From: Taitetsu Unno. 2002. Shin Buddhism: Bits of Rubble Turn into Gold. Harmony/Rodale. 5–8.
Taitetsu Unno (1929–2014) was a Shin Buddhist scholar who wrote prolifically on the teachings of Shinran. He earned his MA and PhD in Buddhist Studies at Tokyo University in 1968, before teaching in the field for 40 years in various locations in the United States. His main calling was as a Buddhist minister. He ordained in the tradition of Shin Buddhism at Nishi Hongwanji in Kyoto, as the 13th-generation Shin priest in his family. He introduced Shin Buddhism to the world in popular language through two books: River of Fire, River of Water: An Introduction to the Pure Land Tradition of Shin Buddhism (1998), and Shin Buddhism: Bits of Rubble Turned into Gold (2002). He also translated an important Pure Land text, titled Tannisho: A Shin Buddhist Classic (1996).
Existentialism is generally understood to focus on concrete individual existence. The concrete individual is faced with the daily necessity of deciding what is important for his or her life and what values are primary in making judgments affecting oneself and others. To live existentially is to develop an understanding of oneself as a center of value and a focus of reality which radiates out to others. We are limited, but there is a core of freedom which makes us human. Even in an extreme situation a person can choose one’s attitude — can even choose death, an existential choice illuminated in Victor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning.”
Basically, existentialism is the experience of liberation from the domination of circumstance, whether physical, social, moral or spiritual. Rather than experiencing oneself in a self-conscious manner, one becomes self-aware. I use the word self-conscious in the distinct sense of being dominated, controlled by external pressures, a condition whose external signs are embarrassment and shame. One may visualize oneself as a cog or tool or pawn of reality. It is a sense of powerlessness.
. . .
Pure Land teaching has traditionally been viewed as an individualistic religion of salvation in another world. It was originally promoted, however, as a teaching which was correlated to the times and to the nature of being (jikiso). This original intent was carried out by Shinran. Similarly in our day, we may apply the teaching socially, as well as individually, in order to correlate it to the demands of our own age. As Shinran did in his lifetime, we may analyze it for its guidance in issues of present-day life.
It has always been a principle of Buddhism that the Dharma — the body of the teachings that is viewed as the vehicle of insight into the truth — corresponds to the needs of beings. This is the principle behind the compassionate doctrine and method of hoben, or upaya, the device of tactfulness or — as it has sometimes been paradoxically described — the lie that tells the truth.
The necessity for religion to be relevant to human needs and concerns is not a new emphasis in Buddhism, but in countering the tendency of institutionalization to divorce itself from existential relevance, this Buddhist principle should be recovered as a way to face problems, rather than avoid them.
Buddhism’s comprehensive approach to existence is symbolized in the concept of 84,000 dharmas. This enormous figure is meant to show that every possibility of human perspective is already a part of Buddhism. No idea is to be rejected, so far as it is true, merely because it may not have been taught earlier. This is a criticism Mahayana Buddhism had to face in stories of conflict with conservative monks in the “Lotus Sutra.” Confucius also was described as a person who knew how to bring the new out of the old. This is the role of the teacher. He does not wipe out the past and make his own system. Instead, he contemplates the resources of the past and brings to light new approaches and perspectives. This to me is what Shinran accomplished. I, of course, am not Buddha or Confucius or Shinran, but my task is the same. We must canvass the possibilities and we must seek out the new way.
Religion must be involved with contemporary human problems, but in canvassing the past to seek new ways for the present, we cannot expect religion to give detailed solutions to the many issues that confront us. Some people reject religion because they do not find the answers they desire there. But, to me, what religion provides is an angle of view, basic principles and values, as well as an understanding of human nature and relationships which can contribute to our contemporary considerations. Religion conditions our attitudes and relations to people, which may make solutions to particular problems more easily achieved.
