The Relation of Unitarianism to Buddhism (1894) by Nakanishi Gyurō (aka Nakanishi Ushirō)

The essay by Nakanishi Gyurō (aka Nakanishi Ushirō) reproduced in this post and the photos accompanying it (just click on a photo to enlarge it) are found in a pamphlet called Memorial of the Dedication of Yuiitzukwan published in Tokyo, Japan in 1894 published to mark the erection and dedication of Yuitzukwan (Unity Hall) which was the headquarters of the Unitarian Mission in Japan and also the home of Senshin Gakuin, the School for Advanced Learning which was established and supported by the mission. It was, alas, closed to Japanese yunitarians (sic) in 1922 and, although it survived the 1923 earthquake, it was later completely destroyed during the firebombing of Tokyo in World War II. 

If you are interested in knowing about the history the Japanese yunitarian (sic) movement you can do so by reading George M. Williams’ book “Cosmic Sage: Imaoka Shin’ichirō, Prophet of Free Religion” which you can freely download from the Free Religon page on this blog.

It may be of help to the reader trying to figure out what’s going on in this essay to know that in it Nakanishi Gyurō references Guifeng Zongmi’s (780–841) early classification of Ch’an/Zen into five styles of meditation:

(i) Bonpu: zazen for restricted aims, e.g. improving health or mental relaxation;

(ii) Gedō: meditation sharing Zen aims, but practised outside (e.g. by Hindus or Christians);

(iii) Shōjō: aimed at emancipation from reappearance (punabbhava), and from a Mahāyāna point of view, selfish;

(iv) Daijō: ‘great vehicle’ (i.e. Mahāyāna) attainment of enlightenment (kensho, satori) etc.;

(v) Saijōjō: highest form of Zen, in which the realization of the buddha-nature in all appearance (bussho) occurs.

I’m not sure, however, to what Nakanishi Gyurō is referring when he writes about Goku Daijõ. Does Goku mean “emptiness” here? Is this, then, the most advanced kind of daijō, “emptiness daijo”? It seems possible because within Māhayāna Buddhism a great deal hinges upon realising the emptiness of all things including, of course, the emptiness of self. Or, perhaps, is this another way of talking about saijōjō ? 

If it is the latter (and, although I feel it might be, I really don’t know for sure) then he is talking about an understanding of “Unitarianism” that really isn’t (classical) monotheism at all — it would be something akin to Hartshorne’s Buddhisto-Christian religion. Of course, in such a process religion, all things could be said to be, as Nakanishi Gyurō says, “the manifestation of the One Being, who is everlasting and real, in the Buddha” — or indeed, “in the Christ” which he thinks “amounts to the same thing.”

Update: 1st February 2023. See helpful comment below from the Revd Miki Nakura, a Jodo Shinshu priest based in New York and, as I know first hand (via Zoom), also an excellent teacher of Seiza mediation. Thank you Nakura sensei!  

In short, I think the essay feels at times somewhat confused (and confusing) because, inevitably in such a short (translated) essay, Nakanishi Gyurō hasn’t got the space to show how he thinks the monotheistic terms he uses are to be correlated with the Māhayāna Buddhist terms/concepts he is employing throughout and which he borrowed from Guifeng Zongmi. 

As you will read, Nakanishi Gyurō finishes his short piece on an very universalistic note, and so I think it is worth noting that this attempt to bring different religions/philosophies together in some fashion seems to have been very much in line with Guifeng Zongmi’s own syncretic approach. This approach was taken up and most fully run with by the quite remarkable and influential figure in the development of progressive and liberal religion in Japan (who was also the last executive secretary of the Japan Unitarian Mission) Shin’ichirō Imaoka (1881-1988). You can read a biography about him and also a selection of his essays in English translation at this link.

Anyway, and naturally, I’d be very grateful if someone out there with a much deeper knowledge of Buddhism could help me properly work out what’s going on in this essay! Please be in touch via the contact form on this blog or by adding a comment below.

But, in all cases it’s very interesting, and to me a matter of great joy and pleasure, to read this early text in the encounter between late-nineteeth Unitarian and Buddhist thinking. 

Naturally, I also hope that you’ll enjoy seeing the photographs, too . . . 

The Relation of Unitarianism to Buddhism (1894)  

by Nakanishi Gyurō (aka Nakanishi Ushirō)

The representatives of the Unitarians of Japan, I understand, to-day dedicate Unity Hall. I regret that on account of illness I can not respond to the invitation sent me to address the witnessing audience. I send, however, a few words of congratulation.

Unitarianism is based upon the authority of the reason in matters of religion. It has for its method perfect freedom of investigation. That being the fact it can not be considered a sect of “Christianity.” Buddhism, as I believe in it, is radically like Unitarianism. Sakya Muni taught us that his doctrine should be accepted only after having been submitted to the conscience and the reason. Is it not evident from this, that Sakya taught his disciples to make rational judgments and to use free investigation? Consider Buddhism! Buddhism, in its lowest form i.e. Shojõ, teaches that the universe consists of nothing but fleeting phenomena, that all phenomena are relative and finite. In a yet higher form, i.e, Daijõ, Buddhism declares that there is but One Being (Shin-njo), the true noumenon, absolute and infinite. In its highest form, however, i.e. Goku Daijõ, Buddhism teaches the manifestation of the One Being, who is everlasting and real, in the Buddha. In other words, in these three degree of Buddhism we see the evolution of a form of religion, from polytheism to pantheism, and from pantheism to monotheism. If now, Unitarianism should hold it to be true that every being may become a Buddha, or what amounts to the same thing, that the evolution of the universe may be perfected in the Christ, and that the disorders of the Universe may be harmonized in the Christ, where then should we see any essential difference, a difference of more than name, between Unitarianism and Buddhism? I have long revered those elder Unitarians, made known to me through their writings, Channing and Emerson. If the representatives of the Japanese Unitarians will but follow as those worthy teachers have led, the usefulness of Unitarianism in our country will be immeasurably great. Unitarianism has taken for one of its principles, freedom of investigation. I most sincerely hope, therefore, that its advocates will study impartially all our forms of religion, Shinto, Confucianism, Buddhism, and that thereby we shall all at last be brought into unity, that is, under the dominion of the One Great Truth.