Jiyū Shūkyō — A creative, free spirituality



Given that my Profile and ABOUT page says one of my major religious sympathies is towards the kind of creative, free spirituality (jiyū shūkyō 自由宗教) encouraged by the quite remarkable and influential figure in the development of progressive and liberal religion in Japan, Imaoka Shin’ichirō-sensei (1881-1988), it seems important to direct readers of this blog to a couple of things that will help them get a greater sense of what that this means. 
 
But, before going on, it’s important firstly to note that the term jiyū shūkyō has until now generally been translated as free-religion.” However, within the small, free-religious community in Cambridge where I am the minister, we have taken to using the term a “creative, free spirituality” to translate jiyū shūkyō rather than free-religion. Imaoka-sensei could see the value of continuing to use the term “religion” — as, indeed, can I — but in everyday use, especially the context of a very secular modern Britain which is increasingly suspicious and wary of religion, it seems better to avoid using the word “religion” until what that actually means when firmly attached to the term “free” can be properly explored. In a nutshell, “free-religion” means for any community that adopts it as its centre of gravity: that which “frees is what “binds us together” (religio).
 
So, in 2019, George M. Williams, the retired professor of Asian religions from California State University, Chico, published an important book about Imaoka sensei that has made both his extraordinary life story and some of his essays available to those of us in the English-speaking world. Although you can purchase a hardcopy from your preferred bookseller, Williams has also very generously made his book freely available via his academia.edu page or at the link below:
 
Secondly, with George’s blessing and kind encouragement and help, I’ve put together a short book of, not only of the essays by Imaoka sensei that appear in “Cosmic Sage” but also a number of other translations that George has collected over the years. This, too, is now freely available at the following link:

 
George and I are currently working on a translation of one hundred and four further essays from Imaoka-sensei’s 1981 book called, One Hundred Years of Life. We hope to get those out into the world at some point. But, as a taster of those essays, and to give you a further insight into what he thought free-religion was all about, here are two pieces from the book.
 
 
Amended Creed of Life (1973)
  1. I have faith ( 信ずるshinzuru) in myself. I recognize my own subjectivity and creativity 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.

  2. I have faith in my neighbour. The neighbour is oneself as a neighbour. If I have faith in myself, I inevitably have faith in my neighbour.

  3. I have faith in a cooperative society (共同社会 kyōdō shakai). Both oneself and a neighbour, while each possessing a unique personality, are not things that exist in isolation. Because of this uniqueness, a true interdependence, true solidarity, and true human love are established, and therein a cooperative society is realized.

  4. I have faith in the trinity of self, neighbour, and cooperative society. The self, neighbour, and cooperative society, while each having a unique personality, are entirely one. Therefore, there’s no differentiation of precedence or superiority/inferiority between them, and one always contains the other.

  5. I have faith in the unity of life and nature (自然 shizen). Life, which constitutes the trinity of self, neighbour, and cooperative society, further unites with all things in the universe.

  6. I have faith in the church. The church is the prototype/archetype and driving force of the cooperative society. I can only be myself by being a member of the church.

  7. I have faith in a specific religion. In other words, I am a member of the Tokyo Kiitsu Kyokai (帰一協会) [often translated as the Tokyo Unitarian Church]. However, a specific religion (including the Tokyo Kiitsu Kyokai) neither monopolizes religious truth nor is it the ultimate embodiment of it.

  8. I have faith in jiyū shūkyō (自由宗教 ) [free-religion or a creative, free-spirituality]. 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 jiyū shūkyō.

(August, Showa 48, 1973, “Free Religion”)

—o0o—

Secondly, here is an essay of his from 1963 called “What is Free Religion?”

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?

(Dated December of Showa 38 [1963], “Religion and the Modern World)

—o0o—

And, finally, here is another essay entitled “What is Free Religion from the already published booklet, “Selected Writings on Free Religion and Other Subjects” by Imaoka Shin’ichirō :
 
WHAT IS FREE RELIGION?
 
The reason why representatives of various particular religions and organizations in different countries can come together for dialogue is because they recognize unity in variety. Although every particular religion respects its own characteristic, it recognizes something common among those particular religions, religion behind religions. No particular religion can monopolize religious truth or contain it all. Particular religions contain something more than that which is confined within particular religions. What is that something more? It is universal, super-logical and creative. Is not this what leaders of the IARF (International Association of Religious Freedom) mean by Free Religion? Rev. A. B. Downing, the chairman of Commission II of IARF, remarked to the point as follows: “A Unitarian is more than a Christian. A member of Rissho Kosei Kai is something more than a Buddhist. Our awareness of this something more is very important to us in the IARF.” Free Religion is neither a new religion ranking among existing religions nor a unification of them. Free Religion is immanent in them, being their essence and goal. All particular religionists become Free Religionists by recognizing the immanence of such super-particular religion within them. Unitarians, Protestants, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists and Muslims can all become Free Religionists under the said condition. 

This reminds me of the fact that the famous British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote on the visitors’ album of the Ise Grand Shrine on the occasion of his visit there. “I feel in this holy place the underlying unity of all religions.” Although the famous Buddhist poet Saigyo visited the same Shrine, he was not allowed to enter the holy place because he was a Buddhist. But he wrote a poem to the effect, that tears flow down due to devotion to something divine and inexplicable. While Toynbee, a Christian in England, could grasp the unity of religions, i.e., religion behind religions in the Shinto Shrine; Saigyo could feel the essence of religion beyond Buddhism and Shintoism there even though he was prevented from entering the holy place. I understand, therefore, that both Toynbee and Saigyo were typical Free Religionists and Shintoism may be called Free Religion if experienced as Toynbee and Saigyo did. 

Free Religion will be discovered not only within particular religions but also within all human activities that are nothing but the realization of human nature, universal, creative, holy and religious. As Professor Tillich put it, religion is man’s ultimate concern. In other words, religion aims at none other than becoming a true human being. Zen Buddhism that teaches “Everyday mind is the way” is, therefore, Free Religion. Shosan Suzuki, a Zen master, guided his disciple not to practise Zazen (Zen contemplation) but to devote himself to the recitation of Noh songs of which the disciple was very fond. From the standpoint of Free Religion what is natural and is, is what matters. Jesus taught: 

So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’

Jesus emphasized not religion in the sanctuary but that of daily life. He was a Jew but more than that, a Free Religionist. According to a popular view, the sphere of religion is holy while those of politics, economy, science and art are secular. Free Religionists do not, however, distinguish between holy and secular spheres. Politics, economy, science and art are not mere politics, economy, science and art but the realization and development of universal and creative human nature and are therefore sacred, i.e., religious in the broad and true sense of the word. Mr. Kojiro Serizawa wrote: “Literature gives utterance to the silent demand of God: novel writing is a service to God, i.e., a sacred profession.” These relevant words apply not only to literature but to all human activities. 

Mr. Torajiro Okada, who once dominated all Japan by his Seiza (Quiet Sitting), a kind of Zen, said to the effect that all human existence is Seiza, i.e., religion in the broad and true sense of the word, and Seiza is free from even Quiet Sitting because he could guide people to attain the same goal by dance and music. And I think I understand Dr. Felix D. Lion rightly when I say that his views on religion as wholeness are the same as Okada’s. The Toshogu (Shinto Shrine) and Rinnoji (Buddhist Temple) for many years engaged in a quarrel which they themselves could not solve religiously but it was finally settled by a civil court. Mahatma Gandhi said: “What India needs at present is not missionaries but bread.” The former found religion in the law while the latter found it in the economy. 

In short, human activities are multifarious but the ultimate goal is to become a true human being. And this is what I mean by Free Religion. 

People who are used to associating religion with God, miracles, atonement, Amitabha in the Western Paradise, etc., may not be satisfied with such a dry and commonplace definition. That is the reason why Free Religionists have always been labeled heretics. But times change. I wonder how long hereafter the so-called religions will survive. Although Free Religion is always common like wind and plain like water, Truth is always common and plain. Free Religionists are none other than people who follow such common and plain Truth. They find Free Religion within not only established religions but within politics, economy, science and art, i.e., whole human activities; and they aspire for the realization of an ideal world community, that is nothing else than the Kingdom of God on earth. 

I am anxious that the IARF should be an organization of Free Religionists. It should be more than an Association for Religious Freedom. The full name of the IARF should be changed to the International Association for Free Religion as Rev. R. N. West, the former President of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), moved at the 1975 IARF Montreal Congress. 

—o0o—

Imaoka sensei in his study at 102 years old, after his morning meditation (seiza), corresponding with international friends.

  














Comments

Popular Posts