Studies in THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
Online ISSN : 2424-1865
Print ISSN : 0289-7105
ISSN-L : 0289-7105
Volume 29
Showing 1-11 articles out of 11 articles from the selected issue
SUZUKI DAISETSU AND HIS THOUGHT
  • Taira SATO
    Type: Lecture
    2012 Volume 29 Pages 1-10
    Published: 2012
    Released: September 18, 2019
    JOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
    When I first met D. T. Suzuki to ask if I might study Buddhism under his instruction, he told me all I needed to do was become Namuamidabutsu itself. Looking back over the twenty-eight months I spent with him, I realised for the very first time the other day, a good forty-five years after his death, that for all those months, through the kindness of his deeds and actions, he had been leading me to the point where I would be able of my own accord to understand the true meaning of that puzzling injunction. A short while ago I suddenly recalled something he once said about himself, namely that he had no sincerity, and it came to me then just how profound his awareness of his own finite existence had been and how deeply his understanding of the Buddha-dharma had been united with his awareness of his own karmic existence. This brief talk, entitled My Encounter with D. T. Suzuki, is in every respect an expression of my profound gratitude to D. T. Suzuki for all he did for me during my stay with him from March 1964 to July 1966.
    Download PDF (849K)
  • Shin'ichi YOSHINAGA
    Type: Lecture
    2012 Volume 29 Pages 11-23
    Published: 2012
    Released: September 18, 2019
    JOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
    The writings of Suzuki Daisetsu (1870-1966) sometimes cause misunderstanding and unnecessary criticism because they often depended on their historical contexts. It seems necessary to examine his biography to understand his writings. In this lecture I pick up the few years between Suzuki’s entering the University of Tokyo (1892) and leaving for America (1897) , and show the relationship between Suzuki and other progressive young Buddhists during those years. In Meiji 20s Suzuki was one of those reform-minded young Buddhists called Bukkyō Seinen. He became a member of a society of such progressive Buddhists called Keiikai. This was the predecessor of the representative modernizing Buddhist movement, Shin Bukkyōto Dōshikai, of which Suzuki later became a member, too. The leading member of Keiikai was Furukawa Rōsen (1871-1899), who was said to be an ideological originator of Shin Bukkyōto Dōshika. Furukawa wrote an article about Tibetan Buddhism in 1895. In it he pointed out the vogue of Theosophy in Europe as an evidence to indicate the necessity of mystical experiences in conquering skepticism, and stressed the importance of Tibetan Buddhism. This opinion was influenced by his friend, Taoka Reiun (1870-1912), who tried to build his own mystical philosophy, which included Zen and the western Mysticism. In 1896 Suzuki wrote an article comparing Zen and the Western mysticism. This seemed to be written in response to other modernized interpretations of Zen. In Meiji 20s he was creating his own thoughts about Zen and Buddhism by exchanging opinions with other young Buddhists.
    Download PDF (887K)
  • Shudo TSUKIYAMA
    Type: Article
    2012 Volume 29 Pages 24-40
    Published: 2012
    Released: September 18, 2019
    JOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
    In general, Suzuki Daisetsu is known well as a man of Zen Buddhism. However, he had also deep concern and understanding about Shin Buddhism, and taught us much of it. The aim of this paper is inquiring into his thought of the Land of Purity. For that, we approached this matter from the following three points of view: First in the section 1, we inquired into how Daisetsu saw Teaching of the Land of Purity in the whole history of Buddhism. In other words, his positioning of Pure Land Buddhism and its view-point were cleared up.

    Secondly in the section 2, the fundamental standpoint and distinctive features of his understanding and interpretation about Shin Buddhism doctrine were examined and explained.

    Finally, Daisetsu’s own thought of the Land of Purity was investigated. What should be here paid attention to is the following two things: His own thought of the Land of Purity is distinguished from his understanding or views of Shin Buddhism doctrine, and it means the thought of Pure Land Buddhism which Daisetsu himself had grasped. Another is that the idea of the Land of Purity, Birth in Amida’s Land of Purity, the relationship of the Land of Purity to the world, and Recitation of Amida’s name i.e. to say ‘Namu Amidabutsu’ are main problems there.

    On one hand, his such thought of the Land of Purity discovered the universal significance and possibility of Myokonin’s religious experiences, on the other hand it was more concreted and deepened through his encounter with them.
    Download PDF (958K)
  • Katsuhito INOUE
    Type: Article
    2012 Volume 29 Pages 41-56
    Published: 2012
    Released: September 18, 2019
    JOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
    Der Satz der Identität bedeutet auch für den Zen-Buddhismus, dass ein Ding mit sich selbst identisch ist. Ein Berg ist durch und durch ein Berg. Äußerlich gesehen, gibt es hier keinen Unterschied zwischen der gewöhnlichen Logik und der Zen-Logik. Aber schon auf der Anfangsstufe nimmt Zen einen anderen Standpunkt ein. Die gewöhnliche Logik entwickelt den Satz der Identität weiter zum Satz vom Widerspruch (A ist nicht nicht-A), die Zen-Logik aber entwickelt ihn zu einem offenbaren Widerspruch 〈A ist nicht-A〉. Zen behauptet 〈Der Berg ist nicht-Berg〉. Damit man diese Aussage verstehen kann, muss man eine völlige Bewußtseinsveränder­ung voraussetzen. Er muss fähig sein wahrzunehmen, dass A seine eigene A-heit durchbricht und ihm sich dieser formlose und aspektlose Aspekt ent­hüllt. Die Formel 〈A ist nicht-A〉 wird folgendermaßen paraphrasiert: 〈A ist so durch und durch A, dass es nicht mehr A ist〉. A ist hier nicht-A im positiven Sinne, indem es absolut jenseits der Bestimmung und Begren­zung der A-heit ist. Aber gleich darauf folgt die nächste Stufe (oder wir sollten eher sagen: diese konstituiert sich gleichzeitig wie die Stufe des 〈A ist nicht­ A〉): 〈A ist (wieder) A〉 . Dies bedeutet, dass wir auf der letzten Stufe wieder zur Anfangsstufe zurückkehren. 〈Der Berg ist (wieder) Berg〉. Diese Identität, die drei Stufen hat, wird auch folgendermaßen para­phrasiert: A ist nicht A; deswegen ist es A. 〈Ein Berg ist kein Berg; des­halb muß er Berg genannt werden〉 („Diamant Prajñā Sūtra“, 『金剛般若経』). Und eben diese Identität ist nichts anders als die sogenannte 〈 Soku-hi no Ronri 即非の論理〉 bei Daisetsu Suzuki .
    Download PDF (1073K)
Articles
  • Keisuke SATO
    Type: Original Article
    2012 Volume 29 Pages 57-69
    Published: 2012
    Released: September 18, 2019
    JOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
    Gianni Vattimo, who is an Italian contemporary philosopher, regards the process of secularisation as a neccesary event of the history of Being. For, interpreting Heideggerian Being with Verwindung, Vattimo thinks Being itself derives from its presence. This proccess of Being’s derivation has affinity with Christianity. The God in Christianity has incarnated into the human Christ, and Vattimo interprets this event as the infinit derivation from origin. So, both the history of Being and Christianity have “weakness” in essence. This weakness is free from the violence which Western metaphysics has possessed. Vattimo, however, thinks there is an irreducible core in this weak Christianity (or weak Christian God). It is charity. So, according to Vattimo, if we interpret Christian messages in light of the weak ontology, they contribute to the developpment of the sociery based on love, and moreover, the establishment of the plural democrary in West. Vattimo’s concept of charity is important because in the contemporary philosophy of religion, the relation between being and love is to be taken seriously. The assessment that Christianity can contribute to democrary closes Vattimo to Rorty.
    Download PDF (944K)
  • Masumi NAGASAKA
    Type: Original Article
    2012 Volume 29 Pages 70-83
    Published: 2012
    Released: September 18, 2019
    JOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
    Den Begriff der Religion als Reife der Vernunft darstellend, beschreibt Levinas den Glauben als das, was durch das Wissen angetrieben wird. Indem er andererseits versucht, den Begriff der Religion von allen Arten der Mystifikation zu befreien, betrachtet er ihn als „Beziehung ohne Beziehung“, die über die Glaubensfähigkeit des Subjekts hinausgeht und sich dadurch jenseits von allem möglichen Wissen offenbart.

    Diese Verflochtenheit zwischen Glauben und Wissen spiegelt sich in der Inkompatibilität zwischen dem Glauben an die bedingungslose Gnade und dem vernünftigen Bemühen wider, die er in seiner Lektüre von Synhedrin in den „Messianischen Texten“ behandelt. Dieses Paradox deckt sich mit der Kantischen Antinomie aus Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft, wo er eine Versöhnung von Glauben und Wissen durch das Paradox des radikalen Bösen sucht.

    Mit der Unterscheidung von zwei Arten der Selbstkritik des Wissens, die in Totalität und Unendlichkeit eingeführt wurden, die eine den Umfang und die andere die Existenz eines solchen Territoriums betreffend, stellt Levinas die Rechtmäßigkeit der Selbstkritik als Limitation des Wissens infrage, die dem Wissen ein Territorium schafft. Die Levinassche Versöhnung zwischen Glauben und Wissen beginnt demnach mit einer vertikalen Bewegung der Vernunft, die sich so vollkommen kritisiert, dass sie sich dadurch selbst aller Territorialität beraubt.
    Download PDF (995K)
  • Eriko SUENAGA
    Type: Original Article
    2012 Volume 29 Pages 84-97
    Published: 2012
    Released: September 18, 2019
    JOURNALS OPEN ACCESS
Book review
feedback
Top