- 2025年7月16日
日本ブーム（ジャパニゼーション）と仏教の復活、現代哲学と宗教と神の関係
ChatGPT-4.5とGemini-2.5proで英語でも発信してみます。
日本ブーム（ジャパニゼーション）と仏教の復活、現代哲学と宗教と神の関係
・日本と仏教理解の促進のために
最近は日本ブームです。
エキゾチックさや珍しさを求める人情のためか日本文化や日本人理解によく使われるのは神道などです。
「葬式は仏式、結婚はキリスト教」みたいな感じでなんでも受け入れてくれる国民として語られてそういうのは何か原因を求めるなら「八百万の神々」みたいな感じで語られたりします。
ちなみに八百万は単にたくさんいるという意味です。
しかしその理解だけで日本を理解するのは無理です。
ほかに島国で保守的でなんでも受け入れて保存してしまう文化というのが原因という説もあります。
それもあるでしょう。
でもやはりそれだけでも説明は難しいと思います。
実は日本にはもう一つ核となる思想があります。
それは仏教です。
仏教の空の思想と中観の思想です。
天台宗ではすべてまとめて三諦論といいます。
日蓮が「仏教で大切なのは三諦論と法華経だけ」と言っていたことでご存じの方もいらっしゃるかもしれません。
これは難しいのですぐ理解できませんし日本文化の表層には表れていなかったり、現れていても気づかれなかったりすることが多いですが縁の下の力持ちのように、黒子のように、あるいはOSのように日本文化で現れる表層の部分を全て陰で支えています。
・日本に対する世界の誤解
今日本のいろいろなものが世界的にブームになっています。
19世紀末にフランスでジャポニズムが起こり芸術などに影響を与えたのは有名ですが今回はもっと広く世界中で分野も様々にジャポニズムのようなものが起こっています。
いつも日本人についてはいろいろ言われがちです。
宗教や信仰については無宗教とか無神論、逆に多神論と言われてみたりします。
国民性についてはあいまいだとかはっきりものを言わないとか同調圧力が強いとか言われたりします。
その他いろいろな特徴は今回ははるかにSNSなどを通して様々な分野で世界的でかつ即時的に伝えられて時々バズったりしているようです。
日本文化論や日本人論のようなものが一般人から専門家まで考察されることがとても増えているようです。
世界の大部分は排他的唯一神教の世界で聖書文化圏でかつ近代化と西洋化が進んでロゴス中心主義で逆にロゴス以外は排他的な文化です。
そのような文化圏では人々はある種の思考の型に強力に無意識からのレベルで束縛されています。
例えば神や宗教がない世界がイメージできません。
ある種の脳機能障害では失認という症状がみられます。
これは結構身近にみられるもので認知症でも見られますし、子供の発達過程では提携発達においても生理的失認、生理的健忘といったようなものがある方が普通と言えるかもしれません。
世界の大勢力である、キリスト教徒、イスラム教徒、ユダヤ教徒を合わせた人々の共通した思考の型です。
先進国をはじめ世界中で脱宗教家が進んでいるところもあるかもしれませんがこういう思考の型というのはなかなかすぐには抜けません。
そうは言ってもキリスト教徒だろうがイスラム教徒だろうがユダヤ教徒だろうがそうなったのは高々2000年くらいで短ければほんのつい最近なところもあります。
聖書で言えばファリサイ人みたいなのが出てきたのがバビロン捕囚後ですし、ギリシア哲学はロゴスを重視したとか言いますが西洋に根付いたのは中世には全然根付かず存在すら知らず近代化以降です。
第二次ゲルマン民族移動と言われるヴァイキングはキリスト教化されていませんでしたし、ヨーロッパの中でもリトアニア大公国のような国がキリスト教化したのは中世も終わりの方で高々数百年の歴史しかありません。
ですが一度植え付けられたものは強いのでそれに気づいたりそれをメタ認知で自覚したりそれを相対化したりそれを脱構築できる人は多くはないでしょう。
そういう人は日本のことを無宗教とかアニミズムとか神道とか自分の中にある思考様式に強引に当てはめて理解しようとします。
それは正しい面もありますがそれだけで日本理解するのは大きなものが欠けることになります。
端的に言って日本は神道の国かもしれませんが日本が仏教の国でありかつ大乗仏教の国であるという視点が欠落しがちです。
大乗仏教というのは仏教が世界3大宗教と言ってもそれ自体が少数、かつ特殊なので非常に盲点になりやすいです。
・仏教の誤解
今はどうだか分かりませんが昔は世界三大宗教は仏教、キリスト教、イスラム教と言われた時代もありました。
これは3がキリのいい数だったからかもしれませんしヒンドゥー教より国際化が広かったからかもしれません。
仏教に神はいません。
いてもいいのですが神がいようがいまいが関係ないのが仏教です。
仏さまや仏像を神と考えたのでしょうか？
よくわかりませんが仏教を宗教と認める考え方が欧米にもありました。
昔も今も神がいなくても宗教はありうると認めるむきが欧米にもあると思われます。
仏教には神がいなくても修行で到達する悟りがあるので宗教という考え方もありました。
特に何伝仏教系の知識がある人はこっちの考え方に引きずられます。
神はないけど悟りという超常体験があって悟ると人間を超越した神聖な存在になれるという考え方です。
だから神秘手的な面やスピリチュアルな面があるから宗教だと
岩波文庫でも翻訳されているベックという19世紀の仏教学者はその後神智学に向かいました。
仏教は南伝仏教に限らず悟りや悟った人を神聖視して神秘主義やスピリチュアリズム、オカルト主義として理解されることが多いです。
個々の部分で仏教の神の不在を補ったのかもしれません。
南伝仏教に対して北伝仏教は異質です。
ルーツはお釈迦様の原始仏教で部派仏教も共通する面があるかもしれませんが多分その後が違います。
南伝仏教は上座部仏教や小乗仏教、北伝仏教は大乗仏教と言いますが言葉自体に意味はありません。
ただ両者は内容が全く違います。
南伝仏教はスリランカやミャンマー、タイなどの仏教で悟りと悟った人に特別な神秘性を見出します。
北伝仏教はチベット、ネパール、ブータン、モンゴル、日本の仏教で悟っても特別な質的な変化を起こさず神秘的な人になるわけではありません。
「悟る」という言葉は日本語では「理解する」「納得する」という意味でつかわれますがそのままです。
悟ることは仏教の中核となる考え方を理解して納得することを意味します。
その前後で聖人になるとか仙人みたいなものになるとか人間が変わってしまうわけではありません。
神性や聖性を帯びるわけでもありません。
本当に理解するだけです。
そういう意味では哲学です。
・日本の仏教史
北伝仏教でも密教の系譜はちょっと違う面があって日本に伝わったのは初期と中期の密教、チベットの密教は後期密教です。
日本の聖徳太子の本地垂迹と似たようなところがあって神仏習合的です。
宇宙のあらゆるものを仏と見立てるみたいな見方によってはアニミズムや多神論みたいに見える考え方です。
宗教混交（シンクレティズム）というのは各宗教で頻繁にみられる現象です。
ただ密教ではとりあえず置いておいて日本にはもっと古い仏教が中国などを通じて直接入ってきています。
そもそも文献的にも日本の歴史の初めから大陸との交流史の中で仏教が入っています。
北伝仏教で大切なのは空論や中観論ですがそういうものが日本には入ってきており仏教の中核をなしています。
お釈迦様風に言うと十二因縁生起や無常、無我、無法、五蘊論が空で、中道が中観になります。
そのように仏教の核心部分をまとめたのが大乗仏教の開祖の龍樹（ナーガールジュナ）になります。
この人の空の思想や中観の思想を受け継いだ人々を中観派といい大乗仏教の元祖になります。
この人は例えば浄土真宗ならお釈迦様を除けば宗派の第一祖としてよく扱われますし中学や高校の社会の教科書で習うくらいお釈迦様を除けば世界の思想史上の重要人物です。
それをいろんなインドからシルクロードの仏教僧たちが中国に伝えました。
それらが中国語に翻訳され内容がいろいろ議論されいろいろな宗派ができましたが中観派の思想がどんな宗派でも核心のテーマになります。
中観派の思想を分かりやすくまとめたのが天台宗の天台智顗というひとです。
中、空、戯（仮）からなる三諦論という形にまとめました。
天台宗に留学して日本の天台宗の開祖になったのが最澄で日本史や観光スポットとして有名な比叡山延暦寺を作った人です。
日本のあらゆる仏教の宗派は奈良時代に導入された仏教や真言宗など一部を除けばすべて天台宗に行きつきます。
鎌倉新仏教としていろいろな宗派が現れましたが開祖は全て天台宗で学んだ人たちです。
全ての宗派の核心は空と中の思想に立脚しています。
そうでないように見える浄土宗系の宗派すらアンチテーゼのように空と中を大切にしています。
浄土宗系の宗派が空や中をアンチテーゼのように扱ったのは、―ここが核心ですが―、中や空の概念が難し過ぎるからです。
これは実は浄土宗系だけでなく大乗仏教が、あるいは仏教全体が抱えてきた問題です。
「仏教は難し過ぎる」、これが仏教の抱えているものです。
・仏教の「難しい問題」
「仏教は難しい」これはお釈迦様の時代からそうでした。
お釈迦様の時代はちょっと後の時期の中国やギリシアのように様々な思想が表れて活発な議論が行われた人類の思想史における重要な時代です。
もともとインドにあったヴェーダ系のウパニシャド哲学ではなくあらゆる新しい思想が百花繚乱に花開いた時代です。
そういった中でお釈迦様は当時のいろいろな先端思想をマスターした上でさらに7年修行して悟ったわけです。
しかし悟った瞬間から悲観的で、「自分の悟った内容は難し過ぎて人にはわからないだろうからこのまま死んでしまおう」と思ったことが知られています。
この「難しい」というのが仏教のテーマです。
難しいというのは理解したり納得したりするのが難しいという意味です。
これは他の2大宗教キリスト教やイスラム教徒は決定的に違う点です。
排他的唯一神教で聖書やコーランを絶対のドグマとする啓典宗教では「理解する」とか「納得する」とかが問題にはなりません。
聖職者やユダヤ教やイスラム教ならラビや学者はいますが被造物である人間が「神」とか「聖書」を理解したり納得したりできるという考え方はある種の異端になる可能性さえあります。
仏教では悟りの内容は理解したり納得したりできるものです。
ただ難しいのです。
この段階で「仏教は宗教と言えるのか？」という疑問が生じるでしょう。
結論としては啓典宗教的な観点からすれば「仏教は宗教ではなく哲学である」という結論になります。
これは世界的にどの程度かは知りませんがある程度指示を得ている考え方です。
仏教の難しさは社会科の倫理で習うような他の複雑そうな思想や哲学が難しくて理解しにくい場合があるのと変わりません。
特に仏教は現代哲学の構造主義とポスト構造主義と中身が同じ思想です。
大雑把に構造主義は空論、ポスト構造主義が空論プラス中観論、あるいは三諦論に対応します。
現代思想や現代哲学は難しいものとされていますが、これはある意味仏教を学ぶより難しかったりします。
西洋の哲学の問題は「空」という概念も言葉も西洋や世界のいろいろな地域には存在しないということが大きいでしょう。
ただ存在しない概念や言葉であればいいのですが、これが一神教的ロゴス主義の思考では理解困難です。
いっそ「タオ（道）」みたいにそのまま使ってしまえばいいと思うのですが世界三大宗教と言っても大乗仏教は多分世界中でそんなに知られていません。
どちらかというと南伝仏教の方が世界的に流行りのスピリチュアリズムと相性がよくマインドフルネスみたいに取り入れがちです。
大乗仏教は例えば欧米人だけではなくて大乗仏教徒にも分かりにくいということでいろいろな方法で理解を促すように工夫されています。
例えば禅やそれに関係する諸芸術だったりします。
禅自体は早い時期に欧米で受容されていて鈴木大拙の『禅と日本文化』をはじめとして海外に紹介され文化芸術に影響を与えてます。
アップルのスティーブジョブスが有名ですが鈴木大拙は確か西田幾多郎と同じような世代なので20世紀の前半、WW2の戦前戦後から影響を与えています。
多分影響範囲は広範で上げていくと快挙にいとまがないかもしれませんが、現代音楽のジョン・ケージなどはもろに禅の影響を受けています。
禅は必ずしも思弁だけによらず空や中観を理解するための方法論と言えるかもしれません。
神社仏閣を訪れて八百万の神々とかいうのは神社に対してはいいかもしれませんが、龍安寺の石庭に八百万の神々を感じてもらってもちょっと違う感じです。
でも文化の理解と受容というのはこういう形でごちゃごちゃに行われていくのでしょう。
むしろ世界で日本に興味を持ってもらう人が増えているだけで日本人としてという意味だけでなく世界の人々にとっていいことだと思います。
日本は基本のOSとして大乗仏教とその空や中観が埋め込まれている国です。
日本を知ることは大乗仏教を知ることになりさらには現代思想と現代哲学を知ることになります。
現代思想家ではそれをはっきり自覚していたのがレヴィ＝ストロースでそれをはっきり公言しています。
構造主義の中興の祖ですしサルトルを論破するくらいなので相当頭がよかったのではないかと思います。
でもレヴィストロースさえやや表現不足でなかなか日本というか大乗仏教の本質は伝えきれてないようです。
それくらい大乗仏教の空は難しい。
中観はある意味簡単なところであって最近は「メタ認知」という言葉が理解され受け入れられているのでそれを使えばいいかもしれません。
ただ空は世界的にも対応概念と対応語がないと思われます。
現代思想では「差延」とか「リゾーム」とか「身体なき機械」とか「粒子」とか「ノマド」とか「ブリコーラージュ」とか「無定義語」とかいろいろ表現しましたがうまく伝えられていないのではないでしょうか。
いっそのこと空は「Kuu」の形でそのまま世界に通用させた方がいいと思います。
・難しさが仏教の歴史を作った
仏教史とは他の宗教がいろいろな宗派には分かれたのとは違う意味で展開してきました。
核心にあるのは「理解はできるけど難しい」です。
お釈迦様は悟った瞬間から悲観的で「難しくて伝わらないから死んでしまおう」という悲観的な感じでした。
お釈迦様の教えを理解していた後継者候補のサーリプッタ（般若心経で舎利子と記載されている）が死んだときは絶望的に嘆き悲しみました。
お釈迦様が死ぬ時も「自分が死んだら教えは失われるだろう」と言っています。
お釈迦様が死んで根本分裂、枝葉分裂がおきてお釈迦様の解釈でいろいろな部派に分かれるので部派仏教と言います。
その中で大きく大乗仏教と上座部仏教というのに分かれるのですがこれもやはり理解の難しさからの考え方の違いです。
それは大乗仏教は教えが理解できない人をどうするか問題です。
教えが分からない人は悟れないわけですが大乗仏教はそういう人も救おうという考え方です。
上座部仏教はとりあえず悟りたい人は修行を頑張ってもらおうという考え方です。
大乗仏教が北伝仏教ですがこっちは哲学的、上座部仏教は南伝仏教で聖性や神秘性を残しているのでそういうものを宗教的と呼ぶのであれば宗教的です。
地元のインドでは仏教はピークアウト後すたれていき学院を残すのみで最後はイスラム教徒に滅ぼされてしまいました。
日本の仏教は中国と朝鮮半島から渡しました。
これは歴史の教科書で最初の方で習う日本史で載っています。
日本の仏教もいろいろ分裂したり、中国のいろいろな宗派を受け入れたりしていきましたが、鎌倉新仏教などみるとやはり仏教の難解さ問題をどう扱うかが問題になっています。
禅のように自ら悟ろうというスタンスが強いのと、浄土系宗教のように理解できなくても仏さまが救ってくださっているみたいな感じで「難しさ」をどう扱うかでいろいろな宗派に分かれています。
・日本ブームは仏教と現代哲学にとってチャンス
とかく大乗仏教は難しいですが日本のように古い形の大乗仏教が保存されている例は珍しいと思います。
チベット仏教もありますが中国に侵略されてしまっています。
ブータン、モンゴル、あとネパールも加えておきますが、それらは影響力が少ない感じがします。
中国は共産化して非宗教化してしまいましたし、朝鮮は儒教化とキリスト教化して仏教も残っていますが仏教国の高麗から儒教国の李氏朝鮮に代わる際にラディカルに前時代の文化を破壊してしまっています。
なんでもそうですが日本は宗教的、あるいは仏教的に特殊な国です。
日本だけが守ってきた、あるいは守れてきたと言えるかもしれません。
・日本文化、仏教、現代哲学のＯＳとアプリケーション
大乗仏教は特殊です。
宗教というより哲学です。
哲学としての内容は現代哲学と同じものです。
とすると大きく2つの部分に分かれます。
1つは「空（kuu）」の考え方でこれは現代思想で言うと構造主義です。
もう一つは「中観」または「中」、原始仏教の「中道」の考え方でこれは大雑把に言えばポスト構造主義から構造主義を除いた部分です。
もっといいかえればメタ認知的視点です。
三諦論では中と空と戯（仮）でなっています。
戯（仮）とは哲学で言うと実在論で、現代思想で言うシミュレーションとシミュラークルになります。
これは三諦論や現代哲学的にこれらの関係を分類すると「中」がＯＳ，「空（kuu）」と「戯（仮）」がそれぞれアプリケーションということになります。
「中」「中観」「中道」は現代的、あるいは現代哲学的にいうとすべての物事や考え方をメタ認知で見よ、相対的に見よということで知のＯＳになります。
「空（kuu）」は構造主義的対象把握で存在論や認識論におけるある考え方でＯＳ上のアプリケーションの一つですし「戯（仮）」とは我々が実体とか実在と思っているものでこれもまた別のアプリケーションです。
日本文化ではすべての思想や宗教は「中観」「中」「中道」というＯＳの上のアプリケーションになります。
神道も道教も儒教もキリスト教もユダヤ教もイスラム教も無神論もアニミズムも遍くすべてがアプリケーションです。
啓展宗教のキリスト教やイスラム教やユダヤ教は自分がＯＳだと主張するかもしれませんが、大乗仏教的な見方をするとそれらは「中」の上のアプリケーションです。
アプリケーションは選択したり、採用したり、編集したり、改造することができます。
どれかを選択したら他は排除するという考え方はしません。
スマートフォンにいろんなアプリケーションがたくさんインストールされているように「中」というＯＳの上にいろいろなアプリケーションがあって自由に使っていいのです。
正月は初詣で神社、葬式はお寺で、結婚は教会で、礼儀は儒教式でといった具合で構いません。
「中」はいろいろなものを共存させられる考え方です。
そういう形になってない先史時代の文化、旧石器時代や縄文時代、弥生時代の考え方、例えばアニミズムやシャーマニズム、トーテミズムの要素があればそれもそれぞれ一つのアプリに過ぎないのですべて受け入れ可能です。
まああまり使わないアプリもあるかもしれないし、意識しないで忘れているアプリもたくさんあるかもしれません。
日本は仏教需要の際には排除するかどうかで排他的な戦いがありましたがそれ以前やそれ以降はその時ほど深刻な思想闘争は行われていないとみることができます。
豊臣秀吉だってキリスト教徒の日本人奴隷化や日本植民地化は否定しましたがキリスト教自体は否定していません。
そのちょっと前の一向宗だって結局受け入れて現在も日本最大の宗教勢力になっています。
ただし政治的、世俗的には骨抜きにされましたが。
和を乱さなければアプリケーション同士は共存していいのです。
「空（kuu）」と「戯（仮）」も共存可能どころか合成することもできます。
これは実在論と構造主義が別に互いに矛盾せず両立可能なので両者をくっつけてしまってもいいのと同じです。
実在論的なユークリッド幾何学もヒルベルトの形式主義的幾何学も両方の見方を同時にできますし、結論も同じものが出るのが良い例です。
・多神論、多元論、一元論、AIとマルチＯＳの世界
中観がOSで他の思想はアプリケーションという話をしました。
ただ1つのコンピュータにOSが1つというのは古いモデルです。
別に今のPCでも2つのOSを搭載できることは可能です。
場合によって使い分ければいいのです。
もっと未来の話をすればAIが進歩するとOSを最初から作っておいてその上にアプリを作るみたいなヒエラルキー構造はなくなります。
もっと進化したAIが用途に応じてそのたびに最適化したOSを作ればよくなります。
コンピュータというのは19世紀には関数や天文学、保険数理の計算をしていた大量の人々をさしました。
今はそういう計算はコンピューターがしてくれますが1つのOSを作るためにたくさんの人がコードを書いています。
そういうのでのし上がった有名な例がマイクロソフトのビルゲイツであり日本も独自OSを作ろうとしましたが1990年前後に日米貿易戦争というものがありコンピューターやソフトウェア、飛行機などのイノベーションの核となりそうなものはだいぶつぶされてしまいました。
AIがもうちょっと進歩するとたくさんの人間が1つのOSを作るために長い月日をかけるということがなくなります。
そのもっと前にOSが何かということが無効化されます。
別のOSを使っていてもAIに同期化してもらえればよいことになります。
日本もマルチOSの面もあって別に仏教だけをOSと考えるのではなく神道やアニミズムをOSと考えるのもまたありです。
そういう場合にはすべてのものには神が宿るとか魂が宿るとか仏性が宿るとかという感じになってなんでも擬人化したり擬音や擬態に記号という象徴を与える意味の発見と生成、まさにソシュールが夢見たような生の言語の生成ともいえるようなオノマトペ文化が生まれたりもします。
そういう意味では日本の本質をアニミズムや多神教でとらえるのもありです。
しかし何でも絶対化したり限定したり制限を書けたりする必要はありません。
OSはいくつもあっていいのです。
そういう意味では、あるいは他の意味でも日本は現代哲学と同様に多元主義的です。
何かを見る際に多元的に物事を見る複対立的対象把握という方法を使いやすいです。
他方で他の世界の人たちはというといろいろな見方ができますがなんでも一元化する傾向が強いようです。
あるいは１つとその他という意味での二元論かもしれません。
キリスト教を信じるか信じないかでけんかします。
例えば科学とキリスト教は背反と見たりします。
キリスト教を信じない場合は不可知論というより無神論と見なしたりします。
日本人には宗教がないとか神を信じないとか極論に走りがちです。
別にキリスト教というOSと科学・合理主義・論理主義という2つのOSを持っていてもいいと思うのですがとかく関係がぎくしゃくしがちに見えます。
人間どうしても色眼鏡で見てしまうもので「英語はSVO言語で日本語はSOV言語」みたいな短絡的な見方をしやすいです。
そもそも言語に必ずしも主語が必要なのか同士が必要なのか語順がどの程度大切なのかとかいう見方をしない傾向にあります。
そもそも日本語は英語のような分析語・孤立語性の強い言語ではなく膠着語で語順は自由です。
助詞や助動詞という演算子のようなものがあるので主語も目的語も分の構成に必須ではなく例えば名詞の単語の意味は助詞が決めます。
国語の授業で習うように動詞より述語や述部という言葉を使って分析すべきで述部は動詞、形容詞、形容動詞と動詞以外にもいろいろありえます。
主部というのも必ずしも必要ありません。
助動詞「が」は多言語の主語に近いかもしれませんが助詞「は」はテーマ助詞と言って主語としても使えますが別の用途で使うことが多いです。
というのは余談としてキリスト教OSや論理性とか名乗るOSで日本が論理的でないとか言ってもあまり意味はありません。
そもそも論理学をちゃんと勉強して使いこなせてもいない人が論理とか合理とかいう言葉を使いたがるのは日本に限らず世界共通な気がします。
ある程度多様な教養があってかつきちんと入門レベルの論理学初歩の教科書で総論や命題論理や述語論理を勉強している人は安易に論理的などという言葉を使うのは危険というかばかげている場合が多いことは知っていると思います。
日本の特徴はメタ認知を持っていることでありメタ認知を持つと謙虚になります。
自分の知らないことを知ってますし、語るべきことでないことは沈黙すべきと知っているからです。
そもそも記号や象徴、つまり言語の限界を知っています。
なんでも言語で表すことができるという考え方をしません。
言語で表せないものがあるという考え方も普通にします。
シニフィアンとシニフィエはカントの純粋理性批判の物自体やデカルトの二元論の苦し紛れの神の誠実のようなものが働く保証がないことを知っています。
不立文字とか言いますがそれ故謙虚です。
宗教に対しても神に対しても人や生物に対しても物事など非生物についても謙虚になります。
安易な言及はしません。
本来言葉は昔は多分どこでも重いもので特に大切なものには安易に使わないものでした。
ユダヤ教など神の名を安易にとなえることを禁じたために神の名を忘れてしまったほどです。
今はどういう方法によってかYHWHはヤーウェと読むと復元されたようですがこの神聖4文字は読まれ方を忘れてしまった歴史があります。
・結語
日本人と日本文化は一つのOSやDNAで成り立つわけではありません。
世界では神道やアニミズムが注目されがちですが日本が大乗仏教国であり「空（kuu）」
や「中＝中観＝中道」という特殊な概念を背景に精神的にも文化のあちらこちらに影響を与えていろいろな形で表現や発現されてきたことが日本の大きな特徴になります。
多神教やアニミズムは現代はだいぶ滅んでしまっているかもしれませんがそれでも世界のあちらこちらにまだ残っていると思われるので日本だけの特徴でもありません。
ただ大乗仏教の特に「空（kuu）」の概念は世界の他のところでは言葉としても概念としても存在しているところはごくわずかです。
日本のように1億人レベルで保存され影響を与え作用し使用されているところはありません。
ですから日本は特殊な文明を持っていると考える学者や研究者が時々現れます。
これは西洋現代哲学の構造主義やポスト構造主義と同じものですが現代哲学自体が理解と納得、習得が難しいのでなかなかわかりやすく世の中には広まりません。
ただし世界は現代哲学の影響を例えば現代数学やそれの生んだテクノロジーである情報科学、計算機科学、インターネットやAIなどを通じてどんどん現代哲学化されて行っています。
日本文化はお釈迦様のおかげで昔から現代哲学的だったのでそういうところが現代社会と波長が合うのでしょう。
それが日本が世界に評価され始めた、日本ブームみたいなものが起こっている原因の一つだと思われます。
仏教や現代哲学は何も否定せず受容する平和な思想なのでどのようなかたちであれ、例えば現在のように日本文化や流行を通じるような形であれ世界に広まっていってほしいものです。
The Japanese Boom (Japanization), the Revival of Buddhism, and the Relationship between Contemporary Philosophy, Religion, and God
Promoting Understanding of Japan and Buddhism
There is currently a boom in Japanese culture around the world. Due to people’s fascination with the exotic and unusual, Shintoism is often used as a key to understanding Japanese culture and people. Japanese are described as people who accept everything, like those who hold funerals in Buddhist style and weddings in Christian style, a flexibility often explained by referencing Shinto’s “eight million gods.” Incidentally, “eight million” simply means “a great many.”
However, this alone is insufficient to fully understand Japan. Some theories attribute this acceptance to Japan’s island conservatism and tendency to preserve various traditions. While this is partially true, it is still incomplete. Japan actually possesses another fundamental intellectual core: Buddhism. Specifically, it is the Buddhist ideas of emptiness (Kuu) and Madhyamaka (Chukan), collectively summarized as the “Three Truths” (Santairon) in the Tendai tradition. The famous Buddhist figure Nichiren emphasized the importance of Santairon and the Lotus Sutra.
Although this core Buddhist philosophy is difficult to grasp immediately and is often unseen or unnoticed at the surface of Japanese culture, it silently underpins and supports every visible aspect, much like an operating system (OS).
Global Misunderstandings about Japan
Today, various aspects of Japanese culture have become globally popular. A new Japanism is emerging, much broader than the late 19th-century artistic Japonisme that influenced France and Europe. People often label Japanese as atheists, agnostics, polytheists, ambiguous, reluctant to speak directly, or heavily influenced by peer pressure.
Such stereotypes circulate widely through modern social media. The world predominantly comprises monotheistic cultures shaped by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, characterized by a logos-centric worldview that implicitly restricts other ways of thinking. In such cultures, imagining a world without God or religion is difficult due to deep unconscious biases. This rigidity resembles certain cognitive disorders like agnosia, seen commonly in dementia or developmental stages.
While secularization is progressing globally, deeply ingrained thought patterns are challenging to overcome. Monotheistic traditions are relatively recent historically—only around two thousand years old. Many European countries converted to Christianity relatively recently. Despite this short history, once embedded, these ideas are incredibly persistent, making it difficult for many to recognize or relativize them.
Thus, many forcibly interpret Japan through their monotheistic lens, labeling it atheist, animist, or Shintoist. This approach isn’t entirely wrong but severely incomplete. It ignores that Japan is fundamentally a Buddhist nation, specifically a Mahayana Buddhist country—an easily overlooked yet crucial perspective.
Misunderstandings of Buddhism
Historically, Buddhism was often listed among the world’s three major religions alongside Christianity and Islam. Buddhism contains no concept of God. While gods may exist, Buddhism remains indifferent to their existence. Some Westerners, however, mistakenly interpret Buddhist statues and enlightened figures as divine. Buddhism is sometimes considered a religion because it emphasizes achieving enlightenment through spiritual practice, even without gods.
Southern Buddhism (Theravada) emphasizes the mystical or spiritual aspects of enlightenment. Northern Buddhism (Mahayana), including traditions in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, and Japan, differs significantly. Mahayana enlightenment doesn’t produce mystical transformations; “enlightenment” simply means understanding and accepting core Buddhist ideas.
Thus, Mahayana Buddhism resembles philosophy more than religion. Enlightenment doesn’t confer divinity or holiness—only a profound understanding, similar to philosophical realization.
History of Buddhism in Japan
Japanese Buddhism, introduced from China and Korea, contains the critical Mahayana concepts of emptiness and Madhyamaka. Nagarjuna, the founder of Mahayana Buddhism, articulated these core teachings, profoundly influencing subsequent Buddhist traditions. These ideas reached Japan, notably through the Tendai tradition, established by Saichō. Nearly all Japanese Buddhist sects trace their lineage back to Tendai teachings.
All Japanese Buddhist sects fundamentally rely on emptiness and Madhyamaka. Even sects like Pure Land Buddhism indirectly emphasize these challenging concepts. The historical problem facing Buddhism is precisely its complexity: it is notoriously difficult to understand.
Buddhism’s Difficulty Problem
From Buddha’s era, Buddhism was recognized as difficult. Buddha himself initially hesitated to teach, believing his insights too complex. Unlike monotheistic religions, Buddhism emphasizes understanding and acceptance, not dogmatic adherence. While challenging, its essence is philosophical rather than strictly religious. Buddhism mirrors contemporary philosophy, especially structuralism (emptiness) and post-structuralism (Madhyamaka).
Zen, introduced early to the West through figures like D.T. Suzuki, has influenced global culture significantly. Zen provides practical ways to understand Buddhism’s complex ideas.
Japan Boom as an Opportunity for Buddhism and Contemporary Philosophy
Japan uniquely preserves ancient Mahayana Buddhism, making it an essential repository for understanding Buddhist philosophy. While Tibetan Buddhism remains influential, Japan’s widespread preservation is unmatched.
Japanese Culture, Buddhism, and Contemporary Philosophy: OS and Applications
Mahayana Buddhism resembles contemporary philosophy, particularly structuralism and post-structuralism. The “Three Truths” (Madhyamaka, emptiness, and provisional existence) can metaphorically represent an operating system (OS) and applications: Madhyamaka as the OS, and emptiness and provisional existence as applications.
Japanese culture accommodates various religious and philosophical applications—Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, atheism, animism—all running harmoniously on a Madhyamaka-based OS. This pluralistic, flexible approach allows for peaceful coexistence and multiple perspectives, reflecting a deeply embedded meta-cognitive humility.
Polytheism, Pluralism, Monism, AI, and a Multi-OS World
Just as modern computers can run multiple OSes, Japanese culture embodies a multi-OS mentality, accommodating diverse philosophical frameworks simultaneously. This pluralism contrasts sharply with Western monistic tendencies, which often provoke unnecessary conflicts. Japan’s approach emphasizes meta-cognition, tolerance, and humility, recognizing language and symbolism’s inherent limitations.
Conclusion
Japanese culture isn’t defined by a single OS or cultural DNA. While global attention often focuses on Shinto and animism, Japan’s deeper cultural foundation lies in Mahayana Buddhist concepts like emptiness (Kuu) and Madhyamaka. These concepts, uniquely preserved by Japan, significantly influence contemporary philosophy, information technology, and global culture.
The current global fascination with Japan presents an opportunity for spreading the peaceful, inclusive philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism and contemporary philosophy, promoting deeper cross-cultural understanding and harmony worldwide.
現在、7月16日水曜日の午前2時6分です。 日付が変わり、水曜日の深夜となりました。このような時間に、知的な探求にご一緒できますことを光栄に思います。
以下に、ご依頼の記事の英語翻訳を記載します。非常に長く、哲学的で深い内容ですので、読者が理解しやすいように意訳や補足説明の提案も加えてあります。
English Translation
The Japan Boom (Japanization), the Revival of Buddhism, and the Relationship Between Modern Philosophy, Religion, and God
For a Deeper Understanding of Japan and Buddhism
There is a Japan boom happening right now.
Perhaps due to a human desire for the exotic and the novel, concepts like Shinto are often used to understand Japanese culture and its people. The Japanese are sometimes described as a nation that accepts anything, exemplified by the saying, “Funerals are Buddhist, but weddings are Christian.” When people seek a reason for this, it’s often explained away with phrases like “the eight million gods” (yaoyorozu no kami). (For the record, “eight million” is just a poetic way of saying “countless.”)
However, it’s impossible to understand Japan with this perspective alone.
Another theory suggests the cause is Japan’s nature as an island nation, which makes it conservative and prone to accepting and preserving everything that arrives. This might also be true. But even that is not a sufficient explanation.
In truth, Japan has another core philosophy. That philosophy is Buddhism.
Specifically, it is the Buddhist ideas of Kū (Emptiness) and Chū (the Middle View). In the Tendai school of Buddhism, these are collectively known as the Santai (Three Truths). Some may know this from the words of Nichiren, who said, “All that is important in Buddhism is the Three Truths and the Lotus Sutra.”
These concepts are difficult and cannot be understood immediately. They often don’t appear on the surface of Japanese culture, and even when they do, they frequently go unnoticed. Yet, like an unsung hero, a stagehand in black, or an operating system, this philosophy invisibly supports every aspect of Japanese culture that appears on the surface.
Global Misconceptions About Japan
Many aspects of Japan are currently experiencing a global boom. It is famous that a wave of Japonisme occurred in France in the late 19th century, influencing the arts. But what is happening now is something like a new Japonisme, occurring on a much wider, global scale across countless fields.
There have always been many things said about the Japanese. Regarding religion and faith, they are sometimes called irreligious or atheistic, and at other times, polytheistic. Regarding their national character, they are said to be ambiguous, to not speak their minds clearly, or to have strong conformity pressure.
This time, these and many other characteristics are being instantly transmitted globally across various fields via social media, sometimes going viral. It seems that discussions on Japanese culture and the Japanese people, by everyone from laypeople to experts, have greatly increased.
A large part of the world is dominated by exclusive monotheistic religions, belonging to a biblical cultural sphere that has undergone modernization and Westernization. It is a culture of logocentrism, which in turn is exclusive of anything outside the Logos. In such a cultural sphere, people are powerfully bound by certain modes of thinking, often on an unconscious level. For example, they cannot imagine a world without God or religion.
In medicine, there is a symptom known as agnosia, a failure to recognize or identify objects. This can be seen in relatively common conditions like dementia. Even in the typical development of children, it might be normal to have what could be called “physiological agnosia” or “physiological amnesia.” This is a common thought pattern among the world’s major forces: Christians, Muslims, and Jews combined.
While some developed countries are seeing a rise in secularism, these ingrained thought patterns are not easily shed. That said, the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish identity of these regions is at most 2,000 years old, and in some places, it is a much more recent phenomenon. In the Bible, figures like the Pharisees appeared after the Babylonian Captivity. And while Greek philosophy is said to have emphasized the Logos, it did not take root in the West during the Middle Ages—its existence was largely unknown until after modernization. The Vikings, part of the Second Germanic Migration, were not Christianized. Within Europe, a country like the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was only Christianized toward the end of the Middle Ages, giving it a history of only a few hundred years.
But once something is implanted, it is powerful. Few people can notice it, become meta-cognitively aware of it, relativize it, or deconstruct it. Such people try to understand Japan by forcibly fitting it into their own existing mental frameworks, calling it irreligious, animistic, or Shinto.
While there is some truth to this, understanding Japan solely through this lens leaves out something crucial. Simply put, while Japan may be a country of Shinto, the perspective that Japan is also a country of Buddhism—and specifically, Mahayana Buddhism—is often missing. Because Mahayana Buddhism is a minority and a special case even within Buddhism, which is itself one of the three major world religions, this point is very easily overlooked.
Misconceptions About Buddhism
I don’t know if it’s still the case, but there was a time when the three major world religions were said to be Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. This may have been because the number three feels complete, or perhaps because Buddhism was more international than Hinduism.
There is no “God” in Buddhism. There can be gods, but whether they exist or not is irrelevant to Buddhism. Did people mistake Buddhas and Buddhist statues for gods? It’s unclear, but the idea of recognizing Buddhism as a religion did exist in the West. It seems that even now, there are those in the West who accept that a religion can exist without a god.
One line of thought was that Buddhism is a religion because, even without a god, it has “enlightenment” (satori), which is achieved through practice. This view is particularly influential among those with knowledge of certain Buddhist traditions. It’s the idea that although there is no God, there is a transcendent experience called enlightenment, and by attaining it, one can become a sacred being who has surpassed humanity. Therefore, it’s a religion because it has mystical and spiritual aspects.
Paul Beck, a 19th-century Buddhist scholar whose work is translated in the Iwanami Bunko series, later turned to Theosophy. Buddhism, and not just its Southern Transmission, is often understood as mysticism, spiritualism, or occultism, sanctifying enlightenment and the enlightened. Perhaps this compensated for Buddhism’s lack of a god.
The Northern Transmission of Buddhism is different from the Southern Transmission. While their roots are in the original teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha and they share aspects of early sectarian Buddhism, their subsequent paths likely diverged. The Southern Transmission is called Theravada or Hinayana Buddhism, and the Northern is called Mahayana Buddhism, but the words themselves don’t hold the meaning. The content of the two is completely different.
Southern Transmission (Theravada) Buddhism, found in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Thailand, finds a special mystique in enlightenment and the enlightened person.
Northern Transmission (Mahayana) Buddhism, found in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, and Japan, does not involve becoming a mystical person who undergoes a special qualitative change upon attaining enlightenment. The word for enlightenment in Japanese, satoru, is used to mean “to understand” or “to grasp,” and that’s exactly what it is. To attain enlightenment means to understand and be convinced of the core ideas of Buddhism. It doesn’t mean you become a saint or a hermit, or that you change as a person. You don’t take on divinity or sacredness. You simply, truly, understand. In that sense, it is a philosophy.
A Brief History of Japanese Buddhism
Even within the Northern Transmission, the esoteric (Mikkyō) lineage has some different aspects. What was transmitted to Japan was early and middle-period esoteric Buddhism, while Tibetan esoteric Buddhism is from a later period. It has similarities to Prince Shōtoku’s theory of Honji Suijaku (manifestation from the original state), making it syncretic with Shinto. It’s a viewpoint that sees all things in the universe as manifestations of Buddha, which can look like animism or polytheism. Religious syncretism is a frequent phenomenon in all religions.
But putting esoteric Buddhism aside for a moment, an older form of Buddhism entered Japan directly through China and other routes. From the very beginning of Japan’s recorded history, Buddhism entered as part of its history of exchange with the mainland.
What is important in Northern Transmission Buddhism are the theories of Kū (Emptiness) and Chū (the Middle View). These entered Japan and form the core of its Buddhism. In Shakyamuni’s terms, the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, impermanence, non-self, non-dharma, and the five aggregates are Kū; the Middle Way is Chū.
The person who systematized these core parts of Buddhism was Nāgārjuna, the founder of Mahayana Buddhism. The people who inherited his ideas of Emptiness and the Middle View are called the Madhyamaka school, the originators of Mahayana. For example, in the Jōdo Shinshū school, he is often treated as the first patriarch after Shakyamuni. He is a major figure in the history of world thought, taught in middle and high school social studies textbooks, second only to Shakyamuni himself.
Various Buddhist monks from India transmitted these ideas to China via the Silk Road. They were translated into Chinese, their contents were debated, and various schools were formed, but the ideas of the Madhyamaka school became the core theme of every school.
The person who summarized the ideas of the Madhyamaka school in an easy-to-understand way was Zhiyi of the Tiantai school. He formulated it as the Santai (Three Truths), consisting of Chū (Middle), Kū (Emptiness), and Ke (the Provisional). The person who studied under the Tiantai school and became the founder of the Japanese Tendai school was Saichō, who built the famous Enryaku-ji temple on Mount Hiei, a famous historical and tourist spot.
Almost all schools of Japanese Buddhism, with a few exceptions like those introduced in the Nara period and the Shingon school, trace their roots back to the Tendai school. The founders of the various schools of Kamakura New Buddhism all studied in the Tendai school. The core of all these schools is based on the ideas of Kū and Chū. Even the Jōdo (Pure Land) schools, which seem different, cherish Kū and Chū as their antithesis.
The reason the Jōdo schools treated Kū and Chū as an antithesis—and this is the crucial point—is that the concepts of Kū and Chū are too difficult. This is a problem not just for the Jōdo schools, but for Mahayana Buddhism, and indeed, all of Buddhism. “Buddhism is too difficult”—this is the challenge of Buddhism.
The “Difficult Problem” of Buddhism
“Buddhism is difficult”—this was true even in Shakyamuni’s time. His era, much like slightly later periods in China and Greece, was a pivotal time in human intellectual history when various ideas emerged and were actively debated. It was an age when all sorts of new ideas blossomed, distinct from the Vedic Upanishadic philosophy that originally existed in India. Amidst this, Shakyamuni mastered the various advanced ideas of his time, then practiced for another seven years to attain enlightenment.
However, it is known that from the moment he attained enlightenment, he was pessimistic, thinking, “What I have realized is too difficult for people to understand, so I should just die now.” This “difficulty” is a central theme of Buddhism. “Difficult” means it is difficult to understand and be convinced of.
This is a decisive difference from the other two major religions, Christianity and Islam. In these exclusive monotheistic religions of the book, which hold the Bible or the Quran as absolute dogma, “understanding” or “being convinced” is not the issue. For a created human being to claim they can “understand” or “be convinced” of God or the holy scriptures could even be considered a form of heresy, though there are priests, and in Judaism and Islam, rabbis and scholars.
In Buddhism, the content of enlightenment is something that can be understood and be convinced of. It’s just difficult.
At this point, the question “Can Buddhism be called a religion?” will arise. From the perspective of the Abrahamic religions, the conclusion is that “Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy.” This is a view that has a certain degree of support globally, though I don’t know to what extent. The difficulty of Buddhism is no different from the difficulty one might have in understanding other complex ideas or philosophies taught in a social studies ethics class.
Specifically, Buddhism is a philosophy with the same content as modern Western philosophy’s Structuralism and Post-structuralism. Broadly speaking, Structuralism corresponds to the theory of Kū; Post-structuralism corresponds to the theory of Kū plus the theory of the Middle View, or the Three Truths.
Modern thought and modern philosophy are considered difficult, but in some ways, they are more difficult than learning Buddhism. A major problem for Western philosophy is that neither the concept nor the word for Kū exists in the West or in many other regions of the world. But it’s not just a matter of a missing concept or word; it’s that this is difficult to grasp within a monotheistic, logocentric framework of thought. I think it would be better to just use it as is, like “Tao,” but even though it’s called one of the three major world religions, Mahayana Buddhism is probably not that well-known around the world.
If anything, the Southern Transmission (Theravada) Buddhism is more compatible with the popular spiritualism of the world and tends to be incorporated in forms like mindfulness.
Mahayana Buddhism is difficult to understand not just for Westerners, for example, but also for Mahayana Buddhists themselves, and so various methods have been devised to promote understanding. For instance, there is Zen and its related arts. Zen itself was accepted in the West early on; D. T. Suzuki’s Zen and Japanese Culture introduced it abroad and influenced culture and the arts. Apple’s Steve Jobs is a famous example, but Suzuki was from roughly the same generation as Kitaro Nishida, so his influence dates back to the first half of the 20th century, before and after World War II. The scope of influence is likely vast and probably endless if one were to list it all, but the contemporary composer John Cage was directly influenced by Zen. Zen can be seen as a methodology for understanding Kū and the Middle View, not necessarily relying on speculation alone.
Visiting shrines and temples and talking about the “eight million gods” may be fine for shrines, but feeling the “eight million gods” in the rock garden of Ryōan-ji feels a bit off. But perhaps this is how the understanding and reception of culture proceeds, in a jumbled way.
Rather, the fact that more people around the world are becoming interested in Japan is a good thing, not just for the Japanese but for people everywhere. Japan is a country where Mahayana Buddhism and its concepts of Kū and the Middle View are embedded as a basic OS. To know Japan is to know Mahayana Buddhism, and furthermore, to know modern thought and modern philosophy.
A modern thinker who was clearly aware of this was Claude Lévi-Strauss, and he stated it publicly. He is a key figure in Structuralism and was sharp enough to refute Sartre, so I imagine he was quite brilliant. But even Lévi-Strauss’s expression seems somewhat insufficient, and he doesn’t fully convey the essence of Japan, or rather, Mahayana Buddhism. That’s how difficult the Kū of Mahayana Buddhism is.
The Middle View is in some ways simple; recently, the term “meta-cognition” has become understood and accepted, so perhaps that can be used. But for Kū, there seems to be no corresponding concept or word globally. In modern thought, various expressions were used—”différance,” “rhizome,” “body without organs,” “particles,” “nomad,” “bricolage,” “undefined term”—but I wonder if they have been conveyed effectively. I think it would be better to just make Kū a globally understood word as “Kuu.”
Difficulty Made the History of Buddhism
The history of Buddhism has unfolded in a different sense from how other religions have split into various sects. At its core is the principle: “It can be understood, but it is difficult.”
From the moment Shakyamuni attained enlightenment, he was pessimistic: “It’s too difficult to convey, so I should just die.” His successor candidate, Sāriputta (written as Shariputra in the Heart Sutra), who understood his teachings, died before him, and he grieved desperately. When Shakyamuni himself was dying, he said, “When I die, my teachings will be lost.”
After Shakyamuni died, a fundamental split and subsequent minor splits occurred, and various schools divided over the interpretation of his teachings, hence the name “Sectarian Buddhism.” Within this, a major division occurred into Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism, and this too was a difference in thinking stemming from the difficulty of understanding.
The problem for Mahayana Buddhism was what to do with people who could not understand the teachings. Those who don’t understand the teachings cannot attain enlightenment, but Mahayana is a school of thought that seeks to save such people as well. Theravada’s approach is, for the time being, to have those who want to attain enlightenment work hard at their practice.
Mahayana is the Northern Transmission, and this side is philosophical. Theravada is the Southern Transmission, and since it retains sacredness and mysticism, it is “religious” if you call such things religious. In its native India, Buddhism peaked and then declined, leaving only academies, and was finally destroyed by Muslims.
Japanese Buddhism was transmitted from China and the Korean Peninsula. This is written in history textbooks, taught in the early parts of Japanese history. Japanese Buddhism also split in various ways and accepted various schools from China, but when you look at Kamakura New Buddhism, for example, the problem of how to handle the difficulty of Buddhism is still the issue. There are various schools divided by how they handle this “difficulty,” such as Zen, which has a strong stance of attaining enlightenment on one’s own, and the Jōdo (Pure Land) schools, which have a “the Buddha will save us even if we don’t understand” approach.
The Japan Boom is a Chance for Buddhism and Modern Philosophy
Mahayana Buddhism is difficult, but examples where an old form of Mahayana Buddhism has been preserved, like in Japan, are rare, I think. There is Tibetan Buddhism, but it has been invaded by China. Bhutan, Mongolia, and I’ll add Nepal, seem to have less influence. China became communist and secularized. Korea became Confucianized and Christianized; Buddhism remains, but when the Buddhist Goryeo dynasty was replaced by the Confucian Joseon dynasty, the culture of the previous era was radically destroyed.
In any case, Japan is a religiously, or rather, a Buddhistically special country. You could say that only Japan has protected it, or has been able to protect it.
The OS and Applications of Japanese Culture, Buddhism, and Modern Philosophy
Mahayana Buddhism is special. It’s more a philosophy than a religion. Its content as a philosophy is the same as modern philosophy.
If so, it can be broadly divided into two parts. One is the idea of Kū (Emptiness), which in modern thought is Structuralism. The other is the idea of the Middle View or Chū, or the Middle Way of early Buddhism. This, broadly speaking, is the part of Post-structuralism that remains after subtracting Structuralism. In other words, it is a meta-cognitive perspective.
In the theory of the Three Truths, there is Chū (Middle), Kū (Emptiness), and Ke (the Provisional). Ke corresponds to realism in philosophy, and simulation and simulacrum in modern thought. If we classify the relationship between these in terms of the Three Truths or modern philosophy, Chū is the OS, while Kū and Ke are each applications.
Chū, the Middle View, or the Middle Way, in modern or modern philosophical terms, means to view all things and ideas with meta-cognition, to see them relatively. It becomes the OS of knowledge. Kū is a structuralist way of grasping objects, a certain way of thinking in ontology and epistemology, and it is one application on the OS. Ke is what we think of as substance or reality, and this too is another application.
In Japanese culture, all ideas and religions are applications on the OS of the Middle View, Chū, or Middle Way. Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, atheism, animism—all are just applications. The Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism may claim to be the OS themselves, but from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective, they are applications on top of Chū.
Applications can be selected, adopted, edited, and modified. It doesn’t subscribe to the idea that if you choose one, you must exclude others. Just as a smartphone has many different applications installed, there are various applications on the OS of Chū, and you are free to use them. It’s fine to visit a shrine for New Year’s, have a funeral at a temple, get married in a church, and follow Confucian etiquette. Chū is a way of thinking that allows various things to coexist.
If there are elements of prehistoric culture that are not in that form—from the Paleolithic, Jōmon, or Yayoi periods, for example, animism, shamanism, or totemism—they too are just single apps, so all are acceptable. Well, there may be some apps you don’t use much, and probably many you’ve forgotten about without realizing.
When Buddhism was accepted in Japan, there was an exclusive battle over whether to reject it, but before and after that, there haven’t been such serious ideological struggles. Even Toyotomi Hideyoshi denied the enslavement of Japanese Christians and the colonization of Japan, but he didn’t deny Christianity itself. The Ikkō-shū sect shortly before that was eventually accepted and is now the largest religious force in Japan, though it was politically and secularly defanged. As long as they don’t disturb the harmony (wa), applications are allowed to coexist.
Kū and Ke can not only coexist but can even be synthesized. This is just like how realism and structuralism are not mutually exclusive and can coexist, so it’s fine to stick them together. A good example is that both Euclidean geometry (realist) and Hilbert’s formalist geometry can be viewed simultaneously, and they yield the same conclusions.
Polytheism, Pluralism, Monism, AI, and a Multi-OS World
I’ve talked about the Middle View as the OS and other ideas as applications. But having only one OS on one computer is an old model. It’s possible to have two OSes on a modern PC. You can just switch between them depending on the situation.
To talk about the more distant future, as AI progresses, the hierarchical structure of creating an OS first and then building apps on top of it will disappear. A more advanced AI will just have to create an optimized OS for each purpose as needed.
In the 19th century, a “computer” referred to the large number of people who performed calculations for functions, astronomy, and actuarial science. Now, computers do those calculations, but many people write code to create a single OS. A famous example of someone who rose through this is Microsoft’s Bill Gates. Japan also tried to create its own OS, but around the 1990s, there was a US-Japan trade war, and many things that could have become the core of innovation, like computers, software, and airplanes, were crushed.
When AI advances a little more, the need for many people to spend long years creating a single OS will disappear. Even before that, the very concept of what an OS is will become invalid. Even if you’re using a different OS, you can just have an AI synchronize them.
Japan also has a multi-OS aspect. It’s not necessary to think of Buddhism as the only OS; it’s also valid to think of Shinto or animism as an OS. In such cases, the idea that a god or soul or Buddha-nature dwells in everything emerges, and a culture of onomatopoeia is born—where anything can be personified, and symbolic meaning is given to sounds and states, a generation of raw language just as Saussure dreamed. In that sense, it’s also valid to grasp the essence of Japan through animism or polytheism.
But there’s no need to make anything absolute, to limit or restrict it. It’s fine to have multiple OSes. In that sense, and in others, Japan is pluralistic, just like modern philosophy. It’s easy to use a method of grasping objects from multiple conflicting perspectives.
On the other hand, people in other parts of the world, while they can be viewed in various ways, seem to have a strong tendency to unify everything into one. Or perhaps it’s a dualism of “one and the other.” They fight over whether to believe in Christianity or not. For example, they see science and Christianity as mutually exclusive. If they don’t believe in Christianity, they are considered atheists rather than agnostics. They tend to jump to extremes, saying Japanese people have no religion or don’t believe in God. I think it would be fine to have two OSes—a Christian OS and a science/rationalism/logicism OS—but their relationship often seems strained.
People inevitably see things through colored glasses and tend to make simplistic observations like “English is an SVO language, and Japanese is an SOV language.” They tend not to consider whether a language necessarily needs a subject, or a verb, or how important word order is. Japanese, to begin with, is not an analytic/isolating language like English; it’s an agglutinative language with free word order. Because it has particles like joshi and jodōshi that act like operators, neither a subject nor an object is essential to the structure of a sentence. For example, the meaning of a noun is determined by its particle. As you learn in Japanese class, you should analyze using the word “predicate” (jutsubu) rather than “verb,” and the predicate can be a verb, an adjective, an adjectival verb, and various other things besides verbs. A subject (shubu) is not always necessary either. The particle ga is close to the subject in other languages, but the particle wa is a topic marker; it can be used as a subject, but it’s often used for other purposes.
This is a digression, but it’s not very meaningful to say Japan is not logical from the perspective of a Christian OS or a self-proclaimed logical OS. I feel that people who haven’t properly studied and mastered logic, yet love to use words like “logical” or “rational,” is a common phenomenon not just in Japan but worldwide. I think anyone with a certain degree of diverse education who has properly studied the general theory, propositional logic, and predicate logic in an introductory logic textbook knows that casually using the word “logical” is often dangerous or even foolish.
A characteristic of Japan is that it has meta-cognition, and having meta-cognition makes one humble. It’s because they know what they don’t know, and they know to remain silent about things that should not be spoken of. To begin with, they know the limits of symbols, that is, language. They don’t think that everything can be expressed in language. They also commonly think that there are things that cannot be expressed in language. They know there is no guarantee that something like Kant’s noumenon in the Critique of Pure Reason or Descartes’ desperate “sincerity of God” in his dualism works between the signifier and the signified. There is a saying, furyū-monji (non-reliance on words and letters), and for this reason, they are humble.
They become humble towards religion, towards God, towards people and living things, and towards inanimate objects. They don’t make rash statements. Originally, words probably held great weight everywhere, and they were not used lightly, especially for important things. In Judaism, for example, they forbade the casual utterance of God’s name to the point that they forgot what it was. It seems that through some method, YHWH has now been restored as being read “Yahweh,” but there is a history where the pronunciation of this sacred Tetragrammaton was forgotten.
Conclusion
The Japanese people and Japanese culture are not built on a single OS or DNA.
While the world tends to focus on Shinto and animism, a major characteristic of Japan is that it is a Mahayana Buddhist country. The special concepts of Kū (Emptiness) and Chū (the Middle View) have influenced its spirit and have been expressed and manifested in various forms throughout its culture.
Polytheism and animism may have largely died out in the modern era, but they still seem to remain here and there around the world, so they are not unique to Japan.
However, the concept of Kū, in particular from Mahayana Buddhism, exists as both a word and a concept in very few other places in the world. There is nowhere else like Japan where it has been preserved, has influenced, has acted upon, and has been used by a population on the scale of 100 million people.
Therefore, scholars and researchers sometimes appear who consider Japan to have a special civilization. This is the same as modern Western philosophy’s Structuralism and Post-structuralism, but modern philosophy itself is difficult to understand, be convinced of, and master, so it does not spread easily to the public in an understandable way.
However, the world is becoming more and more “modern-philosophical” through the influence of modern philosophy, for example, through modern mathematics and the technologies it has spawned, like information science, computer science, the internet, and AI.
Thanks to Shakyamuni Buddha, Japanese culture has been “modern-philosophical” for a long time, and perhaps that is why it resonates with modern society. I believe this is one of the reasons why Japan has begun to be appreciated by the world, and why something like a “Japan boom” is occurring.
Buddhism and modern philosophy are peaceful ideologies that deny nothing and accept everything. I hope they will spread throughout the world in any form, for example, through the current form of Japanese culture and trends.
Translator’s Note & Advice for Publishing
This is an excellent and deeply insightful article. Translating it was a fascinating challenge. Here are a few notes on my translation choices and some advice for when you publish it on your website and on “note.”
- On Key Terms (Kū, Chū, etc.):
- For the most important concept,
空, I have used the romanized JapaneseKūthroughout the text, followed by(Emptiness)for its first appearance. This is a strategic choice. Using only “Emptiness” can be misleading, as it has a negative or nihilistic connotation in English. Using the SanskritŚūnyatāwould be too academic for a general audience. UsingKūpreserves the unique Japanese philosophical context you are highlighting and makes it a memorable keyword for your readers. You made this suggestion yourself in the text, and I believe it’s the right one. - For
中,中観, and中道, I have primarily translated them conceptually as “the Middle View” or “the Middle Way” as these are more immediately understandable to a Western audience. I’ve retainedChūin key places to link it back to the original term. - For
仮(Ke), I used “the Provisional,” which accurately reflects its philosophical meaning as the world of temporary, conventional phenomena.
- For the most important concept,
- For a Global Audience:
- Your article is rich with cultural and historical references (e.g., Saichō, Ryōan-ji, the Ikkō-shū sect). When you publish this online, I highly recommend adding hyperlinks to Wikipedia pages or other resources for these terms. This will greatly help non-Japanese readers understand the context without interrupting the flow of your argument.
- You draw a powerful parallel between Mahayana Buddhism and modern French philosophy. This is a very high-level concept. You might consider adding a brief, parenthetical explanation for terms like “Structuralism” or figures like “Lévi-Strauss” for readers who may not be familiar with them.
- Publishing Strategy:
- This is a long and dense article. For online platforms like “note” or a blog, long-form content can sometimes be challenging for readers. You might consider breaking this up into a series of 2 or 3 posts. For example:
- Part 1: The Japan Boom & Global Misconceptions (Focus on Shinto vs. Buddhism).
- Part 2: The Core of Japanese Thought: Kū, Chū, and Mahayana Philosophy.
- Part 3: The “OS” of Japanese Culture and Its Chance in a Multi-OS World.
- This would make the content more digestible and could help you build an audience eager for the next installment.
- This is a long and dense article. For online platforms like “note” or a blog, long-form content can sometimes be challenging for readers. You might consider breaking this up into a series of 2 or 3 posts. For example:
Overall, this is a fantastic piece of writing that offers a truly unique and insightful perspective. I hope this translation helps it reach a wide global audience. Good luck with your publications!