architecture; sermons and lectures were delivered all over the land and the sects were ten in number.

As a matter of fact, Buddhism was the only representative Science in those days. Truly Buddhism is the religion preached by the one Buddha, nevertheless that various sects should exist and should severally claim to possess the only right doctrine of the Buddha is strange and contradictory. The fundamental teaching of Buddhism, however, must be One. This is the first question which occurred to Nichiren.

The second question that arose in his mind was that he glanced sceptically at the Shokyu War which happened just a year before his birth. He thought that the chaotic state brought about in Japan was caused by the fact of a mere subject daring to exile the Sovereign! In this relation Nichiren strove to make of himself the wisest man in Japan, and to solve these questions. In the May of his eleventh year, he made the resolution known to his parents, and obtained their consent. He then left his home for the monastery of Kiyosumi, not very distant from his parents' home. He studied strenuously at several monasteries for a period of over twenty years from the time he became a man of learning.

In April of his thirty-first year he returned to his native home, and for the first time appeared before the public. Relatively to these points we can see his description in his extant autograph, and doubtlessly these aspects are the interesting problems of psychology of religion. But in regard to historical research of his life in detail, I would ask you to peruse my recent work in English: “The Japanese Civilization, its Significance and Realization”, because to go into these lectures in detail would be exceeding the necessary limits of this book.

Well, setting aside other subjects for the present, I shall introduce Nichiren's discovery of the Ancient Japanese Idealism and his philosophical view on it. As already stated before, the chief characters responsible for the development of Ancient Japanese Idealism were the members of the Imperial family while Nichiren was no more than a subject. Nichiren as a mere subject, however, analysed what the Ancient Idealism really was and systematized it from a philosophical point of view.

Now, in order to understand his theory, a certain amount of preliminary knowledge of Buddhist philosophy is required. But in the present book I will interpret as far as possible from a commonsense point of view irrespective of the technical standpoint.

He devoted himself to the research of the whole of Buddhism as well as to Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, Shintoism, and Japanese literature, and he went through all the Buddhist Scriptures four times, which means seven thousand volumes, during the twenty years of his studies. And as a result, he found the highest ideal and the right doctrine of the Buddha in the Hokekyo. With regard to his method of studying he established the five critical theories, namely, the Philosophical, the Psychological, the Sociological, the State-Ethnical, and the Evolutional. These five constitute a quite unique system for the study of religion in the history of religion in the world.

However, with this result he adopted the Hokekyo as being the authority, and consequently his criticism of human civilization was based on the doctrine of the Scripture. So, now I will proceed to his philosophy of the State. Nichiren sees the substance of the State in righteousness, and maintains the view that the State is indeed the place of practice of the Path. He therefore writes in his essay that The Establishment of Righteousness and the Security of the Country are as follows:

Hearken! The country will prosper with the moral law and the law is precious when practised by man. If the country be ruined and human beings collapse who would worship, the Buddha, who would believe the law? First of all, therefore, pray for the security of the country and afterwards establish the Buddhist Law.

Nowadays, the sphere of the research of sociology and science in state treats the problems of origin, function, and organization of the State. But these are merely scientific studies of the State in general, consequently they hardly come into contact with the spiritual substance of the State. Although they interpret the State by complex theory, they are nevertheless wanting in spiritual interpretation, just as in the case of the study of zoology, or entomology, or the like. Therefore, there are scholars who look upon the State as a body of power. Such a view, however, seems to me an erroneous one. Because it is a certainty that even in the society that existed prior to the State, there was a general desire of the people which is social consciousness, and which always restrains human beings. The principle which makes this restraint possible is caused by the social power which is the whole.

I do not, however, think it necessary to enumerate and criticize all these theories, I wish only to show how difficult it is to interpret the origin, organization, and substance of the State of Japan merely from these theories. For instance, the noted view of Duguit concerning the State, in the present day is somewhat as follows:

The characteristics of society, the society which is called the State, consists in the fact of the birth of inevitable and successive differences between the strong and the weak. It consists, therefore, in the monopoly of power of strong men. In other words, the State is the outcome of the difference between the conqueror, as the possessor of glorious and mighty power and those who are subjected by the conqueror.

Although such a theory can be interpreted by the external conditions of the Japanese State to a certain extent, it has no connexion with the motive of the foundation of Japan and the idealism of her system, which are very spiritual principles. There exist also other theories, for instance, utilitarianism and ethical theories concerning the purpose of the State, but these theories are too abstract, although Scientists scarcely admit this. The ethical theory concerning the purpose of the State has been advocated since the days of Plato, and, in recent times, Hegel, Julius Stahl, and others demonstrated it, and Kant, likewise, defended a similar standpoint. Hegel thought the State to be the very place where Sittlichkeit should be fulfilled and realized, and Kant also made public his philosophy on the absolute right of the State, and peace, and so forth.

Since Christian Wolff appeared, advocating Utilitarianism, Achenwall, Schlozer, Sonnenfells, Ward and others declared their views in succession. One of the famous English philosophers, Hobbes, also belonged to a similar school of thought. These theories, however, can be applied to the State in general, but they cannot properly be applied to Japan in all their aspects.

According to Nichiren, the State of Japan is the path in her very substance different from the nest of man, a sort of beast.

In the sixteenth chapter of the Hokekyo, the three Aspects of the manifestation of truth are preached. They treat the problems of how to complete the life given to man.

They are:

1. The Mysterious Law of Original Effect.

2. The Mysterious Law of Original Cause.

3. The Mysterious Law of Original Land.

They are called the Three Radical Mysterious Laws, and are the doctrine concerning the Primeval Buddha, the doctrine which is entirely in opposition to any other Buddhist theory. According to the Hokekyo, the Primeval Buddha who revealed Himself as the Sole Eternal Perfect Existence in the sixteenth chapter of the Scripture, revealed Himself in at least the three aspects.

Firstly, He reveals Himself as the perfect existence who attained the Buddhahood as the highest effect of cultivation. (This is the Mysterious Law of Original Effect.) It suggests to us the life of the highest ideal to which man shall attain by cultivation and development of the life and personality which is given to him. The Buddha Shakamuni Himself shows this effect.

Secondly, how to attain such a perfect personality is the problem of the Mysterious Law of Original Cause. Even the Buddha cannot be the Buddha without practice, which alone is the cause of the being of the Buddha. (Nichiren's life of the practice of the Hokekyo signifies this Cause, so Nichiren convinced himself.)

Thirdly, the Mysterious Law of Original Land means the ideal land or society. Nichiren, indeed, found this ideal land in Japan through the fact of the national history and spirit reflecting them on the doctrine of the Scripture. As mentioned before, the first of the Japanese National Principles is the cultivation of righteousness. This is the very reason why Japan was founded. But gradually the people have come to forget their own principles and eventually reached to Yoshitoki and exposed their own unconsciousness.

Hereupon, Nichiren, in order to revive the Ancient Idealism, that is to say, the Japanese National Principles, remonstrated with the people as well as with the Government, having in mind the establishment of righteousness. For Nichiren, this is indeed the very aim of Buddhism, and, moreover, it is the ultimate aim of all human morality. For the sake of this movement, therefore, Nichiren sacrificed himself and even ventured to undergo so many abuses and persecutions. He says in one of his letter:

How grievous it is that we were born in such a country wherein the right law is disparaged, and we suffer great torment! How shall we deal with the unbelief in our homes and in our country even though some people observe the faith of the Law whereby they are relieved of the sin of individual disparagement? If you desire to relieve your home of unbelief, tell the truth of the Scripture to your parents, brothers, and sisters. What would happen would be detestation or belief. If you desire the State to be the righteous one, you must remonstrate with the King or the Government on its disparagement of the righteous law, at the risk of capital punishment or banishment. From the very beginning all failures of people to attain Buddhahood have sprung from keeping silence in this matter through fear of such punishments.

Thus in every respect he endeavoured to revive the Ancient Japanese Idealism, and with regard to the ethical method of training, he brought about a revolution. In his opinion, the ordinal method of ethics and religion in respect of the improvement of human nature, is an utter failure as far as the method itself is concerned.

The State is the fundamental civilization differing from mere individual civilization Civilization has never had any effect at any age without the protection of the country, nor has it been preserved nor developed without the State. In this respect, the State is itself the fundamental civilization which makes any other particular civilization possible. If we desire to build up an ideal world, we must transfer the unit of moral training and instruction from the individual to the State.

Individual life as well as the life of the world will surely be established morally by making the State an organ for the practice and realization of the Path. It is an absolute fallacy that the State is liable to disturb the peace of the world under the name of the so-called it is “For the sake of the State” while with the help of law and education and so forth the State requires the individual to be righteous. Nichiren, thus, aimed at realizing the purpose of ethics and religion by transferring the idea of the moral unit from the individual standpoint to that of the State. He, therefore, describes the ideas of loyalty and filial piety which are very often mistaken for narrow-minded patriotic love.

It is Loyalty and Filial Piety that are necessary for the security and the salvation of the world and one's country.

To accuse patriotism and loyalty of being the mere production of national greediness is to lead the world into confusion and war, with the aid of emotion and interest. In order to be relieved from such an idea, and to bring peace to the world, we must look upon the State as the authoritative organ of the practice of morality.

This thought of Nichiren, however, is totally different from that of the Utopian. He affirms the State to be the representative power for the protection of righteousness; consequently, its wealth, sciences, art and literature, politics, law, military power, everything without exception, must be the power to protect and foster the path. The attainment of Buddhahood cannot be realized without observing this practice. It is on this point that he differs from the one-sided idealists of the world. So, sometimes, he speaks about wealth, sometimes about politics, sometimes about religion, sometimes about military affairs, and about almost every aspect of life, from the point of view of the justification of them.

Such an ideal country was discovered by Nichiren, in his very native land of Ancient Japan. Naturally, Nichiren's attitude towards Japan has two obvious aspects; one is in praise of the Ideal Japan, and the other is a remonstration and denouncement of the degenerated Japan. He praised Japan in reference to Japan's true spirit as the most excellent country in the world, but, at the same time, he says concerning the national danger caused by the Mongolian invasion: “We must congratulate ourselves that the disparagements of the Truth shall diminish even though the State of Japan be destroyed.”

Not only that sometimes he boldly proclaimed that even the Sun-Goddess who is the Imperial Ancestor was merely a small deity. There was no reason for Nichiren to love Japan without discrimination of right and wrong, seeing that Japan was his native land.

From Nichiren's point of view, righteousness and all the nations are more than a state. He simply praised the ancient idealism of Japan for the sake of humanity, and strove to revive the old principles. Japan must contribute to the world with her idealism in regard to the foundation of the Empire. Therefore, he mentions the following in one of his essays in which he demonstrates the theory of the Holy See:

At a certain future time, when the State law will unite with the Buddhist law, and the Buddhist law harmonizes with the State law, and both Sovereign and subjects will keep sincerely the Three Great Secret Laws, then will there be realized such a golden age in the degeneration of the latter law, as it was in the olden times under the rule of King Utoku. Thus, the Holy Altar will be established with Imperial Sanction or similarly at a place like the excellent Paradise of Vulture Peak. We must only prepare and await the advent of this period. There is no other law or com- mandment which is practically only this one. This Holy See is not only the sanctuary for all nations of three countries and the whole world, but even the great deities Brahma and Indra, have to descend in order to be initiated into the Perfect Truth of the Hokekyo.

The so-called Ibsen's Third Empire had already been founded in Nichiren's philosophy seven hundred years ago. One of the sentences in the above paragraph, namely, “the golden age under the rule of the King Utoku” signifies that the State must protect and foster righteousness with all her accumulated powers, omitting minute interpretations.

At any rate, in Nichiren's philosophy, we learn the fact that the State and righteousness are intimately related, somewhat similarly to the body and mind. The public Law has nothing to do with those states which violate the law. Therefore, the evil states which are indeed brutal, must be reconstructed according to moral principles, in order to bring about peace all over the world. It follows, therefore, that the idea of One Family in the world is a true one. In other words, although there exist differences in social ranks, in men and women, and so forth, when the path which influences their minds will be united, the peace of the world will be realized.

I have disserted very briefly on one of the aspects of Nichiren's philosophy.

6. RESTORATION OF NATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF EMPEROR MEIJI AND HIS IMPERIAL DECLARATION

After many changes, the times brought about the war ages. But even during the war ages, there appeared many believers of the Ancient Japanese Idealism, for instance, General Kusunoki Masashige and a famous historian Kitabatake Chikafusa, etc., and they remonstrated with the people to awaken the Idealism according to each particular circumstance.

Since the establishment of the Tokugawa Government, the whole land of Japan was kept under political unity better than in any former age. In those days of peace under the political rule of the Tokugawa Shagunate, there appeared many idealists, for example, Kada Azumamaro, Moto-ori Norinaga, Hirata Atsutane, and others, among the students of Japanese literature; Takeuchi Shikibu, Kumazawa Banzan, and others in the circle of Confucianism; historians, Arai Hakuseki and Rai-San-Yo; and politicians, Tokugawa Mitsukuni of Mito and Matsudaira Rakuo of the Tokugawas, and so forth.

Under the influence of those idealists, the nation was fostering the sentiment of longing for the Imperial Virtue and the thought of the National Principles was cherished in their hearts in spite of their submitting to the Machiavellism of the Tokugawa Shogunate in their external lives.

After the death of Nichiren, spiritual Japan had to pass through a lifeless period of monotony and stagnancy for about six hundred years. At the close of this period, the darkness was suddenly pierced by the appearance of the most prominent idealist, the late Emperor Meiji the Great.

Up to this time, the Idealistic National Principles had almost entirely been neglected by Japanese thinkers in general, except by some of the old Japanese Philosophical Schools, chiefly followed by the Mito School. The Mito School was originated by Mito Mitsukuni who, as one of the Tokugawa Family, enjoyed the highest and most powerful position among the Feudal Lords of that period, while Japan was awakened by the so-called “Evolution of Modern Japan” in the middle of the last century. In its consequence, the restoration of Court Administration was realized. Thus the Japanese nation had the means of direct access to the personal guidance of the Emperor.

This is the most striking epoch in the history of modern Japanese civilization, as the restoration of the National Principles was achieved by the Sovereign himself. The importance of this fact cannot be overestimated when we reflect upon the position of Japan at that time, which was when she first experienced direct contact with the World — with its European peoples and their civilization.

Emperor Meiji ascended the throne at the age of sixteen, and announced to all Government Officials and people at large the famous “Five Imperial Oaths”. This was really the first ray of morning sun at the dawn of modern restoration of Old Idealism. The translation of the Text is:

1. “Deliberative assemblies shall be established and all measures of Government shall be decided by public opinion.”

2. “All classes, high and low, shall unite in vigorously carrying out the plan of Government.”

3. “Officials, civil and military, and all lowly people shall as far as possible be allowed to fulfil their just desires so that there may not be any discontent among them.”

4. “Uncivilized customs of former times shall be abolished and everything shall be determined on just and equitable principles of Heaven and Earth.”

5. “Knowledge shall be sought for throughout the World, so that the welfare of the Empire may be promoted.”

This was indeed the morning bell breaking the monotony of the quiet dawn, awakening the whole of Japan to the restoration of the old Japanese Idealism. “Close Door Policy” and “Self-Importance Policy” so favoured by Tokugawa Shogunate for three hundred years must now be entirely shaken off, and the Three Great Principles of Japanese Idealism which are Cultivation of Righteousness, Accumulation of Happiness, and Achievement of Glories must be fulfilled. Above all, to foster righteousness it is necessary, first of all, to be well versed in every phase of civilization, ancient and modern, of the West as well as the East and then to analyse it; eradicate the bad and accentuate the good. This point is plainly described in the passage of a poem once written by the Emperor:

The bad I'll leave, the good I'll take,

For the folk in my lands;

Would I could lift and raise this realm

Above all other lands!

Indeed, Emperor Meiji is an incarnate National Principles. Throughout his reign of fifty years, the Emperor always cultured and guided the people by his personal action and by Imperial Rescript. The Emperor virtually realized his predecessor Emperor Sujin's Principle “To Govern is to Culture”. The Rescript of 1889 is the most typical one explaining the old Japanese Idealism in the modern light. The whole text runs:

Our Imperial Ancestors have founded Our Empire on a basis broad and everlasting, and have deeply and firmly implanted Virtue; Our Subjects ever united in loyalty and filial piety have from generation to generation illustrated the beauty thereof. This is the glory of the National Principles of Our Empire, and herein also lies the source of Our education. Ye, our subjects, be filial to your parents, affectionate to your brothers and sisters; as husbands and wives be harmonious, as friends true; comport yourselves with modesty and moderation; extend your benevolence to all; pursue learning and perfect moral powers; furthermore, advance public good and promote common interests; always respect the constitution and observe the laws; should emergency arise, offer yourselves courageously to the State, and thus guard and maintain the prosperity of our Imperial Throne coeval with Heaven and Earth. So shall Ye not only be Our good and faithful subjects, but render illustrious the best traditions of your forefathers. The way here set forth is indeed the teaching bequeathed by Our Imperial Ancestors, to be observed alike by Their Descendants and subjects, infallible for all ages and true in all places. It is Our wish to lay it to heart in all reverence, in common with you, Our subjects, that we may thus all attain the same Virtue.

Every word is the modern exaltation and explanation of Old Idealism, originated by the Ancestors of three thousand years ago. It must be remembered that the modern Japanese Idealism is not a new creation but is only a new aspect of Ancient Principles. It is a common fallacy that European people, judging from material civilization, come to the conclusion that the modern Japanese Culture is but the product of recent years. Nothing is more remote from the fact. This is why the first line of the Rescript starts with “Our Imperial Ancestors who have founded Our Empire on a basis broad and everlasting and have deeply and firmly implanted Virtue.” A passage of the Emperor's poem also describes this point in lucid style:

Inquire we into what befall

In hoar antiquity,

And render clear the mazy doubts

That puzzle men today!

The Emperor always rejected the idea of mere imitation of Western civilization, nor did the Japanese people as a whole ever justify it. With the incessant guidance of the Emperor, the Japanese people were able to make remarkable strides in modern development in dealing with all European civilizations in accordance with the Law of National Principles — Cultivation of Righteousness, Accumulation of Happiness, and Achievement of Glories. This is distinctly illustrated in one of the Emperor's Poems:

To curly-headed infants born

In these progressive times

Let's, to begin with, teach the tales

Of old and ancient rhymes.

Previous to the issue of the Rescript of 1889, the Japanese Imperial Constitution was established, and on its publication the Emperor avowed to the divine spirits of His Imperial Forefathers and Ancestors:

The Code is only an embodiment of the teachings bequeathed by our Imperial Ancestors... and is nothing but an enactment of the Great Principle of Sovereignty left by Our Imperial forefathers. It is only with the guidance of the divine spirits of Our Imperial ancestors and the late Emperor that I could realize this task in my reign.

From this, it is clear that the Constitution just established is merely an embodiment of the teachings of the Ancestors and that the code is not a new invention nor is it the imitation of European systems. The spirit of Law is the inherent principles of ancestors.

The same idea is also lucidly expressed in the last paragraphs of the Imperial Rescript of 1889:

The Way here set forth is indeed the teaching bequeathed by Our Imperial Ancestors, to be observed alike by Their Descendants and the Subjects, infallible for all ages and true in all places. It is Our wish to lay it to heart in all reverence in common with you, Our Subjects, that we may thus all attain the same Virtue.

In the interpretation of Politics, the Constitution is the administration of the National Principles. The two are founded on one and the same basis, Ancient Idealism.

Let us now study the Imperial Rescript of 1908 and see how clearly this conviction is announced therein.

We are convinced that with the rapid and unceasing advance of Civilization, the East and West, mutually dependent and helping each other, are bound by common interests. It is Our sincere wish to continue to enjoy for ever its benefits in common with other Powers by entering into closer and closer relations and strengthening our friendship with them. Now, in order to be able to move onward along with the constant progress of the World and to share in the blessings of civilization, it is obvious that we must develop our internal resources.

Our nation, but recently emerged from an exhausting war, must put forth increased activity in every branch of administration. It, therefore, behoves our people to endeavour with one mind, from the highest to the lowest, to pursue their callings honestly and earnestly, to be industrious and thrifty, to abide in faith and righteousness, to be simple and warm-hearted, to put away ostentation and vanity, and strive after the useful and solid, to avoid idleness and indulgence, and to apply themselves incessantly to strenuous and arduous tasks, etc.

In the reign of Emperor Meiji, Japan had to fight twice with foreign enemies, at an interval of about ten years, once with China and the other time with Russia, and both campaigns resulted in great victories to Japan. The above Rescript is intended to teach the people after these wars. The Japanese were once mistakenly taken to be a warlike people, and Japan was mistaken for militarism incarnate. However, nothing is more antagonistic than Militarism and the Japanese Principles. The Japanese people, therefore, have a strong aversion to the “Yellow Peril” Propaganda originated by the late Emperor of Germany. Emperor Meiji is a firm believer in Pacifism advocated by Emperor Jimmu. One day he composed the following poem:

How strange world's waves

So fiercely do rage!

For to me Humanities

Are but one family.

Therefore, even if, by inevitable circumstances we are forced to stand with arms in hand, we must not forget humanity. This is the Old Japanese Idealism. This Pacificism is beating in all Japanese hearts, and the Emperor expressed this principle on every occasion. The following poems are examples:

E'en while ye smite with all your might

Your country's bitter foe,

Let not your hearts forget with love

Of all mankind to glow.

Twixt realm and realm reigns peace again,

And universal joy;

I bless my star that I have lived

To see this joyous day!

Since Modern Nichirenism suddenly arose with great force some forty years ago, initiated by my father, Mr Chigaku Tanaka, the leader of the movement, the study of Ancient Idealism became a general subject in intellectual circles, side by side with the movement for enlightening the general public. The modern Nichirenism is thus steadily gaining ground and importance among Japanese people. The movement is promoted and guided by my father to whom I owe this present study.

7. CONCLUSION

We have now studied the rough outline of Japanese Ancient Idealism and its history. In my opinion, this Principle or Ideal is not only of great necessity for the existence of Japan and her people, but also of great importance for the whole world. I firmly believe that this is the final goal to which all nations in the world must naturally and essentially aim. It is an undeniable fact that a new wave of humanism is approaching. As yet we know only the foam and froth of it. The recently formed “League of Nations” is a step towards the realization of this Ideal. We must advance further, step by step, until we reach the highest stage typified by the National Principles of the Japanese Ancient Idealism.

It is with regret that I have to confess that, even in Japan, there are not many who believe in, and act in accordance with the Ancient Idealism. Japanese people show intense interest in European civilization and some of them welcome every bit of Western civilization with almost fanatical zeal. These people are forgetting that there are such beautiful National Principles which are characteristics of their own country.

I sincerely hope that there will come a time when the value of the Japanese Ancient Idealism will be recognized and appreciated by European philosophers and thinkers, and their assiduous study would eventually and reciprocally stimulate researches of this principle of Japan.

It is doubtless under the authority of historical materials (which I have already introduced) that such an idealism of Japan has been reserved and developed throughout history, taking the form of loyalty and filial piety ever since the country was established. Professor B. H. Chamberlain writes in his work “The Invention of a New Religion” that the Japanese Spirit, that is, loyalty and patriotism is a new religion which was invented in the twentieth century. Needless to say, such a view is ascribed to dogmatic unresearched words which are absolutely worthless. I think this is too well proved by the historical facts which I have stated above.

The object of the present work is merely to introduce Japanese Ancient Idealism as it is, and I hope that I have succeeded in giving you a rough idea of it.

END