Cultivating Spirituality: A Modern Shin Buddhist Anthology

Chapter 15: A Name but Not a Name Alone

Chapter 15 A Name but Not a Name Alone* Yasuda Rijin Translated by Paul Watt I I have put forth the title “A Name but Not a Name Alone,” but that was simply a last resort. When world-famous scholar Professor Paul Tillich came to Japan in early July (of 1960), I had the opportunity to have a conversation with him through the efforts of people at Higashi Honganji and Tøji. As a memento [of that meeting], I had Professor Tillich write something for me on a tanzaku. What he wrote were the words, “A name but not a name alone.” I have taken those words for the title of today’s talk. Now the name I mention here is the name of the Tathågata.1 However, having had the experience of the conversation [with Professor Tillich], I [became aware] of the problem that, while the name of the Tathågata has a deep meaning, it is not easy for us to understand how that deep meaning is expressed in the name. Hence, we are made to rethink the name. It is said that the name of the Tathågata is the name of the original vow. That the name is not just any name is indicated [by the fact that] it is the name of the original vow. However, in his Kyøgyøshinshø, Shinran says that this name, the name of the Tathågata, is practice. “The great practice is to say the name of the Tathågata of Unobstructed Light.”2 I wonder if, with this statement alone, this isn’t 239 *YRS 1:318–45. 240 YASUDA RIJIN   <     Even if one says that the name is practice, this is not something that can be immediately understood. The meaning of [the line] “a name but not a name alone” is that the name [also] has the meaning of practice. In order to indicate that [point], we speak of it as the name of the original vow. The name is the name of the Tathågata, but when we speak of it as practice, it is the practice of sentient beings. The name is always the name of the Tathågata. The name indicates the Tathågata. Yet although that is the case, at the same time, it also has been given the meaning of the practice of sentient beings. In other words, the name is the Tathågata, but because of the Tathågata, the name of the Tathågata is not just the name of the Tathågata; it is also responding to sentient beings. Therein lies the meaning [of the line], “A name but not a name alone.” The name of the original vow, it goes without saying, is Namu|   %             to human existence. That sort of thing in general is the problem of religion. When it comes to responding in a fundamental way to the problem of human beings, it is necessary to transcend human beings by [simultaneously] negating and embracing them. [Through] the     %    % of human beings is responded to in a fundamental way. The problem of religion can be expressed in this form. When [religion] takes on that kind of meaning, then as regards the Buddhist way of the original vow, the name has religious meaning. In other words, the name is not just a name. It has religious meaning. To indicate that religious [meaning], the name is used. The name may be a common thing, but  $ <    *   It is a unique name. Regarding the problem of religion, without using anything else, the name in particular was chosen. That which tells us that is the original vow. This original vow is called the selected original vow (senjaku hongan 選択本願).3 That which the Tathågata used to delimit itself is the name. The Tathågata delimited itself as the name. Without delimiting itself using anything else, it delimited itself as the name. That is because names are not incidental to human beings, but have an essential relationship to them. In other words, the name is the name of the Tathågata, but originally the Tathågata had no name. However, that the Tathågata    %      existence itself. In other words, the name is the Tathå^   of itself as sentient beings. It manifested itself in the form of sentient 241 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE beings. That by which the Tathågata becomes sentient beings is the name. Therefore, sentient beings return to the Tathågata through the name. Names are peculiar to human beings. From that perspective, I think that the name must be considered once again from the standpoint of Buddhist ontology. As I said earlier, in the Kyøgyøshinshø, the name is used to indicate the great practice. There it says, “[The great practice] is to say the name of the Tathågata of Unobstructed Light.” Of course, these are Shinran’s own words, but if we go back, [we can see that] they are based on Vasubandhu’s words in the Pure Land Treatise. In the Pure Land Treatise, the practice of the Pure Land is indicated as being     #        calling of the name appears as the content of the practice of praise [in the line], “[One should] say the name of that Tathågata.” The Great Teacher Tanluan interpreted that [line] as “One should say the name of the Tathågata of Unobstructed Light.” Here he added the words “Unobstructed Light.” Whether one says “say the name of that Tathågata” or “say the name of the Tathågata of Unobstructed Light,” the meaning does not change, but Shinran takes as his own the words of the Commentary on the Treatise that interprets the Pure Land Treatise. That he uses these words in particular has a deep meaning. When the Commentary on the Treatise interprets the Pure Land Treatise, in the background of the Treatise is the Sutra of Immeasurable Life. The Sutra of Immeasurable Life explains the Tathågata’s original vow. That which determines the meaning of the Treatise is not one’s personal impression. Simply because “one thinks so,” one cannot determine the meaning of the Treatise. In interpreting the Treatise, one views the Treatise by transcending it. In this way, an interpretation can be formed. In other words, by viewing it in the light of Amida Buddha’s original vow, the meaning of the name was determined. Thus, although the Pure Land Treatise   %        gates of mindfulness, when one returns to the original vow of Amida Buddha, [there] it talks about “up to ten [moments of] mindfulness.” Therefore, if one looks at the Treatise on its own, apart from the Sutra, one interpretation may be possible, but when one views the Pure Land Treatise        Sutra of Immeasurable Life, one can not view the “mindfulness” of [the phrase] “up to ten [moments of] mindfulness” as different from “the    { The phrase “up to ten [moments of] mindfulness” refers to the nenbutsu. . . .4 242 YASUDA RIJIN [The Sutra of Immeasurable Life speaks of the nenbutsu, being mindful of or saying the name of Amida Buddha, as an “act,” but it may also be spoken of as practice.] However I wonder if practice doesn’t have a deeper meaning. Rather than just being an act, practice implies a loftier concept. After all, in the Pure Land Treatise there is mention of “practice that accords with reality.” When we consider [practice] with that point [in mind], it is the practice of the Tathågata, the One Who Has Come from Suchness.5 Suchness, as suchness, just as it is, practices. Without suchness, there is no practice. Suchness is a word that indicates the original meaning of all existence. Existence—things, just as they are, practice. [The words] “One Who Has Come from Suchness” can be restated as suchness comes; however, unless one adds the stipulations of from where and how [suchness comes] the concept does not become clear. [But] “the where” is suchness, “the what” is suchness, and “the how” is suchness. Suchness comes from suchness as suchness. If it doesn’t have that meaning, I think that we can’t speak of genuine practice. Practice transcends merely individual acts. From that perspective, the name of the original vow is the practice of sentient beings, but the practice of sentient beings is, in fact, the practice of the Tathågata itself. The practice of the Tathågata itself, without losing its identity, is the practice of sentient beings. It is the so-called bodhisattva practice. That meaning is indicated through the    € ¢  £ original vow, [that practice] is the nenbutsu, but that nenbutsu was chosen as the practice of sentient beings. And, at the same time, it is the practice of the Tathågata. . . .6 If one looks only at the Pure Land Treatise, the central practice               < Pure Land Treatise is a Yogåcåra treatise and the practice of Yogåcåra is cessation and contemplation. In the Pure Land Treatise as well, mention is made of “contemplation on the marks of that world” and “contemplation on the power of the Buddha’s original vow”; hence, it is natural that when we speak of practice we mean Yogåcåra practice. Viewed in that way, the gate of contemplation is the center. [Or] the two gates of making the vow and contemplation become the center. [Yet] it is customary [to think] that contemplation, understood as the system of practice of cessation and contemplation and as the practice of cessation and contemplation [focused on] the original vow, is central.€     ¢£         gates of mindfulness in the light of the original vow, the center [of  £  <    %% 243 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE gates of mindfulness are viewed from the standpoint of the original vow, there are two centers. Those are the second gate of praise and     #       #    <       the fact that the Tathågata, without losing its identity as the Tathågata, becomes the practice of sentient beings. It is transferred by means of the name. That which we call the name is the name [understood] within the broad [context of] religion. In the Buddhist path of the original vow, the name is not just the name; rather it is the name        <          % [addressed by] religion. Although it is responding to the problem of religion rather than [merely] that of Buddhism, it responds by means of the name. There, the problem of human beings transcends human beings and the transference of the Tathå < has a deep meaning is because it has the meaning of transference. When expressed in Chinese, [the term “transference”] is made up of the two characters [read in Japanese as] e 回 and kø 向. One can talk about what each character means, but simply speaking, the concept of e is especially important. E means “to turn or revolve.” It refers to the fact that something turns from something toward something. Hence, the character kø (to face forward) emerges naturally [in this context]. Talking about the separate meanings of e and kø is a Chinese style of interpretation. The critical thing is that the concept of “turning or revolving” is important; it refers to the turning of suchness. The suchness that transcends names returns as the name. In the form of the return of the Tathågata, the problem of human beings is responded to by transcending human beings and further, without human beings becoming the humanistic [standard], by transcending human ;  <           The solution to [the problem of] human beings is not for humans to become just as they think they should be; the problem of human beings is deeper than we human beings think. Hence, that which responds to the problem of human beings before humans do so [themselves] is the original vow. Thus, the problem of human beings is responded to by transcending human expectations. That is what is %    < %  beings is responded to [in the form of] the Tathågata. It is precisely because it has the meaning of transference that the meaning of the                 spoken of the True Pure Land way, rather than simply the Pure Land  <$      vow is made manifest in the concept of transference. It is the name 244 YASUDA RIJIN that embraces that transference, the name that has [within it that] transference.Œ       centers of the name of the second gate of praise and the name of the     |       I was just discussing, the name appears in [the section on the] second gate of praise. When one simply looks at the Pure Land Treatise apart from the original vow, the practice is contemplation, but when one views [the matter] through the original vow, the name is practice. And it is not just a name, but the name of the Tathågata. To say that name is the praise [of the second gate of mindfulness]. When one asks how [the name] should be said, it should be said according to its myøgi 名義, the object to which it refers. In other words, broadly speaking, the name refers to the object of the name. The name is something that stands in relation to its object; it is that which expresses its object. And that which is intended by the name is its object. In the teachings of the Yogåcåra [school], myøgi holds an important place. The term myøgi may be understood to mean “concept.” The myøgi of Amida Buddha is the concept of Amida Buddha. Myøgi is         existence. In the Pure Land Treatise %  %   the standpoint of the doctrines of Vasubandhu’s Yogåcåra [school], one sees that, as regards the problem of human existence, myøgi holds an important place. Myøgi expresses the idea of [mental] discrimination or conceptualization. It is also spoken of as the discrimination of objects and the discrimination of names. We experience “reality” and speak about “reality,” but we can not directly conceptualize “reality” itself. We think that we are experiencing reality, but [that which we experience] becomes human experience through names. Reality itself is not a name. However, by establishing names, reality is conceptualized as an object. Therein lies the secret of human experience. As I said earlier, names are not associated with the Tathågata; rather names are associated with human beings. Hence, human experience is not the direct experience of reality itself or the Tathågata itself; rather the Tathågata becomes human experience as a concept (myøgi). Of course, even if the Tathågata becomes human experience, it does not exist apart from the Tathågata. However, the Tathågata ceases to be the Tathågata [itself]; it is there that the world of human beings is established through conceptualizations. Although the world of human beings does not exist apart from the Tathågata, the Tathågata is transformed by humans into a concept. If I use 245 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE provocative language, [I might say that the relationship between the Tathågata and human beings] is turned upside down. Human beings do not exist in reality itself; rather they function within the context of their interpretation [of reality]. Humans are able to function in and be concerned about the human world alone; they cannot function in a world that transcends humans. We are like silkworms who make cocoons and who live within the cocoons we ourselves make. We do not live in a world of direct experience. Discriminating among names and objects is the basis of human existence. If that were not so, there would be no way for the passions and the like to arise in a world of direct experience. Human beings function within the world they construct. In that sense, humans are beings of the world. It is not that humans would exist whether or not there were names. In a sense, humans are beings who, through names, are deluded by names. In order to awaken those human beings, the only alternative was to rely on names. Because humans are beings deluded by names, to awaken humans [the Tathågata] could not help but use names. To be deluded by names is to regard them has having a real substance. Our experience is formed [on the basis of] the substantiation of names. However, substantiated names, originally, are provisional names (kemyø 仮名) rather than real things. The fact that names are provisional is important; they are established provisionally in contrast to objects. Without objects, there are no names. That is the point I want to speak about today. Don’t we think of names as “real names”? But names are originally provisional. When we refer to the name of the original vow, you may think it is a “real name,” but even the name of the original vow is a provisional name. II The character for ke 仮 (provisional) has the meaning of something “temporarily established.” Something that is “constructed” is also referred to as ke. The German word is setzen. In other words, [ke refers to] something that did not originally exist. Hence in contrast to something that is original [that existed from the beginning], it is something that is contingent. Therefore, it is also called an “incidental name” (kakumyø 客名). The concept of provisional names is not made clear in Theravada Buddhism. Even if the Abhidharma of the Theravådins speaks of “no-self,” it refers [only] to the no-self of the pudgala, the no-self of persons. In contrast, in Mahåyåna teachings, [phrases such as] “all dharmas are mere consciousness” and “all 246 YASUDA RIJIN dharmas are empty” are intended to make clear the emptiness of all things. It is in that connection that provisional names are given so much attention. Provisional names are clearly discussed not only in the teachings of Vasubandhu, but also in Någårjuna’s Madhyamakakårikå.7 According to the Tiantai interpretation of the gåthå on the three truths contained in the well-known chapter on the Four [Noble] Truths, [a distinction is made between] the empty, the provisional, and the middle aspects of truth, but there too that which is empty is indicated to be a provisional name.8 It further says that “this is the middle way.” In the opening chapter of Vasubandhu’s Thirty Verses on Mere Consciousness (Ch. Weishisanshisong, Jpn. Yuishiki sanj¶ju 唯識三十頌), it says, “Because they are provisional, the Buddha explained them as the self and dharmas.” The self and dharmas, existent things, are merely names. All existing things are referred to as the self and dharmas, but the self and dharmas are merely those things that have names. In Chinese perhaps the phrase [indicating their nature] would be “To have a name but no substance.” Speaking from that perspective, the essence of names is fundamentally that they are provisionally established. I believe that this is a point worthy of [special] consideration. The Great Teacher Tanluan has said that the name of the Tathågata is different from ordinary names in that it has the function of saving sentient beings. As an example—one that probably comes out of Daoist texts—is the view that if one calls the name [of the Tathågata], illnesses will be cured. This is probably a misinterpretation that arises from over-enthusiasm for the name, but if that were the case, the name would become a magical spell or incantation. This is one of the great dangers that the name possesses and is a great pitfall. When Namu Amida Butsu becomes a magical incantation, the          ¢#£ %     religious function. By destroying the human being in a fundamental way, religion thereby provides a foundation for the human being. If that doesn’t happen, it cannot be called a religion. If [the name becomes] an incantation, it obstructs the absolute negation that destroys human beings. When it is substantiated, the world of religion becomes something magical. This is a danger inherent in religion. When one thinks about that, the fact that names are only provisional has great <            %   is to be deluded by names. By understanding names as provisional, one becomes able to use names without being deluded by them. Because we use [the term] provisional names, one may think that it refers to something of little value, but using the term provisional 247 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE names is correct. [Viewing] names as representing reality is completely    #             For example, in Yogåcåra treatises, names exist in contrast to objects. Names are established in contrast to objects and objects are established in contrast to names. In the Treatise on Mere Consciousness (Ch. Weishilun, Jpn. Yuishikiron 唯識論), there are the well-known words, “names and objects are incidental to one another.” This [passage] refers to the [concept of] incidental name that I mentioned previously. These   %%      ¢  £ concepts. For us human beings, there are two fundamental arbitrary views. !   ¢ £ _¶  { ¢  £  %    #          ¢   £     some object of consciousness and that we become conscious of that object. [In this view,] consciousness is something that represents the %*      Œ ;¢   £   exists before there is consciousness of it. We think that by coming       _  {   previously contentless consciousness. This content is the representation   ¢£            *       %  €                     exists outside of consciousness. [But] we cannot say that the object itself exists. An object does not exist apart from consciousness. In the realm of consciousness, all things are objects. It is not that existing things alone become objects. Nonexisting things also become objects. In as much as there is the consciousness of nothingness, in the realm of consciousness both existing and nonexisting things become objects. <         %*      ;      presuppose consciousness. <   %               ¢ £                ¢£       ;    €           ;        This is the second arbitrary view. In this way, for human beings there are two arbitrary views. The [world of] human naturalistic experience is based on such arbitrary views. [In Buddhism,] this type of experience is called delusion. It is not that there is something that deludes us; [rather] without there being something that causes delusions, humans are deluded about the 248 YASUDA RIJIN fundamental structure [of consciousness]. That being the case, [it is as  £   _  {            spoke. That would be a “real name.” [But] that is something that cannot be; names are constructed things. Therefore, the words “names  %*      {      arbitrary views that have existed from the beginningless past. Even the name of the original vow is not a special name. It is the fundamental nature of names that, in the end, they are [all] provisional names. Therefore, we can refer to [the original vow] as a shingon 真言 or “true word.” The name is a word, a word about the true nature of reality; in other words, it is a true word. The true word of esoteric Buddhism is called a dhå ¥. Now [I am discussing] the true word of exoteric Buddhism. The name of the original vow is the true word of exoteric Buddhism. In that case, it might be called the word about the true nature of reality, but when we use these words, we are not contrasting real names with the provisional names mentioned earlier; [rather] provisional names are true words. It is not that one abandons provisional names for true words; provisional names are themselves true words. Within Mahåyåna teachings, from the perspective of a purely     %  ;     an absolute way after passing through an absolute negation. If that is not the case, human beings cannot [in fact] become human beings. That [understanding of] the human being is the human being seen from the standpoint of religion. Human beings are existences that carry a great contradiction within them. To speak of human beings as existences of absolute contradiction is something that can be said on the basis of religious self-awareness; apart from religion, that probably cannot be said. In Buddhism, that sort of deep, fundamental self-awareness is expressed through words like “faith” or “awakening.” In short, those words refer to the wisdom of nondiscrimination. Whether we speak of common sense or philosophy or science, it is undeniable that all [transmit a kind of] wisdom, but the difference between them and religious wisdom (jñåna/prajñå) lies in [the idea of] awakening. Awakening is not rational or objective understanding. Even if one speaks of it as truth, it refers to a truth to which one has awakened. Consciousness that is in conformity with the truth is called understanding. It is not the kind of truth that, once experienced, [allows £  *    \    understanding [of things], there is no need to cease being the type of human being we were because of that understanding. [Indeed] the fact that we are human beings is further reinforced. [But] as regards 249 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE understanding to which one has become awakened, once that sort of understanding has been attained, one can not return to the human being one was before. It represents a kind of truth that transforms human beings. That kind of truth is truth to which one has become awakened. The awakened human being is the Tathågata. The human being, just as he or she is, is the Tathågata. That sort of wisdom is called the wisdom of nondiscrimination. When one thinks about this in relation to the problem of names I have been discussing, it takes on some interesting dimensions.|  | ²9 when a bodhisattva achieves the wisdom of nondiscrimination, that is, when people attain that understanding, sentient beings who existed as ordinary people are transformed into bodhisattvas. In that state, they abide among names among which no discrimination of objects is made. Here [the concept of] myøgi or    %*    #      ¢| ²£   %   state of our having achieved the wisdom of nondiscrimination [with the words,] “they abide among names among which no discrimination of objects is made.” The word “abide” means “to abide with ease”; in other words, they abide with ease [in the realm] of names. The ordinary person abides [in the realm of] discrimination. When discrimination is  %  %  ¢| ²^   £      to the problem of where those bodhisattvas abide. Perhaps it is hard to follow what I am saying when I use words like bodhisattva and ordinary person. Those who are deluded are ordinary people; those who are awakened are bodhisattvas. A bodhisattva is not an especially eminent person. A true human being [who] exists with a self-awareness of human existence—that is a bodhisattva. Human beings live but they [also] exist with an awareness of the fact that they are living. Dogs and cats live, but they are not aware of their existence. It is only human beings that, while they are alive, live with an awareness of their existence. Therefore, speaking from the perspective of existence, among all living things, the opportunity to have a self-awareness of existence exists only in the case of human beings. To live with an awareness of oneself—the being who lives in that fashion is called a bodhisattva. An ordinary person exists without a self. <           names and objects; that is the realm in which an ordinary person abides. In contrast, the realm in which a bodhisattva abides is [the realm of] the nondiscrimination of names and objects. To abide among names which do not discriminate among objects means to abide in the realm where there is no place to abide, to abide in the place of 250 YASUDA RIJIN nonabiding. To have no place in which to abide, that is the realm   ` % %<    ;      in the Prajñåpåramitå [sutras].10 To abide in the realm of nonabiding is a paradox. In the teaching of Yogåcåra, paradoxical expressions are presented analytically. Vasubandhu expresses this [idea] with the words “to abide in the true nature of mere consciousness.” This refers to the mind at ease (anjin 安心). “To abide” means “to abide with ease.” The nature of mere consciousness refers to the original nature of consciousness; consciousness is at ease with the original nature of consciousness itself. I think that [the term] “a mind at ease” is a Chinese phrase. It probably arose in connection with the Chan (Zen) and nenbutsu [schools]. I don’t think there is such a word in the languages of India, but if we were to look for [a parallel], it would probably be “to abide in the nature of mere consciousness.” The phrase mentioned earlier, “to abide among names among which no discrimination of objects is made,” refers to the mind at ease. The method for bringing to light the mind at ease is “observation of the mind” (kanjin 観心). That so much attention is given to observation of the mind is because it is the method for attaining a mind at ease. To have one’s mind be at ease with itself is only possible when the mind returns to its original nature. When the mind arises as names and objects, it takes on a form that negates its original nature; when the mind returns to its original nature, that is awakening (satori 悟り). The sato of satori has the meaning of original nature. To recover one’s original nature (satotoru さととる)—until one returns to one’s original nature, the human mind cannot be at ease. When one asks what kind of original nature it is [that one recovers], it is the original nature of an uneasy mind. When we say that the mind of faith11 is a mind at ease, as far as Pure Land Buddhism is concerned, there are three minds associated with the ease of mind attained through the nenbutsu. It was the Great <         %  ¢   £    ease as a precise and technical term. In the Great Teacher Tanluan’s [works] as well, the words “a mind at ease” appear, as in the line, “The Pure Land is the abode of the mind at ease [attained through] practice.” But it was from Shandao on that it became established as a precise, technical term. [The line] “The mind of faith is a mind at ease” [is true] in so far as “faith” has the meaning of “awakened.” “Awakened” means “realized.” In as much as faith has the meaning of realization, faith leads one to a mind at ease. Generally speaking, faith [is viewed] as the beginning of realization; [the stage before] one 251 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE has yet to achieve realization is spoken of as faith. But faith in that case has the meaning of unease. That faith can be spoken of as realization is because faith itself has the meaning of realization. Faith is not just the beginning of realization. Realization is said to be the end point, but it [actually] begins from the end point. The customary idea is that faith is faith and realization is realization; but at the same time that faith reaches its conclusion in realization, faith begins from the realization that has been reached. That faith and realization have [this] circular relationship is something that cannot be said apart from the original vow. It cannot be said apart from the name. III That which we call names are provisional; things that are temporarily established, this is the original meaning of names. In other words, this is [the meaning of] names to which one is awakened. Therefore, [the phrase] “names and objects are incidental to one another” exposes the profound arbitrariness associated with names. This arbitrariness exists when we regard names as real. Names are something temporarily established. Originally, that which we call “real” has the meaning of “that which itself proclaims its own existence,” but provisional names are incidental. In other words, this means that their relationship to objects is incidental. That “the name is not just a name” also means that the name is simply a name. In that sense, it indicates that it is not just a name. Although it is a complicated matter, the name is originally just a name; hence it indicates that it is not a name. [Yet] we are not saying, therefore, that it [represents] a reality that denies provisional names. Even if we refer to it as a real name, we are not denying that names are things that are temporarily established and [asserting that] the name itself is real. [Rather] we are saying that that which has been temporarily established is reality. I wonder if this isn’t the fundamental character of names.| ²          words “to abide among names among which no discrimination of objects is made.” The wisdom of nondiscrimination is Buddhist wisdom or prajñå. When a consciousness characterized by faith [becomes] the wisdom of nondiscrimination, it can be spoken of as characterized by a pure faith. In other words, when we say the name of the original vow, 252 YASUDA RIJIN through the name, the wisdom of nondiscrimination is aroused. That the name was originally taken up is because it is related to discrimination. Through names, human beings discriminate among names and objects. [The phrase] “names and objects” indicates discrimination. Because it is related to discrimination, the name causes discrimination to be transformed and nondiscrimination to be aroused. If the name itself is not [related to] discrimination, then it would be impossible to indicate nondiscrimination through the name. An object is a concept. [The term] “object” in the line “to abide among names among which no discrimination of objects is made” in Sanskrit is artha. In Chinese translations it is [rendered with the character] yi 義 (Jpn. gi). Along with [the sense of] “meaning,” gi also indicates an object of consciousness. In the present case, it is perhaps correct to refer to it as “object” rather than “meaning.” [The term] “abide” in the line “to abide among names among which no discrimination of objects is made” [means] “to abide with ease.” In this case, it [means] to abide in the dharmatå, the true nature of all things. From the perspective of noesis, it constitutes nondiscrimination; from the perspective of noema, it is the true nature of all things or their original nature. In a certain treatise, there is the line, “to abide in the true nature of the mind.” In other words, the mind abides in the true nature of the mind. [Or] the mind is at ease when it discovers     #  | ²  that [in the line] “to abide among names,” using the work “name.” This is an interesting expression. One abides [in the consciousness] that all things are provisional names. Discrimination is [also related to] concepts. With [discrimination],        %* ¢       £     <   our consciousness is fundamentally related to objects; it [consists] of the discrimination of objects. By making our own selves an object,              % %* €   % conscious of anything that is beyond consciousness; consciousness is conscious of consciousness. In that case, the consciousness of which we are conscious can be cognized by making the self an object. That is the structure of discrimination. However, in that case, the mind is not at ease. From that standpoint, there can be no human consciousness without objects. It is not that there are objects and that we then become conscious of them. This [view] is based on the idea that consciousness is from the start consciousness of something. From that perspective, all existent as well as nonexistent things are objects of consciousness. Consciousness has no objects beyond consciousness; whether it be existent or nonexistent things that [appear to be] beyond consciousness, 253 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE both in the end are expressed as objects within consciousness. That is consciousness as we usually think about it. Therefore, consciousness expresses itself as an object and is [then] conscious of that object which is its self-expression. In connection with that structure [of consciousness], various emotions arise. Consciousness arises as the         %*#   ¢ £     %     –¢  £            Because we are conscious of objects of consciousness, consciousness is bound by those objects. Therefore, that which binds consciousness is consciousness itself. In this sense, consciousness in fact is manifested in a form that is not itself. The consciousness that ordinarily arises conceals consciousness itself. When consciousness arises, consciousness itself is manifested in a way that negates its original nature. Therefore a consciousness that has objects cannot be at ease in consciousness itself. Consciousness is constantly being changed by the objects of consciousness. It moves from [one moment of] discrimination to the next. Therefore, in that situation, there is no way for the unconsciousness of faith (expressed as wisdom) to form. From this standpoint, the consciousness of faith that is manifested as the wisdom of nondiscrimination is a consciousness without objects.€           be distinguished from all other instances of consciousness. That which we call the consciousness of faith, if expressed generally as a concept in the philosophy of religion, is consciousness of the eternal. The eternal is not something that can be made into an object. One cannot think of the eternal as an object. A consciousness that expresses the eternal as an object is not a religious consciousness. In a form that is not religious consciousness, religion is made manifest. If one is conscious of the eternal, then that is the same as saying that one is conscious of something that can be represented as an object. I think that, even as regards the Tathågata or the Pure Land and the like, if one grasps them as objects, one does not have a religious consciousness. Even as regards [such acts as] meditating on the buddha or having faith in the buddha, if one’s consciousness [is concerned with] thinking about the buddha or if the buddha himself is [treated as] an objective existence, I doubt that one’s consciousness can be said to be a religious consciousness. [To have] the consciousness of a buddha, one must be a buddha. The consciousness that has faith in the buddha must be the mind of a buddha. One cannot hold up the buddha as an object [of consciousness]. Therefore, in Buddhism, [this idea] is expressed in the concept of 254 YASUDA RIJIN emptiness. In the teachings of the Prajñåpåramitå [school], they speak of “emptiness as the nature [of all things].” In the Yogåcåra [school], they speak of “the nature that is made manifest through emptiness.” In teachings such as these, there are some differences. Things that are not emptiness [are empty], how much more so are things that are not existing things—[the teachings] indicate that sort of thing. In any event, the concept of emptiness expresses pure negation. In the case of the Prajñåpåramitå [school], although emptiness is initially [understood as] negation, it also is [understood as indicating] wondrous existence. It is not simply a negative concept. Prajñå is a concept that expresses          #        concept expressing negation is used [indicates] that speculation about the eternal is forbidden. Seeking the eternal as an object [of consciousness] is [to follow] a path that takes one away from eternity. Instead, by %     ¢ £ ^  In short, to express the eternal through the concept of emptiness is [to indicate] that the eternal is not an objective existence and [further] that it is [part of] the original nature. The mind that seeks the eternal is the original [mind]. That is the eternal. The mind that seeks the eternal is itself the eternal. Because people don’t understand that, they seek the eternal outside of themselves. If one does not awaken                    point that distinguishes [Buddhist] religious consciousness from that of other religions.¢#      £| ² _  nature” [of things] through names. This is an approach unique to him. Någårjuna uses “emptiness,” which is the same as the provisional. In the Tiantai interpretation, [the three concepts of] the empty, the provisional, and the middle are established, but in Någårjuna’s Mahyamakakårikå itself, the empty and the provisional are synonyms. Emptiness is also a provisional name. In this sense, [the line] “to abide among names among which no discrimination of objects is made” is the same as abiding in the empty nature [of things]. “The empty nature [of things]” is already a name, but as long as it is expressed as emptiness, it is not emptiness. In other words, the ideal of the eternal and the eternal itself are different. The representation of the eternal and the eternal itself are different. The eternal transcends time, but the representation of it exists in time. The eternal itself does not enter time. The Tathågata, the Pure Land and the like, they are eternal. But if one tries to express the eternal in time, there is no alternative to expressing it as the future. We say that “we will be born [in the Pure Land] in the future,” expressing the eternal as an extension of time. 255 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE€  ;       we have the [concept of] the future. However, one cannot put one’s mind at ease in a future Pure Land represented in that way. As long as consciousness has objects, one cannot be at ease in consciousness itself. Once cannot be at ease unless one returns to the place of one’s departure. One cannot be at ease along the way. Because being at ease makes contact with the origins of delusion, one is able to be at ease. The mind that has                   real character of delusion will no longer be deluded. Once the origins      %        %   delusion is unnecessary. The term of negation, “emptiness,” indicates something that is not empty. It indicates the original nature that is not a negation. Hence, that which is provisional is something temporarily established. There are the concepts of the “established” and the “nonestablished” truths; the term “the empty nature [of things]” [belongs to the category of] established truth. However, the name “the empty nature [of things]” does not indicate emptiness. Emptiness itself cannot have even the name of “emptiness.” In other words, something that is not a name is being indicated by a name. That [consciousness] is the self-awareness of names. People may think that the meaning of “provisional names” is shallow and that of “real names” is profound, but in fact that is not the case. There are no “real names.” That fact that all things that exist are nothing other than names brings one into contact with the awakened [state] by transforming the perspective that sees real things as objects. The awakening [that involves seeing] the things one sought as objects as originally [a matter] of self-awareness is indicated by names. When we say that existent things exist as names, the things we made into objects become subjective [consciousness]. As I said previously, it is impossible to grasp the original nature of things as an object; rather they exist as [a matter of] subjective self-   |                  of objects. However, as Descartes says, we can be conscious of consciousness. We are conscious of things as objects, but we can also be conscious of the function of consciousness. In that sense, we can speak of self-awareness, but with that sort of self-awareness, the selfawareness that is faith will not take form. If one stops at the point of knowing the function of consciousness, that cannot be called the self-awareness that is faith. Consciousness can see its function as an object [but] if consciousness stops there, it is absolutely the case that awakening will not take form in consciousness. 256 YASUDA RIJIN By coming into contact with its origin, consciousness becomes aware of itself. If it is not the case that consciousness can awaken from dreams, then no matter how humans may seek to gain awakening, they cannot become awakened. We can say that, even in dreams, not only can we become conscious of things as objects, but we can also be conscious of consciousness. That which can awaken us from such a consciousness is consciousness. Therefore, the self-awareness that is faith is the empty nature of the mind or the self-awareness that is consciousness returned to its source. If it is not that sort of consciousness, if one [only] vaguely refers to self-awareness, [the sort of consciousness I am referring to] is not made clear. The Zen master Døgen used [the phrase] “To shine the light back on oneself.” [Usually] when we shine a light on something, we shine it in a forward direction. If we are only conscious of [the things before us], human beings can never escape delusion. However, consciousness shines both forward and backward. It can shine light on the dream [that arises from only] shining one’s light forward. In that way it returns to the [true] nature of the mind. [In that state of mind,] even if one sees various things, one does not see them as objects. However, that doesn’t mean that one has abandoned consciousness. There is a contradiction in the term “the wisdom of nondiscrimination.” If it is nondiscrimination, it is not wisdom, and if it is wisdom, then there is discrimination. In ;             | ²      wisdom is something associated with the mind or something that is not mind (i.e., matter). If wisdom is associated with the mind, in other words, if it is associated with consciousness, then it must be said that wisdom [involves] discrimination. Since making discriminations is the essence of the mind, if wisdom has to do with the mind, how can we speak of nondiscrimination. If [wisdom is associated with] nondiscrimination, then it is other than mind. In other words, it is matter. If it is the same as matter, then how can we say that it is   <             nor abandons discrimination. The consciousness that is faith is not unconsciousness. When the consciousness that is faith is called the wisdom of nondiscrimination, there is a conceptual contradiction. [It is] nondiscriminating yet it is wisdom. It is not that consciousness has been abandoned. While conscious, one has nevertheless abandoned the clinging [nature] of consciousness. While conscious, one has nevertheless abandoned the form of consciousness. Although seeing the self itself as an object is consciousness, while conscious, one has abandoned 257 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE that object. That is the original self-awareness of consciousness itself. Consciousness is incomprehensible. As long as it is comprehensible, a mind at ease will not form. Consciousness is incomprehensible to itself. [By realizing that,] at that point, consciousness becomes at ease. If it is not that way, the consciousness that is faith cannot be distinguished from all other [types of] consciousness. Therefore, the wisdom of nondiscrimination is indicated by names. Hence, names are forms or phenomena. When we call them phenomena, there are no longer things. Existence is a phenomenon. It is not that things exist as objects. They are phenomena. They are not objects. When we refer to names, they are the names of nameless things. They are wordless words. That is the real character of words. It is not that words express something. If something is indicated by a name—in other words, if something expresses itself through a name—then [that something] would be an object. Consciousness expresses itself as an object and takes an interest in that object that has been expressed. What we call the passions is having an interest in things. As a result, the consciousness that is conscious [of objects] is bound by the things of which it is conscious. Hence humans are fettered without fetters. Because that is the  | ²   %     _% among names among which no discrimination of objects is made.” [In his Mahåyå   | ²£ %    encompass all names, expressing [the idea] in a verse. [In his list,] both dharmas and objects are names. Through the ten names he encompasses all existing things, but he calls the tenth and last name the ultimate name. Both the previous nine names and the tenth name are names; and there is no difference among them in that regard. In this case, it is not that they are special names. Even in the world of the original vow, names are provisional names. When one thinks of them as special names, that constitutes the substantiation of names. In other words, Namu Amida Butsu becomes a magical incantation. If it is a magical incantation, it cannot be a provisional name. That constitutes not an awakening to [the nature of] names, but the fact of being deluded by names. It constitutes not the consciousness of objects, but objects on a grand scale. Therefore, human beings are not deluded merely by the things of the secular world, but also by the name of the Tathågata. They are also deluded by the Tathågata. In other words, they make an object of the Tathågata. Therefore, both that which is not ultimate is a name and that which is ultimate     ¢| ²£           <    which is ultimate through a name that can indicate that which is not 258 YASUDA RIJIN ultimate—that [is the meaning of the phrase] “names among which no discrimination of objects is made” mentioned previously; among the ten names, it is the ultimate name. When sentient beings arouse the wisdom of nondiscrimination, that constitutes abiding in the ultimate name. It is a name that indicates that which is ultimate or eternal. Temporal things are expressed through names and the eternal is expressed through names. Because whether it is temporal or eternal it is just a name, a name is just a name. It is not the case that a name is not just a name. A name is only a name. That fact indicates that it is not just a name. In his Mahåyå   | ²  _  {  “desk” is a name. “Amida” is also a name. But Amida is something that indicates that which is ultimate. The name of the Buddha is an ultimate name. There is not only the example of the Mahåyå   ; even if one thinks of Vasubandhu’s Pure Land Treatise, he speaks of the abridged explanation of entrance into the phrase One Dharma12 in contrast to the unabridged explanation of the twenty-nine phrases. “Phrase” and “name” are similar concepts. Therefore the phrase One Dharma mentioned in the Pure Land Treatise is an ultimate name. The “One” is not one among twenty-nine. Twenty-nine is a number; the One that is contrasted with twenty-nine is not a number. It is the one of the One Dharmadhåtu. Rather than a number, it indicates totality. It is the One, the phrase One Dharma, that indicates all-encompassing totality. The name of the original vow has the meaning of the ultimate name or the phrase One Dharma. Whether it is the phrase One Dharma or the twenty-nine phrases, if one takes the name as an object—in other words, if one substantiates the name—the world that one experiences  # * ¢   experiences] is the Pure Land. The world that is indicated by phrases such as the phrase One Dharma and the twenty-nine phrases is the Pure Land. They are phrases [that indicate] that even as regards the Pure Land, there is no particular such object. [In his Commentary on the Pure Land Treatise,] the Great Teacher Tanluan says, “The abode of the Pure Land is the so-called seventeen phrases.” Beyond “phrases” there is no Pure Land. In this case as well, the One, the ultimate, is not something one speculates about as an object. If one applies the translations [used in the Mahåyå   ] to such terms as the phrase One Dharma and the ultimate, they would be “the all-pervading dharma” or “the all-encompassing dharma;” in other words, [they indicate] the totality [of all things]. “One” indicates something that is ultimate and all-encompassing; that which is all- 259 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE encompassing is not an object. Because “pervading” [indicates] the comprehensive or the extreme, [it refers to] the most comprehensive, the comprehensivenss that is nothingness. If it is made into an object, it becomes an existing thing. That which is comprehensive cannot exist as an object. That which is comprehensive is something that exists subjectively (although in fact  _ %*{  ~#   %* merely negates the objective. [It refers to something that] cannot be %*    %* %*  %* objective can be made objects [of consciousness], that which cannot % %*     † %    the self, or by the self returning to its original self, can one grasp the absolute or eternity. It is not something that can be established as an object apart from oneself. That which has the function of turning an objective name into a non-object is the ultimate name referred to here. IV X                ¢   £–    also something that can [achieve] awakening. In other words, that which can awaken from a dream is consciousness. If it is not that sort of self-awareness, one cannot indicate religious self-awareness. + `      %* `  <     %*    %*            %*|   ¢     £  %*      Consciousness that does not return to the self is not at ease. The self-awareness that is faith—if we use the language of the Awakening of Faith—is self-awareness similar to “the original awakened [state]” (hongaku 本覚). Gaku is the awareness (kaku 覚) of self-awareness, but it is also an awareness contrasted with illusion. Names are incidental names. Even if it is the name of the Tathågata, it is an incidental name. Although a name is just a name, the self-awareness that is it just a name is not just a name. The awareness of religious self-awareness has two meanings. In other words, to be aware is not to know things. Although it has the meaning of the selfconsciousness of knowing that one knows, at the same time, it also has the meaning of “to awaken,” which is contrasted with delusion. If it stops at only knowing that one knows something, that would be a limited concept. No matter how much one traces back the subjective, it only remains a limited concept. It can only remain as cognition of the subjective. In that case, it is discrimination; one cannot 260 YASUDA RIJIN [achieve] a mind at ease. It is the subjective self-awareness of the ego that is contrasted with the objective. It is still subjective. However, at the same time, awareness has the meaning of “to open one’s eyes.” It is not that which simply knows the self; it is that which is awakened. If it is that which can be known, it is no different than the ego. The self cannot be the self just as it is in its deluded [state]. The self is that which is awakened; it is self-awareness that is awakened. If it is not that, one cannot indicate the self-awareness that is faith. Things that are not ultimate are names, but ultimate names are also names. A name is just a name. However, as regards ultimate names, it is not that there is something, as named, that exists. All that exists is the name alone, and thereby that which is not just a name is symbolized. If that is not clear, I wonder if the name of the original    ^      <   following representation of [the name] is perhaps best: name This [manner of expression] follows Heidegger. The line [through £      ¢ £–    the name indicates that which is not the name. When we think about this in relation to Tanluan’s [concept of] the dharmatå, that which      dharmatå and the name is the upåya (høben 方便) or means. It is the name that is the sole method for bringing us into contact with that which is not the name. Names are things that do not originally exist in the dharmatå. They exists among deluded sentient beings. Sentient beings objectify things through [the use of] names. X     %     %  %*      Names belong to human beings. If those who are deluded by names are human beings, then there is no way other than names to cause them to awaken [from that delusion]. The name of the original vow is the dharmakåya of means (høben hosshin 方便法身).13 The Tathågata has no form; suchness has no form. Even if one speaks of the name of the Tathågata, the One Who Has Come from Suchness, by the time [the Tathågata] has come, [the Tathågata] is already a name. The “of” in “[the name] of the Tathågata” is unnecessary. [The name of the Tathågata] does not have the meaning of “the name that the Tathågata has.” It is not the name that indicates the Tathågata. The Tathågata is the name. The word “Namu” [reverence] is also attached to the name of the original vow. Therefore, adding “reverence,” we call [the entire phrase] the name. It is not that Amida alone is the name. It is not that there is Amida Buddha to which “reverence” was later added. That which we cannot help but “reverence” is Amida. 261 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE In that way, “reverence” is [part of] the ultimate name of the original vow. Whether it is the name of the Tathågata or the name of Amida, they are words that prohibit the viewing of Amida as an object. It is not that there is the Amida Buddha to which we attach a name. There is no Amida beyond the name. It is not that the name of the original vow indicates an objective thing. There is no form to Amida itself. However, not only that, at the same time that it is the name of something without form, “reverence” is added. Because it is a name that encompasses “reverence,” it is not that a thing without form is [actually] something with form that is static. The dharmatå is something static. Through “reverence,” that which has been static becomes dynamic. In other words, when something without form takes forms, it does not simply remain quiescent. Because it has the function of transforming deluded sentient beings         _{ Amida is something without form; when something without form becomes a name, that which is without form calls to that which has form. No matter how much it may call, that does mean that there is something that is calling. Rather we receive the call at that place where there is no thing that calls. It is the voiceless voice. It is not that, having been called, I exist. Rather I myself take form as the call. I am transformed as the call. It is not that the call exists outside of us and that we listen to it and are moved. I take form as the call. The name of the original vow does not indicate a thing. It is a name that indicates a relationship. It indicates the relationship of I and Thou, not the existence of something. However, that relationship is not the relationship of one thing to another; it is the relationship between that which has form and that which does not. It indicates the relationship of time and eternity. The relationship is always mutual. It is not one-sided. To be called is to have heard, is to have responded. It is not that there is the call and then, later, one responds. The call is something that exists only for those who have heard it. It does not exist for those who have not heard it. If we say that it exists for those who have not heard it, that kind of call would be an objective thing. Therefore, the call is at the same time a response to it. The relationship in this case is a mutual relationship. It is the name that indicates a relationship of call and response between that which has form and that which does not. If we express this idea using the unique language of the Chinese people, it would be “the mutuality of receptivity and response” (kannø døkø 感応道交) [between sentient beings and the buddhas]. In today’s language it would be a “mutual 262 YASUDA RIJIN relationship.” When the existing mind [of sentient beings] is receptive, the no mind [of the Buddha] responds. It is not a relationship of one thing to another. It is a relationship of existence and nonexistence. Just as we call the totality [of all things] the “all-encompassing dharma” or the “all-pervading dharma,” this too is not an objective thing. Because  %  %*   €   absolute nothingness. In that way, that which indicates the mutual relationship of existence and nonexistence is that which we call the name. That which is without form, through the name, takes on a relationship with that which has form. The name of Amida Buddha is not simply referring to Amida. As I explained earlier, [the problem of] sentient beings is being responded to. Through Namu Amida Butsu, human beings are being responded to in a fundamental way. They are not responded to according to human ideas. This is something much deeper than humans [merely]      #               as Tathågatas. But because of that, it is not that humans have become something other than humans. Rather, because of that, humans become    <  |    whereby humans are caused to return to their origin. And it is also the term that indicates that return. That which causes the return refers to the words of the original vow, but that which has returned refers to the words of the mind of faith. In the sense that [Namu Amida Butsu] brings about the mind at ease, it is Dharma and it is also the person who gains the mind at ease. When the Tathågata becomes the name—that is, when we speak of saying the name—that the word “reciting” is expressly added to the name of the original vow indicates that anyone can do it. It is the way by which anyone, anytime, anywhere can return to his or her origin. The word “to say” symbolizes the fact that anyone can do it. This is not just raising one’s voice. It symbolizes the fact that no effort is required. That it does not require our own effort is because it [embodies] the true effort that transcends our effort. That is because it is practice. Through the name, the Tathågata is practicing. Our attainment of the wisdom of nondiscrimination, or the attainment of the believing mind, or again the realization of [the stage of] non-retrogression, all exist as practice. The name is practice. That which we call the name is the name that is the practice of sentient beings. It is the name of the Buddha, but the name of the Buddha does not indicate the Buddha; rather, it is that name that is the practice of sentient beings. It is the name that causes the Tathågata [to reveal 263 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE itself] as sentient beings; in other words, it causes suchness as nonsuchness to return to suchness. It is that kind of practice. To attain the mind of faith or to realize birth [in the Pure Land] is for sentient beings to return to [their original nature], and it is the name that causes that return. In that sense, the name of the Buddha is the name that causes sentient beings to become buddhas; therefore, when we refer to the name of the original vow, it is the Dharma, the Buddha Dharma. The name of the Buddha is the Buddha Dharma. The name of Amida Buddha is the Buddha Dharma. In that sense, Dharma is language that stands in contrast to human beings. To say that it is Dharma is to say that it does not need human beings. That the Tathågata was made known in the form of the name expresses the fact that it is the Tathågata on which we can rely and in which we can attain a mind at ease. That is the name. If that which is without form were only without form, we could not rely on it nor could we be saved by it. When it becomes the name, it is not that the Tathå;    #      %    ; –      ƒ  <     Namu Amida Butsu is to conform to the Dharma. When the name is made into a thing, it becomes a persona; in other words, [in that case] we establish Amida Buddha as an objective absolute or as a   ;                #  regard Christianity as directed toward the other, then Buddhism is directed to the origin. The Tathågata is the original nature of sentient beings, not the other [that stands over against] sentient beings. The other has form, but there is no form to original nature. That which does not require the power of the other is Dharma. When there is no Dharma, we have no choice but to set up the other. When there is Dharma, in other words, when there is the name, there is no need to set up an other. This is the reason that it is said that one should rely on the Dharma and not rely on an other. In summary, what I wanted to say to you is that the name is originally a name, a provisional name. The name is just a name; however it is the form and the dynamic working of that which is not just a name; it is also the practice that causes one to return to it. It is not that we negate provisional names and arrive at the true reality. Provisional names are the true reality. True reality, in the words of the Great Teacher Tanluan, is the dharmatå. It is not that the dharmatå is manifested by negating means. The means, just as they are, are the dharmatå. 264 YASUDA RIJIN Appendix A <        % % rather it tells of the history of the nenbutsu from the perspective of the nenbutsu. In the “Chapter on Practice,” it says that “the name of the original vow is the established act”; [hence] when we speak of the nenbutsu [we should understand that] it has the meaning of act. That which we call an act is, in fact, practice. Acts and practice are similar things. The nenbutsu may be called either a practice or an act. However, [when we speak of] practice, I think that there is a problem that must be considered in a more focused way. When we regard the nenbutsu as promised in the original vow as an act, the meaning it    _%     ¢ £{ ¢ £   #  that it was the Treatise that made that meaning clear. Should we speak of acts, we refer to the three acts in the Pure Land Treatise¢ £   _   % { These acts are performed at some time, at some place, and by some one. That is, someone, at some time and at some place performs some sort of act. Appendix B|               <      simply an analysis of the concept of the nenbutsu; rather [it indicates] how, through the nenbutsu or through being mindful of the Tathågata, the entire history of suchness is formed within one who is mindful. #        %  Notes  ‰ &    <ågata Amitåbha, or Amida. 2. The passage cited here appears near the beginning of the “Chapter on Practice” of the Kyøgyøshinshø. 3. This term was used by Shinran’s teacher, Hønen, to signify the special effectiveness of the nenbutsu as indicated in Dharmåkara’s eighteenth vow. 4. See Appendix A for a translation of the passage omitted here. 5. On “One who has Come from Suchness,” see “The Practical Understanding of Buddhism,” n. 5. 6. See Appendix B for a translation of the passage omitted here. 7. A basic text of the Mådhyamika, Ch¨gan 中観 or Emptiness school. 265 A NAME BUT NOT A NAME ALONE 8. The reference is to Zhiyi’s (538–97) interpretation of Mådhyamika teachings; Zhiyi was the third partriarch of the Chinese Tiantai school.  [ #  ¤    $  | ²^ Mahayånå   or, in Japanese, Shødaijøron 摂大乗論. 10. That is, the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, which began to appear around   X\    &åyåna Buddhism. 11. “Mind of faith” translates the Japanese shinjin, a key term in Shin Buddhism. In some translations, the Japanese term itself is used. The Collected Works of Shinran, published by the Jødo Shinsh¨ Hongwanji-ha, says of shinjin, “It denotes the central religious experience of Shin Buddhism, and literally means man’s ‘true, real and sincere heart and mind’ (makoto no magokoro), which is given by Amida Buddha” (CWS 2:206). 12. The expression “phrase One Dharma” renders the Japanese ippokku 一法句. The Collected Works of Shinran adopts a similar translation (CWS 2:301). Inagaki translates this term as the “One Dharma Principle.” In discussing the twenty-nine adornments of Amida’s Pure Land, the Tathågata himself, and his bodhisattvas, Vasubandhu explains that they are part of the phrase One Dharma: “The phrase One Dharma is the purity phrase; the purity phrase is so called because it is the unconditioned dharmakåya of True Wisdom.” For the original Chinese, see Inagaki 1998, 266. Inagaki’s translation of this passage differs from the one provided here; see ibid., 265. 13. The means by which the true nature of reality or the dharmakåya expresses or communicates itself. ...