No Distinction?

K. Ken Fujimoto

In the first chapter of the Tannisho, Shinran is quoted as saying:

From this, we can see that the compassionate vow of Amida Buddha is intended for all sentient beings. This is the strength of our teaching, but creates a problem for the organization. It is talking about the all encompassing aspect of the teachings and not necessarily our temples.

Most people who talk about the need to open our doors to all people are actually leaving something unsaid. What they are actually saying is, “We need to open our doors to all, like me.” People want a temple where there are others with whom they can get along. This is only natural and fine, but it is counter to the spirit of the teachings. Anyone belonging to group would rather be with people with similar thoughts or at least people they can respect. However, when we think about the spirit of Amida’s vow, we can see that it reaches out farther than most of us think or would normally like. Taking the spirit of this accepting teaching, we will be accepting of gay marriage and any and all life styles, but at the same time, we need to be accepting of all of those who are strongly against these as well.

In today’s world we would have to expand upon the examples that Shinran gives and include, gay and straight, liberal and conservative, war-mongers and peace freaks, pro-life and pro-choice, and so on. We need to be accepting of bigots, racists, terrorists and any other thing that we may personally despise, but exists. As a teaching, this is wonderful, but in practice, can we make it work?

Shinran never intended to have an organization of temples dedicated to the teachings. He knew human nature well enough that we could never do this. An all inclusive and accepting teaching is wonderful in theory, but in the world of human beings, he knew it would not work. He never stated that this is what we are. He knew that we cannot be all embracing.

This all accepting aspect is found on the side of Amida’s Vow or compassion and does not refer to our realm of human existence. The compassion may be all embracing, but we fall far short of this ideal. We have our opinions and likes and dislikes. It is difficult for us to be accepting of people with opinions and views from ours. We can see this in the dissension caused by slight differences in focus and opinion that arise within our temple. What would happen with real major differences? You may be for the right of all people to wed, but can you embrace those with the opposing view? Can you be accepting of child molesters?

I am not advocating one side or another, but pointing out that to be truly accepting is more than being “liberal” in social, political terms. To be truly embracing is to be able to not only accept, but also to welcome that which we may hate the most. It also means that we should take it as, yet another, opportunity to look within our own selves to see that which we hate the most, may actually be a part of our own makeup. I may hate bigots, but does this not make me a bigot?

As I stated earlier, this makes for a beautiful teaching, but can we survive as a temple in this way? This is the conflict that Shinran saw and influenced him to focus on the teaching and avoid the issue of temples or organizations based on that teaching. He saw the internal conflict or contradictions within human beings and in the nature of our organizations. The organizations are a great tool in the propagation of the teachings in one sense, but they are also great examples of the gap between the ideal of our teaching and everyday reality of our lives. We can take this with a defeatist attitude and give up on our temples and organizations or we can strive to continue to build and strive towards that ideal by listening even more deeply and intently to the teachings.