Inter-religious Dialogue in ShËron, a KyØgen PlayKen’ichi Maegawa

THERE is an unspoken rule in what is called “the dialogue of religions.” It is that participants do not criticize each other’s religious
doctrines. Naturally, doctrines are essential to each religion and theyshould not be easily criticized by others. In addition, history shows thatdifferences in doctrines have caused serious opposition between people
who believe different religions. If we aim to establish cooperation
between religions (or religious organizations), it is quite natural to try to
avoid mentioning such issues.
As a result, however, many “dialogues of religions” seem to be shallow. The coexistence of people who have different views of the world is
supposed to be the most important purpose of the dialogues of religions.
If it is so, shouldn’t we discuss such differences themselves as the mostimportant subject? Of course, just making statements to each other does
not make for a “dialogue” and appropriate “rules and manners” arerequired. However, even though all that people do is make statements toeach other, if these statements are made open to the public, I think they
will possibly enhance many people’s understanding. Participants in adialogue may not reach an agreement, but the audience can judge theright and wrong of their statements. Moreover, I think that if they continue a dialogue, they will go beyond just making statements to eachother. Each of them may be forced to review its own statement if thecriticism of the other reveals a flaw in it. While both of them continue toreflect on their own statements in this way, they may understand more
profoundly the meaning of their opposition and as a result, they may beable to create a framework for coexistence.
This proposition may be regarded as an impractical one that ignores
the intensification of religious conflicts. However, if such hostile religious antagonism exists, there will be no room for dialogue. The true
limitation of “the dialogues of religions” lies in the fact that dialogues
are only possible between those who are willing to talk with others.
Conversely, however, if religious parties have the intention to talk witheach other, I think that they should make statements to their heart’s con198

INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE IN SHŪRON199

tent. Only then can the dialogues of religions fulfill their role. Nonetheless, it is a well-known fact that such process is quite difficult. Furthermore, when discussing religious doctrines, there is a more fundamental
problem which is different from the ones already stated. It is “What dothe differences between religious doctrines mean?”1
From this point of view, I would like to consider the kyØgen playShËron (Religious Discussion) in this paper.2
The plot of this play is that a priest of Hokke-shË (followers ofNichiren’s doctrine) and a priest of JØdo-shË (Pure Land Buddhists)
happen to meet and as a result of their religious discussion, they reachan agreement somehow. Behind this story is a profound antagonism
between both religious sects in Medieval Japan. The doctrine of JØdoshË, which has absolute faith in salvation by Buddha Amitåyus (Amidabutsu) was exposed to severe criticism from existing Buddhist sects.
Especially, Nichiren, who believed that the chanting of the title of theLotus Sutra (daimoku) is the supreme Buddhist practice, severely criticized JØdo-shË. In cooperation with other sects, JØdo-shË cracked downon Nichiren, but as Nichiren-shË expanded its influence, both sects frequently clashed with each other. Particularly, antagonism between
Nichiren-shË and IkkØ-shË (Shin Buddhism), which is a sub-sect ofJØdo-shË, led to armed conflicts.3 Religious discussions between HokkeshË and JØdo-shË were frequent, but a discussion at Azuchi, which washeld in the 7th year of TenshØ (1579) by the order of Oda Nobunaga,
was particularly famous. Complying with the political intent of Oda
Nobunaga, it was judged that Hokke-shË lost in this discussion.
Now, I will take this background into account and follow the plot ofthe kyØgen play ShËron.
A Hokke-shË priest is on his way back from Minobu, where Kuonji
Temple, the main temple of the sect, is located. Meanwhile, a JØdo-shË
priest is coming back from ZenkØji Temple, which is famous for being
visited by many believers in Buddha Amitåyus. Before long, they realizethat they belong to opposing sects. While the Hokke-shË priest tries topart ways with his companion, the JØdo-shË priest insists to continue
their trip together. They get angry at each other and start an argument on
the principles of each other’s religion. Then, they pull out rosaries thatare associated with the founders of their sects (HØnen and Nichiren) andstart a skirmish. The Hokke-shË priest pulls himself away from theJØdo-shË priest and puts up at an inn. Nevertheless, the JØdo-shË priest
purposely stays at the same inn and they start a religious discussion on
the condition that the loser will convert to the sect of the winner. However, it becomes apparent that neither of them understands the doctrines

200INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE IN SHŪRONof their sects correctly.4 They are appalled at each other’s argument andfall asleep. When the JØdo-shË priest wakes up and starts chanting
Namu-Amidabutsu (myØgØ), the Hokke-shË priest begins to chant
Namu-MyØhØrengekyØ (daimoku). When the former starts dancing andchanting Namu-Amidabutsu, the latter also begins dancing and chanting
daimoku. Before long, they confuse daimoku and myØgØ and remembera passage5 which says, “It was called Hokke in old days in the Eagle
Peak. Now it is called Buddha Amitåyus in the west. And in this world
it appears as Bodhisattva Avalokiteßvara. It is the same person whobrought benefits to all the living beings from past to future.” They chantit and declare, “This passage tells us that Hokke and Mida are one andthe same. From now on, we will call them MyØ-Amidabutsu.”
The priests find a logic that enables the coexistence of faith in BuddhaAmitåyus and faith in the Lotus Sutra and come to reconciliation. In aword, it can be said that the logic used here is the honji suijaku theory(emanation theory), which means regarding one thing as honji (originalsources) and another as shaku (secondary emanation). In general, thistheory has made it possible for religions to coexist in the East Asianworld. The relation between Buddhism and Shinto in Japan is typical,
but the same thing can be said about the syncretism of three religions(Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism) in China. However, the emanation theory, which regards one of the two opposing things as original
sources and the other as secondary emanation, does not mean coexistence in a contemporary context. Furthermore, a serious opposition canoccur, depending on which of the two things is considered as “originalsource.” For example, Yoshida Kanetomo (1435~1511), a Shinto priest
in the Muromachi period, insisted that Japanese god should be considered as original source and buddhas and bodhisattvas as secondary
emanation and that Shinto is superior to Buddhism, in contradiction tothe general understanding at the time (which regarded buddhas andbodhisattvas as original sources and gods as secondary emanation.)
In ShËron, it is shown that the relationship between BuddhaAmitåyus, which is worshipped in JØdo-shË, and the Lotus Sutra (andBodhisattva Avalokiteßva), which Hokke-shË believes in, is that of original sources and secondary emanation, and both priests accept that.
However, this situation is unlikely to happen in reality. From the standpoint of JØdo-shË, only the total reliance upon the compassion of Buddha Amitåyus enables people in the Latter Days of the Law to attainenlightenment (to be born in the Pure Land after their death), and anyother teachings should be dismissed. On the other hand, in the doctrinesof Hokke-shË, only Buddha (Shakyamuni), who attained Buddhahood inINTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE IN SHŪRON201

the remote past as related in the Lotus Sutra, is the true buddha and anyother buddhas are nothing but provisional. Likewise, sutras other thanthe Lotus Sutra are merely provisional ones until the true sutra ispreached. Thus, there is no room for accepting the emanation theory in
the arguments of both sects. Even if they accept the theory, their conflicts are not likely to be solved because disagreement still remains
between the sects over the capability of the people, an issue which cannot be solved by the emanation theory. Both sects think that the capability of the people of the Latter Days of the Law. However, JØdo-shËthinks that only because the people’s capability is low, an easy practicesuch as the recitation of Namu-Amidabutsu is necessary, while HokkeshË believes that precisely because their capability is low, they cannot besaved by anything other than the supreme teaching. According to theemanation theory, secondary emanation originates from original
sources, but it is not simply reduced to sources and has a unique identitythat original sources lacks. (Just like buddhas and bodhisattvas manifest
themselves as gods with the particular purpose of benefiting the Japanese people.) Since the choice between Buddha Amitåyus and the Lotus
Sutra concerns this unique identity, it is impossible to reconcile them byconsidering that they are in an emanation relationship.
From the contemporary viewpoint, it is apparent that there is a problem in the emanation theory. For instance, the theory that regards Jesus
as the manifestation of some buddha would not be accepted either byChristians or Buddhists.
However, all of these discussions are only made from the viewpointsof religious parties. What does the audience (and the author) think ofthis kyØgen play? What the audience feels and the author tries to show isa resemblance between the JØdo-shË priest and the Hokke-shË priest.
They are very similar in their speech and behavior as well as in thestrangeness with which they advocate their respective doctrines. Moreover, the end of the play, though just roughly, shows the possibility of
the coexistence of both religions, regardless of differences in theirdoctrines. Along with the fact that the priests are ignorant of their own
doctrines, this ending gives the impression that the opposition between
the sects might merely be an emotional one. This play suggests thatsince they are both sects of Buddhism, they may be able to get alongwith each other.
This suggestion should not be dismissed as a naive impression of people who are ignorant of religious doctrines. Those who are not devoted
to specific religions tend to regard religious doctrines as such. The sameis true of the case in which one belonging to a certain religious tradition

202

INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE IN SHŪRON

looks at another religious tradition. For example, Buddhists assume thatsince Christianity, Judaism and Islam believe in the same god (Yahweh),
they could naturally get along with each other. On the contrary, Christians may not understand how Buddhism could be divided into so many
sects.
Of course, it is possible to explain why religious sects advocate different doctrines and what the differences mean. However, the more words
are used to explain these issues, the more trivial they are likely to look.
In the introduction of the plot of ShËron, I mentioned that the priests ofeither sect do not precisely understand their own doctrines, but it canalso be said that the story shows that outsiders cannot understand thearguments based on the sutras at all. Regardless of various criticisms tothe theory,6 “religious pluralism” advocated by John Hick attracts a lotof attention, probably because his idea reflects the feelings of and finds anatural affinity with the general public; that is, people tend to think that,after all, there is no big difference between religions.
Paradoxically speaking, the reason why there is a tendency to avoid
direct argument about religious doctrines in the dialogues of religions
may be that the more one insists on the uniqueness of one’s religious
doctrines, the more likely one’s insistence invokes the impression that it
may be not so unique. Emphasizing one’s identity leads to the relativityof the identity.
In ShËron, the direct religious discussion is put to an end with thewords of the JØdo-shË priest, “People without learning don’t lose a discussion because they lack reason.” While his words conclude theirstrange arguments, in which both of them misunderstand the religious
doctrines of their own sects, they also advocate the impression of thirdparties, which is that there is nothing important in their insistences, as I
have already stated. However, another interpretation is also possible.
Whether they are those without learning or scholars, if people try tosimply argue their faith logically, they cannot avoid becoming dogmatic.
This is quite natural because faith generally includes a superempiricalelement.
In this line of thinking, the end of religious discussion does not simply mean the abandonment of efforts to achieve mutual understanding.
Though the arguments of the priests in the ShËron are poor and comical,
they speak their minds and reach a point where they cannot understandeach other. It is probably not until they reach this point that the processof reconciliation begins. As I have already mentioned, in ShËron, bothpriests go to sleep after the religious discussion. When they wake up,
they start the practices of their own sects. While they are dancing aroundINTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE IN SHŪRON

203

in a circle, chanting myØgØ or daimoku, they confuse myØgØ anddaimoku and find the logic of coexistence. What should be noted in thisprocess is the fact that the priests sleep in the same inn. From the viewpoint of dramaturgy, this episode may be intended to change scenes, but
sleep is also one of the most fundamental demands of humanity and themost vulnerable state. Sharing such an experience means that the priests
go back to the most basic level as human beings. After that, it is depicted that they recognize their similarities through carrying out the religious practices of the other’s sect, an act that should be the last thing
they do. Though it may not be acceptable to generalize and say that thisending shows that people can’t understand a faith without practicing it,
it is true that some knowledge based on experience is required in orderto understand religions.
There is no doubt that ShËron makes fun of religious discussions heldat the time. However, if that were all that the play offered, it could nothave timeless universality. The play seems to show the vision themedieval people had for religious reconciliation (though the medieval
view of the world has its limits because reconciliation is eventuallybased on the emanation theory.) What should be considered in relation
to the issue raised at the beginning of this paper is the subtle position ofreligious doctrines. Differences in religious doctrines may be (and usually is) a decisive issue for the parties concerned, but they sometimes
appear to be trivial to third parties. However, the dialogues of “religions” are impossible without arguing them and true reconciliation cannot be achieved. It is not until people say all they have to say and reachthe point where they cannot understand each other that they can stand on
the same platform as human beings and seek a theory that enables theircoexistence. ShËron may be too optimistic and full of mockery, but itshows an appropriate model of dialogue.
Notes
1
Regarding the problem of religious doctrines in the dialogues of religions, Yukiko
Yamanashi states, “Pluralism promoted by ‘globality’ demands the reconsideration ofthe position of religious doctrines that are the essence and identity of religions.” (YukikoYamanashi. “Globalization and Religion” Religious Studies (Shukyo kenkyu) 339(2004): p. 155.) This paper aims to respond to this problem indirectly.
2
As to ShËron, I have used the text that is included in KyØgen-shË Vol. 2 (Edited andannotated by Hiroshi Koyama, Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei, Iwanami Shoten, 1961).
3
In the first year of Tenbun (1532), the believers of Hokke-shË set fire to Hongan-jiTemple, the head temple of IkkØ-shË, and banished the followers of IkkØ-shË fromKyoto. After that, Hokke-shË was also attacked by priests of Mt. Hiei and suffered serious damage.
4
In the original text, puns based on the sutras that each priest believes in are shown.

204

INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE IN SHŪRON

5This passage is considered to be written by Hui-si (second patriarch of Chinese
Tien-tai school), but it is not found in his writings and it seems to have been created inJapan.
6
For example, see Hiroshi Kanno (“The Lotus SËtra and the Dialogue of Religions.”
The Journal of Oriental Studies Vol. 16 (2006)), Kanno says, “I think that it is quite difficult for ardent and faithful devotees of any one religion to take a pluralistic stance.”(p. 139)