THE NATURE OF MAN
1. Man is Good-natured according to Mencius.[FN#161]
Oriental scholars, especially the Chinese men of letters, seem to
have taken so keen an interest in the study of human nature that they
proposed all the possible opinions respecting the subject in
question-namely, (1) man is good-natured; (2) man is bad-natured; (3)
man is good-natured and bad-natured as well; (4) man is neither
good-natured nor bad-natured. The first of these opinions was
proposed by a most reputed Confucianist scholar, Mencius, and his
followers, and is still adhered to by the majority of the Japanese
and the Chinese Confucianists. Mencius thought it as natural for man
to do good as it is for the grass to be green. 'Suppose a person has
happened,' he would say, 'to find a child on the point of tumbling
down into a deep well. He would rescue it even at the risk of his
life, no matter how morally degenerated he might be. He would have
no time to consider that his act might bring him some reward from its
parents, or a good reputation among his friends and fellow-citizens.
He would do it barely out of his inborn good-nature.' After
enumerating some instances similar to this one, Mencius concludes
that goodness is the fundamental nature of man, even if he is often
carried away by his brutal disposition.
[FN#161] Mencius (372-282 B.C.) is regarded as the best expounder of
the doctrine of Confucius. There exists a well-known work of his,
entitled after his own name. See 'A History of Chinese Philosophy,'
by R. Endo, and also 'A History of Chinese Philosophy' (pp. 38-50),
by G. Nakauchi.
2. Man is Bad-natured according to Siun Tsz[FN#162] (Jun-shi).
The weaknesses of Mencius's theory are fully exposed by another
diametrically opposed theory propounded by Siun Tsz (Jun-shi) and his
followers. 'Man is bad-natured,' says Siun Tsz, 'since he has inborn
lust, appetite, and desire for wealth. As he has inborn lust and
appetite, he is naturally given to intemperance and wantonness. As
he has inborn desire for wealth, he is naturally inclined to quarrel
and fight with others for the sake of gain.' Leave him without
discipline or culture, he would not be a whit better than the beast.
His virtuous acts, such as charity, honesty, propriety, chastity,
truthfulness, are conduct forced by the teachings of ancient sages
against his natural inclination. Therefore vices are congenial and
true to his nature, while virtues alien and untrue to his fundamental
nature.
[FN#162] Siun Tsz's date is later by some fifty years than Mencius.
Siun Tsz gives the reason why man seeks after morality, saying that
man seeks what he has not, and that he seeks after morality simply
because he has not morality, just as the poor seek riches. See 'A
History of Chinese Philosophy' (pp. 51-60), by G. Nakauchi, and 'A
History of Development of Chinese Thought,' by R. Endo.
These two theories are not only far from throwing light on the moral
state of man, but wrap it in deeper gloom. Let us raise a few
questions by way of refutation. If man's fundamental nature be good,
as Mencius maintains, why is it easy for him to be vicious without
instruction, while he finds it hard to be virtuous even with
instruction. If you contend that good is man's primary nature and
evil the secondary one, why is be so often overpowered by the
secondary nature? If you answer saying that man is good-natured
originally, but he acquires the secondary nature through the struggle
for existence, and it gradually gains power over the primary nature
by means of the same cause, then the primitive tribes should be more
virtuous than the highly civilized nations, and children than grownup
people. Is this not contrary to fact?
If, again, man's nature is essentially bad, as Siun Tsz holds, how
can he cultivate virtue? If you contend that ancient sages invented
so-called cardinal virtues and inculcated them against his natural
inclination, why does he not give them up? If vices be congenial and
true to man's nature, but virtues be alien and untrue to him, why are
virtues honoured by him? If vices be genuine and virtue a deception,
as you think, why do you call the inventors of that deceiving art
sages? How was it possible for man to do good before these sages'
appearance on earth?
3. Man is both Good-natured and Bad-natured according to Yan
Hiung[FN#163] (Yo-yu).
According to Yang Hiung and his followers, good is no less real than
evil, and evil is no more unreal than good. Therefore man must be
double-natured-that is, partly good and partly bad. This is the
reason why the history of man is full of fiendish crimes, and, at the
same time, it abounds with godly deeds. This is the reason why
mankind comprises, on the one hand, a Socrates, a Confucius, a Jesus,
and, on the other, a Nero and a Kieh. This is the reason why we find
to-day a honest fellow in him whom we find a betrayer to-morrow.
[FN#163] Yan Hiung (died A.D. 18) is the reputed author of Tai Huen
(Tai-gen) and Fah Yen (Ho-gen). His opinion in reference to human
nature is found in Fah Yen.
This view of man's nature might explain our present moral state, yet
it calls forth many questions bard to answer. If this assertion be
true, is it not a useless task to educate man with the purpose of
making him better and nobler? How could one extirpate man's bad
nature implanted within him at his origin? If man be double-natured,
how did he come to set good over evil? How did he come to consider
that he ought to be good and ought not to be bad? How could you
establish the authority of morality?
4. Man is neither Good-natured nor Bad-natured according to Su Shih
(So-shoku).[FN#164]
The difficulty may be avoided by a theory given by Su Shih and other
scholars influenced by Buddhism, which maintains that man is neither
good-natured nor bad-natured. According to this opinion man is not
moral nor immoral by nature, but unmoral. He is morally a blank. He
is at a crossroad, so to speak, of morality when he is first born.
As he is blank, he can be dyed black or red. As he is at the
cross-road, he can turn to the right or to the left. He is like
fresh water, which has no flavour, and can be made sweet or bitter by
circumstances. If we are not mistaken, this theory, too, has to
encounter insurmountable difficulties. How could it be possible to
make the unmoral being moral or immoral? We might as well try to get
honey out of sand as to get good or evil out of the blank nature.
There can be no fruit of good or evil where there is no seed of good
or bad nature. Thus we find no satisfactory solution of the problem
at issue in these four theories proposed by the Chinese scholars--the
first theory being incompetent to explain the problem of human
depravity; the second breaking down at the origin of morality; the
third failing to explain the possibility of moral culture; the fourth
being logically self-contradictory.
[FN#164] Su Shih (1042-1101), a great man of letters, practiser of
Zen, noted for his poetical works.
5. There is no Mortal who is Purely Moral.
By nature man should be either good or bad; or he should be good as
well as bad; or he should be neither good nor bad. There can be no
alternative possible besides these four propositions, none of which
can be accepted as true. Then there must be some misconception in
the terms of which they consist. It would seem to some that the
error can be avoided by limiting the sense of the term 'man,' saying
some persons are good-natured, some persons are bad-natured, some
persons are good-natured and bad-natured as well, and some persons
are neither good-natured nor bad-natured. There is no contradiction
in these modified propositions, but still they fail to explain the
ethical state of man. Supposing them all to be true, let us assume
that there are the four classes of people: (1) Those who are purely
moral and have no immoral disposition; (2) those who are half moral
and half immoral; (3) those who are neither moral nor immoral; (4)
those who are purely immoral and have no moral disposition. Orthodox
Christians, believing in the sinlessness of Jesus, would say he
belongs to the first class, while Mohammedans and Buddhists, who
deify the founder of their respective faith, would in such case
regard their founder as the purely moral personage. But are your
beliefs, we should ask, based on historical fact? Can you say that
such traditional and self-contradictory records as the four gospels
are history in the strict sense of the term? Can you assert that
those traditions which deify Mohammed and Shakya are the statements
of bare facts? Is not Jesus an abstraction and an ideal, entirely
different from a concrete carpenter's son, who fed on the same kind
of food, sheltered himself in the same kind of building, suffered
from the same kind of pain, was fired by the same kind of anger,
stung by the same kind of lust as our own? Can you say the person
who fought many a sanguinary battle, who got through many cunning
negotiations with enemies and friends, who personally experienced the
troubles of polygamy, was a person sinless and divine? We might
allow that these ancient sages are superhuman and divine, then our
classification has no business with them, because they do not
properly belong to mankind. Now, then, who can point out any sinless
person in the present world? Is it not a fact that the more virtuous
one grows the more sinful he feels himself? If there be any mortal,
in the past, the present, and the future, who declares himself to be
pure and sinless, his very declaration proves that he is not highly
moral. Therefore the existence of the first class of people is open
to question.
6. There is no Mortal who is Non-Moral or Purely Immoral.
The same is the case with the third and the fourth class of people
who are assumed as non-moral or purely immoral. There is no person,
however morally degraded he may be, but reveals some good nature in
his whole course of life. It is our daily experience that we find a
faithful friend in the person even of a pickpocket, a loving father
even in a burglar, and a kind neighbour even in a murderer. Faith,
sympathy, friendship, love, loyalty, and generosity dwell not merely
in palaces and churches, but also in brothels and gaols. On the
other hand, abhorrent vices and bloody crimes often find shelter
under the silk hat, or the robe, or the coronet, or the crown. Life
may fitly be compared with a rope made of white and black straw, and
to separate one from the other is to destroy the rope itself; so also
life entirely independent of the duality of good and bad is no actual
life. We must acknowledge, therefore, that the third and the fourth
propositions are inconsistent with our daily experience of life, and
that only the second proposition remains, which, as seen above,
breaks down at the origin of morality.
7. Where, then, does the Error Lie?
Where, then, does the error lie in the four possible propositions
respecting man's nature? It lies not in their subject, but in the
predicate-that is to say, in the use of the terms 'good' and 'bad.'
Now let us examine how does good differ from bad. A good action ever
promotes interests in a sphere far wider than a bad action. Both are
the same in their conducing to human interests, but differ in the
extent in which they achieve their end. In other words, both good
and bad actions are performed for one end and the same purpose of
promoting human interests, but they differ from each other as to the
extent of interests. For instance, burglary is evidently bad action,
and is condemned everywhere; but the capturing of an enemy's property
for the sake of one's own tribe or clan or nation is praised as a
meritorious conduct. Both acts are exactly the same in their
promoting interests; but the former relates to the interests of a
single individual or of a single family, while the latter to those of
a tribe or a nation. If the former be bad on account of its ignoring
others' interests, the latter must be also bad on account of its
ignoring the enemy's interests. Murder is considered bad everywhere;
but the killing of thousands of men in a battle-field is praised and
honoured, because the former is perpetrated to promote the private
interests, while the latter those of the public. If the former be
bad, because of its cruelty, the latter must also be bad, because of
its inhumanity.
The idea of good and bad, generally accepted by common sense, may be
stated as follows: 'An action is good when it promotes the interests
of an individual or a family; better when it promotes those of a
district or a country; best when it promotes those of the whole
world. An action is bad when it inflicts injury on another
individual or another family; worse when it is prejudicial to a
district or a country; worst when it brings harm on the whole world.
Strictly speaking, an action is good when it promotes interests,
material or spiritual, as intended by the actor in his motive; and it
is bad when it injures interests, material or spiritual, as intended
by the actor in his motive.'
According to this idea, generally accepted by common sense, human
actions may be classified under four different heads: (1) Purely good
actions; (2) partly good and partly bad actions; (3) neither good nor
bad actions; (4) purely bad actions. First, purely good actions are
those actions which subserve and never hinder human interests either
material or spiritual, such as humanity and love of all beings.
Secondly, partly good and partly bad actions are those actions which
are both for and against human interests, such as narrow patriotism
and prejudiced love. Thirdly, neither good nor bad actions are such
actions as are neither for nor against human interests--for example,
an unconscious act of a dreamer. Lastly, purely bad actions, which
are absolutely against human interests, cannot be possible for man
except suicide, because every action promotes more or less the
interests, material or spiritual, of the individual agent or of
someone else. Even such horrible crimes as homicide and parricide
are intended to promote some interests, and carry out in some measure
their aim when performed. It follows that man cannot be said to be
good or bad in the strict sense of the terms as above defined, for
there is no human being who does the first class of actions and
nothing else, nor is there any mortal who does the fourth class of
actions and nothing else. Man may be called good and bad, and at the
same time be neither good nor bad, in that he always performs the
second and the third class of actions. All this, nevertheless, is a
more play of words. Thus we are driven to conclude that the
common-sense view of human nature fails to grasp the real state of
actual life.
8. Man is not Good-natured nor Bad-natured, but Buddha-natured.
We have had already occasion to observe that Zen teaches
Buddha-nature, which all sentient beings are endowed with. The term
'Buddha-nature,'[FN#165] as accepted generally by Buddhists, means a
latent and undeveloped nature, which enables its owner to become
Enlightened when it is developed and brought to actuality.[FN#166]
Therefore man, according to Zen, is not good-natured nor bad-natured
in the relative sense, as accepted generally by common sense, of
these terms, but Buddha-natured in the sense of non-duality. A good
person (of common sense) differs from a bad person (of common sense),
not in his inborn Buddha-nature, but in the extent of his expressing
it in deeds. Even if men are equally endowed with that nature, yet
their different states of development do not allow them to express it
to an equal extent in conduct. Buddha-nature may be compared with
the sun, and individual mind with the sky. Then an Enlightened mind
is like the sky in fair weather, when nothing prevents the beams of
the sun; while an ignorant mind is like the sky in cloudy weather,
when the sun sheds faint light; and an evil mind is like the sky in
stormy weather, when the sun seems to be out of existence. It comes
under our daily observation that even a robber or a murderer may
prove to be a good father and a loving husband to his wife and
children. He is an honest fellow when he remains at home. The sun
of Buddha-nature gives light within the wall of his house, but
without the house the darkness of foul crimes shrouds him.
[FN#165] For a detailed explanation of Buddha-nature, see the
chapter entitled Buddha-nature in Sho-bo-gen-zo.
[FN#166] Mahaparinirvana-sutra may be said to have been written for
the purpose of stating this idea.
9. The Parable of the Robber Kih.[FN#167]
Chwang Tsz (So-shi) remarks in a humorous way to the following
effect: "The followers of the great robber and murderer Kih asked him
saying: 'Has the robber also any moral principles in his
proceedings?' He replied: 'What profession is there which has not
its principles? That the robber comes to the conclusion without
mistake that there are valuable deposits in an apartment shows his
wisdom; that he is the first to enter it shows his bravery; that he
makes an equal division of the plunder shows his justice; that he
never betrays the fellow-robbers shows his faithfulness; and that he
is generous to the followers shows his benevolence. Without all
these five qualities no one in the world has ever attained to become
a great robber.'" The parable clearly shows us Buddha-nature of the
robber and murderer expresses itself as wisdom, bravery, justice,
faithfulness, and benevolence in his society, and that if he did the
same outside it, he would not be a great robber but a great sage.
[FN#167] The parable is told for the purpose of undervaluing
Confucian doctrine, but the author thereby accidentally touches human
nature. We do not quote it here with the same purpose as the
author's.
10. Wang Yang Ming (O-yo-mei) and a Thief.
One evening when Wang was giving a lecture to a number of students on
his famous doctrine that all human beings are endowed with
Conscience,[FN#168] a thief broke into the house and hid himself in
the darkest corner. Then Wang declared aloud that every human being
is born with Conscience, and that even the thief who had got into the
house had Conscience just as the sages of old. The burglar,
overhearing these remarks, came out to ask the forgiveness of the
master; since there was no way of escape for him, and he was
half-naked, he crouched behind the students. Wang's willing
forgiveness and cordial treatment encouraged the man to ask the
question how the teacher could know such a poor wretch as he was
endowed with Conscience as the sages of old. Wang replied: "It is
your Conscience that makes you ashamed of your nakedness. You
yourself are a sage, if you abstain from everything that will put
shame on you." We firmly believe that Wang is perfectly right in
telling the thief that he was not different in nature from the sages
of old. It is no exaggeration. It is a saving truth. It is also a
most effective way of saving men out of darkness of sin. Any thief
ceases to be a thief the moment he believes in his own Conscience, or
Buddha-nature. You can never correct criminals by your severe
reproach or punishment. You can save them only through your sympathy
and love, by which you call forth their inborn Buddha-nature.
Nothing can produce more pernicious effects on criminals than to
treat them as if they were a different sort of people and confirm
them in their conviction that they are bad-natured. We greatly
regret that even in a civilized society authorities neglecting this
saving truth are driving to perdition those criminals under their
care, whom it is their duty to save.
[FN#168] It is not conscience in the ordinary sense of the term. It
is 'moral' principle, according to Wang, pervading through the
Universe. 'It expresses itself as Providence in Heaven, as moral
nature in man, and as mechanical laws in things.' The reader will
notice that Wang's Conscience is the nearest approach to
Buddha-nature.
11. The Bad are the Good in the Egg.
This is not only the case with a robber or a murderer, but also with
ordinary people. There are many who are honest and good in their
homesteads, but turn out to be base and dishonest folk outside them.
Similarly, there are those who, having an enthusiastic love of their
local district, act unlawfully against the interests of other
districts. They are upright and honourable gentlemen within the
boundary of their own district, but a gang of rascals without it. So
also there are many who are Washingtons and William Tells in their
own, but at the same time pirates and cannibals in the other
countries. Again, there are not a few persons who, having racial
prejudices, would not allow the rays of their Buddha-nature to pass
through a coloured skin. There are civilized persons who are humane
enough to love and esteem any human being as their brother, but so
unfeeling that they think lower creatures as their proper food. The
highly enlightened person, however, cannot but sympathize with human
beings and lower creatures as well, as Shakya Muni felt all sentient
beings to be his children.
These people are exactly the same in their Buddha-nature, but a wide
difference obtains among them in the extent of their expressing that
nature in deeds. If thieves and murderers be called bad-natured,
reformers and revolutionists should be called so. If, on the other
hand, patriotism and loyalty be said to be good, treason and
insurrection should likewise be so. Therefore it is evident that a
so-called good person is none but one who acts to promote wider
interests of life, and a so-called bad person is none but one who
acts to advance narrower ones. In other words, the bad are the good
in the egg, so to speak, and the good are the bad on the wing. As
the bird in the egg is one and the same as the bird on the wing, so
the good in the egg is entirely of the same nature as the bad on the
wing. To show that human nature transcends the duality of good and
evil, the author of Avatamsaka-sutra declares that 'all beings are
endowed with the wisdom and virtue of Tathagata.' Kwei Fung (Kei-ho)
also says: "All sentient beings have the Real Spirit of Original
Enlightenment (within themselves). It is unchanging and pure. It is
eternally bright and clear, and conscious. It is also named
Buddha-nature, or Tathagata-garbha."
12. The Great Person and Small Person.
For these reasons Zen proposes to call man Buddha-natured or
Good-natured in a sense transcendental to the duality of good and
bad. It conveys no sense to call some individuals good in case there
is no bad individual. For the sake of convenience, however, Zen
calls man good, as is exemplified by Shakya Muni, who was wont to
address his hearers as 'good men and women,' and by the Sixth
Patriarch in China, who called everybody 'a good and wise one.' This
does not imply in the least that all human beings are virtuous,
sinless, and saintly-nay, the world is full of vices and crimes. It
is an undeniable fact that life is the warfare of good against evil,
and many a valiant hero has fallen in the foremost ranks. It is
curious, however, to notice that the champions on the both sides are
fighting for the same cause. There can be no single individual in
the world who is fighting against his own cause or interest, and the
only possible difference between one party and the other consists in
the extent of interests which they fight for. So-called bad persons,
who are properly designated as 'small persons' by Chinese and
Japanese scholars, express their Buddha-nature to a small extent
mostly within their own doors, while so-called good persons, or
'great persons' as the Oriental scholars call them, actualize their
Buddha-nature to a large extent in the whole sphere of a country, or
of the whole earth.
Enlightened Consciousness, or Buddha-nature, as we have seen in the
previous chapter, is the mind of mind and the consciousness of
consciousness, Universal Spirit awakened in individual minds, which
realizes the universal brotherhood of all beings and the unity of
individual lives. It is the real self, the guiding principle, the
Original Physiognomy[FN#169] (nature), as it is called by Zen, of
man. This real self lies dormant under the threshold of
consciousness in the minds of the confused; consequently, each of
them is inclined to regard petty individual as his self, and to exert
himself to further the interests of the individual self even at the
cost of those of the others. He is 'the smallest person' in the
world, for his self is reduced to the smallest extent possible. Some
of the less confused identify their selves with their families, and
feel happy or unhappy in proportion as their families are happy or
unhappy, for the sake of which they sacrifice the interests of other
families. On the other hand, some of the more enlightened unite
their selves through love and compassion with their whole tribe or
countrymen, and consider the rise or fall of the tribe or of the
country as their own, and willingly sacrifice their own lives, if
need be, for the cause of the tribe or the country. When they are
fully enlightened, they can realize the unity of all sentient lives,
and be ever merciful and helpful towards all creatures. They are
'the greatest persons' on earth, because their selves are enlarged to
the greatest extent possible.
[FN#169] The expression first occurs in Ho-bo-dan-kyo of the Sixth
Patriarch, and is frequently used by later Zenists.
13. The Theory of Buddha-Nature adequately explains the Ethical
States of Man.
This theory of Buddha-nature enables us to get an insight into the
origin of morality. The first awakening of Buddha-nature within man
is the very beginning of morality, and man's ethical progress is the
gradually widening expression of that nature in conduct. But for it
morality is impossible for man. But for it not only moral culture or
discipline, but education and social improvement must be futile.
Again, the theory adequately explains the ethical facts that the
standard of morality undergoes change in different times and places,
that good and bad are so inseparably knit together, and that the bad
at times become good all on a sudden, and the good grow bad quite
unexpectedly. First, it goes without saying that the standard of
morality is raised just in proportion as Buddha-nature or real self
extends and amplifies itself in different times and places.
Secondly, since good is Buddha-nature actualized to a large extent,
and bad is also Buddha-nature actualized to a small extent, the
existence of the former presupposes that of the latter, and the mess
of duality can never be got rid of. Thirdly, the fact that the bad
become good under certain circumstances, and the good also become bad
often unexpectedly, can hardly be explained by the dualistic theory,
because if good nature be so arbitrarily turned into bad and bad
nature into good, the distinction of good and bad nature has no
meaning whatever. According to the theory of Buddha-nature, the fact
that the good become bad or the bad become good, does not imply in
the least a change of nature, but the widening or the narrowing of
its actualization. So that no matter how morally degenerated one may
be, he can uplift himself to a high ethical plane by the widening of
his self, and at the same time no matter how morally exalted one may
be, he can descend to the level of the brute by the narrowing of his
self. To be an angel or to be a devil rests with one's degrees of
enlightenment and free choice. This is why such infinite varieties
exist both among the good and the bad. This is why the higher the
peak of enlightenment the people climb, the more widely the vista of
moral possibilities open before them.
14. Buddha-Nature is the Common Source of Morals.
Furthermore, Buddha-nature or real self, being the seat of love and
the nucleus of sincerity, forms the warp and woof of all moral
actions. He is an obedient son who serves his parents with sincerity
and love. He is a loyal subject who serves his master with sincerity
and love. A virtuous wife is she who loves her husband with her
sincere heart. A trustworthy friend is he who keeps company with
others with sincerity and love. A man of righteousness is he who
leads a life of sincerity and love. Generous and humane is he who
sympathizes with his fellow-men with his sincere heart. Veracity,
chastity, filial piety, loyalty, righteousness, generosity, humanity,
and what not-all-this is no other than Buddha-nature applied to
various relationships of human brotherhood. This is the common
source, ever fresh and inexhaustible, of morality that fosters and
furthers the interests of all. To-ju[FN#170] expresses the similar
idea as follows:
"There exists the Inexhaustible Source (of morality) within me.
It is an invaluable treasure.
It is called Bright Nature of man.
It is peerless and surpasses all jewels.
The aim of learning is to bring out this Bright Nature.
This is the best thing in the world.
Real happiness can only be secured by it."
Thus, in the first place, moral conduct, which is nothing but the
expression of Buddha-nature in action, implies the assertion of self
and the furtherance of one's interests. On this point is based the
half-truth of the Egoistic theory. Secondly, it is invariably
accompanied by a feeling of pleasure or satisfaction when it fulfils
its end. This accidental concomitance is mistaken for its essence by
superficial observers who adhere to the Hedonistic theory. Thirdly,
it conduces to the furtherance of the material and spiritual
interests of man, and it led the Utilitarians to the confusion of the
result with the cause of morality. Fourthly, it involves the control
or sacrifice of the lower and ignoble self of an individual in order
to realize his higher and nobler self. This gave rise to the
half-truth of the Ascetic theory of morality.
[FN#170] To-ju Naka-e (died A.D. 1649), the founder of the Japanese
Wang School of Confucianism, known as the Sage of Omi.
15. The Parable of a Drunkard.
Now the question arises, If all human beings are endowed with
Buddha-nature, why have they not come naturally to be Enlightened?
To answer this question, the Indian Mahayanists[FN#171] told the
parable of a drunkard who forgets the precious gems put in his own
pocket by one of his friends. The man is drunk with the poisonous
liquor of selfishness, led astray by the alluring sight of the
sensual objects, and goes mad with anger, lust, and folly. Thus he
is in a state of moral poverty, entirely forgetting the precious gem
of Buddha-nature within him. To be in an honourable position in
society as the owner of that valuable property, he must first get rid
himself of the influence of the liquor of self, and detach himself
from sensual objects, gain control over his passion, restore peace
and sincerity to his mind, and illumine his whole existence by his
inborn divine light. Otherwise he has to remain in the same plight
to all eternity.
[FN#171] Mahaparinirvana-sutra.
Lot us avail ourselves of another figure to explain more clearly the
point at issue. Universal Spirit may fitly be likened to the
universal water, or water circulating through the whole earth. This
universal water exists everywhere. It exists in the tree. It exists
in the grass. It exists in the mountain. It exists in the river.
It exists in the sea. It exists in the air. It exists in the cloud.
Thus man is not only surrounded by water on all sides, but it
penetrates his very body. But be can never appease his thirst
without drinking water. In like manner Universal Spirit exists
everywhere. It exists in the tree. It exists in the grass. It
exists in the ground. It exists in the mountain. It exists in the
river. It exists in the sea. It exists in the bird. It exists in
the beast. Thus man is not merely surrounded by Spirit on all sides,
but it permeates through his whole existence. But he can never be
Enlightened unless he awakens it within him by means of Meditation.
To drink water is to drink the universal water; to awaken
Buddha-nature is to be conscious of Universal Spirit.
Therefore, to get Enlightened we have to believe that all beings are
Buddha-natured--that is, absolutely good-natured in the sense that
transcends the duality of good and bad. "One day," to cite an
example, "Pan Shan (Ban-zan) happened to pass by a meat-shop. He
heard a customer saying: 'Give me a pound of fresh meat.' To which
the shopkeeper, putting down his knife, replied: Certainly, sir.
Could there be any meat that is not fresh in my shop?' Pan Shan,
hearing these remarks, was Enlightened at once."
16. Shakya Muni and the Prodigal Son.
A great trouble with us is that we do not believe in half the good
that we are born with. We are just like the only son of a
well-to-do, as the author of Saddharma-pundarika-sutra[FN#172] tells
us, who, being forgetful of his rich inheritance, leaves his home and
leads a life of hand-to-mouth as a coolie. How miserable it is to
see one, having no faith in his noble endowment, burying the precious
gem of Buddha-nature into the foul rubbish of vices and crimes,
wasting his excellent genius in the exertion that is sure to disgrace
his name, falling a prey to bitter remorse and doubt, and casting
himself away into the jaw of perdition. Shakya Muni, full of
fatherly love towards all beings, looked with compassion on us, his
prodigal son, and used every means to restore the half-starved man to
his home. It was for this that he left the palace and the beloved
wife and son, practised his self-mortification and prolonged
Meditation, attained to Enlightenment, and preached Dharma for
forty-nine years; in other words, all his strength and effort were
focussed on that single aim, which was to bring the prodigal son to
his rich mansion of Buddha-nature. He taught not only by words, but
by his own actual example, that man has Buddha-nature, by the
unfoldment of which he can save himself from the miseries of life and
death, and bring himself to a higher realm than gods. When we are
Enlightened, or when Universal Spirit awakens within us, we open the
inexhaustible store of virtues and excellencies, and can freely make
use of them at our will.
[FN#172] See 'Sacred Books of the East,' vol. xxi., chap. iv., pp.
98-118.
17. The Parable of the Monk and the Stupid Woman.
The confused or unenlightened may be compared with a monk and a
stupid woman in a Japanese parable which runs as follows: "One
evening a monk (who was used to have his head shaved clean), getting
drunk against the moral precepts, visited a woman, known as a
blockhead, at her house. No sooner had he got into her room than the
female fell asleep so soundly that the monk could not wake her nap.
Thereupon he made up his mind to use every possible means to arouse
her, and searched and searched all over the room for some instrument
that would help him in his task of arousing her from death-like
slumber. Fortunately, he found a razor in one of the drawers of her
mirror stand. With it he gave a stroke to her hair, but she did not
stir a whit. Then came another stroke, and she snored like thunder.
The third and fourth strokes came, but with no better result. And at
last her head was shaven clean, yet still she slept on. The next
morning when she awoke, she could not find her visitor, the monk, as
he had left the house in the previous night. 'Where is my visitor,
where my dear monk?' she called aloud, and waking in a state of
somnambulation looked for him in vain, repeating the outcry. When at
length her hand accidentally touched her shaven head, she mistook it
for that of her visitor, and exclaimed: 'Here you are, my dear, where
am I myself gone then?" A great trouble with the confused is their
forgetting of real self or Buddha-nature, and not knowing 'where it
is gone.' Duke Ngai, of the State of Lu, once said to Confucius:
"One of my subjects, Sir, is so much forgetful that he forgot to take
his wife when be changed his residence." "That is not much, my
lord," said the sage, "the Emperors Kieh[FN#173] and Cheu[FN#174]
forgot their own selves."[FN#175]
[FN#173] The last Emperor of the Ha dynasty, notorious for his
vices. His reign was 1818-1767 B.C.
[FN#174] The last Emperor of the Yin dynasty, one of the worst
despots. His reign was 1154-1122 B.C.
[FN#175] Ko-shi-ke-go.
18. 'Each Smile a Hymn, each Kindly Word a Prayer.'
The glorious sun of Buddha-nature shines in the zenith of Enlightened
Consciousness, but men still dream a dream of illusion. Bells and
clocks of the Universal Church proclaim the dawn of Bodhi, yet men,
drunk with the liquors of the Three Poisons[FN#176] Still slumber in
the darkness of sin. Let us pray to Buddha, in whose bosom we live,
for the sake of our own salvation. Let us invoke Buddha, whose
boundless mercy ever besets us, for the Sake of joy and peace of all
our fellow-beings. Let us adore Him through our sympathy towards the
poor, through our kindness shown to the suffering, through our
thought of the sublime and the good.
"O brother man, fold to thy heart thy brother;
Where pity dwells, the peace of God is there;
To worship rightly is to love each other,
Each smile a hymn, each kindly word a prayer."
--Whittier.
Let, then, your heart be so pure that you may not be unworthy of the
sunshine beaming upon you the light of Universal Spirit. Let your
thought be so noble that you may deserve fair flowers blooming before
you, reminding you of merciful Buddha. Let your life be so good that
you may not be ashamed of yourself in the presence of the Blessed
One. This is the piety of Mahayanists, especially of Zenists.
[FN#176] Lust, anger, and folly.
19. The World is in the Making.
Our assertion is far from assuming that life is now complete, and is
in its best state. On the contrary, it is full of defects and
shortcomings. We must not be puffed up with modern civilization,
however great victory it has scored for its side. Beyond all doubt
man is still in his cradle. He often stretches forth his hands to
get at his higher ideal, yet is still satisfied with worthless
playthings. It is too glaring a fact to be overlooked by us that
faith in religion is dying out in the educated circles of society,
that insincerity, cowardice, and double-tongue are found holding high
positions in almost ever community, that Lucrese and Ezzeling are
looking down upon the starving multitude from their luxurious palace,
that Mammon and Bacchus are sometimes preying on their living
victims, that even religion often sides with Contention and piety
takes part in Cruelty, that Anarchy is ever ready to spring on the
crowned beings, that philosophy is disposed to turn the deaf ear to
the petition of peace, while science provides fuel for the fire of
strife.
Was the golden age of man, then, over in the remote past? Is the
doomsday coming instead? Do you bear the trumpet call? Do you feel
the earth tremble? No, absolutely no, the golden age is not passed.
It is yet to come. There are not a few who think that the world is
in completion, and the Creator has finished His work. We witness,
however, that He is still working and working, for actually we hear
His hammer-strokes resounding through heaven above and earth beneath.
Does He not show us new materials for His building? Does He not
give new forms to His design? Does He not surprise us with
novelties, extraordinaries, and mysteries? In a word, the world is
in progress, not in retrogression.
A stream does not run in a straight line. It now turns to the right,
now to the left, now leaps down a precipice, now waters rich fields,
now runs back towards its source; but it is destined to find its
outlet in the ocean. So it is with the stream of life. It now leaps
down the precipice of revolution. Now it enriches the fertile field
of civilization. Now it expands itself into a glassy lake of peace.
Now it forms the dangerous whirlpool of strife. But its course is
always toward the ocean of Enlightenment, in which the gems of
equality and freedom, jewels of truth and beauty, and treasures of
wisdom and bliss can be had.
20. The Progress and Hope of Life.
How many myriads of years have passed since the germs of life first
made appearance on earth none can tell; how many thousands of summers
and winters it has taken to develop itself into higher animals, no
scientist can calculate exactly. Slowly but steadily it has taken
its swerving course, and ascending stop by step the series of
evolution, has reached at length the plane of the rational animal.
We cannot tell how many billions of years it takes to develop
ourselves and become beings higher than man himself, yet we firmly
believe that it is possible for us to take the same unerring course
as the organic germs took in the past. Existing humanity is not the
same as primitive one. It is quite another race. Our desires and
hopes are entirely different from those of primitive man. What was
gold for them is now iron for us. Our thoughts and beliefs are what
they never dreamed of. Of our knowledge they had almost none. That
which they kept in veneration we trample under our feet. Things they
worshipped as deities now serve us as our slaves. Things that
troubled and tortured them we now turn into utilities. To say
nothing of the customs and manners and mode of living which underwent
extraordinary change, we are of a race in body and mind other than
the primitive forefathers of good old days.
In addition to this we have every reason to believe in the betterment
of life. Let us cast a glance to the existing state of the world.
While the Turco-Italian war was raising its ferocious outcry, the
Chinese revolution lifted its head before the trembling throne. Who
can tell whether another sanguinary affair will not break out before
the Bulgarian bloodshed comes to an end? Still we believe that, as
fire drives out fire, to borrow Shakespeare's phrase, so war is
driving out war. As an ocean, which separated two nations in the
past, serves to unite them now, so a war, which separated two people
in the past, brings them to unity now. It goes without saying, that
every nation groans under the burden of cannons and warships, and
heartily desires peace. No nation can willingly wage war against any
other nation. It is against the national conscience. It is no
exaggeration to say the world is wholly the ear to hear the news from
the goddess of peace. A time will surely come, if our purpose be
steady and our resolution firm, when universal peace will be
restored, and Shakya Muni's precept, 'not to kill,' will be realized
by all mankind.
21. The Betterment of Life.
Again, people nowadays seem to feel keenly the wound of the
economical results of war, but they are unfeeling to its moral
injuries. As elements have their affinities, as bodies have their
attractions, as creatures have their instinct to live together, so
men have their inborn mutual love. 'God divided man into men that
they might help each other.' Their strength lies in their mutual
help, their pleasure is in their mutual love, and their perfection is
in their giving and receiving of alternate good. Therefore Shakya
Muni says: "Be merciful to all living beings." To take up arms
against any other person is unlawful for any individual. It is the
violation of the universal law of life.
We do not deny that there are not a few who are so wretched that they
rejoice in their crimes, nor that there is any person but has more or
less stain on his character, nor that the means of committing crimes
are multiplied in proportion as modern civilization advances; yet
still we believe that our social life is ever breaking down our
wolfish disposition that we inherited from our brute ancestors, and
education is ever wearing out our cannibalistic nature which we have
in common with wild animals. On the one hand, the signs of social
morals are manifest in every direction, such as asylums for orphans,
poorhouses, houses of correction, lodgings for the penniless, asylums
for the poor, free hospitals, hospitals for domestic animals,
societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, schools for the
blind and the dumb, asylums for the insane, and so forth; on the
other hand, various discoveries and inventions have been made that
may contribute to the social improvement, such as the discovery of
the X rays and of radium, the invention of the wireless telegraph and
that of the aeroplane and what not. Furthermore, spiritual wonders
such as clairvoyance, clairaudience, telepathy, etc., remind us of
the possibilities of further spiritual unfoldment in man which he
never dreamed of. Thus life is growing richer and nobler step by
step, and becoming more and more hopeful as we advance in the Way of
Buddha.
22. The Buddha of Mercy.
Milton says:
"Virtue may be assailed, but never hurt;
Surprised by unjust force, but not enthralled.
But evil on itself shall back recoil,
And mix no more with goodness. If this fail,
The pillared firmament is rottenness,
And earth's base built on stubble."
The world is built on the foundation of morality, which is another
name for Universal Spirit, and moral order sustains it. We human
beings, consciously or unconsciously, were, are, and will be at work
to bring the world into perfection. This idea is allegorically
expressed in the Buddhist sutra,[FN#177] which details the advent of
a merciful Buddha named Maitreya in the remote future. At that time,
it says, there will be no steep hills, no filthy places, no epidemic,
no famine, no earthquake, no storm, no war, no revolution, no
bloodshed, no cruelty, and no suffering; the roads will be paved
smoothly, grass and trees always blooming, birds ever singing, men
contented and happy; all sentient beings will worship the Buddha of
Mercy, accept His doctrine, and attain to Enlightenment. This
prophecy will be fulfilled, according to the sutra, 5,670,000,000
years after the death of Shakya Muni. This evidently shows us that
the Mahayanist's aim of life is to bring out man's inborn light of
Buddha-nature to illumine the world, to realize the universal
brotherhood of all sentient beings, to attain to Enlightenment, and
to enjoy peace and joy to which Universal Spirit leads us.
[FN#177] See Nanjo's Catalogue, Nos. 204-209.