Rev. Teruo Maruyama with Sulak Sivaraksa are the two senior founders of INEB. Maruyama-san is a Nichiren sect priest who has been involved in various social activities since his youth. In Japan, he is known as a very vocal critic of the Buddhist establishment. He has also gotten a name for leading campaigns against polluting companies and the construction of the present Tokyo International Airport which was built over expansive farmland. Recently, his analysis of the Aum Shinrikyo incident has been sought out, and he has become active in the formation of an alternative socialist party. This interview took place in Tokyo on June 3, 1995 with Santikaro Bhikkhu and Jonathan Watts, both longtime INEB members. Rev. Noda Masato provided the translation. Noda-san who is a Tendai priest and now works in Cambodia is also very active in in social issues.

SANTIKARO BHIKKHU: Was there any connection between your religious beliefs and thoughts and your involvement in the Communist Party?

MT: The Communist Party is, of course, based on Marxism and my belief is Buddhism, so the two are obviously incompatible. In the late 60s, my activities focused on reforming Nichiren-shu rather than social issues. After I left the Communist Party, I was very confused in my ideas. I began looking for a new guiding idea since I was no longer a Marxist and not really a Buddhist in thinking. At this time, my main concern was to try to see Marxism objectively based on a Buddhist standpoint. I struggled with this issue. It was very difficult but fortunately at this time I met a good teacher.
From him, I learned how Buddhism was the best foundation and best standpoint for me. From understanding Buddhism more deeply, I could view Marxism more objectively in that I was no longer attached to it or viewed it as an absolute model. Rather, I became to see it as a part of the history of human thought. Through this process, I could see more clearly the relationship between European thought and Asian thought, since Marxism is very much a European idea and Buddhism is an Asian idea. Through learning more about Asian thought I could see European thought more objectively.
In the past, I couldn't really understand the thought of Nichiren even though I was ordained as a Nichiren-shu priest. After meeting this teacher, though, I could see the implications of Nichiren's teaching. Nichiren lived during the 13th century so it is very difficult to convert or to modernize his thought for present society and to understand the implications of his ideas for modern society. After meeting this teacher, though, I could understand.
So let me summarize why I became interested in social issues. The first was my own life experiences. The second was this coming to a fuller understanding of Buddhism through meeting my teacher in the late 60s and early 70s. In the end, this was a very long process.

SB: You mentioned that when you came to meet this teacher, he helped you to find your own standpoint. Could you explain in more detail what this standpoint is? What is the essence or main principles of this Buddhist standpoint?

MT: This is quite difficult to explain. Generally, if we look at an object, we can see a methodology within the object itself. In the European social sciences, the subject is the subject and the object is the object. The subject observes the object in its own way. It has its own methodology. In the Buddhist way, however, if we want to understand an object, we need to understand the objects own process. If we want to understand Nichiren's way, we should understand Nichiren's methodology. We cannot separate the object and subject. The object has its own way of understanding, its own process.

SB: Ajahn Buddhadasa would say that if you want to understand the thinking of someone, you must live the way they live. Is this similar?

MT: It is a little bit different. Perception is different from the way we live, because if he (the translator Noda) adopts my lifestyle he is no longer himself. He becomes like me. So in this way perception is different from the way of life. My point is that the subject or perceiver is still here but the methodology of understanding is not here. It is there (in the object).

SB: Meaning, regarding an object we want to understand, we must use the methodology that the object shows us. The object will show us the proper methodology to understand it.

MT: Yes, that's it.

SB: So this is one main point of Buddhism you learned. Are there any others?

MT: The second one is that according to Nichiren's teachings, there are three points to perception. The first one is how to penetrate the essence of an object. The second is how to observe the movement of an object. The third one is how the subject should act in regard to the object. These three points should be integrated into our perception. This is the main point of Nichiren's teaching.

SB: What is interesting and important is that in these two ideas you have told us about, the emphasis is on the process of knowing. Often a Theravada or a Tibetan teacher would answer by more describing an object, such as the fact that everything is not-self. If you ask a Theravada or Tibetan monk for a basic principle, they would try to describe reality saying something like "voidness" or "thusness". Instead, you are not telling us what the reality is. You are describing the process or how we come to know the reality. This is a very interesting distinction.

MT: Yes, I see what you are saying. I think Buddhism is a religion in order to understand the truth. Actually, there are several different ways of understanding the truth, for instance meditation, and in Japanese Buddhism, the "daimoku" (namu-myo-ho-renge-kyo) and the "nembutsu" (namu-amida-butsu) which are based on faith. Like meditation, these practices are lived in daily life with discipline. Among these differences, though, I understand that all forms of Buddhism have three common steps for penetrating the truth (or the essence of an object). The first step is that every individual should try to understand the truth by his/her own effort. The second is as a result of understanding, everyone can decide on his/her own lifestyle. Finally, he/she can live their life with responsibility and accomplish their duty in this life.
Penetrating the essence of an object concerns penetrating the essence of the universe and the essence of oneself. This essence is eternal and unchangeable. It is very difficult to understand. In reality myself and others are always changing and the environment or society is also changing. Thus, through a process of our transient selves coming to understand transient society, we can realize our own responsibility in changing society. In such a process, if we can recognize an object and come to understand it for ourselves, we can then find our own way and responsibility within this changing society. Concerning the Theravada and Tibetan monks case which you mentioned, they seem to want to just explain what the essence is.

SB: I think this case is interesting because sometimes if we try to tell someone what the essence is we interfere with them finding it out for themselves and thus finding their own path. So I appreciate your emphasis more on process itself. I think this is often forgotten. One reason why our Buddhism often becomes stagnant is because we just repeat our truths without really learning them.

MT: Buddhism is not knowledge. If someone says,"This here is the essence", it is not the essence; it is just knowledge. The important thing is not studying knowledge. Just knowledge sometimes becomes an obstacle to understanding. The point is how people can find their own way of understanding. Old or young, man or woman, have their own way of understanding. This is the truth, this is religion. If we just understand knowledge, this is not religion, this is just philosophy.
For example, concerning the precepts, in Japanese Buddhism, some sects reject the precepts. I respect the role of the precepts in Buddhism, but in reality there are many people who cannot keep the precepts in their daily life, especially lay people. Some Japanese Buddhists say that even if we cannot follow the precepts, we can still have our own way to find the truth. This is a sort of alternative process for lay people in finding the truth. This is why some Japanese Buddhist sects have abandoned the precepts and have adopted other methods such as recitation of the daimoku or the nembutsu. I value the precepts, because in Buddhism the reason that we cannot penetrate the truth is attachment. If we have attachment, it confuses our perception of the truth so the precepts are very helpful to purify our understanding of an object. Understanding an object purely is the truth and is also enlightenment or nirvana.

SB: I like when you speak of everyone having their own way to understand the truth and I agree that this way can differ among people. Does this mean, however, that say for the workers, their way of understanding is always correct? Can we distinguish between right ways of knowing and wrongs ways, or successful ways and unsuccessful; or do we accept that everything another group or someone else does is their own way of understanding and beyond question?

MT: My impression in the INEB experience is that even if the form of the approach is different between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism itself, the core methodology is not so different. As far as methodology corresponding to the principles of Buddhism, a variety of methodologies are OK. In this way Buddhism is very unique. But then what are the principles of Buddhism?
This is a very simple thing to answer: the way of the Buddha, how the Buddha found the truth. In short, this is a purely objective way of seeing. As long as we follow such principles then the form of the methodology does not matter. We have our own way and every individual has his/her way. I appreciate that Buddhism is a very tolerant religion in that Buddhism accepts a variety of methodologies.
This is theoretically, but in reality, in our daily life, each individual has her/his own lifestyle. In their own lifestyle, they should take responsibility for their own actions. Such responsibility, though, is always changing in different situations and in different times. Therefore, how such a person lives in changing society and the essence of Buddhism are not always compatible. Often times there is conflict between the two, so the method of making them compatible is very difficult. This is the basis of social action in Buddhism, making them compatible. For example, if we are now in the Pure Land, this issue is not a problem. But now we are in real life and society. That is why we need to apply such pure theory into practice. This is the basis of social activities in Buddhism.
In our daily life, we have different situations for young, old, man and woman. They have their own lives, and their responsibility towards society is different. I and Noda both live in Japanese society but our roles and responsibilities in society are different. He has his own and I my own. But from a Buddhist standpoint, the essence of life in society is the same. The key in making our different ways compatible and forming a just society is that everyone needs to find this essence for themselves and find their own way. Unfortunately, Buddhism has only explained the essence and does not say that everyone has their own responsibility to find their own truth. This is a problem. Buddhism has just repeated, "This is the truth....".