Chapter 4

Introduction to Religion
with Special Reference to Buddhism
SUZUKI Takayasu
1. The State of Japanese Buddhism
1

The founder of Buddhism, Śākyamuni, became a Buddha once2

he realized “the impermanence of all things (sarvasaṃskārā anityāḥ).”He made this the core tenet of his message, and it was through thisthat he sought to save humanity. Even his last words before entering
nirvana were on the topic of impermanence. Thus, it would be nooverstatement to claim that Buddhism is “a religion that begins and ends
with impermanence” and “a religion pervaded by impermanence.”
One may associate the word “impermanence” with thefollowing lines from The Tale of the Heike:
The sound of the Gion Shōja bells echoes the impermanence of allthings;
the color of the sāla flowers reveals the truth that the prosperous
must decline.
The proud do not endure, they are like a dream on a spring night;
the mighty fall at last, they are as dust before the wind. (McCullough[1988])
As illustrated by this example, impermanence is almost always
1 This Chapter 4 is chiefly based on the first chapter of Suzuki [2016].
2 This is a tentative interpretation.

61given a “regretful and gloomy” definition, in the sense of “all worldlythings, including power and life, being in perpetual change, without
existing indefinitely and without persisting forever, destined to fadelike dreams.” Yet, in actual fact, this “regretful and gloomy” definition
only expresses a small portion of the meaning of impermanence thatpervades Buddhism. Nonetheless, it is the “regretful and gloomy”
definition of impermanence that has always been most relevant inJapan, owing to the influences of its literature and natural conditions.
As such, we have not been able to grasp the true meaning of theimpermanence that forms the foundation of Buddhism. In consequence,Japanese Buddhism has never been able to achieve its true potential.
2. The True Meaning of Impermanence
A direct translation of the Sanskrit term for the impermanenceof all things would be “all saṃskāras are inconstant.” Saṃskāra here
indicates the power or operation that forms “the object that is perceived
as ‘this is I.’” In this course, I will refer to this “object that is perceived as‘this is I’” as “the ego.”
All people, without exception, will one day die. No human can
avoid the fate of dying. I will refer to this “true I,” to whom death isinherent, as “the self.”
Nevertheless, we do not, under normal circumstances, properly
acknowledge this self. I repeat that all people will one day die. It may betoday or it may be tomorrow. Because the self is the true I—to whom
death is inherent—the fact that I am alive today is simply “by chance”
and I owe it to the “switch of death”—which I always carry with me—62

Chapter 4

Introduction to Religion with Special Reference to Buddhism

having not been flicked today, for reasons unknown to me. There isnothing “matter-of-course” about my being alive today. Rather, it is theopposite; it is something “exceptional and to be appreciated.”
Even so, nobody wants to dwell on the unfortunate thought of“myself dying.” This is why we baselessly predict the future with thewords, “I live today having lived yesterday and so I should live tomorrow
having lived today.” Although this is nothing but an illusion, we are
happy to banish that inconvenient “death” as far away as we can. It
follows, then, that we think of myself being alive and my partner being
alive as being “wholly unexceptional and matter-of-course.” It is this“false I within the illusion”—who takes life for granted—that is “the badego.”
The bad ego takes for granted that my partner and I are alive at
the moment, and it is appreciative of neither party. By contrast, the self
thinks it truly exceptional that it is alive and that how its husband or wifeis, for the moment, alive and this stirs an awareness of the value of eachand every moment one is able to live with their loved ones. It should beclear to anyone which of these outlooks is the most fruitful.
It is possible for people to regain their self for short periodsof time. Indeed, there should be those who read this text and think tothemselves, “That’s right! I should be grateful for myself and my loved
ones being alive,” thus regaining their self. Yet, since human beings arefundamentally selfish, forgetting what they find inconvenient, it is the sadtruth that they would soon revert to the earlier beliefs and behaviors ofthe bad ego. This “fundamental selfishness” is referred to as “ignorance(avidyā).” This ignorance becomes the driving force behind the bad63

direction taken as a result of bad saṃskāra and separation from the self.
In turn, the bad ego is formed, accelerating the separation. In the end,
people become tormented by this gap between the self and the ego. This
pain that results from the gap, born out of a feeling of dissatisfaction, is
what is referred to in Buddhism as “unsatisfactoriness (duḥkha).”If a person becomes aware of this suffering, rejects it, and tries
to quell the ignorance that often follows, then it is possible that he or she
will activate good saṃskāra, which forms “the good ego” that seeks toregain the self. Yet, due to the obstacles placed by ignorance, the goodsaṃskāra fails to last long, causing the person to revert to the earlier stateof activating bad saṃskāra. In fact, it is this “inconstancy of varioussaṃskāra” that constitutes the true meaning of impermanence.
3. The True Meaning of the Three (Four) Dharma Seals
As shown above, the suppression of saṃskāra is able to makepossible the formation of the good ego, which seeks to regain the self.
Yet, our fundamental selfishness is deep-seated and difficult to uproot,obstructing the activation of good saṃskāra. It is no easy task to activatesaṃskāra as one wishes. This state of “the saṃskāra not going according
to one’s wishes” can be rephrased as “all saṃskāra are unsatisfactory.”
The Sanskrit phrase is “sarvasaṃskārā duḥkhāḥ,” but it most surely does
not mean, “all things are suffering.”
We normally mistake the ego formed by saṃskāra—this includes
both the good and bad egos—for “This is I, my true self.” Yet, there has
been none save the Buddha who has fully regained his or her “true I”—
that is, the self. The ego and the self are not the same. This is articulated

64Chapter 4

Introduction to Religion with Special Reference to Buddhism

in the sentiment “The unenlightened are unable to discover their true I—
their self—within their frame of perception,” expressed in the Sanskrit
phrase “sarvadhar mā anātmānaḥ.” This phrase does not mean that we
can never find our true I—our self. Being unenlightened, we mistake theego for the self. Buddhism strictly warns against confusing the two andteaches that we “should form the good ego by activating good saṃskāra,
so that we one day can regain our self.”
To the one who has regained his or her self (a buddha), there
is nothing more worthy of gratitude than one’s being alive and one’s
loved ones being alive. I have used the expression “loved ones/partner/husband/wife, etc.,” but it does not imply that there exist two categoriesof people, those loved and those not so. A buddha truly knows that
all life—both one’s own and those of others—are limited. Hence, any
meeting with a fellow person is precious and to be cherished, and any
person is a beloved. There is nothing that can threaten a buddha, who
has fully realized the joy of living and the finitude of life in the now.
We call this state of mind “the extinguishing of all afflictions(nirvāṇa)” and the truly peaceful and wonderful nature of this state isreferred to as “nirvanic tranquility (śāntaṃ nirvāṇam).” It is common forpeople to misunderstand and think that “nirvana must be a quiet andlonely state of mind,” but this could not be further from the truth.
We have now discussed the four themes of impermanence,
unsatisfactoriness, selflessness in the ego, and tranquility. These arereferred to as the Four Dharma Seals, in the meaning “the four seals thatsignify what Buddhist teaching is.” Because unsatisfactoriness essentiallyis the same as impermanence, it is often omitted, so that we instead have65the Three Dharma Seals of impermanence, selflessness in the ego, andtranquility. In either case, it should be clear that impermanence is thestarting point.
4. The True Meanings of Cessation and the Middle Way
To regain one’s self and become a buddha, there has to bea “cessation” of the fundamental selfishness that is ignorance. The
ultimate goal of Buddhism is the attainment of “buddhahood” and“nirvana,” achieved through the cessation of ignorance.
The word cessation would seem to imply “to disappear,to vanish,” so it is easy to think, “Aha, so I need to rid myself ofignorance.” Yet, once one tries to get rid of it, one is made aware of
how difficult it actually is to do so. It is true that it is quite possible tofeel grateful for oneself and for others being alive, and to regain one’sself, for a short period of time, but ignorance is extremely persistentand before long, the bad ego is once again formed. There may be those
who despair, saying that “it is impossible to get rid of ignorance,” andwho give up on Buddhism. Yet, the Sanskrit word for cessation, nirodha,
carries the meaning “to contain, to control,” and does not originallyhave the meaning of “reduce to zero.” Actually, even for Śākyamuni,
who substantiated (realized) the cessation of ignorance, it can be shownthat his ignorance did not go anywhere. Yet, it goes without saying thatŚākyamuni, being one of buddhas, had his ignorance under perfectcontrol. Even if his ignorance were to come into operation, he would
be able to suppress it instantaneously. What we are asked to do, then,is not to reduce ignorance to zero, but to remain vigilant at all times to66

Chapter 4

Introduction to Religion with Special Reference to Buddhism

make sure that it does not operate. This “remaining vigilant to preventthe operation of ignorance” is referred to as “heedfulness (apramāda)”and the opposite, to set ignorance free, as “heedlessness (pramāda).”Throughout his delivery of his message, Śākyamuni preached that weshould not forget about the impermanence of saṃskāra and that weshould move forward without falling under the sway of ignorance (beheedful).
I used the word “move forward.” In Christianity and otherreligions that have the notions of a Creator and Savior, the phrase“proceed in this manner” is framed as an instruction imparted by God
or the Lord, a movement along the one true path. Yet, in Buddhism,
there is no such notion. Not even the Buddha Śākyamuni’s teachings(dharma) are some form of instructions or orders that apply to allpeople. Each and every one can approach nirvana by the methods andin the pace suiting his or her ego. The ego is formed by saṃskāra andthe saṃskāras are neither permanent nor constant, so there has neverbeen any one-size-fits-all method or pace in Buddhism.
The method and pace suiting the ego that is formed in thismoment, the movement toward the goal of nirvana—that is, the state ofnot forming an ego, of having regained one’s self—is referred to as theMiddle Way (madhyamā pratipad).
The Middle Way is not the same as “if there is a right and aleft, go through the middle” or “be moderate.” That is the Mean, whichis entirely different from the Middle Way. No matter what form it takes,
if it is a method or pace that brings one’s present ego closer to nirvana,then that is the Middle Way. Thus, whether any movement is the Middle67

Way or not is determined by the extent to which it takes one closer tonirvana. To a person whose ego requires a harsh path, the harsh pathis the Middle Way. To a person whose ego requires a gentle path, thegentle path is the Middle Way. Countless people are constantly activatingsaṃskāra in innumerable ways, constantly forming their ego. In orderto help all these people walk the Middle Way, Śākyamuni’s teaching
had to become correspondingly extensive. The religions with notionsof Creator and Savior each have their one scripture on which they rely;
Judaism has its Old Testament, Christianity its New Testament, andIslam its Quran. By contrast, Buddhism has produced a vast number ofscriptures (sutras), collectively known as the Tripiṭaka, or as the EightyFour Thousand Dharmas. This is a result of this uniquely Buddhist paththat is the Middle Way.
Buddhism is not the kind of religion that says, “You and me andhim are the same; we are all the same, and all correct.” Buddhism is thekind of religion that says, “You and me and him are different; we are alldifferent, and all correct.”
Bibliography
McCullough, H. C. [1988] T he Tale of the Heike California: Stanford
University Press.
Suzuki Takayasu 鈴木隆泰 [2016] Hontō no Bukkyō 2『本当の仏教』
第２巻 .
Tokyo: Kōzansha.

68山口県立大学

アクティブラーニングハンドブック 03

多文化の橋をかける

Yamaguchi Prefectural University Active Learning Handbook 03

Building Multicultural Bridges
発行

2017 年 2 月 25 日編者

山口県立大学国際文化学部国際文化学科

著者

金恵媛・安渓遊地・岩野雅子
鈴木隆泰・Amy WILSON ・渡辺克義

発行所

公立大学法人 山口県立大学〒 753-8502 山口県山口市桜畠３丁目２番１号
TEL 083-928-0211

印

刷

ISBN

株式会社 栄光FAX 083-928-2251
DTP

福田美智子（カモテ・トップス）

978-4-909137-03-6©Department of Intercultural Studies,Yamaguchi Prefectural University