Jiyū Shūkyō — A creative, free-religion
“My Principles of Living” consisting of seven articles was established in February of the 40th year of Showa (1965) as my personal statement of faith. Over time, and with the support and feedback from the members of Tokyo Kiitsu Kyokai and others, it became a tradition collectively to recite these articles together during its Sunday gatherings. However, later on, I felt the need to declare faith in nature as the foundational source of human existence and life. Therefore, a new article has been added after the fourth article in the revised version below, resulting in a total of eight articles. The freedom of free religion primarily signifies individual internal freedom, and it deeply respects this freedom. Therefore, this statement of faith is not binding on the members in any way, but I would be happy if each one of you were to use it as a reference in helping you to formulate your own principles of living. In this sense, I humbly request your thoughtful consideration and critique, not only of the new fifth article, but of all the articles.
(August, Showa 48, 1973, “Free Religion” — trans. Andrew James Brown)
—o0o—
My Journey of Faith – NHK TV Broadcast Summary (1974)
[Reading] My Principles of Living [as found in the 1973 version above]:
I have faith in myself.
I have faith in my neighbour.
I have faith in a cooperative society.
I have faith in the unity of self, neighbour, and cooperative society.
I have faith in the oneness of life and nature.
I have faith in the church.
I have faith in specific religions.
I have faith in free religion.
(Wakimoto) These are the eight principles of living of Imaoka-sensei (今岡先生), but we will inquire about this in detail later. Sensei, you are 98 years old, and first, I would like to ask about your nearly century-long journey of seeking before you arrived at this faith, and then I would like you to explain the meaning of these faith principles in that context. Sensei, you were born in September of Meiji 14 (1881) in Shimane Prefecture. What kind of religious upbringing did you have?
(Imaoka) I came from a very devout Pure Land Buddhist family, and from a young age, I had to participate in morning rituals with my parents in front of the Buddhist altar, or I wouldn’t be allowed to eat. I memorized the Shinshū Nembutsu: (真宗念仏) and Gobunsho (お勤め Rennyo’s Letters), even though I didn’t understand their meanings. It was entirely external, not a conscious faith. My first conscious faith experience was when I received baptism in Christianity in my fourth year at Matsue Middle School (松江中学校). However, this was because I wanted to study English and joined an English class taught by a British pastor. While teaching conversation, the topic of Christ naturally came up, and I gradually became familiar with Christianity. When I was encouraged to join I did so without much thought. At that time, being a Christian in rural areas was seen as treasonous, so my parents were very angry and sad. It even led to the question of disownment. However, I didn’t back down, so you could say it was a conscious conversion.
(Wakimoto) What kind of Christianity was it?
(Imaoka) It was the Anglican Church of England, but I believed in it almost uncritically, as I was taught. However, the central theme was a sense of guilt, the idea that when you do something wrong, the anguish of conscience is the anger of God. I believed that through faith in Christ, you could be forgiven and saved.
(Wakimoto) So, your faith was centred on ethical issues. After that, you went through Kumamoto Fifth Higher School (熊本の五高) and entered the philosophy department at the University of Tokyo, specialising in religious studies. In that regard, you are my senior, and you received guidance from the renowned Professor Anesaki (姉崎教授). What kind of influence did you receive?
(Imaoka) Anesaki-sensei’s first lecture on religious studies was on mysticism, and it was very interesting. Although he was a Buddhist, he was well-informed about Christianity, and he often said, “I am a Buddhist, and that’s why I am a Christian, and I am a Christian, and that’s why I am a Buddhist.” In other words, he ultimately saw them as one. That’s how I began to see Buddhism with new eyes.
(Wakimoto) Until then, you were primarily focused on Christianity, but under Anesaki-sensei’s guidance, your mind expanded, and the idea that all religions are fundamentally and ultimately one, a free religious concept (自由宗教的な考え), began to take root in your mind around that time. By the way, you mentioned mysticism earlier. What was that about?
(Imaoka) When we talk about mysticism, there are various meanings and types, ranging from superstitious beliefs to philosophical concepts. However, Anesaki-sensei’s mysticism was of an academic and philosophical nature. It was about profound religious experiences and contemplation, similar to the likes of Eckhart.
(Wakimoto) So, when you mention mysticism, it’s not about so-called miraculous and inexplicable beliefs, but rather about deep religious experiences such as encountering God or achieving unity with the Absolute.
(Imaoka) That’s right. The emphasis of Anesaki-sensei’s lectures was indeed on those aspects, and I was deeply influenced in that regard as well.
(Wakimoto) In such a mystical perspective, because it prioritises one’s direct personal experiences, the self becomes the focus, right?
(Imaoka) That’s correct. Rather than worshipping God outwardly, you hold God within yourself. God and the self become one. That’s why the self becomes the central issue. Speaking of encounters with God and the unity of God and man, wasn’t there the famous Tsunashima Ryōsen’s (綱島梁川) “Experiment of Seeing God” (見神の実験) during that time?
(Imaoka) Yes, it was Meiji 37 (1904), right when I was attending lectures on mysticism. I read the “Experiment of Seeing God” in the magazine “Shinjin” (新人) and was deeply moved, realising that there were real examples like Eckhart in Anesaki-sensei’s lectures. I specifically visited Tsunashima-sensei (綱島先生) on his sickbed to receive guidance.
(Wakimoto) Was that a Christian thing?
(Imaoka) Mostly, I suppose. Ryōsen (梁川) was baptised when he was young. However, he soon became sceptical of Christianity and distanced himself from the church, dedicating himself to literary criticism and ethics research. After contracting a terminal illness, he began to immerse himself in religious contemplation, eventually having an experience of seeing God. It wasn’t something you could simply label as Christianity or Buddhism. It transcended those, a vast and profound experience, not at all occult-like, but a vivid experience of a mysterious fusion between God, as the deep reality of the universe, and oneself.
(Wakimoto) After such studies, once you graduated from university . . .
(Imaoka) After leaving university, I became a pastor in Kobe. However, my doubts about Christianity grew, and after three years, I returned to Tokyo. Just then, an assistant system was established in the university’s religious studies department, and thanks to Anesaki-sensei, I became the first assistant.
(Wakimoto) Is that so? I also served as an assistant after the war, so in that regard, I’m your junior. I’ve heard that you went on to study at Harvard University in America . . .
(Imaoka) That was because Professor Anesaki was visiting Harvard as an exchange professor, and I went there to become his assistant. While assisting him, I was allowed to enrol in the university’s divinity school.
(Wakimoto) I’ve heard that the “New Theology” (新神学) was popular at Harvard at that time . . .
(Imaoka) Not just at Harvard, but at that time, liberal “New Theology” was gaining popularity in England, Germany, and other places. However, at Harvard it was Unitarian. While Unitarianism is a form of Christianity, it opposes the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (the belief in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit as three entities, yet one in essence [三位一体論]), asserting that God is singular (Unity [ユニティ]) and that Christ is not divine but human. Moreover, it had a rationalist inclination, not believing in the various miracles mentioned in the Bible.
(Wakimoto) With such studies, you gradually walked the path of modern free religion. Were there others who particularly influenced you? Could you please share?
(Imaoka) While I was a pastor in Kobe, I began to doubt orthodox Christianity and lost confidence in my pastoral work. It was during this time that I encountered Nishida Tenkō-san (西田天香さん). It was before he established Ittōen (一灯園), but he was truly Buddhist and Zen-like. When I was exposed to his way of life and philosophy, he seemed to live in a world entirely different from the religious people I had seen before. But he was also influenced by Christianity. For example, he literally practised the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount: “Take no thought for the morrow . . .” meaning, don’t worry about daily issues, but first seek the righteousness of God’s kingdom. Seeing that made me realise the uncertainty of my own life, and that’s when I decided to leave my pastoral duties.
(Wakimoto) I see. Did Tenkō-san formally practise Zen?
(Imaoka) I’m not sure to what extent, but after the collapse of his development project in Hokkaido (北海道), when he was troubled about how to overcome the profit-driven competition of modern society and human selfishness, it seems he had a significant experience with zazen (坐禅).
(Wakimoto) Have you ever practised zazen?
(Imaoka) I haven’t. However, on Tenkō-san’s recommendation, I practised the Okada-style method of Quiet Sitting (Seiza) meditation (岡田式静座法). I borrowed the Hongyo-ji (本行寺) temple in Nippori (日暮里) and sat every morning from six to seven. From the end of the Meiji [明治] period until Okada-sensei passed away in Taishō 9 (1920), I attended devotedly for about ten years. There was nothing but simply sitting, but that was, indeed, a kind of Zen, wasn’t it? It has been a rather important experience in my life, one that I’ve continued to practice to this day. It is my only training and also a method for mental and physical health.
(Wakimoto) It seems you also have a deep knowledge of Japanese Shinto.
(Imaoka) That comes from my encounter with a journalist from America named Mason, who was passionate about studying Japan, particularly Shintoism. He first came to Japan in Shōwa 7 (1932). I was asked by the Director of the Religious Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Education (文部省宗教局), Shūichi Shimomura-shi (下村寿一氏), to act as [Mason’s] interpreter and help with [his] research. As we got to know each other, he turned out to be a delightful man, and we quickly became close friends. He came to Japan twice more, staying for extended periods, and once we spent a month touring and researching major shrines throughout the country. He published two books on Shintoism, which I translated and published in Japanese. We remained close friends for about ten years until he passed away in New York in Shōwa 15 (1940). He loved Japan, and as requested in his will, he’s buried in the Tama Cemetery (多摩霊園) in Tokyo. He asserted that Shintoism was inherently pacifist and was deeply saddened by the actions of the right-wing movements and military at that time. Thanks to him, I learned a great deal, but it felt like I was being taught about Japan by a foreigner.
(Wakimoto) The more I inquire, it appears that various religions reside within you, Sensei, and as a result, a “free religion” emerged. What is the fundamental idea behind this free religion?
(Imaoka) Every human possesses a religious spirit. I believe that religious desires are fundamental and universal to human nature. This is the fundamental idea. Each religion differs from the others, but they are all based on this fundamental religious spirit. They manifest it in different forms due to various historical and environmental conditions. While each has its own significance and needs to be distinguished, the essence is singular. We focus on this singular essence and value it.
(Wakimoto) Thus, while there are various religions, there’s fundamentally a common and universal essence, something that can be called “religion itself.” And as long as one is human, everyone inherently possesses this, right? This became the first statement in the principles recited earlier as “I have faith in myself,” didn’t it?
(Imaoka) Exactly. Even if there is a deity somewhere, rather than relying and clinging to that, we should believe in our own nature and actualize it. Firstly, it’s about self-establishment. The foundation of personal dignity probably stems from this belief.
(Wakimoto) Regarding the principle “I have faith in myself,” you have added a note saying, “I recognize my own subjectivity (主体性) and creativity (創造性) and feel the worth of living in life (生きがい ikigai). Subjectivity and creativity can be rephrased as personality, divinity, and Buddha-nature.” I believe this is in line with concepts like all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature in Buddhism, or humans are children of God in Christianity. So, to have faith in oneself is to have faith in the sacred within oneself, isn’t it?
(Imaoka) That’s right. Generally, religions consider humans as children of sin and deny the self. It is common to preach notions such as selflessness or egolessness. What I’m saying might seem contradictory, but in a modern age where it is proclaimed that “God is dead” (Nietzsche) and atheistic tendencies are strengthening, I argue that even without God, there exists something precious. It’s humanity. Let’s believe in humans and cherish them. Let’s pursue a religion of humanism, a religion without gods. By doing so, I aim to save not only myself but also to respond to the modern trend of people distancing themselves from religion, and the arguments against the necessity of religion and anti-religious arguments.
(Wakimoto) I understand well. So, since this subjectivity and creativity of the self, or the Buddha-nature, is universal, naturally the second article, “I have faith in my neighbour,” and the third, “I have faith in the cooperative society,” emerge. You have faith in the “self” within the neighbour, and the “self” within the cooperative society.
(Imaoka) That’s right. A human cannot be a human on their own. Whether thinking about our immediate needs like clothing, food, and shelter, or considering our spiritual lives, it’s the same. Humans are fundamentally social beings. Therefore, the self, the neighbour, and the cooperative society are fundamentally one. This is what I call my trinity.
(Wakimoto) However, the next article, the fifth, states “I have faith in the unity of life and nature,” so nature comes into play. What is the relationship here?
(Imaoka) It is because humans cannot exist apart from nature. The self, neighbour, and cooperative society all exist within the universe and the vastness of nature, which is essentially the source of our lives. Even thinking about everyday, simple examples, it’s not just fellow humans who become our companions, but also birds, animals, plants, and trees. Normally, it’s said that nature does not have a heart, but isn’t it possible to think that it does? At any rate, we become companions with such birds and flowers. In the teachings of Christ, there’s a lesson to “look at the lilies of the field and the birds of the air.” Also, for instance, I think that sleeping might be a form of returning to nature. When we’re asleep, we are not conscious, which means we don’t exist, making it akin to death, but of course, we’re still breathing, and our heart is beating. Isn’t this one form of returning to nature?
(Wakimoto) So, the “kiitsu” (帰一 “returning to one”) of Kiitsu Kyōkai (帰一教会 “Unity Fellowship” or “Unitarian Church”) means not just that all religions are fundamentally, or ultimately, one — “the unity of all religions” — but also that the self, neighbour, and cooperative society become one. Moreover, it implies becoming one with everything under the heavens and on earth. It’s a word with many connotations, isn’t it?
(Imaoka) It might be a quaternity (四位一体 “shi-i-it-tai”) rather than a trinity (三位一体 “san-i-it-tai”).
(Wakimoto) Such a position is declared in the eighth article, “I have faith in free religion,” but before that, the seventh article states “I have faith in a specific religion.” What does it mean to have faith in both?
(Imaoka) Your confusion is justified. If you say that traditional specific religions are inadequate and that’s why we advocate for a free religion, that’s partly true. However, by “specific religion,” as mentioned here, it primarily refers to Kiitsu Kyōkai. Since Kiitsu Kyōkai is a member of the Japan Free Religion Association (日本自由宗教連盟), it’s undoubtedly a free religion. Yet, in aiming to realise the universal ideals and truths of a free religion that is neither Christianity, Buddhism, nor Shintoism, and which transcends them, we founded Kiitsu Kyōkai. Nevertheless, in practice, various unique aspects manifest, and it inevitably becomes a specific religion. However, universality can only manifest through particularity. Therefore, we have no choice but to create a specific Kiitsu Kyōkai and, through it, seek a universal free religion. Thus, the annotations to the [7th and 8th] statements of faith are: “A specific religion (including the Tokyo Kiitsu Kyokai) neither monopolises religious truth nor is it the ultimate embodiment of it,” and “While having faith in a specific religion, the endless pursuit and improvement towards universal and ultimate truth is the core of religious life. Such a dynamic religion is called a free religion.”
(Wakimoto) Then, if all these traditional religions move forward with such a mindset, they’re basically practising free religion, wouldn’t you say?
(Imaoka) Yes, that’s right. In fact, organisations like the Japan Free Christian Church (日本自由キリスト教会) led by Pastor Akashi (赤司牧師), and the Shōsei-kai (正誓会) or Shōsei-ji (正誓寺) led by Revd Yamamoto Gen’yō (山本現雄師), all of which are members of this Association, exhibit this characteristic. Even those not affiliated with the Association, but who embrace the attitude of free thought and a free quest for the truth, seem to be surprisingly numerous both within and outside of established religious groups. We refer to them as potential free-religionists.
(Wakimoto) Recently, it seems that religious cooperation and interfaith dialogues, especially on issues like peace, have become popular. This would be genuine only if it’s based on the spirit of free religion, right?
(Imaoka) It is, indeed, commendable that there’s been an increase in interfaith cooperation. However, mere cooperation is not enough. If one maintains the basic idea that ‘my Buddha is the most revered’ and one obstinately clings only to one’s own traditions then, even when gathering together with others, it would amount to nothing more than mere socialising. One should humbly face the reality of one’s own religious group and reflect upon the fact that it does not monopolise the truth and, should, instead, be aiming for a higher truth, acknowledging that this higher truth is something common to all religions. Only when one discusses and pursues this truth can genuine dialogue and cooperation take place.
(Wakimoto) As I have been asking you about various things, I’ve come to feel that your thoughts seem to align with what is termed “pantheism” (汎神論) within religious studies. It seems you believe that everything in this world, be it individual humans or flora and fauna, are manifestations of a certain absolute being (絶対者).
(Imaoka) Yes, that’s right. I lost faith in a personal god (人格神) early on, so in that sense, while it might be blunt to declare [what I am talking about is a kind of] atheism (無神論), saying that doesn’t quite sit right with me. Perhaps it’s similar to how Buddhism and Confucianism are called atheistic, or perhaps pantheistic. My belief is that the revered (尊い), the worship-worthy (拝むべき), exists within humans.
(Wakimoto) Your Kiitsu Kyōkai, from what I understand, doesn’t have impressive facilities like typical churches or temples, and there aren’t any clergy people, such as pastors. You yourself have abandoned the title of “pastor” and maintain a stance as an ordinary member, just like everyone else. Do you reject the distinction commonly made between the sacred world and the secular?
(Imaoka) There might be some meaning in distinguishing the secular from the sacred. However, even within the secular world, I’ve seen many people, be they politicians, business people, scholars, artists, artisans, or farmers, whom I deeply respect. Conversely, I’ve seen many corrupt aspects within the religious world. I’ve come to believe that making a clear distinction between the two based on appearances is a mistake. I genuinely feel that mutual respect and interaction between fellow humans — a kind of “secularism” (俗人主義 lit. “Common-person principle”) — is authentic and inherently democratic.
(Wakimoto) You served as the principal of Seisoku Academy for a long time. What are your thoughts on the relationship between education and religion?
(Imaoka) It was quite some time ago, but when I became a principal, I intended to emphasise religious education and even to set aside a specific time for religious subjects. However, things didn’t seem to go well, and I began to think that teaching religion separately from other subjects might be a mistake. Instead, I came to the realisation that religion should be integrated into regular subjects, or rather, true education inherently contains religion. One doesn’t necessarily have to label it as “religion” or even be conscious of imparting religious education. When I speak in this manner, it raises the question of what religion truly is. As [Paul] Tillich once said, if religion is humanity’s ultimate concern, then perhaps the most fundamental concern is to fully realise oneself as a human being. Hence, even without explicitly terming it as “religion,” an education that aims for the realisation and completion of humanity becomes in itself religious education. True education is, in essence, religion. I believed that if one commits to the true essence of education with all one’s heart and soul, then there is no need specifically to invite religious figures to deliver their teachings.
(Wakimoto) We don’t have much time left, but finally, in a separate document you wrote as a “Charter” [for the school] it says, “We seek harmony between spirituality and intellect, and reject superstition and fanaticism” (「霊性と知性 との調和を求め、迷信と狂信を排斥します。」). Could you elaborate on this?
(Imaoka) The conflict between spirituality and intellect is essentially the clash between religion and science. Both are merely two facets of how our mind operates. Naturally, there shouldn’t be any conflict; they should harmonise. When the heliocentric theory emerged, if it’s an unshakeable truth, then religion should harmonise with it. The same goes for the theory of evolution. Stubbornly opposing these things from the standpoint of old traditions is a grave mistake. Even if religion concedes and appears to lose in such debates, it doesn’t affect the essence of religion. On the contrary, it can serve as an opportunity for genuine religion to be purified and elevated.
(Wakimoto) Briefly, could you also speak about eternal life (永遠の生命)?
(Imaoka) If by eternal life (永生), we mean what’s commonly referred to as the immortality of the soul (霊魂不滅), isn’t the only answer that we don’t know because we haven’t tried dying yet? But isn’t it fine not to know such things? What’s more important is how we live our daily lives in this present world, committing to our duties and leading a fulfilling life. I believe that in itself has eternal value, the essence of an indestructible life. Fearing the descent into hell (地獄) or yearning for the happiness of paradise (極楽) and thus believing in religion based on such calculations of gain and loss is a sordid thing, and that itself is a path to hell.
(Shōwa 54, 1974, “Mahoroba” 「まほろば｣ — trans. Andrew James Brown)
—o0o—
My Principles of Living — Revised (tentative) — 1981
1. I affirm (言ずる) myself (自己). I am aware of my own subjectivity (主体性), creativity (創造性) and sociability (社会性), and feel the worth of living in life (生きがい ikigai) through them. Subjectivity, creativity and sociability can also be referred to as personality, divinity, and Buddha-nature, respectively.
2. I affirm others (他者). Others are neighbours (隣人) who possess their own selves as others. By affirming myself, I inevitably affirm others.
3. I affirm the cooperative society (共同社会). Neither self nor others exist in isolation or self-sufficiency; instead, they inevitably establish a mutual dependency, solidarity, and a cooperative society.
4. I affirm the trinity of self, others, and cooperative society. The self, others, and the cooperative society, while each possessing unique individualities, unite into one (帰一する). Therefore, there is no precedence or superiority among them; each always presupposes the other two.
5. I affirm the universal cooperative society (宇宙的共同社会). The trinity of self, others, and the cooperative society further unites with heaven and earth and all things, to form a universal cooperative society.
6. I affirm the church (教会 or 教會). The church is a microcosm of the universal cooperative society. I can only be myself by being a member of the church.
Addendum: I interpret the above faith as free-religion (自由宗教) and, as a free religionist (自由宗教人), together with my companions, I belong to the Tokyo Kiitsu Kyokai, the Japan Free Religion Association, and the International Association for Freedom of Religion. However, free-religion is neither opposed to established religions nor does it seek to integrate them. Instead, it aims to grasp and realise the essence and ideals, not only of various religions, but also across all human activities. Therefore, these principles are nothing other than the attitude of life I always wish constantly to maintain.
(September 1981 — trans. Andrew James Brown)
—o0o—
Statement of Faith (Tentative) for my Daily Life — 1983
A typewritten statement of faith (in English) to which is attached Imaoka Shin’ichirō’s handwritten set of notes, also in English. Dated January 1st 1983.
1. I BELIEVE IN SELF
Awakened to the autonomy, sociality and creativity within me, I find my daily life worth living. Autonomy, sociality and creativity may be called Personality, Divinity and Buddhahood.
2. I BELIEVE IN OTHERS
Because of my belief in Self, I can not help but believe in Others who have their own Selves as neighbors.
3. I BELIEVE IN COMMUNITY
Both my Self and other Selves are unique but not absolutely distinct from each other. Hence solidarity, fellowship and Community will be realized.
4. I BELIEVE IN THE COSMIC COMMUNITY
Not only Self, Others and Community, but all nature in addition, are one and constitute the Cosmic Community.
5. I BELIEVE IN THE CHURCH
The Church epitomizes the Cosmic Community and I will be a cosmic man by joining the Church.
Imaoka-sensei’s handwritten notes to the “Statement of Faith for my daily life”above:
1. Free religion is not a ready made religion and has not a creed or dogma except a tentative statement.
2. Particular religion is Free Religion if it does not insist on a monopoly of truth and applies itself diligently to seek after truth in others too.
3. Free Religion is neither a new religion that unifies all particular religions but is immanent within them particular religions as their essence.
4. Because I and others are not quite independent of each other and form a community, Free Religion is both individual and community religion.
5. Because Free Religion is nothing but the realization of the pure and genuine human nature consisting of autonomy, creativity and sociality, all human activities, i.e., politics, economy, education, art, labor and even domestic affairs are also Free Religion as much as they are also realization[s] of the same fundamental human nature. There is no fundamental distinction between the sacred and the secular.
6. Free Religion is more than the cooperation of religions and the world peace movement.
Shinichiro Imaoka
January 1st, 1983
—o0o—
WHAT IS FREE RELIGION?
(Dated December of Showa 38 [1963], from “Religion and the Modern World”)
Free Religion in Modern Times
Free religion emerged as a resistance movement against established religious institutions, doctrines, traditions, and rituals. In the history of modern religions, Unitarianism, Universalism, and Baha’ism are the most notable examples of free religion. The first two were religious reforms in the Christian world that occurred from the 18th to the 19th century. However, initially, they were reforms within Christianity and did not seek to go beyond Christianity itself. In this regard, the Bahá'í Faith, which emerged in the mid-19th century in Persia, stood out as a movement that not only transcended Islam in Persia but also all specific religions worldwide, making it the most thoroughgoing example of free religion.
Last summer [1961], after attending the World Congress of the International Association for Liberal Christianity and Religious Freedom (IALCRF) held in Switzerland [now called the International Association for Religious Freedom], I visited Israel, and one of the main purposes of my visit was to tour the headquarters of the aforementioned Bahá'í Faith in Haifa, a city located in the north of Israel. However, my travel schedule meant that the day of my visit happened to be a Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. While I was aware that Saturdays were considered a holy day in Israel, I did not expect that all transportation would be suspended. As a result I had no choice but to give up on my trip to Haifa which was a great disappointment to me.
However, at that time, my friend from East Jerusalem asserted, “There is no need to go out of our way to visit insignificant sects like the Bahá'í Faith,” and he displayed an attitude that seemed to mock my disappointment. I was surprised because my friend was not the type to make irresponsible remarks, and it made me seriously ponder. Even now, I continue to contemplate this matter. Has the Bahá'í Faith, which was established as a non-specific religion or even a super-specific religion, now solidified into a new specific religion or an unfree religion just in order to have its own organization? Moreover, it seems that both Unitarianism and Universalism are no longer free religions as of today, and it is because of this that they themselves are trying to transcend Unitarianism and Universalism. In fact, both denominations merged last May and declared that they are no longer strictly Christian. They are currently referred to as the Unitarian Universalist Association, but it is likely that they will eventually abandon such old-fashioned names.
Characteristics of Free Religion
Indeed, Free Religion may not involve fixed organizations or forms. So, then, does Free Religion exist separately from organizations or forms like some kind of ghost? The answer is no. Religion itself and the organization of religion can certainly be distinguished in our minds and, although such a distinction may sometimes be necessary, in reality, the two are inseparable. Any religion without some form of organization or structure remains a mere idea and cannot truly save and guide people. While it cannot be said that an organization or form immediately constitutes religion, it is also impossible for religion to exist without any form of organization or structure. Both disregarding and excessively emphasizing organization or form are mistakes.
Religion can be likened to life. Life is a continuously unfolding process that always takes on some form or shape. There is no life without some kind of form. Moreover, these forms are subject to change, shedding, and constant renewal, and they are by no means permanently unchanging. It is said that the human body completely changes every seven years. Forms are, so to speak, temporary. However, just because something is temporary or transient, we must not undervalue its importance. Regardless of its temporary nature, it remains a necessary and vital aspect at that particular moment.
Therefore, the concept of freedom of religion I am discussing in this essay is more vital, dynamic, creative, autonomous, and continuously renewing and metamorphosing than biological life. It infinitely grows and evolves, much like what is known as the eternal life of Christ. Originally, all religions are of such nature, and Free Religion is, in fact, the true religion. However, due to the prevalence of conservatives and traditionalists who turn dynamic religions into static ones, and fix the temporary and relative forms that should undergo change and renewal as permanent and absolute, we are compelled to raise the banner of Free Religion.
Advocates of Free Religion in World Religious History
As mentioned earlier, Unitarians and Universalists have already shed their old identities and continue to display the authority as pioneers of the Free Religious movement in the contemporary era, especially in America (or the world). However, the Free Religious movement is not solely monopolized by Unitarians and Universalists. Before them, and beyond the Western world, there have been numerous movements advocating freedom of religion, which still persist today.
We must not ignore the fact that there have been remarkable advocates of freedom of religion throughout world religious history. For instance, George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, was a distinguished advocate of Free Religion in 17th-century England. Martin Luther was a great advocate of freedom of religion in 16th-century Germany. Even within medieval Catholicism, groups of mystics were outstanding advocates of Free Religion.
In Japan, figures like Shinran, Dogen, and Nichiren, who led the so-called Kamakura Buddhism, were each distinctive advocates of Free Religion. In 19th-century India, Ram Mohan Roy, Ramakrishna, and Vivekananda were advocates of Free Religion with an Indian essence yet with modern and universal appeal. Looking further back in history, both Buddha and Christ were, in essence, the greatest advocates of Free Religion. Buddha, in his teachings to his disciples, left a teaching saying, “Be a lamp unto yourselves, be your own refuge; seek no other refuge.” This clearly emphasized that the disciples should focus on unfolding their own subjectivity and creativity, rather than viewing Buddha as the founder and relying solely on him. Similarly, Christ left a teaching to his disciples, “Truly, I tell you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do,” expressing his confidence and expectation that his disciples would surpass him and achieve greater things. Neither Buddha nor Christ had any intention of forming organizations that would be called Buddhism or Christianity and be centred around themselves as religious founders.
Freedom of Religion and the Unity of All Religions
In Japan, the Free Religious movement is sometimes mistaken for the concept of “the unity of all religions” (万教帰一運動). However, this is a misunderstanding. The Free Religious movement has always had an aspect of protest and resistance throughout its historical development. Nevertheless, it is not resistance for resistance’s sake, but rather an expression of universal and creative human nature. That is why it holds meaning. The carp in a basin can’t help but leap out. Once it leaps out, it can swim leisurely in a pond full of water. Therefore, harmony or unity always presupposes opposition or resistance. Even if there is the idea of “the unity of all religions,” it doesn’t mean that conflicts and contradictions between various religions don’t exist. Peace can come through compromise or concession but it is in the act of contention that a higher and truer harmony and universality are manifested. From the standpoint of Free Religion, mere tolerance that accepts and reveres anything and everything in the name of religion may not necessarily be a virtue.
Freedom of Religion and Laypersons
As
mentioned earlier, Free Religion is an autonomous and creative eternal
life that always involves some form of organization. These organizations
and forms are not fixed or immutable; they should change and develop
with the times.
However, there is a question as to whether the organization and form of the organization should be restricted only to denominations, doctrines, rituals and other religious activities, i.e. those that are usually regarded as particularly sacred. Generally, political and economic spheres are considered secular and non-religious, but is that really the case? Some so-called religious actions can sometimes be more worldly and base than political actions, while economic activities can sometimes be more earnest than so-called religious practices. When comparing the struggle of politicians and industrialists in the real world with that of professional religious practitioners in temples and churches, one may sense a similar level of seriousness and determination as in a life-or-death Kendo competition. As long as human endeavours are expressions and developments of fundamental human nature, aren’t all human actions sacred and religious in essence? A tranquil mind is the path, and every layperson is a religious person. The existence of professional religious practitioners may be considered secondary. Therefore, when Erich Fromm spoke of the presence of true religious individuals among non-clerics such as Condorcet, Saint-Simon, Comte in France, and Lessing, Goethe, and Schiller in Germany, he may have been pointing to this idea. From the standpoint of Free Religion, it is indeed resonant to mention figures like Fichte, Hegel, and Marx in Germany and Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin in America. However, all this raises the question of whether the distinction between secular and sacred disappears and, if politics and economics are also considered religion, whether it might not be more straightforward and convenient to eliminate the word “religion” altogether? But I firmly believe that politics and economics are not inherently religion in and of themselves and for them to be considered religious, they would need to be fundamentally the manifestation of human nature. So, what exactly would connect mere politics and economics to such fundamental aspects?
Established denominations or religious institutions have a part to play in that regard as they derive their meaningful existence from fulfilling such a role. However, in some cases, politics and economics may delve deep into themselves and eventually extend into the domain of religion without necessarily relying on the guidance of denominations or professional religious leaders. Sometimes, specialized religious practitioners may not be able to understand the reality of ideals, the sacred in the secular, or enlightenment amidst worldly existence. Therefore, we must recognize that there are two meanings of religion: the narrow definition commonly referred to as religion, and the broader sense of religion, which includes what is generally not considered as religion. The latter, the broader sense of religion (strictly speaking, it encompasses the narrow sense of religion as well), is precisely what Free Religion represents and it permeates through all aspects of human endeavour. Consequently, from the standpoint of Free Religion, politics, economics, and culture are not mere applications of religious beliefs but inherently sacred religious acts in themselves. (However, it should be noted that this perspective does not contradict the prevailing notion of the separation of religion and state in modern nations). Ultimately, Free Religion is more about the religion of laypersons and non-specialists than the religion of experts. Isn’t it true that laypersons and non-specialists are often more deeply religious than experts?
(December Showa 38 [1963], “Religion and the Modern World”) — trans. Andrew James Brown
—o0o—
 |
| Imaoka sensei in his study at 102 years old, after his morning meditation (Seiza), corresponding with international friends. |
Comments