Japanese Philosopher Masao Abe's Independent Approach to Interfaith Religion

 


Abe was the third of six children born to a physician and his wife in Osaka, Japan. Although the whole family belonged to the True Pure Land ( JÉdo-Shin) sect, a cheerful, world-accepting branch of Mahayana Buddhism founded by Shinran Shonin in the thirteenth century to emphasize the gratuitous nature of Amida’s salvific influence, only the mother was a devout practitioner.

During Abe’s high school years, however, a feeling of anxiety about the way he was unconsciously hurting others prompted him to take seriously what he was reading in a collection of talks by Shinran about human sinfulness and the need for faith in Amida’s loving mercy. He wanted to take up the study of philosophy, and did in fact continue his study of Buddhism at Osaka Commercial University where his family had sent him to pursue a degree in economics. He was especially troubled at the time by the question about how his religious faith could be reconciled with reason.

Upon graduation, he started working for a company in Kobe, but a growing sense of emptiness soon inclined him to leave the business world. At the age of twenty-six, four months after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, he enrolled, much to the chagrin of his supposedly more patriotic family and friends, at Kyoto University to study Western philosophy. His goal was to push his rationality beyond the breaking point into a reaffirmation of his Pure Land faith. But a protracted debate with Professor Shin’ichi Hisamatsu, who like another of his Kyoto professors (Keiji Nishitani) had been a student of the great Zen master Kitaro Nishida, eventually convinced him that his Pure Land beliefs were illusory, or as Nietzsche had put it, “holy lies.”

After flirting briefly with Nietzsche’s own “positive nihilism,” Abe struggled for some time to understand the total negation of the self-implied by Hisamatsu’s Zen notion of “Absolute Nothingness,” before finally experiencing an awakening to the “formless, unobjectifiable True Self” or “Buddha nature.” Inspired by his subsequent association at Columbia University with the then preeminent Zen scholar, D.T. Suzuki, and with Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr at neighboring Union Theological Seminary, Abe went on to become, at least since the death of Suzuki in 1966, the leading interpreter and exponent of Zen Buddhism for the Western world. Publication of articles he has written and the multiple lectures he has delivered at universities around the world on the dynamic nature of Sunyata (Nothingness) and other Buddhist doctrines have stimulated, as he had hoped they would for the sake of world unity, an intense interfaith dialogue.

Particular religions have been subject to criticism since ancient times. But hardly anyone throughout human history, not even during the Age of Enlightenment when religion’s worldview and understanding of nature were questioned, ever doubted the fundamental significance or the necessity of religion itself for the human soul.

In the past few centuries, however, not only have many people become indifferent to religion or sought substitutes for religion in art and literature, but also there have arisen on a more theoretical level at least four different ideologies that deny in principle religion itself, namely: mechanistic/materialistic scientism, Marxism, traditional Freudian psychoanalysis, and Nietzschean nihilism.

While the first three attack religion from without, dismissing it as being unscientific, and therefore false and illusory, the last attacks it from within, rendering it useless as an antidote to fears of meaninglessness by going “beyond” the experience of a living God, declaring the latter’s “death,” and depreciating all traditional religious values for the sake of reappropriating the human “will to power.”

Superseding any attempts at interfaith dialogue is the most crucial task of all religions in modern times to respond to these anti-religious forces. Nontheistic Buddhism, for example, must exploit its emphasis upon “dependent co-origination,” “suchness,” and “Emptiness” in such wise as not only to find a “new, non-teleological, non-mechanical teleology” that will reconcile religion with modern science, but also to cultivate a Self-awakening that will recapture a qualitative conception of mankind as a single, living, self-aware entity (its “Buddha-nature”), negate the sovereignty of nation-states, and help bridge the traditional gap between East and West by affording itself a genuinely qualitative sense of being a world religion. 

With an interpretation of its doctrine of the divine kenosis as a “total self-negation of God,” might the Abrahamic faiths be in a similar position to respond?

Sources

Abe, Masao. “Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata.” In The Emptying God: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation. Edited by John B. Cobb Jr. and Christopher Ives. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990. 3–65. (Ives’s “Introduction” on pp. xiii–xix is an excellent biographical source.). _____. A Study of DÉgen: His Philosophy and Religion. Edited by Steven Heine. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. _____. Zen and Western Thought. Edited by William R. LaFleur. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1989.

Cha, John Y. “Abe, Masao.” In World Philosophers and Their Works. Vol. 1. Edited by John K. Roth. Pasadena, CA, and Hackensack, NJ: Salem Press, Inc., 2000. 1–7.

Mitchell, Donald, ed. Masao Abe: A Zen Life of Dialogue. Boston, Rutland, Vermont, and Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc., 1998. See esp. Abe’s “Response,” 371–409.


Comments

FACT CHECKER

Search results