Nembutsu

In that sense, it is possible for us to say that Amida Buddha is a symbolic expression of both Shakyamuni Buddha’s life and enlightenment, as clarified by Shakyamuni’s teaching.

The word “symbol” contains a number of problems. However, I am now using it simply to refer to the use of analogy and other expressions in the worldly dimension that use secular concepts to point to an ultimate, world-transcending truth. Ultimate truth or world-transcending existence is a reference to the content of the enlightenment realized by Shakyamuni and to the ultimate reality that he expounded. In Shin Buddhist terminology, it could also be said to refer to Amida Buddha’s Primal Vow. This is the basic concept of the word “symbol.”

A symbol represents a means or method of pointing to a world-transcending, ultimate truth. Accordingly, since a symbol must always be expressed in an analogical and worldly manner, at some point also it must necessarily be negated. This, then, is the fundamental meaning of the word “symbol.” By negating worldly ideas even as it utilizes them, a symbol guides us to ultimacy, which transcends this world. Both “life” and “light” are worldly concepts. However, when both are expressed as “immeasurable,” they then point to that which transcends this world. The word “life” basically refers to a life spanning from birth to death. However, when expressed as “immeasurable life,” it could be said to transcend all worldly concepts. The phrase “immeasurable light” acts in the same way. Since the existence of “light” would illuminate the darkness, “unlimited light” would mean that no darkness could exist. That, however, would not be possible in this world. Here then is an attempt to talk about a world-transcending ultimacy by negating the worldly concept of “light,” even while utilizing it.

In Nagarjuna’s Mahaprajñaparamitopadesa (Commentary on the Mahaprajñaparamita Sutra) we find the phrase, “Rely on the meaning, not on the words.” Shinran cites this passage in the Chapter on Transformed Buddha-bodies and Lands of his Kyogyosho monrui (True Teaching, Practice and Realization). Here Nagarjuna provides an easily understandable illustration involving the moon and a finger. Since we human beings always look downward when we walk, he says, we do not see the beautiful, brilliant moon in the heavens. Someone then taps us on the shoulder and, with his finger, indicates that we should look up at the beautiful moon in the sky. This is the so-called illustration of the “finger pointing to the moon.”

Nagarjuna explains that the finger represents “words,” while the moon represents “meaning.” “Meaning” here refers to true meaning, first principle, or true essence. As we have seen above, it corresponds to the life of Shakyamuni and the content of his enlightenment. In this illustration, ultimate truth is represented by the moon. Since we are not able to grasp this first principle directly, we are directed toward it by words and language—by the finger, or, symbol that points us toward the moon.

Nagarjuna urges us not to mistake the finger for the moon. He tells us not to confound words and meaning, that is, not to mistake the secular words that are used to point to ultimate truth for that truth itself. We are able to see the moon because of the finger. However, we should not look at the finger and think that it is the moon. This is the meaning of the phrase, “Rely on the meaning, not on the words.” Here, the topic of our discussion is the significance of symbols. The Buddha-body called “Amida,” that Buddha’s Name, and all of the other words in the Sutra are all nothing more than “fingers.” None of them constitute the “moon” itself. The entire content of the Sutra and the teaching of Amida Buddha’s Primal Vow are expressed symbolically so that we can know the moon itself.

This idea can be more precisely explained by referring to the late Paul Tillich’s understanding of symbols. Born in Germany, Tillich was a well-known Protestant theologian who spent the latter part of his life in America. I would like to offer a summary of my own understanding of his splendid explanation of symbols.

For Tillich, first of all, a symbol is something that points to ultimate truth, which transcends the secular world. Thus, Amida Buddha, Amida’s Name, all of the words in the sutras, as well as hell and the Pure Land are all symbolic expressions that point to an ultimate, world-transcending truth. Secondly, however, at the same time that a symbol points toward something, it also exists in a profound relationship with the thing itself. This is an important point, I believe. The finger points to the moon, and because of the finger we are able to look up to the moon for the first time. However, the finger is not simply a finger. It is because the finger is bathed in the light of the moon that, for the first time, the finger can engage in finger-activity, which is to point to the moon. The activity of the finger itself would not be able to exist in complete darkness. It is because the moon gives off light that the finger can exhibit finger-activity for the first time. In this sense, a symbol participates profoundly within ultimacy. It is none other than the self-expression of the ultimate.

Tillich’s third point is that we can encounter ultimate truth or world-transcending reality for the first time through symbols. Needless to say, were it not for symbols we would not be able to encounter ultimate truth or Amida Buddha. Fourth, Tillich says that a symbol reveals the deepest levels our own, individual spirit. A familiar example might be that, if we continuously worship before a Buddha image everyday of our life, eventually our eyes will be opened to the transcendent, ultimate reality behind the image. Yet, at the same time, our spirit (or, spirituality) gradually becomes cultivated through this process. These four points, I believe, reflect the fundamental meaning of symbols in Tillich’s thought.

Further, when discussing the transmission of symbols, Tillich states that a symbol must constantly be re-interpreted within every era and society. According to him, a symbol necessarily arises within a certain historical or societal context. The formation of the notion of Amida Buddha is a case in point. We do not know who produced the Larger Sutra. Although the Sutra indicates that it was expounded by Shakyamuni, he had in fact died five hundred years prior to its development. However, even though we do not know who expounded the notion of Amida Buddha in the Larger Sutra, the Sutra had to have arisen within certain necessary historical and societal circumstances. I mentioned earlier that Amida worship probably arose out of circumstances involved in stupa worship. Tillich might say that, because it arose within a particular situation, Amida Buddha as a symbol could become extinct when those conditions greatly change. Thus, the length of a symbol’s life could be extended and the symbol thus transmitted, depending on how it is re-interpreted in various era and societies. I am in complete agreement with this idea.

Takamaro Shigaraki