Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies ISSN:1598-0642(Print) 불교학연구

Buddhism was born in India. In India, ‘leaving home’ for the monastic life in one’s old age is a stipulated and practiced discipline. Given this, when we think of the Buddhist religion, the problem of ‘leaving home’ comes up as one of the central issues. Ultimately, what is the meaning of leaving home, and where might we find the essence of its spirit?Relating to this, I discovered a story in the Record of Things Heard Pertaining to the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye , a collection of the teachings of the founder of Japan’s Soto sect, Dogen, as recorded by his student Ejo. In the Record, there is a story titled ‘My Late Teacher Myozen’s Journey to Song’.When Myozen entered the monastic life at the Enryakuji of Mt. Hiei, his vocational master was Myoyu. However, about the time Myozen was preparing to leave for China, Myoyu became ill and Myozen found himself in a state of uncertainty as to when his teacher might pass away.Because of these circumstances, Myozen came forward and detained his student’s departure. Should Myozen give up his journey to care for his teacher, or should he ignore his teacher’s request and decide to go to China? Myozen brought this ethical dilemma before several monastic assemblies. The majority of the community suggested first caring for Myoyu and later going to China as a solution. Only one person, only Dogen, said, “If, now in this situation, all your study has been completed, even if you abandon your plans, it’s fine.” With this more or less cynical speech, Dogen was pressuring his teacher to make the decision to leave for the Song dynasty. At this, Myozen resolved to follow his old plan to go to China, his reason being that even if he were to nurse his teacher and put off his plans to go abroad, someone who will die, will die. Granting his teacher’s wish to stay and nurse him would offer only psychological comfort. If this were the case, then the teacher would commit the karmic offense of obstructing his student’s plans.What we can see here is the opposition between the act of caring for one’s teacher, signifying filial piety, and the issue of leaving for China, symbolizing ‘leaving home’. The community of the Kennin-ji temple demanded that filial piety be practiced first, while Dogen and Myozen forwent filial piety and decided in favor of monasticism (i.e. leaving for China). This filial piety is both a Confucian value and is also found in India’s Hinduism. However, we can also see the same opposition of logic in Prince Siddātha’s leaving home. In The Acts of the Buddha (Buddhacarita) , the logic of Siddātha’s father, King Śddhodana, when he speaks of the Prince’s leaving home, unsurprisingly follows a sequential arrangement: “First, after fulfilling one’s duties as a householder (gṛastha), become a monastic in your old age. This is the same course as the community of Kennin-ji temple suggested, which would have delayed Myozen’s departure for China.However, we must not overlook the fact that the sequential arrangement offered as a solution by both King Śddhodana and the monks of Kennin-ji actually signifies only Hindu monasticism. Hinduism stipulates that after one has fulfilled one’s duties as a householder, one leaves home by becoming a ‘forest-dweller’ (vanaprastha) or becoming a wandering ascetic (saṃyāa). We can therefore see in the Kennin-ji community only this kind of Hindu monasticism, and that the spirit of Buddhist monasticism has been diluted and lost. If Prince Siddātha had accepted King Śddhodana’s advice and followed Hindu law, then I think that the Buddhist religion would not have been established.The result is that while we know that Buddhist home-leaving lies in going beyond Hindu/Confucian values, it also goes beyond the patriarchal system that holds filial piety as central. From this, we come to see that within the Buddhist order, the unconsciously employed concept of the monastic ‘family’ or ‘clan’ that centers around the teacher-student relationship ultimately does not correspond with the spirit of Buddhist monasticism. Non-Buddhist values have penetrated the logic of the Kennin-ji community, and Myozen and Dogen’s overcoming of this shows the ethos of Buddhist monasticism.Beginning with Dogen, however, the receiver of Myozen’ s story, Ejo, gives us a counter-argument which leads our discussion to a new perspective. From saying ‘teacher’ and thinking ‘filial piety’, we come to be able to say ‘invalid’ and think of caring for sentient beings as ‘bodhisattva action’. The question of whether Myozen should give up his plans to go to China and nurse his teacher is presented; this problem is not one of ‘filial piety’ versus ‘leaving home’, but completely substitutes this with the problem of ‘personal practice (Zen/ Sŏ)’ versus ‘practice for others (bodhisattva action)’ within Buddhism. In terms of this question, Dogen’s answer, that ‘inferior practice: superior practice’ is the same as ‘Zen/ Sŏ: bodhisattva action’, shows his own inclinations as a proponent of monasticism up to a point. However, as Ejo says, bodhisattva action and Zen/Sŏ are both differentiated according to whether or not they are beneficial actions, and there is no universally correct answer. In keeping with what Ejo says, if we can see things from the perspective of bodhisattva action, then the life of a householder can also be understood from the perspective of bodhisattva action.What is meant is that although one has not ‘left home’ in body, if one’s mind has ‘left home,’ this too is ‘leaving home.’ Through the story of Myozen’s journey to the Song dynasty as passed on by Dogen, monastics should be able to contemplate the essence of the spirit of leaving home, and householders should be able to read the message that even in the mundane world, while practicing bodhisattva action and earning a living, they must do so with the monastic spirit.