while i don't agree entirely with his complete dismissal of ritual, i must admit he argues his case extremely well and offers a refreshing take on what it must mean to live a life in imitation of Christ - in his eyes the complete adherence to a well known passage from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5: 38-39 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
combined with his criticism of church and state, both of which he argues as fundamentally opposed to and contradictive of Christ's injuctions (1 COR 7: 23) Tolstoy has come to be seen as somewhat of a godfather figure to the anarcho-pacifists.
reading through, one thing that's grabbed my attention is his response in chapter 2 to a criticism levelled at his advocation of non-resistance -
"even if to use force against wicked men had been permitted by God, since it is impossible to find a perfect and unfailing distinction by which one could positively know the wicked from the good, so it would come to all individual men and societies of men mutually regarding each other as wicked men, as is the case now."
i was very much reminded with these words, of Shinran's own conception of the impossibility of comprehending what is truly good and what is truly evil such as Amida knows found in the third postcript of the Tannisho -
I know nothing at all of good or evil. For if I could know thoroughly, as Amida Tathagata knows, that an act was good, then I would know good. If I could know thoroughly, as the Tathagata knows, that an act was evil, then I would know evil. But with a foolish being full of blind passions, in this fleeting world- this burning house- all matters without exception are empty and false, totally without truth and sincerity. The nembutsu alone is true and real.
while i acknowledge that there is a difference here in that Shinran is speaking about thorough knowledge of good and evil acts in and of themselves whereas Tolstoy is focussing on distinction between the two whereby positive knowledge of both is arrived at, nonetheless i think the comparison bears up.
it's interesting at least if nothing else and i may return to these thoughts the further into Tolstoy's tome i go.
namu amida butsu
Hi Jon, Personally I think Shinran is looking purely at himself. He isn't talking about how to judge whether others are good or evil but about his own actions. Furthermore although Shinshu faith has often fallen into passivity and quiteism at times the heart of the nembutsu is that in the end, after reflection and hearing, we just go forwards the best we can, entrusting even the possibility of our making the wrong choice to Amida Buddha. As such I don't believe that Shinshu is compatible with a position of absolute ideological pacificism.
ReplyDeletehi Kyoshin, i would agree that this is a very personal confession of Shinran. i still think it bears out though...he can not truly know what is good and what is evil as regards himself then it follows as regards others too.
ReplyDeleteand i guess the similarity between the two confessions which i see is this acknowledgment of the impossibility of truly knowing.
i do agree that it's unlikely Shin is compatible with absolute ideological pacifism.
it's interesting though that you say "we just go forwards the best we can"....i think it's that sense of movement towards something, in Shinshu's case the Pure Land, in Tolstoy's the Christ...and an acknowledgement of limitations.
Tolstoy talks in Chapter 3 of "uninterrupted progress towards an ever greater love within oneself" and warns against self-satisfied stagnation. blessedness consists in the progression and to stand still means the cessation of this blessedness.
there's a similar admonishment in Rennyo's Sayings, article 213 "if you think you have understood the Dharma well, you have not understood it at all."
there certainly is a sense of self-power progression (or perhaps self and other -power) in Tolstoys writing, whereas figures such as Shinran and Rennyo there is always the sense of being carried forward wholly in the light of tariki.
i confess though, in my eagerness to draw parallels i could be seeing similarities where there are none.
Thanks for responding Jon. I don't think you are wrong, it's more that I would always urge caution when applying the Tannisho to other teachings from outside of its particular religious and philosophical framework as it is a document about a type of experience which is beyond conventional logic. Yes you can use conventional logic to extrapolate Shinran's words and reach Tolstoy's conclusion but I feel that Shinran's words were expressed in a totally different framework, that of "The meaning of no-meaning” (mugi wo motte gi to su)".
ReplyDeleteHaving said that though, in what you have shared about Tolstoy I can certainly see many possible parallels between these men, and their movements. I wonder however whether these are simply due to the pietistic style of their teachings or if there are deeper resonances?
Thanks for a thought provoking post!