More Than A Bookmark: Eisai The Thanker
Wallace Gary
Journal of Chinese Philosophy
Vol.13 (1986)
P.49-67
Copyright(c) 1986 by Dialogue Publishing Company, Honollulu,
U.S.A.
.
P.49
This essay is a call to Chinese and Japanese
scholars to communicate more fully to the
English-speaking world the contribution of Eisai as
transmitter of Ch'an Buddhism from China to Japan in
the period around 1200.
It would seem that the major work of Eisai, the
founder of one of the two most significant schools
of Japanese Zen, namely, Rinzai-shuu, would deserve
translation into English so that readers of that
language would have the opportunity to judge for
themselves the value of Eisai's thought. Such a
translation has not yet been made, despite the
extensive translation into English of Dogen, the
founder of Soto Zen, a rival sect.
The neglect of Eisai may be illuminated by the
notion of paradigm shift. When a whole constellation
of beliefs and practices in a communal setting is
transformed,we have a paradigm shift in the sense of
this essay. In India a paradigm shift from Hinduism
to Buddhism had occurred, because of which self and
karma were thought of in entirely new ways. When Zen
migrated from India to China and from there to
Japan, one or two more paradigm shifts occurred.
Dogen's Zen was concentrated in a single method more
than Eisai's was. Dogen also seemed to see the self
(or more properly the impermanent nonself) as going
with the flow of time rather than exercising power
over time, space, and matter. On the other hand,
Eisai, Dogen's master (directly or indirectly),
seemed to have regarded the self as capable of
almost infinite power over time, space and nature.
Eisai may have introduced or reintroduced
shamanistic, magical elements into Buddhism or he
may simply have transmitted these elements from an
already very eclectic set of Chinese Zen traditions.
In any case, these variations within Buddhism, and
even within Zen, may explain in part why Eisai,
though revered as a founder, has been neglected,
ignored or rejected as a teacher. From the point of
view of people who have either shifted beyond him or
not
P.50
shifted up to him (depending on your world view or
paradigm), his teaching of Zen and of Buddhism was
"impure". This one word, more than any other, may
explain the neglect of Eisai in English.
Science seldom if ever retrogresses in its
paradigm shifts. Its line of development is
therefore linear and irreversible. A return to
Ptolemy in science would have no support in the
scientific community whatsoever. Religion, on the
other hand, is more cyclical in its development. It
does not just shift, it "reshifts," if I may coin a
word. Three main segments may be found on the
ever-rolling hoop of religious evolution: magic,
mysticism and reason. In its paradigm shifts,
religion rolls back over itself touching segments it
may have been thought to have advanced beyond
forever. Returns to mysticism or even some aspects
of magic or belief in the supernatural are not
necessarily viewed as bad in religion. When
religious practitioners or scholars today dub Eisai
as impure, are they unconsciously using scientific
canons rather than religious?
In the text of the following essay, a retran-
slation of Eisai's preface to his major work, Kozen
Gokokuron (Treatise on the Propagation of Zen for
the Protection of the Nation) and in a short
commentary on it,it is seek to shown that his
reflections on the self, mind, and heart of man
raise enough questions about the meaning of his
teaching to deserve suspension of judgment over its
supposed impurity and to stimulate diligent
scholarly effort to get it translated more fully and
adequately into English.
I. EISAI IN ENGLISH TODAY
In America and Europe, Eisai, the founder of
Japanese Rinzai Zen, is a respected but largely
ornamental bookmark in the history of Buddhist
thought. Eisai's thought, as distinguished from his
life and catalytic effect on subsequent Buddhist
history, has not been made available to Western
readers or, for that matter, to readers of English
anywhere. My argument will show the absence in
English of any translation of Eisai's major work
and, secondarily, the failure of the sources
consulted for the present essay to summarize Eisai
in any very systematic or extensive way - thus
making of his substantial work a mere historical
bookmark.
Two very relevant works in the English language
are: Ways of Thinking
P.51
of Eastern Peoples by Hajime Nakamura(1) and
Foundation of Japanese Buddhism by Daigan and Alicia
Matsunaga.(2) Both Nakamura and the Matsunagas
present Eisai as an exponent of a mixed or impure
version of Chinese Ch'an Buddhism. These writers
reflect the original Chinese and Japanese sources,
as well as much of the pertinent Buddhist literature
extant in several other languages. Therefore their
use of words is carefully based on their
interpretation of a vast literature. "Mixed" and
"impure" can be read in a fairly non-judgmental,
descriptive way. But "impure" is such a highly
charged word that it usually carries a derogatory
connotation, at least for laymen and novices. In one
sense it is synonymous with "contaminated." Who
wants to drink contaminated water? What student of
Buddhsim would want to drink his Zen at a
contaminated well?
It may be no accident that standard reference
works tell us little about Eisai and next to nothing
about his thought, while Dogen is much better
served. For example, the excellent Sources of
Japanese Tradition. Volume I (1958), contains about
five-and-a-half pages of material relative to Eisai
and about thirteen-and-a-half on Dogen. This gives
Dogen two-and-a-half times as much space as Eisai.
Nakamura's Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples (1964
edition) contains four references to Eisai and forty
references to Dogen, a ratio of ten to one in
Dogen's favor. The Matsunagas' Foundotion of
Japanese Buddhism, Volume II (1976) , devotes
eighty-one pages to Zen, of which one-half of a page
concerns Eisai's thought and twelve pages delineate
Dogen's, ratio of twelve to one in Dogen's favor. I
am aware of the irony implicit in my use of
quantitative standards to assess the neglect of a
Zen monk. I would not presume to use abundance of
references to establish his significance. But
quantitative neglect, in Eisai's case, seems to pass
over into qualitative oblivion.
Since, as we shall see in some detail, Eisai's
life has been characterized as "pure" and his
thought as "impure," it is not surprising that his
thought has been neglected. Two other factors may be
equally responsible for Eisai's neglect. Professor
Kenneth Inada explains the first: "As you know, a
plethora of works on Dogen have come out in the last
decade or so (in English). It was a reaction against
so-called 'Suzuki Zen' which represented much the
Rinzai School to which Eisai belonged. So Dogen
entered the scene to correct the imbalance."(3) The
other major cause of Eisai's neglect may be the fact
that Dogen is the more original thinker of the two.
P.52
But how are we in the English-speaking world to
judge this without the benefit of translation from
Eisai? In what follows,we shall first concentrate on
analyzing and perhaps solving the problem of
"purity." Then we shall, on the basis of what is
available, try to show the philosophical interest
and importance of Eisai's thought in its own right.
II. THE PROBLEM OF PURITY
There is a long tradition which regards Eisai's Zen
as impure. Eisai himself may have regarded some
expressions of his thought as impure because they
were necessarily compromised due to political
considerations. Some background from his life and
times may serve to explain why he may have worried
about purity.
Eisai Myoan(a) (1142-1215) was the founder of
institutional Zen in Japan-more specifically, of the
Rinzai-shuu(b) (sect), which was called"Linchi" in
China. Dogen Kigen(c) (1200-1253), Eisai's disciple
(though perhaps only indirectly) , founded the
Soto-shuu(d) of Zen in Japan, called "Ts'ao-t'ung"
in China. Together, these constitute the most
important branches of Japanese Zen.
Eisai, like so many others of his generation,
started his religious life on Mt.Hiei where he
studied Tantric Buddhism by personal oral teaching
and training. He soon decided to try to deepen his
understanding by visiting China and even eventually
India, the birthplace of Buddhism. The Chinese
authorities never permitted his departure from their
coasts for India, but he did complete two trips to
China at a time when communication with the mainland
was considered all but impossible. Zen was the only
form of Buddhism which Eisai found still flourishing
in China. In 1191 he returned to Japan as a fully
approved master carrying the inka,(e) the seal which
formally permitted him to teach Zen of the Rinzai
variety. He carried with him something which has
caused him to be even more generally appreciated by
posterity: tea. This he introduced to Japan to help
keep his fellow monks awake and healthy. In 1211 he
wrote a two-volume work called Kissa Yojoki(f)
(Drinking Tea for Health).
In Kyoto Eisai urged the adoption of both Zen
and tea but soon met opposition from the already
established religious groups. So he moved to
P.53
Kamakura where he met with greater acceptance. It is
a stubborn legend that Zen found immediate
acceptance from the samurai. They initially
suspected it of being too aristocratic for them. It
took more than a halfcentury for the successors of
Eisai to gain the confidence and emulation of the
samurai. The initial success and patronage for
Eisai's Zen came from the highest placed
authorities.
Nevertheless, when Eisai returned to Kyoto, he
encountered opposition again. Therefore, he is said
to have compromised Zen in order to make it
acceptable.(4) On the other hand, the spirit of Zen,
like the Taoism which influenced its development in
China, is a flowing, flexible spirit. In view of
that fact, did Eisai compromise Zen or merely
manifest its natural functioning? The Matsunagas
imply that Eisai might have continued to hold some
of his "impure" views even under more favorable
political circumstances.(5)
As soon as one wishes to understand the major
difference between Dogen and Eisai, the problem of
purity arises acutely. In the context of the present
essay "the problem of purity" means the difficulty
of characterizing Eisai's thought without the
intrusion of value-laden words, most notably 'pure"
and "impure." The Matsunagas state the scholarly
consensus-and illustrate our problem--when they
write: "Although Eisai is considered to be the
founder of Japanese Zen and legiimate transmitter of
the Rinzai school, his teachings are generally
regarded as impure Zen.... " They proceed to
attribute Eisai's "impurity" to his own "esoteric"
interests and to the necessity during his age of
presenting Zen in the mixed form known as
Enmitsuzenkai,(g) a blending of Tendai (which itself
was a Chinese and Japanese effort to accomodate all
points of view), esoteric elements (mitsu),(h) Zen
meditation, and Buddhist disciplinary.rules
(vinaya).(6)
The word "esoteric," like "pure" and "impure,"
can be misleading to the general reader. It is a
rather precise technical term meaning "Tantric
Buddhism." The two main characteristics of Tantric
Buddhism are its emphasis on chanting sutras and its
emphasis upon attaining superior, supernormal
abilities (to benefit the nation). The most direct
way of explaining "Tantrism" to the layman is to
describe it as unusually "magical" or even
"superstitious." The pull here toward loaded terms
is just another illustration of "the problem of
purity." The early Tantric tradition in Japan is
known as Kozo mitsu which means "ancient Impure
Tantrism" (italics ours). The
P.54
Matsunagas, who give this information, (7) do not
also give the Chinese character for "impure." The
character means "mix."
"Pure" sometimes means "single-practice" in the
context of Zen history. But "single-practice" is
almost as ambiguous as "pure." The term
Enmitsuzenkai, as we have seen, refers to four ways
melded into one. "Single-practice" in reference to
these ways means the practice of only one of the
four: Zen. But what is single-practice Zen-the
practice of koanconcentration and seated meditation,
or the latter alone? "Purity" moves from four ways
to two ways; from two ways to one way; and perhaps
from one way to none, if, as the technical Buddhist
term "emptiness" seems to imply, there is no way
discrete from life as a kind of liberated and
indivisible being-in-time.
I have been unable to locate any quotation of
Eisai's which can help us decide what
"single-practice Zen" might have meant to him. But
Nakamura does provide us with two quotations from
Eisai which make clear what his two most important
Zen values are: self-discipline and benevolence. In
rebutting the criticism that Zen was too much
obsessed with the idea of emptiness, Eisai wrote:
"To prevent by means of self-discipline evil from
without and to help others with benevolence from
within, this is what Zen is." Nakamura states the
Eisai's second quotation is a way of justifying the
strict rules of ascetics of the Zen sect. Eisai
says, "You should arouse the spirit of great
benevolence... and save mankind everywhere with the
pure and supreme disciplines of the Great
Bodhisattva, but you ought not to seek deliverance
for your own sake."(8)
III. A CRUCIAL EISAI TEXT
In order to inspire scholars who have the necessary
tools (or are acquiring them) to bring out
translations of Eisai's magnum opus in Euroamerican
languages, and to shed light on the purity question
as well on Eisai's thought in its own right, we here
present our own translation more precisely a
paraphrase of the first part of the introduction to
that work.(9) The reader would do well to compare
the following with the translation found in Sources
of Japanese Tradition.(10) The two translations
differ significantly.
P.55
Introduction to the Argument that to Promote Zen is
to Protect the Nation, by Eisai, the acharya [one
who knows and teaches the rules] who has returned to
Japan after studying on Mt. T'ien Tai in the Country
of the Great Sung, who holds the priestly rank of
The Great Dharma Teacher for the Propagation of the
Light, and who outlines the following:
How encompassingly great is the true mind of man! It
is not possible to measure the heights of heaven,
but the mind of man transcends those heights. The
depths of the earth are impossible to fathom, but
the mind of man reaches deeper than the bottom of
such depths. The light of the sun and moon cannot be
excelled; and yet the mind of man excels the light
of sun and moon. The universe contemplated by
Buddhism is immeasurably vast, but the mind of man
is larger yet than this macrocosm. Mind envelops the
Great Space and is pregnant with Primal Energy.
Heaven and earth are at the behest of the mind
and heart of oneself(ware)(q); heaven encompassing
the myriad things above, and earth supporting the
myriad things below. The sun and moon move by means
of oneself (ware); the four seasons of Spring,
Summer, Autumn, and Winter change by means of
oneself; the myriad things are generated by means of
oneself.
How encompassingly great is the true mind of man!
There is nothing that is not founded through the
operation of mind and heart. We cannot help but
extol the greatness of this mind and heart of man!
It is impossible to put a name on such a giant of a
thing, but if it becomes necessary, we can call it
"Kokoro." The teaching that expresses this Kokoro is
called the most superior and incomparably great
teaching; it is also called the teaching that
clarifies the First Principle. It is called the True
Characteristic of Prajna (Wisdom) and again the
Primal Truth Dharmadhatu; again, it is the Way to
enlightenment as seen in the teaching of
Suramgama-Samadhi(11) (or Dhyana) ; again, the
teaching of the Treasury of the Correct Dharma Eye;
again, the wonderful Mind and Heart of Nirvana.
Accordingly,
P.56
the Buddha's lifetime teaching is explained
through the three types of Dharma Wheel and
Eight Treasuries of Scriptures, as well as the
Four Schools (or Denominations) of Zen, or
explained through the Five Yanas(vehicles), but
all these Teachings come together in this
Kororo.
The most important term in the above is the one
we have chosen to leave untranslated part of the
time as "Kokoro." "Mind" could appropriately be
expanded to mind/heart, for kokoro(r) is a kind of
synthesis of intellect (mind) and the whole person
as concentrated in one's core organ (heart). It is
interesting that the translation in Sources of
Japanese Tradition (SJT) uses "Mind" for kokoro and
opens with the terse and evocative formula, "Great
is Mind." Indeed, the powers attributed to kokoro
remind us of "spirit" in Jewish, Christian and
Islamic scriptures and thought. But kokoro is a
human thing. It is not God but rather egoless human
consciousness which can be achieved by arduous human
discipline.(12) It bears comparison with both the
ontaryamin in Hindu Vaishnava or the Holy Spirit in
such Christian traditions as that of the Quakers
(Friends).
As Eisai himself explains in this same introduc-
tion, the Zen vision of the Law or Dharma
"outwardly... favors discipline over doctrine" and
"inwardly... brings the Highest Inner Wisdom. This
is what the Zen sect stands for." Proper Zen study,
Eisai claims in the same passage, provides "the key
to all forms of Buddhism."
When Eisai speaks authoritatively of the key to
"what the Zen sect stands for," he is claiming to
possess the unifying principle or set of principles
for the body of knowledge or practice which he
represents. In his more or less systematic extolling
of kokoro as well as in his careful enumeration of
Buddhist doctrines and sacred writings, he seems to
be synthesizing, organizing or integrating the way
of action and insight called Zen. This directly
contravenes the stereotype of Zen by D.T. Suzuki and
others. According to the common stereotype, Zen is
not at all concerned with these matters. In Eisai,
then-at least in the little preface to his major
work-we stand in the presence of systematics on the
part of a man whose whole tradition is noted for its
claim to transcend of even eliminate systematics.
On the opposite extreme from questions of phi-
losophical system lie important questions of
religion; specifically, questions of what is
variously
P.57
called primal, primitive or shamanistic religion.
Did Eisai intend to attribute magical or miraculous
powers to kokoro? (Presumably Eisai means only
enlightened mind when he speaks of kokoro, but this
illustrates once more the need to expose such
questions to the relevant texts in such a way that
scholars outside of China and Japan can examine
matters at least in part for themselves.) Was
Eisai's praise of kokoro mainly a form of hyperbole
signifying the tearing away of the mind's small
egoistic boxes, those restrictive universes of
discourse we all get trapped in?
There are functional and definitional aspects to
the question: What does kokoro control and what
controls kokoro; and, what is kokoro anyway? Let us
examine the functional or control question first. It
would seem, at first glance anyway, that what Jesus
taught his disciples and what Eisai taught his is
very similar at one point which just may illuminate
the control question for us. The shaman offers more
than peace of mind. In this respect both Eisai and
Jesus appear to be more like shamans than saints or
savoirs. The latter may be concerned only with holy
or detached states of mind. Mind (kokoro) confronts
three options: to change the world, to retreat from
the world or to reflect (or reflect on) the world.
Zen, and perhaps Eisai's own teaching, may have been
interpreted too exclusively in terms of retreat or
detachment and too little in terms of change and
reflection. Mind as a reflective change-factor lends
itself to brief comparison with faith (an attitude
of mind and heart) as a change factor.
Jesus promised his disciples that they could move
mountains if they prayed with sufficient faith;
Eisai seems to imply (in his all-too-brief preface)
that his disciples or readers could take charge of
anything provided only they have cultivated right
kokoro, since, as Eisai himself says, "Heaven and
earth are at the behest of the mind and heart of the
self...;the myriad things are generated through
oneself." Successors of either Jesus or Eisai may
tend to water this down philosophically by
minimizing the importance, or even reality, of the
external, physical world, and exalting inner states
of mind; then the problem of man becomes to gain
control of his inner states and perceivings in such
a way as to produce peace of mind. In more religious
terms, successors may be tempted to interpret
original teachings as figurative or psychological
and thus avoid the problem that arises when a
sincere neophyte looks at himself or herself and
says, "I can move neither mountains nor even myself,
so I'm glad the promise is only figurative. Perhaps
by faith
P.58
or the strenuous cultivation of a right heart I can
at least learn to move the part of the universe
which is small and close to me, myself. At least
that is but one thing and not the whole universe or
even one mountain."
It is interesting that the preceding paragraph
reveals an obsession with control. Would the
historic Sakyamuni have encouraged the effort to
control anything except selfish desire? And would
Sakyamuni Buddha have encouraged the thought that
there is anything to be controlled in a sea of
impermanence (in the light of anicca) or anyone to
do the controlling (in the light of anatta)? Eisai
by means of his book hoped to exercise effective
political persuasion, so that his way might be given
hearing and allowed to serve as a pinch of salt in a
degenerate age, mappo.(s) Is not the implication of
"Propagation of Zen for the Protection of the
Country," as focused in its Preface, that a ruler
whose mind is great could control his subjects even
in chaotic times? If the answer to this question is
yes, it may imply that a purely apolitical early
doctrine has been transformed by Eisai and others
into an eminently political one.
The contrasts between Eisat and Sakyamuni, based
on our tentative interpretation of a brief text,
suggest that the historical Buddha and Eisai
differed significantly at the three points having to
do with what kokoro can do, what it is and whether
or not it is at all political. What must the
historian of philosophy make of such differences? Is
the only alternative to declare Eisai's doctrine
"impure"? Obviously not.
A better way is to accept that doctrines go
through changes at the hands of transmitters that
the transmitters themselves are largely unconscious
of making. When the changes, are cumulatively so
great that they no longer be ignored, they are
rejected by reformers or rationalized by
philosophers or theologians. Changes are neither
inevitably good nor inevitably bad but they are
inevitable. Maybe we all hate to admit that things
change as much as they do, and so we hang on to our
name-tags even when they no longer apply. We might
benefit some morning if on awaking,we found that
during the night collective amnesia had caused all
of us to forget all the names of the groups,
movements, parties and religions we were affiliated
with so that we had to choose a new, more
appropriate name for each of our groups and
ideologies. At any rate, the wider issue raised
herein is that of philosophical and religious
nomenclature and not just Eisai's "purity."
Nakamura extensively documents the adaptations
the Japanese (speci-
P.59
fically Eisai, Dogen, etc.) made in what they
derived l from other cultures. One's overall
impression is that these adaptations, in Nakamura's
judgment, not only changed but degraded the Buddhist
intellectual tradition. Some developments, Nakamura
suggests repeatedly, were completely unbuddhistic.
The Matsunagus dub these developments "impure"
without distinguishing sufficiently for the reader
whether all.change damages Buddhism or whether some
adaptations (even "impure" Eisai's) might represent
the kind of "stirring in" of new ideas which is part
of the creative advance of intellectual history.
To the person standing outside of Eisai's
tradition, Eisai's praise of kokoro and his use of
ware (self) might seem somehow untrue to original
Buddhist teaching, but mind (kokora) as he uses the
term is not necessarily substantial, unchanging,
individualized atta (Skt. atman); hence his usage
may be quite consistent with the anatta teaching.
Again, we need a better chance to test this thesis
directly or indirectly against Eisai's own
writings.(13)
IV."YOU STUDENTS SHOULD KEEP THIS IN MIND"
Just as mind should not be dissociated from the
universe, according to Eisai, so thinking, according
to our view of the history of philosophy, should not
be dissociated entirely from the life of the
thinker.
Although Dogen considered that his version of
Zen was superior to Eisai's, and that his version
was the true representation not only of Zen but of
Buddhism generally, that exclusivism did not prevent
him from narrating the following story to his
disciples:
While Eisai the abbot was still at Kenninji
monastery, a poor man once came and said, "My
family is so destitute that they have had
nothing to cook for several days. Myself, my
wife, and our three children are on the verge
of starvation. For pity's sake, please help
us.' " Because the Abbot had nothing-no food,
no clothing, no money-available for charity,
he was at his wit's end. There was, however,
some beaten copper waiting to be formed into a
halo for a statue of the Lord of healing.
Eisai
P.60
broke it into pieces and gave the copper to
the man. "Exchange this for food and save your
family from starvat -ion." The man departed
rejoicing.
But some of Eisai's disciples objected, say-
ing,"This was no less than the halo of the
Buddha statue. Giving it to a layman
constitutes the crime of using what belongs to
the Buddha for one's own private purposes.
Isn't that wrong?
"You are right," the Abbot admitted, "but
just consider the will of the Buddha. He
sacrificed his very flesh and limbs for the
sake of all mankind. If some men are about to
die of starvation, would he not want us to
give the whole Buddha figure to save them?
Even if I should go to Hell for this crime, I
would want to save people from starvation."
Having concluded the story,Dogen said to his own
disciples, "Such loftiness of purpose is well worth
reflecting upon. You students should keep this in
mind."(14)
Dogen, measuring Eisai's life and thinking here
by the kind of standard which Eisai himself
enunciated, finds him pure enough to deserve
emulation.(15) And we, eight centuries later, can
see that in his time Eisai's life was an admirable
blend of compassion and wisdom. Did approximately
the same blend of these virtues pervade his writing
and thinking as is seen so clearly in his life? In
order to answer that question we would need to know
exactly what Eisai said in all of his more important
writings.(16)
V. CONCLUSION
In closing, it should be mentioned that two other
things are needed, one having to do with the purity
question and the other with the content of Eisai's
thought apart from its purity. First, we need a more
judicious use of terms like "pure" and "impure" with
reference to Buddhist thinkers. If a scholar means
"consistent with a particular tradition," let him or
her say exactly that rather than use the adjective
"pure" without qualification, If one means
multipractice Zen (as opposed to the single-practice
emphasis that came to dominate both the Rinzai and
Soto branches of Zen in the
P.61
Kamakura period), it will sound less misleading and
judgmental to say what one means rather than talk
about "impure" or even "mixed" Zen. "Impure" as a
designation may imply considerably more-or less-than
one intends. Because the term seems to be rather
fixed in the histories of Buddhism, it may be
impossible and undesirable to banish it entirely.
Perhaps what is needed is the kind of sophistication
which cultural anthropology brings to the use of
such terms. They do have a tendency to carry their
users beyond the bounds of rational definition, if
not rational discourse as well. "Impure" may allow
its uncritical users to post rather unfortunate
"Keep Out" signs around some areas of thought.
The content, or at least possible content, of
Eisai's eaching may be the best spur to taking it
more seriously and disseminating it more widely. The
importance for Eisai of active mind and heart
(kokoro) is seen in Eisai's giving a copper halo to
a poor man, in his mode of justifying that action
and, finally,in his extolling kokoro not only as the
all-embracing reality but as the source of Primal
Energy. The concept of active kokoro stands in
contrast to the usual view of Buddhist detachment as
leading to passivity and seclusion.
In Japanese, nouns like kokoro can be construed
as either singular or plural. This linguistic fact
leaves open the interesting question: Does Eisai
teach a theory of mind, minds or Mind-or all three?
In metaphysical terms, does he teach a form of
phenomenalism, process philosophy, pluralism or
panpsychism (if not panentheism)?
A summary of some of the main conclusions and
presuppositions of and the Matsunagas may help us
hear both what has been accomplished by them with
reference to Japanese Buddhism in general and what
has been missed with reference to Eisai-as well as
to understand why it has been missed.
Nakamura is convinced that the Japanese have
tended to pervert Buddhism into nationalistic,
phenomenalistic, non-rational and non-universal
forms of religion. He is at pains to help guard his
countrymen from such ultarnationalistic,
militaristic tragedies as World War II, which he
interprets as the result of the unchecked social and
cultural tndencies of the Japanese. Since Eisai
wrote a treatise with a nationalistic-sounding
title, it is not that Eisai's work is somewhat
minimized by Nakamura. But Japanese Zen, he sees,
has two redeeming features: its philosophical
contri-
P.62
butions and its exaltation of compassion. For Eisai,
compassion is the chief virtue.(17)
The Matsunagas, on the other hand, tend to put
"compassion" in quotation marks. The rays of
enlightenment proceed from the principle of
enlightenment as rays proceed naturally from the
sun. The unenlightened might like to thank the sun
as a benevolent goddess. But the enlightened know
that the sun (or Buddha-nature) shines of necessity,
"oblivious to the concerns of those touched by its
rays." "For unenlightened man, unaware of the nature
of reality..., altruistic actions can only be
interpreted as 'compassion."' For Eisai compassion
is ultimate. For the Matsunagas there is a mature
state of mind above "compassion." Therefore, the
Matsunagas, we argue, might tend to be deaf to what
Eisai considered his own most important
pronouncements.(18)
The "book of Eisai"should be even more interest-
ing than the "ornamental bookmark" of his
reputation. We look forward to reading it.(19) Yet
perhaps we should remind ourselves that the history
of Zen, even with the benefit of all relevant texts,
is like a perverse Koan designed to awaken the
historian of Zen to ahistorical enlightenment.
SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE
NOTES
1. Hajime Nakamura, Ways of Thinking of Eastem Peoples:
Indian, China, Tibet, Japan ( Honolulu: East-West
Center Press, 1964).
2. Daigan and Alicia Matsunaga,Foundation of Japanese
Budhism, in two volumes: Vol I, The Aristocraric
Age (1974), and Vol. II, The Mass Movement:
Kamakura & Muromachi Periods (Los Angeles, Tokyo:
Buddhist Books International, second printing:
Vo1. I, 1978 and Vol. II, (1982).
3. Letter to Wallace Gray dated December 21, 1982.
Inada continues: " Since Esai as a Kamdtura
period Zen man, as Dogen is, he ought to be given
'equal time and space,' although I suspect that
his thought is not as seminal as Dogen's. But I
would wholeheartedly approve of any studies on
Eirai in the future." Three other sentences from
Dr. Inada's letter are pertinent to our inquiry:
"You are quite correct about the neglect
('benign'?) by Western scholars, including
P.63
Japanese scholars who write in English of Eisai's
works. Only a few sporadic accounts of his works
have came out but I should like to think that his
neglect will soon be over.... He should be the
rightful Link of Rinzai Zen to the Chinese
masters of that lineage as he, just as Dogen,
went to the source, i.e. China (twice), to refine
his understanding and practice."
4. Sources of Japanese Tradition, Volume I, compiled
by Ryusaku Tsunoda, Wm. Theodore de Bary and
Donald Keene (New York: Columbia Univ. Press,
1958), 229-230. Hereafter SJT.
5. Matsunaga,II,216. The following paragraphs depend
rather heavily on II, 183- 203.
6. Ibid. In conference response to this essay, Pro-
fessor Kasulis pointed out that Eisai is still
honored in the Tendai tradition and perhaps is
even closer to it than to Zen.
7. Matsunaga, I, 111.
8. Nakamura, p. 382, citing Eisai's Toisho. LXXX, 7b
& 12a.
9. Our tranrlation-paraphrape is mainly the work of
Hideo Murakami. Editing the translation has been
done by Hiroyoshi Sakamoto and myself.
Consultation with Tom Kasulis was invaluable in
putting on the finishing touches. The translation
is nor based directly on the "read-through"
(yomikudnshi) Chinese text, which is printed at
the top of the pager (92 ff.) in Volume I of a
recent edition of Eisai's works, but rather on a
modern paraphrase or "interpretation" which
occurs in the middle of each page of this same
edition. The modern version as well as the
annotations at the bottom of the pace are by
Shokin Furuta, a Rinzai Zen scholar. My xeroxed
copies of the introduction to Kozen Gokokuron
unfortunately do not carry the full bibliographic
information on this edition of Eisai's works. I
believe it is the standard one but cannot
determine exactly its relationship to the text
used as the basis of the translation found in
SJT. The "readthrough" text referred to earlier
in this note was in turn based on Eisai's
Chinese-character text which contained no
hiragana or katakana (Japanese phonetic letters).
In correspondence, Murakami has clarified the
relation between Eisai's Chinese text and the
Japanese representations of it. The upper text,
Murakami explains, "is termed yomikudashi or the
mere 'reading-through' of the original Chinese
version. Since this is literally the
reading-through, it may be used as the model for
the interpretation-reading (printed in the middle
of the page), or the Chinese version (which war
what Eisai wrote in) may be used as the model for
the interpretation. (My English translation war
based generally on the modern Japanese version in
the middle section of the page.)"
10. SJT, pp.235-237.
11. Murakami's examination of the Chinese text
demonstrates that this is the correct reading as
opposed to SJT's "Lankavatara Sutra." He writes
to Prof. Wm. Theodare de Bary in a letter of
January 13, 1984, the following:
P.64
"In the course of assisting Prof. Wallace Gray
of Southwestern University (Kan.) in the
translation of a preface to ten master Eisai's
work, the KOZEN GOKOKU RON 興禪護國論, I found
that the name 楞嚴三昧 appearing in this
particular preface under consideration (Eisai
wrote two), on page 2 of the ZOKU SHOSHUUBU, v.
80, of the TAISHO Tripitaka (used by you as the
source of the translation) has been rendered as
"Lankaavaatara Sutra" (p.363,2nd line from the
bottom, in "The Buddhist Tradition in India,
China and Japan", published by the Modern
Library, -edited by you-in Feb. 1969; ditto the
Vintage Books edition out in 1972; these two
reprinted-as the flyleaf of the title page
indicates- from the "Sources of Japanese
Tradition," published in 1958, by the Columbia
University Press, similarly edited by you)
"The name 楞嚴三昧, as Dr. Nakamura Hajime's
BUKKYOGO DAIJITEN 佛教語大辭典 (3 v.) points out,
is an abbreviation of 首楞嚴三昧 which is the
Chinese transliteration of the Romanized sanskrit
"Suurangama samaadhi" (or to the sutra bearing
this name) , add does not refer to the
Lankaavataara Suutra as indicated in the above
works. There are, in fan, no references to the
Lankaavataara Suutra in this particular preface."
"May I also point out that Soothill and Hodous's
A DICTIONARY OF CHINESE BUDDHIST TERMS, published
in 1937 (reprinted in 1977) states the same. But,
because the term 楞嚴經 (Suurangama Suutra ) is
listed under the columnar heading of 楞伽
(La.nkaa) towards its very end, with the
description of the Lankaavatara Sutra occupying
nearly all of the space prior to it, were the
translator using this dictionary, he (or she)
could have been confounded. These two are
entirely different.sutras."
12.In personal correspondence, Murakami explains in
part why Eisai puts such a tremendous emphasis on
mind. "He, as you may know, studied the Yogacara
school (or Vij~naana-vaada) which may be
translated as representation-only, or
consciousness-only school; in other words,
Buddhist Idealism. According to its teachings, no
abject can exist apart from the function of
cognition by the subject. The function of the
subject is the basis on which objects have their
appearance. I hope this will help clarify some of
your doubts. " This statement may help unravel
some knotty puzzles which are mentioned
subsequently in the text of this article.
13.If those of us who cannot read medieval Chinese
were able to consult dependable translations of
Eisai's Kozen Gokokuron, we might find that Eisai
actually said something very much like the
interpretation derived from the subsequent Rinzai
tradition. Thinking about this matter in some
frustration, because I did not have the means to
research it fully myself, I decided to write an
insider, Robert Aitken, an acquaintance from
years ago who is no affiliated with the Diamond
Sangha on the island of Maaui in Hawaii. With him
I shared some of my thinking about Eisai,
including how Eisai might have sought to square
his teaching with the anatta doctrine. Finally, I
said, "One of the most unsectarian statements by
a
P.65
sectarian 1 have ever read is Eisai's. How can
that be? I refer to the place in our translation
where Eisai says kokoro is even Larger than the
vast universe contemplated by Buddhism."
My letter caught up with Mr.Aitken in Kamakura.
In his answer to me, he discussed the Preface as
translated (in SJT) from Taisho Daizokyo. [Vol.
80, Zoku Shoshuubu, p. 2]
"The Daizokyo version is quite marvelous.How-
ever, it is not uniquely unsectarian at ail. You
will find this same kind of freedom from
doctrinal limitation in all true Zen teachers.
See, for example, Kim's Dogen Kigen-Mystical
Realist.
"Mind as used by Eisai," Aitken continued, "is
the Dharmakaaya. It is completely empty, yet
charged with potential."
Dharmakaaya is the Mahayana Buddhist term for
the transcendental Buddha in the Buddhist
Trikaaya. Should we not ask in this connection:
Is not this empty yet infinitely charged
potential exactly what Suzuki called mushin,
no-mind or "mind of no-mind"?
Aitken went on to state that physicists have
been uncovering mind for the last sixty years.
"For example, back in 1920 or so, Arthur
Eddington, said,'The universe is mind stuff.'
Nowadays people like David Bohm are conjecturing
that not only is the universe mind, but each
element of the universe, even a blade of grass,
contains within it all that intelligence....
14.Adapted from Dogen's Shobo genzo zuimonki, SJT,
242.
15.While the Matsunagas doubtless overdo the "im-
purity" of Eisai's teaching, one must not assume
that they also overdo the purity of his life.
Actually, they help restrain any tendency of
readers to suppose that Eisai was a plaster
saint. They tell us, for example (II, 192), that
"Eisai was careful to drive an impressive new
carriage whenever he went to court to be certain
that he created a proper image as a
representative of the Dharma, at the same time
maintaining the life of the simplest poverty at
the temple."
16.To be sure that I was not overlooking something
obvious relating to Eisai or his principal work,
our college librarian (Mr. Dan Nutter) and I
checked nine recent volumes of the National Union
Catalogue for possible Eirai material in the
Library of Congress. Result: nothing. Our library
computer terminal is connected to terminals in
libraries holding a total of nine million
volumes, so we directed the computer to print out
for us titles of works in any language which
pertained to Eisai. Result: again, nothing,
unless I am forgetting one title on tea.
17.Nakamura, pp. 382, 299, 448-449.
18.Matsunaga, II,51,102.Lin-chi (d.867), the founder
of Rinzai in China, taught the spontaneous
working of the Buddha-nature in daily activities
such an eating, drinking and defecating. Critics
noted that if the function of the hand could be
regarded as the Buddha nature, "then if that hand
elected to raise the sword and commit murder,
such as action must also be regarded as a
function of the
P.66
Buddha-nature." The Matsunagas (pp. 202-203) are
not willing to go so far nor do they believe that
Lin-chi's admonitions such as "destroy the
Buddha" are for spiritual novices. They are to
keep "the monks who had already mastered the
techniques" from "slipping into complacency." Our
point in the text is not that the immoral or
amoral isencouraged, even for the mature,but that
for them, for Rin-chi and for the Matsunagas, a
moral category is secondary when one is mature.
Eisai certainly does not seem to agree.
19.The present essay will soon be issued in a revised
format for general readers. It will appear as a
chapter on Eirai in Global History of Philosophy,
Volume V. The Global History of Philosophy
series, under the direction of John C. Plott and
James Michael Dolin, is being published in Delhi
by Banarsidass (available in America from Orient
Book Distributors, Box 100, Livingston, NJ
07039). The essay in its present form would have
been impossible without the critical and
constructive counsel of Professor Dan Daniel of
Southwestern College, as well as other colleagues
mentioned above. Hiroyoshi Sakamoto, an exchange
student from international Christian University
in Tokyo, assisted me with Japanese throughout
and the character list at the end.
P.67
DHINESE GLOSSARY
a 榮西明庵 ( 禪師 )
b 臨濟宗
c 道元希玄 ( 禪師 )
d 曹洞宗
e 印可
f 喫茶養生記
g ■密禪戒
h 密
i 悟
j 公案
k 念佛
l 無心
m 工夫
n 無心ソ心
o 老師
p 興禪護國論
q 我
r 心
s 未法
t (土+反)本浩由
u 古朵■