To view the diacritics on this page, you must install the Indic Times font on your machine and have a browser capable of displaying the Unicode (utf-8) character set.
A Review of Honens Buddhismus des Reinen Landes: Reform, Reformation oder Häresie?
Honens Buddhismus des Reinen Landes: Reform, Reformation oder Häresie?.
By Christoph Kleine. Bern, Berlin, et al.: Peter Lang, 1996, xiii + 427 pages pages, ISBN 3-631-49852-7, DM 108
Reviewed By Gregor Paul
Department of Philosophy
Karlsruhe University
Gregor.Paul@t-online.de
Christoph Kleine's exploration of Hoonen's (1133-1212) life and thought is a valuable contribution to the study of Kamakura Buddhism. Based on a comprehensive and detailed investigation of primary and secondary sources, Honens Buddhismus des Reinen Landes offers an instructive and inspiring analysis. Kleine's mastery of Chinese and Japanese is impressive. Also, contrary to those still influential German scholars who write in mystifying language about the "otherness" of Japan, and Japanese Buddhism in particular, he presents his ideas in a rational manner and in very readable German. His bibliography and index are extremely helpful, comprising a huge number of relevant titles and technical terms respectively.
Kleine convincingly argues against still widespread clichés such as that Kamakura Buddhism was (1) a more or less homogenous Buddhist movement and (2) fundamentally different from earlier Japanese Buddhism. For instance, he points to the differences between Hoonen's Joodo-shuu, Nichiren's (1222-1282) Hokke-shuu, and Doogen's (1200-1253) Sootoo-shuu, and calls attention to pre-Kamakura traditions of nembutsu thought and practice, and to pre-Kamakura hijiri movements. As Kleine shows, only some of those principles which are often considered general characteristics of Kamakura Buddhism characterize the particular Kamakura schools. Further, most principles were already influential in Heian times; for example, whereas the principles of reductionism or selectionism (senchaku), exclusiveness of practice (senju) and especially simplification of practice (igyoo) may indeed be characteristic of the Sootoo-shuu, the principles of independence from traditional ordination rules and Buddhist prescriptions (han-karitsu), and popularism (minshuu-sei) certainly are not. Also, the first three principles were characteristic of pre-Kamakura Buddhist movements too (pp. 13-23). According to Kleine, it follows from this that Kamakura Buddhism is by no means "more Japanese" than Heian or even Nara Buddhism (p. 19).
In his analysis of Hoonen's role as a religious leader, Kleine arrives at the conclusion that Hoonen was neither a reformer nor a "Reformator" in the German sense, but rather a heretic. By the term "reformer" Kleine means a renewer who achieves his aim within a given "orthodox" framework; by "Reformator" he refers to a renewer aiming at a reform but ultimately forced to realize his goal outside the given "orthodox" framework (like Luther); and by "heretic" Kleine understands a man who does not consciously aim at a renewal at all and who does not want to deviate from "orthodoxy" but -- especially by his selectivism and reductionism (p. 327) -- actually departs from the established tradition, and is then regarded by his "orthodox" contemporaries as a dangerous deviator (p. 347).
Kleine takes pains to develop his definitions of "reformation" (p. 316) and "heresy" (p. 328). Also, he tries to show that his notion of heresy is by no means alien to Japan. According to Kleine, words such as jaken (wrong or heterodox view) and itan (deviating faction or side) provide respective evidence (p. 329). Further, he points out that jaken is a traditional translation of the Buddhist Sanskrit term which means "wrong view(s)."
In his attempt to prove that his notion of heresy is applicable to Buddhism, Kleine must also criticize the prejudice that Buddhism is "a religion of tolerance and openness." In doing so, he is of course right. Kleine quotes Dobbins who pointed out that "the idea of 'assailing heresy and revealing truth' (haja kenshoo) is [attributed to the Buddha himself] and traceable to numerous Buddhist classics" (p. 320).
Apparently, Kleine regards his "critical appraisal of Hoonen" (pp. 309-349) as his most important contribution to an understanding of Kamakura Buddhism from the viewpoint of a science of religion (Religionswissenschaft). This may be true in certain respects but seems doubtful with regard to his classification of Hoonen as a heretic. It is because Kleine's arguments are based on a critical research of primary sources and are carefully construed that his "appraisal" inspires and deserves a more detailed discussion.
Kleine is certainly right when he emphasizes that Hoonen did not found a new religious organization -- that is, an independent institution with its own initiation rites and temples -- and that he did not aim at founding such an institution. Especially, Hoonen never sought an official (governmental) permit for establishing such an organization. Hence Kleine rightly concludes that Hoonen cannot be regarded as the founder of the Joodo-shuu. Also, since Hoonen did not aim at a reform of Buddhism, and, in his notion of nembutsu as the single most important means of salvation, significantly deviated from earlier, more modest concepts and practices of nembutsu, he cannot appropriately be called a reformer.
In my opinion, Kleine even underestimates the significance of Hoonen's deviation in regarding the recitation of namu Amida butsu as the most efficient means for salvation (that is, for being born into the Pure Land of Amida) and in implying logically that this practice is soteriologically superior to all other Buddhist ways to salvation. Given the universally valid rule that, if possible, one should employ the most efficient means to reach one's goal, and also given that, in principle, everybody is able to recite the nembutsu, it logically follows that one ought to recite namu Amida butsu before using any other means. Kleine emphasizes that Hoonen himself did not want to devaluate, or depreciate, other Buddhist teachings. But in fact that is exactly what he did. None of his conciliatory remarks could do away with the logical implications of his notion of nembutsu. Actually, only a religion that maintains that the goals and the forms and methods of other religions are of the same value as its own particular goals, forms and methods does not claim superiority and does not invite inhumanity in the name of "truth" and "benevolence."
In this context, one word about Kleine's understanding of shuu may also be appropriate. Kleine (pp. 151ff.) overlooks that a shuu, in the sense of "school," as, for example, in Tendai-shuu (Tendai school), and not only in the sense of "sect," can also be, and often was, "sectarian," that is, conceiving of itself as significantly different from other schools. In particular, Kleine underestimates Saichoo's sectarian spirit as it is recognizable in Saichoo's attacks against the Nara schools which he criticized as no real Mahaayaana, and in his vehement attempts to establish his own ordination platform. In contrast to Kleine, I am of the opinion that sectarianism was already a characteristic of Heian Buddhism. It was only in Nara Buddhism that sectarianism did not play a significant role. Early Nara Buddhists themselves did not even call their groupings shuu (schools), but just groups (shu). For more details, one may consult Ishida Moosaku (Shakyoo yori mitaru Nara-choo bukkyoo no kenkyuu, Tookyoo: Tooyoo bunko, 1930), Paul Groner (Saichoo: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai Sect, Berkeley, 1984), or my Philosophie in Japan (München: Iudicium, 1993, especially pp. 159 and 278-285).
To recapitulate and provisionally sum up, while I find Kleine's conclusions that Hoonen cannot adequately be regarded as the founder of the Joodo-shuu and as a reformer convincing, I hold that to characterize him just as a dangerous heretic and heterodox is unsatisfactory. To say that he was a heretic actually does not mean very much, especially if one -- as Kleine himself does -- wants to understand the classification "heretic" as an evaluation by a respective orthodoxy (p. 347). Almost all religious people who in a significant way deviate from established teachings and practices are viewed as heretics by their orthodox contemporaries. Unlike most of them, however, Hoonen and his teachings proved very influential, ultimately leading to the establishment of the powerful Joodo-shuu. Though perhaps willy nilly, Hoonen was the founder of a lasting religious doctrine, which must be distinguished from an religious institution. Kleine is of course aware of this. The significant feature of Hoonen's doctrine was not its deviation from, or "negation" of, traditional teachings but its as it were character as a positive teaching. At least, one must consider the second aspect too when characterizing Hoonen's historical position, not to mention the task of a systematic categorization of new religious forms. If one wants to avoid the term "reformation," (because one believes that this term should be applied only if reforms are intended) one perhaps has to speak of a "soft revolution," or to look for another term.
Actually, the choice of terms is often unimportant. Sometimes, however, inappropriate terminology causes misunderstandings, and even covers up grave problems. Whether this is case when one calls Hoonen a heretic without also calling him a Reformator or soft revolutionary, must be left to further discussion.
In expressing some doubts about the main results of Kleine's "critical appraisal of Hoonen," I do not want to qualify my initial recommendation. Kleine's book offers much detailed information, it includes many translations of important passages of Hoonen's work into a Western language for the first time, it is well argued, stimulating, written in a very readable German, and it provides the Western scholar with a wealth of bibliographical and terminological knowledge. Because of its competent scholarship it is also a very reliable source for further scholarly research and discussion.
