12-COMMENTS ON.pdf

Comments on Critical Buddhism

M ATSUMOTO Shirõ

I WOULD LIKETO MAKE some brief comments on “Critical

Buddhism.” 1 First, Critical Buddhism must always maintain a crit-

ical attitude toward Critical Buddhism itself, or else it will be just

another kind of traditional Buddhism. It is imperative, therefore, that we

be critical towards the teachings of Dõgen, of Indian and Tibetan Madhya-

mika philosophers, 2 and even of the Buddha himself. 3 It is quite likely that

their thinking was, on some points, inµuenced by dh„tu-v„da . We should

not approach them with an attitude of unquestioning adoration, but must

try to understand their teachings accurately and critically.

For example, I think that it is inaccurate to say that Dõgen criticized

original enlightenment thought or tath„gata-garbha thought in his

“Bendõwa.” Dõgen himself uses the term shinjin-ichinyo (identity of

body and mind), which is one type—in fact an extreme type—of tath„gata-

garbha thought. Moreover, Dõgen was not entirely free from tath„gata-

garbha -type ways of thinking even in writing the 12-fascicle Shõbõgenzõ . 4

Second, with regard to Madhyamika philosophy, the word tattva

(thatness) found in the Mðlamadhyamakak„rik„ XVIII –9 has been consid-

ered by all Madhyamika philosophers since Bh„vaviveka to denote the

highest reality as cognized by nonconceptual cognition ( nirvikalpa-

jñ„na ). This interpretation of tattva based on the notion of nonconcep-

tual cognition is, I think, clearly inµuenced by the dh„tu-v„da tradition,

especially that of the Yogacarins. 5

Third, there are many clear statements admitting the existence of

atman even in the teachings of the Buddha himself. In the so-called earli-

est Buddhist texts preserved in Pali such as the Suttanip„ta, 6 for example,

there are many passages that admit the existence of an atman. 7 Moreover,

it cannot be denied that the Buddha practiced dhyana even after he had

attained enlightenment. However, the dhyana theory seems to have been

161

MATSUMOTO SHIRÕ

the main cause for producing the non-Buddhistic notion of nonconcep-

tual cognition. 8 We must be very careful when we try to make clear the

true import of the Buddha’s teaching.

Finally, I think we must make a distinction between two types of

tath„gata-garbha thought. 9 The ³rst type could be considered the original

type, that is, the idea of Buddha-nature as “immanent” [§»$ Ç or as

“Buddha-nature in one’s body.” The second type is the more extreme type,

and could be called the “theory of the manifestation of Buddha-nature”

[§ß$ Ç and is expressed in sayings like “Buddha-nature manifested as

phenomenal existence such as trees and stones.”

162