Enlightenment, love, experience, and even chaos and the brutality of war- the word ‘war’ here used to include a wide array of conflicts and disagreements that result in various kinds of brutality- are central themes in many philosophical discussions. Many of these discussions discern these aspects, but also find the interrelationship between them, either implicitly or explicitly. The readings in class: Shirane’s Traditional Japanese Literature, De Barry’s discussions in the Sources of East Asian Tradition, among others do the same, offering their various insights into these elements and more (often implicitly). But most importantly, these sources show that, despite the universality of these themes, they are not seen exactly the same across different cultures. Particularly, despite the generally shared notions on these aspects across the various East Asian cultures (that is, Japan and China), these sources also imply the differences, making effort to account for the same. This paper discusses the aspect of enlightenment in Chinese and Japanese cultures as explored in these texts, trying to find the points of tangency between how the two cultures view enlightenment (particularly the role of morality in enlightenment), as well as the areas in which they deviate and what reasons could possibly explain these points of tangency and distinction.
Now, enlightenment means different things to different people. In this case, it means different things in different cultures. China and Japan share some resemblance in the definition of enlightenment, although there are also noteworthy differences. Perhaps Wright best captures this the general view of enlightenment in for many people: “the attainment of human excellence that is comprehensive and complete”.
In Sources of East Asian Tradition, De Barry discusses a number of crucial sources of knowledge (social, religious, political and even economic) among the communities of East Asia. The teachings of Asian teachers, philosophers and leaders is found to have been very important in this regard. According to De Barry, the teachings are based on the Lotus of the Wonderful Law scriptures that originated from North India (where it was known as Saddharmapundarlka Sutra) or even Central Asia. However, it is the interpretations of it by the Chinese monk Zhiyi that spread out in China, Korea and Japan, where it is found to have had a significant influence. Zhiyi believed the Lotus was more than just a philosophical text and believed the Lotus was more of a guide to religious salvation in the practical sense of it. Zhiyi made this conclusion by reading between the lines, looking for how language had been used to express meaning and the religious teachings embodied within it. In the end, Zhiyi’s interpretation of the text is a major contribution toward Buddhist thought in China, Japan and Korea, which combines philosophical thought (that is, the contemplation of the metaphysical) and religious practice of meditation.
According to Della, morality is one of the three paths to enlightenment (alongside mental development and wisdom). Morality in this case is said to be what constitutes the first step to (and foundation for) further personal development. Morality becomes the source of all positive qualities. “Morality is the foundation of all qualities: virtues; attainments; from the mundane to the supramundane; from success and good fortune to skill in meditation; and, ultimately, wisdom and enlightenment”.
This inclusion of the moral in the definition of enlightenment should also be evident among the Japanese. This is evident in Shirane’s exploration of Traditional Japanese Literature. In her diary, for example, Murasaki Shikibu refers to the teachings of the Buddhism on morality, referring to how hard it is to abide by them- in fact wondering how possible that can be. She speaks of the “Three Treasures”, which might be the three paths to enlightenment that Della refers to above.
Also to provide some evidence of the similarity between Japanese and Chinese views on enlightenment, Wright cites the arguments of Brian Victoria in his condemnation of the 20th century Japanese Zen Masters for what he termed as their ‘moral blindness’ to the suffering that Japan’s aggressions subjected people to in the 1930s and 40s, and that the Zen Masters proclaimed the unity between Zen and war.
Many have responded in various ways to this criticism of the Japanese Zen Masters. Most prominently, one of the arguments that some have put up is that the Zen Masters involved at the time of Japan’s aggressions were not enlightened and, therefore, not true Zen masters. Wright, in his defense of the Zen Masters behavior, argues that the masters must not be judged against the same definition of enlightenment that brings the moral question into play. He argues that the definition of enlightenment in Zen has separated itself from the question of the moral; that morality does not constitute a substantial or central element in the definition of ‘enlightenment’. Wright goes further to explain that this does not mean that the Zen masters are immoral or amoral. In fact, Wright says, there have been many moral exemplars in Zen. However, picking up from the arguments of Tom Kasulis and Chris Ives, among others, this morality among some Zen masters is directly attributable to their Zen training. Rather, it is the result of their (the Zen masters) participation in the tradition of the Confucian morality in East Asia, as well as the broader teachings of broader Chinese Buddhist tradition. “Zen masters, like everyone else in East Asia, lived moral lives and expressed themselves morally to the extent of their absorption of the Confucian and Buddhist culture in which they lived”.
In this argument, Wright cites the link between Japanese and Chinese views of enlightenment. However, he still insists on the emphasizing that the moral is not part of the Zen culture. In this regard, one must ask where the boundary between the Zen culture and the wider predominant culture of Confucianism and the Buddhist tradition teachings; whether it is possible to separate one from the other. In other words, Zen is not averse to the moral. Therefore, it must then support it because one cannot hold two conflicting views at the same time. If some of the Zen masters can abide by the moral, then maybe that is what is expected, so that the immoral/amoral Zen masters are the exception.
Besides the reference to Buddhist teachings, Shikibu’s diary also provides evidence of the influence of Chinese text in Japan. She refers to Sei Shonagon littering her writings with Chinese characters and thinking herself smart. But even Shikibu herself has great admiration for the Chinese work (including writings). She observes that Sei Shonagon’s Chinese characters leave a lot to be desired. Further, she reads Chinese books when her loneliness threatens to overwhelm her, her brother learned Chinese classics as a boy and to whom she listened as he read them.
This reference to Chinese works is important as it provides the basis for understanding how it could have been possible for one culture to borrow from the other- in this case Japanese borrowing from the Chinese. This might easily explain the proliferation of traditional Buddhist teachings in China to Japan and other parts of East Asia. Ultimately, this makes it possible and justifies
In conclusion, this paper aimed to find what the class texts have said about enlightenment as an aspect of life. The main goal was to find the ways in which Japanese and Chinese views on enlightenment are similar and in what ways they are not, and what could account for these aspects.
In this regard, the argument in this paper was based on thesis that the similarity between how both cultures view enlightenment has to do with the fact that both cultures have largely used the same sources of information that have influenced their ways of life: political, economic, social and religious. The Lotus texts, for example, has informed the religious views of most- if not all- communities in East Asia, including China, Korea and Japan. Further, while these texts are said to have originated in either North India or Central Asia, what has mainly circulated in East Asia has been Zhiyi’s interpretation of it. It is worth noting that Zhiyi was a Chinese monk. Equally important is the fact that Zhiyi lived at a time when traditional Chinese Buddhism was trying to find the point between philosophical and religious considerations met. These also did have an influence on Zhiyi’s work.
It is, therefore, understandable that with the spread of these texts in other parts of East Asia, some elements of Chinese culture, including religion did rub off the cultures that interacted with these texts. Furthermore, in Shirane’s anthology of Traditional Japanese Literature, we find the evidence of just how much influence Chinese literature had in Japan. This also explains the similarities in how the two cultures viewed enlightenment- and other aspects of life for that matter.
In the end, though, these are two different cultures. As such, it is not possible for them to be exact the same. The example of Zen masters and how their behaviors may have contrasted with the teachings of traditional Chinese Buddhism (from which they partly borrowed) might just show elements of culture adapt once they leave their places origin and enter a new context.
Bibliography
De Barry, William. Sources of East Asian Tradition, Vol.1. New York: Columbia
Della, Peter. The Tree of Enlightenment: an Introduction to the Major Traditions of
Buddhism. Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc., 1997
Owen, Stephen. An Anthology of Chinese Literature: Beginnings to 1911. New York:
W.W. Norton, 1996
Shirane, Haruo. Traditional Japanese Literature: an Anthology, Beginnings to 1600.
New York: Columbia University Press, 2007
Wright, Dale. “Satori and the Moral Dimensions of Enlightenment.” Journal of Buddhist
Ethics (2004): 1-17
