Atoning for the sins of our Fathers

Posted on 2013/04/04 by tetsukoizumi

Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

The election of Jorge Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires, to the 266^th Pope on March 13 was greeted as somewhat of a surprise from Church watchers as well as from lay followers of the Church, as he was the first pope from Latin America. Assuming the name of Pope Francis to emphasize his humble origin and his allegiance to the poor, the new pope has shown that he is willing to undertake the difficult challenge of reforming the Catholic Church, which is the largest organization with the membership of 1.2 billion people worldwide. It is a daunting task, considering that the Church of Rome is run by an inflexible—and corrupt, as it is often accused to be—bureaucracy. Moreover, while the Pope is supposed to be the champion of Christian faith and values, those who occupy the seat have not always been the kinds of individuals we would look up as model Christians. As a matter of fact, among Pope Francis’ predecessors are the Popes who have committed all kinds of sins that will shame anyone, Christian or not.

The Church of Rome as a powerful institution had its beginning in 313, when Constantine the Great gave a document known as the Edict of Constantine to Sylvester I (pope: 314-45), granting him and his successors at the Roman See spiritual superiority over other religions as well as temporal dominion over Rome and the entire Western empire. This is the origin of the official title of the Pope as the “bishop of Rome, vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, supreme pontiff of the universal church, patriarch of the West, primate of Italy, archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman province, sovereign of the state of Vatican city”. The document turned out to be a fake, but the forgery was not revealed until the 15^th century. By that time—in fact, by the end of the tenth century—the authority of the Church, known as the Papal Infallibility, was firmly established in the Western world.

We had to wait until the Reformation in the 16^th century before the Papal Infallibility came to be seriously challenged by Martin Luther (1483-1546). Besides the theological issue concerning salvation, Luther did not like the idea of Papal Infallibility in view of all the atrocities and corruptions being perpetuated by the Church, like military campaigns and the selling of “indulgences”. He also saw the Church as exploiting its status as an international banking house by supporting a small number of artists. Then, there was a series of outrageous and shameful popes who were simply unfit to occupy the seat. Pius II (pope: 1458-64) made a journey to Scotland, to the court of James V, and had a stillborn baby with a Scottish girl. He set an example for later popes by making one of his nephews a Cardinal. Sixtus IV (pope: 1471-84) built the Sistine Chapel, but made seven of his nephews Cardinals, one of whom would become a Pope, Julius II. He is also known to have dispatched, though failed, an assassin to kill Lorenzo Medici. Alexander VI (pope: 1492-1503), the father of Caesar Borgia and Lucrezia Borgia, is known to have fathered three more children after becoming Pope. He was often seen in public with his mistress. Julius II (pope: 1503-13), who followed Alexander VI, was the first to employ Michelangelo and Raphael. He brought in Swiss guards for the Vatican whose uniform was designed by Michelangelo. Since Julius II spent so much time in military campaigns to expand papacy, he was known as the war pope, and was made an object of satire by Erasmus (1466-1536) in his Julius Excluded. Clement VII (pope: 1523-34), who was an illegitimate son of a Medici, commissioned Michelangelo to paint the Last Judgment.

In addition to the outrageous and shameful Popes who occupied the seat of the supreme pontiff of the universal church, the most important challenge facing the Church of Rome today would be how to reconcile the Christian views of the world, which have been made clear over the centuries to be untenable by the development and acceptance of the scientific views of the world. As a matter of fact, the Church of Rome has not had good relationships with scientists, not only negating their findings but also threatening them, in some cases, with its power of excommunication, even torture. The case involving Galileo (1564-1642) is probably the best known among the mistreatment of scientists by the Church of Rome.

Galileo’s trouble with the Church started in 1610 when he published a book titled Sidereus Nuncius in which he reported his discovery of the four satellites of Jupiter. The discovery was enough to convince Galileo that Copernicus (1473-1543) was right, and Galileo went on to advocate the Copernican view in public. In response, the Church of Rome called Galileo to come to Rome, sending him a letter prohibiting the Copernican view to be held, let alone preached. In 1623, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, who was regarded as an intellectual, was elected Pope and took upon the title of Pope Urban VIII (pope: 1623-44). Galileo went to Rome in 1624 and had long talks with Urban VIII, hoping that the prohibition to advocate the Copernican view would be lifted by this enlightened Pope. But the Pope was not ready to compromise the Church’s position and insisted that nobody be allowed to question the divine power and wisdom of the Church. When, in 1632, Galileo published his book, The Dialogue on the Great World Systems, Urban VIII was outraged and ordered Galileo to appear before the Holy Office of the Inquisition. The trial itself began in 1633 with ten judges presiding, of which one was the Pope’s brother and another his nephew. At the end of the trial, the verdict was reached to order Galileo to retract his view, showing him the instruments of torture if they had to be used. However, the threat of torture was enough for Galileo to accept the verdict. Galileo signed the formal statement retracting his Copernican view. Galileo was confined for the rest of his life in his villa in Arcetri outside of Florence under strict house arrest until his death in 1642. Galileo was vindicated, belatedly in 1992, when Pope John Paul II (pope: 1978-2005) acknowledged the injustice the Church inflicted on him, with words of apology.

Needless to say, it takes more than an act of atonement by a single conscientious pope to rectify the injustices committed by his predecessors and ease the tension, even antagonism, between the Church of Rome and the scientific community. While he was not subject to persecution by the Church of Rome, Charles Darwin (1809-82) was another scientist whose view of the world came into conflict with that of the Church. The conflict has, in fact, escalated into an open confrontation between “evolutionists” and “creationists” regarding how the subject of evolution ought to be taught in American schools.

Except to those die-hard fundamentalist Christians, it is clear that the Church can no longer contend with modern cosmology and biology regarding such issues as the origin, and the evolution, of the universe and all the creatures in it. What should the Church of Rome do, then? The only way it can maintain its relevance as an institution in the twenty-first century would be to limit itself to its role as the defender of the original teaching of Jesus as a paradigmatic figure in the history of thought, which is what the new Pope seems to be suggesting to do with his words and acts since his election. There is no question that Jesus, the son of Mary, was an exceptional human being with an exceptional insight into human nature. Indeed, Jesus’ message about the importance of cultivating the purity of our heart, in stead of accumulating material wealth in the world, if we are to find our way into the kingdom of heaven that lies within us is as relevant today as it was when it was first delivered by him.

Who would like to have “wisdom water”?

Posted on 2013/03/04 by tetsukoizumi

Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

Panna (prajna in Sanskrit) is one of the key concepts in Buddhist thought. Usually translated as “wisdom”, panna is employed by the Buddha to describe how he came to discover and formulate the Dhamma: “Then, monks, through careful attention, there took place in me a breakthrough by wisdom: ‘When there is birth, aging-and-death comes to be; aging-and-death has birth as its condition.’ … ‘When there is consciousness, name-and-form comes to be; name-and-form has consciousness as its condition.’ … ” (Samyutta Nikaya 12) We are also reminded of the importance of panna when the Buddha recommends it as one of the four virtues for his lay followers: “Here, Visakha, a woman is accomplished in faith, moral discipline, generosity, and wisdom. … And how is a woman accomplished in wisdom? Here, Visakha, a woman possesses the wisdom that sees into the arising and passing away of phenomena, that is noble and penetrative and leads to the destruction of suffering.” (Anguttara Nikaya 8)

We can infer, from the above quotes, that panna is a key concept that leads us to important teachings of the Buddha such as “dependent origination” and “impermanence”. We also know, from the well-known Prajnaparamita, that panna leads us to another important teaching of the Buddha about sunyata, or “emptiness”. If panna is such an important concept in Buddhist thought, what does it really mean? What is it like? Does “wisdom” really capture what it really means?

The Buddha himself considers panna as something that one obtains as a result of sharpening one’s capacity called vipassna, or “insight”: “Two things, O monks, partake of true knowledge. What two? Serenity and insight. When serenity is developed, what benefit does one experience? The mind is developed … When insight is developed, what benefit does one experience? Wisdom is developed. …” (Anguttara Nikaya 2) Thus, panna is taught to be one part of the two things that lead to true knowledge, suggesting that panna is something beyond mere knowledge in Buddhist thought. According to Thich Nhat Hanh, “wisdom” does not quite capture the deep implications of panna, or prajinaparamita: “Perfect understanding is prajnaparamita. The word ‘wisdom’ is usually used to translate prajna, but I think that wisdom is somehow not able to convey the meaning. Understanding is like water flowing in a stream. Wisdom and knowledge are solid and can block our understanding. … Understanding, like water, can flow, can penetrate. Views, knowledge, and even wisdom are solid, and can block the way of understanding.” (The Heart of Understanding, Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1988, p.8)

While “wisdom” may not be a mistranslation, it is clear from these discussions that panna is something more than what the English word “wisdom” implies. Beyond “wisdom” or “knowledge”, panna implies “deep insight” to see things as they really are, beyond the world of appearances. It implies “understanding” that, like water, flows and penetrates from the world of conventional reality into the world of ultimate reality. As such, panna captures the essence of what the Buddhist practitioner needs to cultivate in order to reach enlightenment.

Given the crucial importance of panna in Buddhist thought, which is essential for that the Buddhist practitioner to cultivate, we would hardly expect panna to be employed to refer to something that clouds clarity in our thinking, or promotes forgetfulness in our deeds. But that seems to be the case when panna is combined with water as “般若湯” in Japanese, which means “wisdom water”. While it is tempting to infer that “wisdom water” refers to “deep insight” that comes from the cultivation of panna, it is not the case here. “Wisdom water” here is actually a word invented by Buddhist temples in Japan to refer to sake that they serve to their guests.

With the official statistics counting almost 75% of the population as Buddhists, and with some 75,000 temples scattered all over the land, there is no question that Japan is a major Buddhist country. But these numbers conceal the fact that most Japanese who profess to be Buddhists are not practitioners and that most temples which call themselves Buddhist temples do not serve as venues for Buddhist practice. In fact, some commentators go as far as using the somewhat derogatory term “Funeral Buddhism” to describe the reality of Japanese Buddhism today, as providing funeral services is the major source of income for most Buddhist temples. Some temples, especially those located in popular tourist destinations such as Kyoto, Nara, and Mt. Koya earn their income from tourists by providing lodging and meals for them.

When choosing to stay at Buddhist temples, tourists know that the meals served will be vegetarian meals, which is the case. At some temples, tourists are asked—not openly, but discreetly—whether they would like to have “般若湯”, or “wisdom water”, with their dinner. Thus, those tourists who are used to having sake with their evening meals at home can have “wisdom water” at Buddhist temples as well. But why do some Buddhist temples in Japan offer sake with dinner, when drinking intoxicants is clearly discouraged as one of the five precepts in Buddhism? Are not these Buddhist temples interested in disseminating the teachings of the Buddha to their guests?

A sympathetic interpretation of serving sake would be to say that these Buddhist temples are adapting their Buddhist practices to suit the cultural tradition of Japanese society. Ranked 70^th in the world in terms of per capita consumption of alcohol, according to the 2011 WHO Report, the Japanese are not necessarily known as heavy drinkers like the people in such countries as Czech republic, Hungary, and Russia. Moreover, the overall consumption of alcohol has been steadily declining since 2000. However, the Japanese have been known to be lovers of liquor from the earliest times of the nation’s history, judging from the statement that “they are fond of liquor” appears in History of Kingdom of Wei, written around 297. Japan is still regarded today as a society with its permissive attitude towards drinking. While the overall consumption has been declining, due perhaps to the stagnant national economy, business people in Japan still maintain the custom of drinking together after work. And at home, Japanese males, especially those who are over fifty, expect to have sake with their dinner, if not everyday but at least every other day. Drinking sake with meals may also have something to do with the characteristics of Japanese cooking, which goes well with sake, just as wine goes well with French cooking.

Whatever may be the reason behind it, Buddhist temples need to question the sagacity of continuing the custom of offering sake to their guests if they are serious about disseminating the teachings of the Buddha. Offering sake discreetly under the deceptive name of “wisdom water” is a clear violation of at least two of the five precepts, which Buddhist priests, of all people, should know very well. A message written in fine prints, “Please refrain from excessive drinking!” should be replaced by a clear message written in large prints, “Please refrain from drinking as doing so is one of the five precepts to be observed by Buddhist practitioners!”