Critical Buddhism

[Wabo]

This topic may have come up before, but I couldn't find anything related to this issue. I have heard that the ideas of Critical Buddhism (批判仏教) are quite popular in Japanese Zen.

They say that the idea of "Buddha nature" (Tathagatagarbha) is the influence of Hinduism, that one should return to the original Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism. Or only the Mahayana of Nagarjuna should be Mahayana. I do not understand how then they relate to Yogachara.

How popular are these ideas in Japan? Do these ideas only exist within Soto Zen? Or are other schools also thinking something similar?

Wabo
Gassho
ST

[Jundo]

This topic may have come up before, but I couldn't find anything related to this issue. I have heard that the ideas of Critical Buddhism (批判仏教) are quite popular in Japanese Zen.

They say that the idea of "Buddha nature" (Tathagatagarbha) is the influence of Hinduism, that one should return to the original Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism. Or only the Mahayana of Nagarjuna should be Mahayana. I do not understand how then they relate to Yogachara.

How popular are these ideas in Japan? Do these ideas only exist within Soto Zen? Or are other schools also thinking something similar?

Hi Wabo,

No, I would say that the ideas proposed by the so-called "critical Buddhists" are not very well known outside people interested in Buddhist philosophy, and I believe that few in Buddhism or Soto Zen agree with most of the ideas proposed. It is now largely forgotten in Zen academic circles.

Let me give a little background on what is "critical buddhism."

A few years ago, a small group of scholars in Japan (actually, really two scholars) who were professors at the Soto-shu university, Komazawa University (but have both since left or retired), argued around 1990 that Zen and other corners of Mahayana Buddhism had deviated from the early Buddhist teachings by an emphasis on "Original Enlightenment". To make a long story short, many others scholars basically shot the more extreme of their assertions full of holes, and the "critical buddhists" are not widely accepted these days among Mahayana historians:

Here is a quick Wiki summary of Original Enlightenment (Hongaku) ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongaku

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Buddhism

Here is a much longer scholarly article reviewing the most detailed book on the topic if you wish to read in detail.

http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2673

A lot of the criticism of "Original Enlightenment" is based on two misunderstandings. First, that one is talking about some kind of original "Atman" that the Buddha rejected when, in fact, Zen Original Enlightenment as a realization of Emptiness is not a realization of Atman. Second, "Original Enlightenment" does not mean we reject the need to Practice and have some Realization in order to realize that we are so and then live accordingly (it is not an excuse to sit on the sofa and do nothing). In fact, for this reason, Dogen was very much critical himself about seeing some kind of unchanging, perfect "Original Enlightenment," but rather saw a constantly changing, moment by moment, living "practice-enlightenment" in which our original wholeness and goodness is dependent on our bringing wisdom and compassion to life in our every act, word and thought in life.

Dogen also very much emphasized "Karma," in the sense that he said we must seek to do good, not do bad, or we will create and suffer resulting good and bad effects resulting therefrom. I don't know any Buddhist, including Soto Zen Buddhists, who reject that idea (even folks like me who can be very skeptical of overly literal rebirth ideas, nonetheless, believes that we should do good not bad, and that our bad actions have bad effects in the world.) They are correct that some folks can (and have, today and yesterday) taken something like "Buddha Nature" as some original "Atman" like "primal godhead" or the like, but most Zen Buddhists avoid that, especially in Soto Zen.

I would not recommend pursuing the readings except for real Buddhist history and philosophy wonks who might be interested. The whole debate is something of a tempest in an empty teapot (English slang which means "a debate which is really much fuss without much substance").

The one place that I agree with the "critical buddhists" is that they were correct in helping Soto Zen Buddhism confront the fact that, in centuries past, Soto-shu and other schools of Japanese Buddhism participated in social discrimination against certain "untouchable" castes in Japan. The Soto-shu and other schools apologized for that old history. (Actually, it is something like Treeleaf is trying to get some modern Soto groups to recognize Buddhism's traditional discrimination against the disabled!) Here is an article about that:

https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2584

However, that was really a social problem more than a Buddhist doctrinal problem, so I think that the "critical buddhists" also exaggerated how much it was because it was different from "Theravada Buddhism" (by the way, it is a mistake to think of "Theravada Buddhism" as "original Buddhism," because Theravada is also very different from early Buddhism ... and is full of "Hindu" influences such as their turning to meditation forms which emphasize deep concentration states ... but that is not our topic here). In fact, similar discrimination is seen right now in certain parts of Theravada Buddhism in their treatment of the Rohingya in Myanmar and other minorities in Thailand, which is also more a social problem more than "doctrinal."

After you read the above review of the "pruning" book by Jaqueline Stone (although, it may be hard for a non-native speaker, I'm sorry ), let me know if you have any questions.

Sorry I ran so long ...

Gassho, Jundo

STLah

[Kokuu]

Thank you very much for the question, Wabo, and the great summary, Jundo. I have added that book to me reading list.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Wabo]

Thank you a lot

Wabo
ST LAH