Great Death, Great Life: An Interview with Masao Abe

Author(s): Masao Abe

Source: Buddhist-Christian Studies, Vol. 17 (1997), pp. 79-85
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1390400
Accessed: 10-06-2015 18:39 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Buddhist-Christian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 161.112.232.117 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:39:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE BUDDHIST-CHRISTIANSTUDIES INTERVIEW

Great Death, Great Life:

An Interview with Masao Abe
In this interview with Masao Abe, Zen Buddhist scholar and author of Zen
and WesternThought (1985), Kenneth Kramer,professor of religious studies
at San Jose State University, explores the Zen Buddhist approach to death
and dying. Professor Kramerhas examined this theme in some depth in his
book The Sacred Art of Dying: How the WorldReligions Understand Death
(Paulist, 1988). The following text is an edited version of a longer discussion between Professors Kramerand Abe.
Kenneth Kramer: What is the Zen Bulddhist understanding
and dying?

of death

Masao Abe: Buddhism does not regard life and death as two different
matters. Dogen, the thirteenth-century Zen master of Japan, says that it is a
mistake to understand that one passes from life to death. In our daily life
we often think that we are now alive, but we may die sometime in the
future. And thus we understand that we are passing from life to death. In
this usual understanding, the relation between life and death is grasped as
a process moving from life to death. But this point poses a question to ourselves: When we understand that we are moving from life to death in terms
of a process, where are we taking our stand? In life or in death or somewhere else?
And your answer?
None of the above. When we understand the relation between life and
death in terms of process, our posture must be outside of both life and
death. Unless we objectively view life and death from somewhat outside,
we cannot take their relationship in terms of process. It is like, say, standing on an embankment and looking down the stream of life from its source
to lower reach, that is, an outsider view of the stream of life. But, in actuality, are we not swimming in the middle of the stream?We are not outside
but inside of the stream of life. If we stop to swim, we must sink into the
depths of the stream. We can swim ahead only by overcoming the possibility of sinking into the bottomless depths of the river. In the same way we
can live forward only by overcoming the possibility of the death at each
and every moment. The surface of the stream already touches the depth of
the water. Life is always touching death. Death is not something at the end
Buddhist-Christian Studies 17 (1997). ? by University of Hawai'i Press. All-rights reserved.

This content downloaded from 161.112.232.117 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:39:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KENNETH KRAMER

Masao Abe

of our life. If we objectify life and death from the outside, we are not seriously inquiring into the meaning of life. And we do not experience the real
anxiety of death. The problem of life and death can be properly grasped
not from outside objectively but from inside subjectively.
So we are both living and dying.
In Zen, life and death are not two different entities but inseparable. I am
now living but I am also dying. I am dying and at the same time living.
There is no living without dying and no dying without living. We are "livingdying" at each and every moment. Living and dying are just two aspects of
the one and the same reality. Of course, living and dying are two different
categories, and yet they are inseparable. So living and dying consist of an
antinomical oneness. That is a Buddhist understanding of life and death.
Accordingly, the aim of Buddhism is not to overcome death and attain eternal life, but to be emancipated from the process of living-dying, to be liberated from this basic antinomical oneness of living and dying. It is called the
Great Death because it is not the death as distinguished from life. The real
death is not something that happens at the end of our life, but it is realized
at the deepest depth of our present existence.

This content downloaded from 161.112.232.117 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:39:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MASAO ABE

So a Buddhist does not see death as anything different from life, but
like two sides of the same hand, the front side and the back side. But
I hear you saying a more profound thing, something the tradition
calls the Great Death. The most important element with regard to
death and dying is not the fact that I am going to experience a physical death at some point in the future. What is ultimately meaningful
for me is to bring death forward from the future into my every
present moment and to awaken me to what Buddha called the Great
called the Great Death.
Emancipation or Great Enlightenment-here
Therefore, is it not the case that I, in order to overcome my fears of
death and dying, have to go through the Great Death right here,
right now? You once wrote:
The break through this antimony between life and death is called,
particularlyin Zen, the Great Death because it is the total negation of
life-and-death and is beyond the realization of death as distinguished
from life....
Nirvana, the Buddhist realization of liberation, takes place only
through the realization of this Great Death. For Buddhists it is not that
one overcomes death with the power of life and attains eternal life in
the future. But what is essential is to be liberated from the self contradictory nature of life and death and to awaken to freedom from the
wheel of life and death (Zen and Western Thought, pp. 131-132).
Tell us about the mechanics,
Great Death.

the dynamics, the technology

of the

The process is beginningless and endless. If we understand that life and

death are two different matters, then there must be a beginning and an
end. But now that it is understood as a process of living-dying, the process
is without beginning, without end. We are involved in a beginningless and
endless process of living-dying. This realization itself is a realization of
death in a real sense, not in a relative sense but in an absolute sense. How
could we be liberated from this beginningless and endless process of
living-dying? That is the aim of Buddhism.
Plato talks about immortality of the soul; the body is perishable but the
soul is imperishable. Through death, being free from body, the soul
becomes pure and attains imperishable eternity. But this understanding is
based on the dualistic view of body and soul, life and death. Christianity
talks about eternal life after death, which is realized in the Kingdom of
God. Although it is different from Platonism, it also presupposes the duality
of life and death. How to overcome death to attain eternal life, that is an
important question for Christianity.
But in Buddhism, as I said, the endless process of living and dying itself
is regarded as "death"in the real absolute sense. That is Great Death. How

This content downloaded from 161.112.232.117 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:39:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KENNETH KRAMER

82

to cope with Great Death? That is a crucial problem. In order to cope with
Great Death, you must clearly realize the beginninglessness
and endlessness of the whole process of living-dying at this moment. In this realization, the whole process of living-dying will be concentrated into your
present being. In other words, your present being can embrace the endless
and beginningless process of living-dying within itself. In this way you can
overcome the process of living-dying, and thus break through Great Death.
And this break through Great Death is nothing but the realization of the
new life that may be called Great Life. It is also called nirvana in Buddhism.
It is blissful freedom from living-dying. So new life, the Great Life, can be
realized at this moment, not at the end or beyond the present life.
But let me raise a question: I understand what you are saying as an
I can say
intellectual
construct in my mind, not as an experience.
talked
about
realizing beginningless-endless-life-death
right here
you
and right now. But that remains an idea. What practical steps would
you suggest to someone who would very much like to realize what
you are talking about? What should I do?
Well, if you understand only intellectually what I am saying but practically
you do not follow me, that is okay. Please go ahead with your own idea.
Please go ahead with the dualistic view of life and death and then see what
happens. Can you really overcome your problem of life and death with
such a dualistic view? You may know it only by trying practically to do so
or
by yourself. Whether my explanation is merely conceptual/intellectual
not-you may test it by yourself. But how can you test it? That is why I said
"Please go ahead with your own dualistic view and see what happens." As
a result, if you come to a doubt about your own dualistic approach, then
some religious practice may be necessary. In the case of Zen, it is zazen,
seated meditation. Forget everything and just concentrate in meditation by
sitting. That's the practical way.
But some might still ask: "What happens to me after I die?" I recall
the Buddha's answer to his student Vacha's question: "When one
of mind dies, where is he
who has attained this emancipation
reborn?" The Bulddha responded,
"Vacha, the word 'reborn' does not
fit the case....
(neither) to say he is not reborn does not fit the case.
Nor is it any better to say that he is both reborn and not reborn. Or,
that he is neither reborn nor not reborn." And when Bulddha said
that, of course, Vacha was confused.
Very fine answer.
Very fine for you, but what about us? Enlighten

us!

Well, the question "Is there life after death?" is a persistent question for
human beings from ancient time through East and West. However, it is the

This content downloaded from 161.112.232.117 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:39:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MASAO ABE

wrong question, because it is based on the dualistic view of life and death.
The question presupposes life after death. But if you realize Great Life
through the realization of Great Death, there is no problem of before and
after in terms of life and death. The Buddha said there is no "reborn."But
this does not simply mean that there is no reborn. He indicates that there is
neither reborn nor not reborn. That is, negation of negation. That is a
double negation or absolute negation. However, absolute negation is nothing but absolute affirmation. We come to absolute affirmation only through
the negation of negation. Negation of negation is not a dualistic approach
but rather the most positive approach to a living reality.
Perhaps some comparisons between Buddhism and Christianity
would help. Consider the connection between the way the Bulddha
and the Christ died: B-utddhawas poisoned and Christ was crucified.
In Bulddhism, there is a statement that shocked me when I first
heard it. The statement is: "When you meet the Bulddha, kill the Buddha!" My question is: Would it be possible for a Christian to say a
parallel thing? If you meet the Christ, kill the Christ!
Well, you should ask a Christian.
I would like you, as a Buddhist, to reflect on the question. I suspect
most Christians wouldn't say, "If you meet the Christ, kill the Christ."
That would be a horrendous thing for a Christian to even think
about. But should it be?
I am not well qualified to answer your question, but let me say that the
statement you quoted is not a statement common to all forms of Buddhism,
but rather peculiar to the Zen tradition, especially Rinzai Zen Buddhism.
Rinzai was one of the most outstanding Zen masters throughout the history
of Zen. His statement in this regard runs as follows: "Encountering a Buddha, killing the Buddha; encountering a patriarch, killing the patriarch ...
only thus does one attain liberation and disentanglement from all things,
thereby becoming completely unfettered and free." In Zen, you must be
freed from all kind of entanglements, including the entanglement with
Buddha, to attain liberation. Thus the above statement, which is very
shocking and sounds quite blasphemous.
At least irreligious.
But why do they emphasize such statements?The purpose of Buddhism, in
general, is to become a Buddha, to be awakened to one's true nature. The
Buddha is not something supernatural. It is very different from the notion
of God or Christ. The Buddha is nothing but one who awakens to one's
own true nature and the true nature of everything. He is human and not an
almighty being. He has many limitations. For instance, he doesn't speak
English at all. In order to speak English he must enter an intense course of

This content downloaded from 161.112.232.117 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:39:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

84

KENNETHKRAMER
English for foreign students. He cannot drive a car; he must get a license in
addition to his awakening in order to drive a car. With these many limitations, why is he called "Buddha?"Simply because he has awakened to his
own true nature and the original nature of everything. That is the meaning
of the Buddha. Buddhism teaches us that everyone should become a Buddha, that is, an awakened one who awakens to one's own true nature and
the true nature of everyone and everything. For this is the true way of
being human.
But if we were to worship the Buddha as if he was outside of us, or if
we believe in Buddha as an object of our faith, it is not the true Buddhist
way. So however important the worship of the Buddha is, we shouldn't
take it as an object. Buddha is not outside of yourself.
Your true mind is Buddha and true Buddha is your true mind. Another
Chinese Zen master, Ma-tsu (707-786) declares:
Outside of the Mind, no other Buddha:
Outside of the Buddha, no other Mind.
Accordingly, if you encounter the Buddha as an object, negate it. In short,
Zen Buddhism is not a religion of faith, but is a religion of self-awakening.
We must awaken to our own nature. In order to do so, it is emphasized
that, upon encountering a Buddha, one must kill the Buddha.
I think this is applicable, to some extent, to the case of Christianity. If
Christis simply a personality outside of yourself, it is not a true Christ. Paul
said that he died with Christday by day and resurrected with Christ day by
day. He completely identified with Christ through everyday dying and
everyday resurrection. Paul also states: "Ihave been crucified with Christ,it
is no longer I who live, but Christwho lives in me; and the life I now live
in the flesh lives by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20).
Realize that, although an emotional attachment to life and emotional fear
of death are quite natural and, in a sense, almost inevitable for us, it is not
realistic. We must be more realistic to our problem of life and death.
This is a philosopher's way of being personal. Is it not the case that
if we look at the life of Gotama Buiddha we see a before and an after?
Before the Great Emancipation, we see a human being who was subject to the dualities that we are all subject to: subject/object dualities.
We see a human being who had questions like: Why is there suffering? Why is there old age? Why is there sickness? Why is there
death? We see a human being who for six years searched to find
answers. So, in other words, we see a human being prior to awakening. Isn't that human being a human being who is asleep, who needs
to wake up? Given that all good and evil is first illusionary and dual-

This content downloaded from 161.112.232.117 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:39:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MASAO ABE

istic, prior to awakening how does one decide what actions and
intentions are good and bad?
The Buddha's awakening is an awakening to the true nature of everything,
including himself. The true nature of everything cannot be realized by a
dualistic approach, so it is necessary to go beyond dualism to awaken to

true reality. To go beyond the duality, however, does not necessarily indicate to exclude duality; instead the duality can be regrasped on the basis of
non-dualistic realization.
Let me quote a well-known discourse by the Chinese Zen master Ch'ingyuan Wei-hsin. He said that thirty years ago, before he practiced Buddhism,
he thought that mountains are mountains, waters are waters. But when he
practiced Buddhism for several years under the guidance of a good master,
he came to realize that mountains are not mountains and waters are not
waters. But when he attained the abode of final rest, that is awakening, he
realized that mountains are really mountains, waters are really waters. His
first understanding that mountains are mountains and waters are waters is a
dualistic and discriminated understanding in which we are usually working. But when he came to the second understanding, that mountains are
not mountains and waters are not waters, he was freed from such a conceptual and analytical objectified understanding. This is a necessary but not
sufficient understanding. When he went beyond the second stage and came
to the third and final stage, he realized that mountains are really mountains, waters are really waters (see Zen and WesternThought, pp. 3-24). In
the same way we may say that before we practice Buddhism we think that
good is good and evil is evil. But after practicing Buddhism for several
years, we came to realize that good is not good and evil is not evil-no
duality at all. But this is not the final stage. This must be overcome. Then
we come to realize that good is really good and evil is really evil. Now the
distinction of good and evil is more clearly realized than before through
the non-dualistic understanding.
And so from that I can assume that life is really life and death is
really death. And in the name of life and death, I honor you and
thank you for being with us.

This content downloaded from 161.112.232.117 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:39:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

85