Kiyozawa Manshi, Kaneko Daiei, Soga Ryojin

[doublerepukken]

Hello All,

It's been a long time since I've posted on the forum, happy to be back. I've been spending a lot of time studying as well as taking the BCA Jodo Shinshu Correspondence Course, and talking to several priests and mentors and have found myself settled on the Shin path.

I am wondering what the general perception of the more radical and 'modernist' thinkers is; they are the last pocket of the Shin world I feel that I haven't really explored, and was wondering what people thought of them. My impression from the outside just from surface level reading is that they went a bit off the rails and essentially tried to reduce the Pure Land to peace on Earth, or the Sangha and things like that - though I have talked to many Shin Buddhists who take deep inspiration from them. Are they completely unfaithful to Shinran and Rennyo or is there something to their writing? I know that Daiei was once considered a heretic, but later was reinstated. Are they considered essential reading or are they more on the fringe of the Shin community?

I know this topic is somewhat controversial, so I apologize if it ignites debate; I am honestly just wondering if my cursory assessment is remotely accurate, and if I should avoid them entirely.

Gassho,

Ethan

[doublerepukken]

I guess people are not that familiar with these authors lol

[Shaku Kenshin]

Hi doublerepukken,
They had a big influence on modern Shin Buddhism, but mainly within the Otani-ha, to which all three belonged, and much less within the Honganji-ha, which has way more temples outside of Japan.
Their writings are also studied and taught at Otani University.

[steveb1]

Hello All,

It's been a long time since I've posted on the forum, happy to be back. I've been spending a lot of time studying as well as taking the BCA Jodo Shinshu Correspondence Course, and talking to several priests and mentors and have found myself settled on the Shin path.

I am wondering what the general perception of the more radical and 'modernist' thinkers is; they are the last pocket of the Shin world I feel that I haven't really explored, and was wondering what people thought of them. My impression from the outside just from surface level reading is that they went a bit off the rails and essentially tried to reduce the Pure Land to peace on Earth, or the Sangha and things like that - though I have talked to many Shin Buddhists who take deep inspiration from them. Are they completely unfaithful to Shinran and Rennyo or is there something to their writing? I know that Daiei was once considered a heretic, but later was reinstated. Are they considered essential reading or are they more on the fringe of the Shin community?

I know this topic is somewhat controversial, so I apologize if it ignites debate; I am honestly just wondering if my cursory assessment is remotely accurate, and if I should avoid them entirely.

Gassho,

Ethan

My study of "Modernists" has been deliberately sparse, especially if they are senseis rather than university professors. For me, the Shin ground truth is that Amida Buddha is a real Buddha, his merit and grace are real and are the agency which enables us to recite the Nembutsu with perfect faith (Shinjin), and that the Pure Land is the "location" wherein the Buddha's providential compassion sparks or vivifies our hitherto "dormant" Buddha Nature.

So, for me, Shin describes, and offers immersion in, a real "sacred Transcendent" who is called "Amida Buddha" in the tradition. Amida is a real Buddha, not (as Modernism tries to claim) a symbol of an impersonal mechanism that encourages us to "be better people".

Of course, Amida Buddha - like Jesus in Christianity - does have myriad symbolic values, but underlying them, there is a core of transcendent - specifically non-samsaric - sacred activity.
Amida partakes in the Unconditioned and the Unborn - two attributes which are transcendent of "the world" and cannot be derived from samsara. This is where the center of Shin's claims exists for me: its "panenDharmism" (can't call it panentheistic because Amida is not a god), which holds that Amida Buddha is both "here" (immanent) and "more than here" (transcendent). Inasmuch as Modernism ignores or rejects these principles, I view it to be mistaken.

[DewachenVagabond]

Hello All,

It's been a long time since I've posted on the forum, happy to be back. I've been spending a lot of time studying as well as taking the BCA Jodo Shinshu Correspondence Course, and talking to several priests and mentors and have found myself settled on the Shin path.

I am wondering what the general perception of the more radical and 'modernist' thinkers is; they are the last pocket of the Shin world I feel that I haven't really explored, and was wondering what people thought of them. My impression from the outside just from surface level reading is that they went a bit off the rails and essentially tried to reduce the Pure Land to peace on Earth, or the Sangha and things like that - though I have talked to many Shin Buddhists who take deep inspiration from them. Are they completely unfaithful to Shinran and Rennyo or is there something to their writing? I know that Daiei was once considered a heretic, but later was reinstated. Are they considered essential reading or are they more on the fringe of the Shin community?

I know this topic is somewhat controversial, so I apologize if it ignites debate; I am honestly just wondering if my cursory assessment is remotely accurate, and if I should avoid them entirely.

Gassho,

Ethan

My study of "Modernists" has been deliberately sparse, especially if they are senseis rather than university professors. For me, the Shin ground truth is that Amida Buddha is a real Buddha, his merit and grace are real and are the agency which enables us to recite the Nembutsu with perfect faith (Shinjin), and that the Pure Land is the "location" wherein the Buddha's providential compassion sparks or vivifies our hitherto "dormant" Buddha Nature.

So, for me, Shin describes, and offers immersion in, a real "sacred Transcendent" who is called "Amida Buddha" in the tradition. Amida is a real Buddha, not (as Modernism tries to claim) a symbol of an impersonal mechanism that encourages us to "be better people".

Of course, Amida Buddha - like Jesus in Christianity - does have myriad symbolic values, but underlying them, there is a core of transcendent - specifically non-samsaric - sacred activity.
Amida partakes in the Unconditioned and the Unborn - two attributes which are transcendent of "the world" and cannot be derived from samsara. This is where the center of Shin's claims exists for me: its "panenDharmism" (can't call it panentheistic because Amida is not a god), which holds that Amida Buddha is both "here" (immanent) and "more than here" (transcendent). Inasmuch as Modernism ignores or rejects these principles, I view it to be mistaken.

I largely agree. I don't know enough about the other two, but it seems like Kiyozawa Manshi relied too much or was too heavily influenced by Western Philosophy. In Modern Shin in general, it seems like a lot of the juice of the tradition gets lost in the focus on everything merely being symbolism. When I read Akegarasu Haya's writings (he was a student of Manshi and was the administrative head of the Higashi Hongan-ji) I was disappointed because it didn't feel like I was reading about Shin Buddhism or really Buddhism at all. In my opinion, at lot of Modern Shin seems watered down and too heavily influenced by Western Philosophy.

[steveb1]

Hello All,

It's been a long time since I've posted on the forum, happy to be back. I've been spending a lot of time studying as well as taking the BCA Jodo Shinshu Correspondence Course, and talking to several priests and mentors and have found myself settled on the Shin path.

I am wondering what the general perception of the more radical and 'modernist' thinkers is; they are the last pocket of the Shin world I feel that I haven't really explored, and was wondering what people thought of them. My impression from the outside just from surface level reading is that they went a bit off the rails and essentially tried to reduce the Pure Land to peace on Earth, or the Sangha and things like that - though I have talked to many Shin Buddhists who take deep inspiration from them. Are they completely unfaithful to Shinran and Rennyo or is there something to their writing? I know that Daiei was once considered a heretic, but later was reinstated. Are they considered essential reading or are they more on the fringe of the Shin community?

I know this topic is somewhat controversial, so I apologize if it ignites debate; I am honestly just wondering if my cursory assessment is remotely accurate, and if I should avoid them entirely.

Gassho,

Ethan

My study of "Modernists" has been deliberately sparse, especially if they are senseis rather than university professors. For me, the Shin ground truth is that Amida Buddha is a real Buddha, his merit and grace are real and are the agency which enables us to recite the Nembutsu with perfect faith (Shinjin), and that the Pure Land is the "location" wherein the Buddha's providential compassion sparks or vivifies our hitherto "dormant" Buddha Nature.

So, for me, Shin describes, and offers immersion in, a real "sacred Transcendent" who is called "Amida Buddha" in the tradition. Amida is a real Buddha, not (as Modernism tries to claim) a symbol of an impersonal mechanism that encourages us to "be better people".

Of course, Amida Buddha - like Jesus in Christianity - does have myriad symbolic values, but underlying them, there is a core of transcendent - specifically non-samsaric - sacred activity.
Amida partakes in the Unconditioned and the Unborn - two attributes which are transcendent of "the world" and cannot be derived from samsara. This is where the center of Shin's claims exists for me: its "panenDharmism" (can't call it panentheistic because Amida is not a god), which holds that Amida Buddha is both "here" (immanent) and "more than here" (transcendent). Inasmuch as Modernism ignores or rejects these principles, I view it to be mistaken.

I largely agree. I don't know enough about the other two, but it seems like Kiyozawa Manshi relied too much or was too heavily influenced by Western Philosophy. In Modern Shin in general, it seems like a lot of the juice of the tradition gets lost in the focus on everything merely being symbolism. When I read Akegarasu Haya's writings (he was a student of Manshi and was the administrative head of the Higashi Hongan-ji) I was disappointed because it didn't feel like I was reading about Shin Buddhism or really Buddhism at all. In my opinion, at lot of Modern Shin seems watered down and too heavily influenced by Western Philosophy.

I completely agree. It's an unfortunate situation because, as you say, it exchanges symbolism for reality. For example, in Catholicism the Eucharist is a symbol or sign pointing to Christ. But, first and foremost, it is a living embodiment, a sacrament, of Christ's "Real Presence".

Naturally, Catholicism rejects Protestant views that only make a claim for the sacrament's symbolic (or memorial) attributes, while scuttling the core claim of Real Presence mediated by transubstantiation.

Ditto for some Buddhist Modernists, who only claim the symbology of Amida Buddha, while ignoring or outright rejecting the living Buddha whose existence itself generates the secondary symbolism.