Comments on Critical Buddhism

M ATSUMOTO Shir

some brief comments on Critical Buddhism. First, Critical Buddhism must always maintain a critical attitude toward Critical Buddhism itself, or else it will be just another kind of traditional Buddhism. It is imperative, therefore, that we be critical towards the teachings of Dgen, of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamika philosophers,2 and even of the Buddha himself.3 It is quite likely that their thinking was, on some points, inuenced by dhtu-vda. We should not approach them with an attitude of unquestioning adoration, but must try to understand their teachings accurately and critically. For example, I think that it is inaccurate to say that Dgen criticized original enlightenment thought or tathgata-garbha thought in his Bendwa. Dgen himself uses the term shinjin-ichinyo (identity of body and mind), which is one typein fact an extreme typeof tathgatagarbha thought. Moreover, Dgen was not entirely free from tathgatagarbha-type ways of thinking even in writing the 12-fascicle Shbgenz.4 Second, with regard to Madhyamika philosophy, the word tattva (thatness) found in the Mlamadhyamakakrik XVIII9 has been considered by all Madhyamika philosophers since Bhvaviveka to denote the highest reality as cognized by nonconceptual cognition (nirvikalpajna). This interpretation of tattva based on the notion of nonconceptual cognition is, I think, clearly inuenced by the dhtu-vda tradition, especially that of the Yogacarins.5 Third, there are many clear statements admitting the existence of atman even in the teachings of the Buddha himself. In the so-called earliest Buddhist texts preserved in Pali such as the Suttanipta,6 for example, there are many passages that admit the existence of an atman.7 Moreover, it cannot be denied that the Buddha practiced dhyana even after he had attained enlightenment. However, the dhyana theory seems to have been
WOULD LIKE
1

TO

MAKE

161

MATSUMOTO SHIR

the main cause for producing the non-Buddhistic notion of nonconceptual cognition.8 We must be very careful when we try to make clear the true import of the Buddhas teaching. Finally, I think we must make a distinction between two types of tathgata-garbha thought.9 The rst type could be considered the original type, that is, the idea of Buddha-nature as immanent [$ or as Buddha-nature in ones body. The second type is the more extreme type, and could be called the theory of the manifestation of Buddha-nature [$ and is expressed in sayings like Buddha-nature manifested as phenomenal existence such as trees and stones.

162