The Wolf and the Frog

This doesn’t have anything to do with anything, but that last fable and the anime series I'm watching got me on a kick.  If you look carefully about the irrigation channels, you can at least see that it's set in modern Japan.

Just a simple story.  A little bit Aesop and Pom Poko.  Not sure if I hit the right tone or not.  Sorry for the tough vocabulary – force of habit.  Anyway, been thinking a bit about frogs.  I wrote it in about 20-30 minutes at Skylark in Sannomiya this evening.  Enjoy.



The Wolf and the Frog

There once was a frog who lived in a rice paddy.  He came from a rather average frog family with 532 siblings, and he was the 381st egg, making him something of a middle child.  His pond was comfortable and near some old growth woodland where he and his pond-mates liked to play among the fallen foliage. 

Things went on swimmingly for some time until a few men with machines came by and set up concrete trenches with vertical slits to sluice the water between the rice fields, replacing his old dirt ditches.  When they finished, they patted each other on the back and drove off.  Unfortunately, the gap in the irrigation channel was too large to leap across and those frogs caught on the other side were unable to join their friends in other paddies.

So it was that at the end of each day, when all the other frogs bellowed out to one another, the poor creature would saddle up to the concrete ledge and look off in the distance.  Perhaps he wondered if they even still remembered him.

One evening as the gloam of twilight settled over his pond, he squatted down in his usual spot to listen plaintively to the chirruping croaks all cascading on top of one another.  He did not even notice it when a wolf from up in the mountains came sniffing along the edge of the woodland to get a drink from the pond.

He spotted the frog at a glance and, creeping up on it from downwind, was about to snap up the plump fellow in one toothy bite when he noticed the rather sullen look on his face. 

The wolf coughed into his paw.  “Ahem.”

Still the frog did not seem to take much notice.  Instead it bellowed out a deep, guttural sigh.  “Wrruhh-kerrrooo....”

“Frog,” the wolf said.  “Are you sick?”

“Oh, don’t you hear them all?  I miss my friends and family so terribly.  But for this giant canyon...”

The wolf was eyeing the froggy’s fleshy thighs and licked his chomps.  “Your friends, you say?  I see...”

“Oh, what I would give to see them again… if only… Oh, Brother Wolf, do you not love running with your pack more than anything?”

“The truth is, my kind are not so many these days.”

“And don’t you feel a certain something when you hear a howl from faraway?”

The wolf yawned.  His ears perched this way and that as if the wind whispered something from behind.  “Well, maybe a little hungry,” he admitted.

The frog gave a jerky start.  “Oh my, oh my!  I just had an idea, a revelation!  Brother Wolf, would you, could you find it in your heart to carry me across to see them?  I know you wish to eat me, and I can hardly argue the point, but–”

“Ride on my back?” the wolf exclaimed.  “Now, now, frog.  Aside from the law of creaturely camaraderie, I’m afraid we still have our dignity.”  He shook his head dismissively, “No, that is quite out of the question.”  His brow furrowed a little.  “But since you are not sick, I will tell you what I will do.  If you will hop into my mouth and not squirm around too much, I promise to carry you to the other pond to meet your friends.  But after that and you’ve had your fun, I will gobble you up in one toothy bite.”  He shrugged his shaggy mane.  “Nothing personal.”

The frog blinked his bulgy eyes and seemed to reason this out and bellowed in a loud agreement.

So, true to his word, the wolf brought the frog across the channel and gingerly lowered him into the neighboring pond.  All at once hundreds of plumb little froggies all set about leaping and laughing on top of each other with such frivolity that none of them seemed to notice the great hunter standing in their midst.

When the wolf saw how high the frog leaped with delight seeing his friends at long last and they at him, it reminded the wolf of a young pup many moons ago, gamboling around the den with the rest of the pack.

He set his ears to the wind.  A company of a thousand croakings.  He could not tell one from another.

After some time had passed and the moon had made its way quite high among the stars, the frog ambled over in front of him and said somewhat softly, but which a smile, “Okay, Mr. Wolf.  Thank you for your patience.  I’m ready.”

The wolf stood there with his keen eyes yellow in the darkness.  He looked this way and then that. 

“I only came for a drink of water,” he said, and trotted away into the wood.

The Frog Returns

Here’s a different kind of post.  As you know, I moved back to Japan, this time to Osaka, at the end of March of this year, smack dab on Easter actually.  While I haven't posted much of my chronicles or pictures or odd anecdotes here (just on Facebook), I've gotten to do some wonderful traveling in the mountains and woodland, deep in dells and misty meadows.  I have a story or two to share, but for now I thought I'd relate part of a recent adventure as a sort of tribute.


Yesterday I went hiking around the Rokko mountain range by Kobe with a good friend (though quite new).  I had plans to go to Tateyama in faraway Toyama; God had better plans.  It was kind of a last minute thing, but somehow or another we were able to pull it off.  I think the details actually worked out perfectly, even as I was able to visit with a Japanese friend I knew in Houston at a cafe before heading off for the cable car to Mt. Maya.

The views were spectacular and we got lost more times than I can remember (always a good sign).  It was plenty hot, but there shady spots to talk and even a patch of snow to play in.  The sculptures you made last a few hours before melting away.

As the day winded down, we found our way to Arima Onsen, one of the three oldest hot springs in Japan (三古湯).  The hot springs are spoken of being used as far back as A.D. 631 in the Nihon Shoki , the second oldest written history book (published in 720), though presumably it had been around for a while before that, possibly making this the oldest hot spring.  From the mountain approach, you take a rope-way car to descend into the valley.  The ticket is a bit expensive, but the view is unbelievable.

The town has a very nostalgic feel of old Japan, quaint houses nestled up along narrow, cobble-stone streets.  We strolled among the festival booths that lined the river, with enka performers and quirky carnival-style games, her hair done up chasen-style (茶筅).  There was a lovely sunset, followed by a marvelous moon, two days shy of being full - how's that for wabi sabi (侘寂)? 

At Arima, which she strangely kept mispronouncing as Ame-something, there are two main types of water grouped according to the chemicals, called "gold spring" and "silver spring."  The "silver" one has some radium in it; yes, it is "mildly radioactive."  We opted for the simple foot bath one, which was also free, and, with a hearty 「かんぱい」 ("cheers!"), enjoyed the quintessential Japanese experience.

She leaves in just a few days for study abroad in Korea.  一期一会。  I don't know any suitable farewell sayings in Japanese, but here's a traditional Irish well-wishing...

"May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face.
And rains fall soft upon your fields.
And until we meet again,
May God hold you in the hollow of His hand."

長大息。

Now then.

As I was saying, at one point in the afternoon, wandering about on the mountaintop, we saw some frogs in a pond.  Or I saw a frog among the leafy greenery on the surface and pointed it out to her for a minute before she could see it.  No, not that - that's a carp.  Yes, right there... see, right where I'm pointing.  She likes frogs.  But she needs better glasses.

Now from time to time in Japanese folk stories one finds tales of giant, ten-foot-tall toads, with rainbows shooting from their mouths and ninjas riding on their backs.  These were not that sort of creature.  But there is a nice play on words with frog (かえる) being pronounced the same as the word for returning home.  And in this case, it's not cheesy, but rather poetic.

Recently, I've been watching an ongoing anime series called "Folktales from Japan" (ふるさと再生 日本の昔ばなし), which has some excellent voice acting in older-style Japanese (all done by only two actors).  Each episode covers three stories in about ten-minutes segments.  I haven't see the one "The Two Frogs" yet, perhaps because it is such a short story.  You can find it in Andrew Lang's Violet Fairy Book. 

I love folktales and fairy tales and story-telling in general, and this really is a nice one.  This version is just slightly different from the below.

Amy Friedman did an adaption of it recently, very mono no aware (物の哀れ).  Here is her version, which I think is a fine, fine story.  Enjoy...

"Two Frogs From Japan"

Once upon a time in Japan there lived two frogs. One frog lived in the city of Osaka in a quiet little ditch outside of town. The other frog lived in a clear, flowing stream near Kyoto. The frogs, of course, did not know each other.

One day the frog who lived in the ditch in Osaka overheard a man talking as he passed by. "There over the mountain, in beautiful Kyoto," said the man, "is the most glorious palace, the Mikado's palace. It is a place everyone ought to see."

At once the frog in the ditch came up with a plan. "I too would love to see the city of Kyoto and the glorious palace of the Mikado," she said. "I think I will climb the mountain and go there to see for myself."

At the very same time, the frog who swam through the crystal waters of Kyoto thought, "My home is lovely, but surely there is more to see in the world."

The frog from Kyoto had nothing against the Mikado, the country's emperor, but he was bored, for beauty and majesty are not everything. He had grown weary of the world around him. "I think I shall climb the mountain and visit other cities. I have heard Osaka is the place to see."

So, each frog set out to cross the tall mountain that separated the two cities. Up went the frog from Osaka, leaping and hopping with all of her might, so excited was she about her adventure.

And up went the frog from Kyoto. "Oh, to see another world," he thought as he hopped and jumped.

On and on they leapt. They grew thirsty and tired, but they did not think about their troubles. Their eyes bulged with delight as they imagined the new world they would see when they reached the summit.

At last, huffing and puffing, the frog from Osaka came to the very top of the mountain, and there she sat down in the tall grass under a flowering tree to catch her breath and rest her tired legs.

Just at that moment she felt a blade of grass beside her shiver. "Who's there?" cried the frog from Osaka.

Who indeed!? Of course it was the frog from Kyoto who had, at last, reached the mountain peak. "Hello," said he. "It is I, a frog from Kyoto."

"Ahh," said the frog from Osaka, "you must be a most distinguished explorer, my friend. So you have come from the land of the palaces, the home of the great emperor, have you?"

The frog from Kyoto harrumphed and gurgled, trying hard to catch his breath, for his journey had been strenuous. "Yes, gracious explorer, I am from the land of palaces. And you? What about you?"

"Harrumph," croaked the frog from Osaka, "I am from Osaka. I have traveled far and wish to see your land."

"That is my plan precisely," said the frog from Kyoto. I mean to see the city of Osaka, for it is a place that I have never seen."

"You needn't bother with Osaka," said the frog from Osaka. "It is a poor place, filled with ditch water. It clogs the pores, you see. I mean to go to a land of crystal-clear streams."

"Ha," said the frog from Kyoto. "Let me tell you what it's like to sit all day in a sparkling stream. Sparkle and shimmer -- all that glistening water will make your eyes ache, my friend."

At that the frogs fell silent and stared at each other.

She does not look very different from me, thought the frog from Kyoto, and the frog from Osaka thought the same. For a long while the two frogs sat silent, listening to the whistling grass surrounding them and staring at each other.

At last the frog from Kyoto sighed and said, "I have climbed up a high mountain, and I do not wish to climb all the way down to Osaka if it is as dull as you say."

"I feel the same way," said the frog from Osaka. "My journey up the mountain was a strain, you see, and now my legs are feeling very weak. If the sparkling streams are not so wonderful, I don't know that I wish to hop all the way there."

They sat and listened to the whistling grass a while longer.

At last the frog from Osaka said, "If only we were taller, we could look down from this mountaintop and see the cities of our dreams. Then we would know if we wished to go on traveling. Alas, we are short and we are stuck here in this tall grass."

The frogs both sighed sadly.

Then the frog from Kyoto puffed out his throat and said: "It is true that we are tiny and the grass is tall, but my gracious friend, we frogs of Kyoto are famous for our intelligence. I am sure I can come up with a solution. Let me think."

The frog from Kyoto closed his eyes and thought for a long while. At last he leaped into the air, so high he almost caught a glimpse of the city below. "Come, dear friend, and I shall stand upon my hind legs and turn toward you, and you shall stand upon your hind legs and turn toward me. We shall hold each other up this way. Then we shall be taller than this tall grass, and we will be able to see the cities of our dreams."

The frog from Osaka agreed. "A good plan," said she.

And so up they hopped, onto their hind legs. They held each other steady, and the frog from Kyoto looked one way, and the frog from Osaka looked the other.

The frogs, alas, made one mistake. The frog from Kyoto faced Osaka, and the frog from Osaka faced Kyoto, but as you know, frogs' eyes are set so far back upon their heads that when they looked down both frogs were actually looking at their own city. The frog from Kyoto looked out and saw the city of Kyoto, and the frog from Osaka looked out and saw the city of Osaka.

"Oh my," said the frog from Kyoto, "Osaka looks very much like Kyoto."

"My thoughts precisely," said the frog from Osaka. "Your city looks almost exactly like the city I call home."

At that the frogs let go of each other and dropped down on their four legs once again. Then they squatted very still in the tall grass and stared sadly at each other.

"There seems no point in traveling all the way down the mountain just to see a city so very like my own," said the frog from Kyoto.

"No point indeed," said the frog from Osaka. "I think I shall return back home. Farewell, dear friend."

"And farewell to you."

With that the frogs hopped down the mountain, back to their homes, happy to think that their home was as good as any other home, and almost exactly the same.

Reservations of the Worldly-Minded: Shortcomings in Confucian Ethics

There’s a book I’d love to read if someone ever wrote it.  What if instead of being executed by the State, Socrates had been banished, sent to the outer reaches of civilization?  There, far to the east, he stumbles upon a humble village whereupon he starts to question the people about the nature of justice, love, and virtue.  He finds them to be well inclined to hear him and soon they direct him to meet with their king.  Socrates finds the old sage – who is named Kong – to be a very pleasant fellow indeed.  He is dressed in the robes of a lowly magistrate, and over a cup of tea they soon find themselves engrossed in a most passionate philosophical discourse, always coming back to what it would mean for a man to transcend himself and achieve true virtue and moral rectitude. 

Yeah, that’d be a fun read.  Perhaps Peter Kreeft will do us a favor and get on that.

Apparently I’ve been on a little bit of an East Asian religions run of late.  I did not intend to, but it happens that this fits as the third in a series of posts.  The first, “How High is the Threshold?” (Nov. 2012) dealt at some length with Buddhism Scriptures, sects, pluralism, and exclusivism.  Then “Gleanings from Shinto Theology” (April 2013) looked at a nascent awareness of monotheism from a brief passage by a leading Shinto scholar.  Now for the last in the Tripitaka of East Asian religions.  Though, of course, Confucianism is actually closer to secular-humanism than anything else. (The folk religion of Taoism would be more appropriate, but less relevant or influential here in Japan).

Confucius (孔子), or un-Latinized, “Master Kong”, is as seminal to the development and direction of Asian culture and history as Socrates/Plato is to Western civilization.  Plato I read and absorbed in grade school, but I did not look at Confucianism until university. 

Recently, in reading through the Analects (論語) and The Doctrine of the Mean (中庸), I was surprised that we are not given a sustained discourse so much as a brief smattering of anecdotal sayings.  Therein we might find very worthy axioms that speak directly us today.  My favorite is: “Gentlemen are in harmony without conforming, petty men echo each other without being in harmony” (Analects 13:23).  Or, if you are looking for something to hang on your wall or tattoo on your calf, here is the original Chinese:  子曰：「君子和而不同，小人同而不和。」

Other times the sayings read almost like fortune cookie wisdom.  “The Master said, ‘If a man take no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand’ ” (Analects 11).  Fine, but not much to base a civilization around.  Western civilization could not have been built on the foundation of Solomon’s Book of Proverbs alone.

Both Socrates and Confucius sought to bring reform to an age of moral dereliction – not so different from our day and age.  Confucius stressed fulfilling reciprocal obligations, pursuing ethnical norms, and propriety among human relations (or ren, yi, and li) rather than outlining the way to have right relationship with Heaven (God). I know many a Westerner that could benefit from the kind of introspection and self-cultivation that would lead to being deliberate in speech and careful in their reciprocal duties to others.  Socrates, who expressly saw himself as God’s gadfly, his own term, as well as a prophet of Apollo (Hmm – the same or different from God?), emphasized an analytical grasp of transcendent reality and political theorizing.  Socrates was all about “Know thyself”, and Confucius expressed the idea that “Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous” (Analects 2:15). 

But they pursued their philosophies so at the expense of probing the root of human nature and the complexity of our moral condition.  Their view of man was naively simplistic, blaming his moral failures merely on general ignorance of ethics/propriety, as if those properly educated in niceties at Eton ought basically to reach moral excellence and do not sin greatly in either their public or private life.  History and experience do not bear this out.  I wonder if this man-centered view is not so different from the cultivated Stoicism of, say, Marcus Aurelius, who slaughtered Christians, or of Seneca, who looked on while Nero engaged in his egregious dissipations.

As a side note, I hope I won’t sound too biased to say I’m glad we got Socrates since I think with his elenctic approach he penetrated more deeply into the nature of things and critical thinking than Confucius did.  Now it’s possible that aside from Laozi and Mencius I’m simply entirely ignorant of Eastern history and its philosophical traditions, but it sure seems like the West has the benefit of a far richer vein of thought from the Greeks transmitted through Cicero and subsequently the Romans.  Their reach is far.  Cicero’s dialogue Hortensius apparently had a seminal effect on Augustine and Boethius. The rediscovery of his letters helped spark the Renaissance and his De Officiis was the second book off the printing press.  The plays of Seneca would provide inspiration for Shakespeare’s early works.

Then it happened.  Following the advent of the Son of God coming to earth like a shooting star to usher in the kingdom of heaven, an unparalleled burst of inspiration ensued as men could draw upon this well of other-worldly wisdom.  Jesus focused his three short years at the crossroads of the world to culminate in his atoning work on cross and resurrection.  For various reasons the message mainly took root in the west as Paul of Tarsus took it to Rome.  We need merely think of Augustine of Hippo, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Edwards, and so on.  Even Boethius is a delight to read against the backdrop of his solid grounding in theology allowing him to play with ease with the accoutrements of philosophy.  I might add, perhaps betraying my own provincialism, what people had the favorable theological and literary foundation to craft works that could approach the sublime beauty of Shakespeare or Milton or the Metaphysical Poets?

Unfortunately, I think the Elizabethan Age is where literary culture peaked.  In many ways the dominant philosophical views of the Western tradition in “Christendom” started going downhill after the humanist-rationalist insistence on the innate goodness of man, the very thing Confucianism stresses. The 1687 Latin translation of Confucian works reinforced that message in Europe.  We find this in the regressive Deist tradition of Descartes, Spinoza, Newton, Voltaire, Locke, Leibniz, Kant, etc., though here and there in the West were still to be found an elenctic non-conformist like Pascal or Kierkegaard, with that rare unity of heart and mind.


On God and the Silence of Heaven

The main shortcoming is in how Master Kong predicates his ethical philosophy.  There is no core, no framework of doctrine (i.e., teaching) that gives a meta-narrative to explain the world and why it is the way it is, let alone any attempt at uncovering the puzzles of ethical philosophy.  Here in Japan, much of people’s sense of societal roles and social obligations is bound up in the Confucian cultural background that lurks unconsciously behind their thinking.  The furthest thing from their mind are questions of the existence of God, the meaning of life, how to realize individuality, or of future the judgment to come.

To his credit, Master Kong’s was far from any mere sophist.  His chief concern centered around achieving a virtuous life, and therefore a virtuous society.  As a touchstone in his thought, his sayings often refer to the need for the superior man to be able to know the ordinances of Heaven, or roughly the equivalent to the Western idea of “Natural Law.”  But there’s a definite Deist undertone here - in practice, this basically boils down to respecting others and being careful to follow ritual ceremonies and traditions handed down, with no sense of divine immanence or participation in the governing of men or nations.  The Mandate of Heaven (天命) in Confucian thought is in practice little more than a check on the unrestrained tyrannies of emperors, whose sins threaten the prosperity of the whole nation.  It was the duty of the Confucian superior man/sage/virtuous gentleman (君子) to remind the emperor of such things.

–  “There are three things of which the superior man stands in awe. He stands in awe of the ordinances of Heaven. He stands in awe of great men. He stands in awe of the words of sages. The mean man does not know the ordinances of Heaven, and consequently does not stand in awe of them. He is disrespectful to great men. He makes sport of the words of sages” (Analects 16:8).

– “The Master said, ‘Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man’ ” (Analects 20:3).

– “The Master said, ‘Not so. He who offends against Heaven has none to whom he can pray’ ” (Analects 3:13).

– “The way of Heaven and Earth may be completely declared in one sentence.-- They are without any doubleness, and so they produce things in a manner that is unfathomable” (Means 26:7).

– “Hence the sovereign may not neglect the cultivation of his own character. Wishing to cultivate his character, he may not neglect to serve his parents. In order to serve his parents, he may not neglect to acquire knowledge of men. In order to know men, he may not dispense with a knowledge of Heaven” (Means 20:7).

But always for Confucius, Heaven is an abstract concept.  Instead of the personal name/title “Shang Ti” that Chinese had used for Almighty God (sometimes mixing in the spirits of past emperors), Confucius substituted the general designation for the Heavens, “T’ien”, which is rather more akin to the idea of Fate.  The ordinances he mentions are largely just the proper ways to conduct ancestral worship ceremonies and the biannual great sacrifices, to speak the truth from a sincere heart, and act according to the station one has been assigned to.  Confucius no more knows the true name of God than the unlearned simpletons of his day.  So on the one hand he says it is imperative to first know the good and the true that comes from God, but exactly what that law contains he confesses to be a mystery. 

Socrates claimed a certain measure of inspiration from his “daemon” and the spurring of the oracle of Delphi – but these were intensely personal experiences and not something that stretched to universal principles. 

Later, Aristotle would reason out a little further the nature of God: “We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God” (Metaphysics, XII, 7, 1072b).  Though for him, this being, concerned not with action but consumed with contemplation, was still far away enough from our experience that he was essentially impersonal.

Confucius never went up the mountain to fast and sup with the Almighty.  He never received tablets of stone written upon by the finger of God.  At least he was honest.  He kept mum about what he didn’t know. 

– “Heaven does not speak; yet the four seasons run their course thereby, the hundred creatures, each after its kind, are born thereby. Heaven does no speaking!” (Analects 17:19).

There are times when Confucius implies that Heaven is more personal, knowing his heart.

– “The Master said, ‘Alas! there is no one that knows me.’
     Tsze-kung said, ‘What do you mean by thus saying – that no one knows you?’  The Master replied, ‘I do not murmur against Heaven. I do not grumble against men.  My studies lie low, and my penetration rises high. But there is Heaven;– that knows me!’” (Analects 14:35).

But generally speaking he remains quite hesitant to ascribe anything very definite to Heaven/God/Fate.

– “The Master said, ‘At the great sacrifice, after the pouring out of the libation, I have no wish to look on.’
     Some one asked the meaning of the great sacrifice. The Master said, ‘I do not know. He who knew its meaning would find it as easy to govern the kingdom as to look on this’ - pointing to his palm” (Analects 3:10-11).

– “By the ceremonies of the sacrifices to Heaven and Earth they served God, and by the ceremonies of the ancestral temple they sacrificed to their ancestors. He who understands the ceremonies of the sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, and the meaning of the several sacrifices to ancestors, would find the government of a kingdom as easy as to look into his palm!” (Mean 20:6)

The great sacrifice here would refer to the biannual sacrifices to Heaven and Earth performed by the Emperor on Mount T’ai.  It would seem then that he admits that to try to govern the land without accurately knowing the way to honor God would be quite difficult.

– “Tsze-kung said, ‘The Master’s personal displays of his principles and ordinary descriptions of them may be heard. His discourses about man’s nature, and the way of Heaven, cannot be heard’ ” (Analects 5:12).

His students ask about the spiritual world or the afterlife, but he refrained from speaking on things he was ignorant of, choosing instead to focus exclusively on proper behavior in this life. 

– Chi Lu asked about serving the spirits of the dead. The Master said, “While you are not able to serve men, how can you serve their spirits?” Chi Lu added, “I venture to ask about death?” He was answered, “While you do not know life, how can you know about death” (Analects 11:11)?

Here is a great fallacy.  Just because one does not know about how to live life, does not mean one ought to abandon study about the hereafter.  Rather, both questions are crucial and must be searched out.  In fact, how could one hope to have a proper perspective on living life without knowing the greater context of what comes before and after it?

This fuzziness continues today among people who give but the scantiest of thoughts to spiritual things, considering them to be too vague, too deep, too difficult to ever hope to understand.  So it is that one can ask a hundred Japanese what they think is their purpose for existence or what happens after death and most of them can blankly reply that they’ve never thought about it (nor are they likely to in the future).  Eternal things like heaven and hell are of little consideration to them compared to being sure that all their co-workers get along together.

Confucius did the Chinese a great disservice in relegating God to a scanty footnote as the source of the Way, as if the King of Heaven was barely worthy his consideration. 

A generation later, Mozi recognized this flaw and emphasized the Will of Heaven as a more active being, punishing evil and loving people regardless of their station or status, family or enemy.  The evidence for this can be found in general Providence; God causes the sun to shine on the good and the evil (Matthew 5:45).  God wants us to love each other in like fashion.

– “I know Heaven loves men dearly not without reason. Heaven ordered the sun, the moon, and the stars to enlighten and guide them. Heaven ordained the four seasons, Spring, Autumn, Winter, and Summer, to regulate them. Heaven sent down snow, frost, rain, and dew to grow the five grains and flax and silk that so the people could use and enjoy them. Heaven established the hills and rivers, ravines and valleys, and arranged many things to minister to man's good or bring him evil. He appointed the dukes and lords to reward the virtuous and punish the wicked, and to gather metal and wood, birds and beasts, and to engage in cultivating the five grains and flax and silk to provide for the people's food and clothing. This has been so from antiquity to the present” (Will of Heaven, 27:6).

Of course, this all seems quite basic and elementary.  Paul begins his introductory remarks in like fashion to the Greeks in Acts 17.  There is much that he draws from the implications though, which we will examine at the end of this paper.


On Dealing With Our Fellow Man

Confucius’ ignorance of the true nature of God and his ways has far-reaching consequences.  This fuzziness plays itself out in his understanding of morality.  Lacking a sufficient theological grounding, Confucius was left to try to respond to ethical dilemmas with merely humanist reasoning.  One can find out a lot about someone in how their philosophy works out in the messy affairs of day-to-day living.

– “Some one said, ‘What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness?’
     The Master said, ‘With what then will you recompense kindness?’
     ‘Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness’ ” (Analects 14:36).

On the contrary, returning kindness for kindness is nothing special.  On this matter the doctrine of Christ clearly supersedes Confucius, for Jesus taught that evil should be repaid with kindness (Matt. 5:38-48; also Rom. 12:17-21).

Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies has no place in the schema of Confucius.  If every magistrate were to act so, wouldn’t all the criminals run wild and chaos destroy society?  Well, yes, actually.  But Jesus wasn’t talking to civil government authorities, but to individuals in their daily affairs:

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?”

Jesus: 1.  Confucius and pagans: 0.

Further on, Confucius relates hearsay about one of the five key reciprocal relationships that mark the virtue of the superior man.  (Spoiler: He never mentions the relationship of Creator to creature).

– “I have also heard that the superior man maintains a distant reserve towards his son” (Analects 16:13).

In his opinion, such an attitude seems fitting and proper to the dignity of a father for the culture of that time, but in reality distorts the healthy function of fatherhood, and fatherhood is vitally rooted in the nature of God Himself.  Compare this to the image of the Father we get from the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15.

Confucius lost his own father at the age of three.  One would imagine that that would have left a painful hole in his heart.  We also know that his father divorced his first wife because she only bore daughters and a disfigured son.  Confucius later lost his mother when he was a young adult.  Though he focused his philosophy around the importance of family and filial piety, he had no experience in caring for parents.  He got married at a young age and they had a son and daughter, but later his wife either died or they divorced.  So when he went traveling around the country for fourteen years, he did so without family, just some disciples.  Confucius had an estranged relationship with his children.  Buddha abandoned his wife and child.  And we all know Socrates had a notoriously nagging wife – though perhaps that was due to the fact that he spent his time gadflying in the streets instead of getting a real job.


On Attaining Truth and Righteousness

Is it not striking that the very thing Confucius was practically indifferent to discussing, and which Socrates never conceived, was the subject of supreme important to Jesus? – the rule of God in the lives of men.  In his parables and his commands, Jesus constantly enjoined his hearers and disciples to make this their one overriding passion and to obtain it at all costs.  As the King come to earth, he continually reminded them that the kingdom of God was at hand, spreading over the earth, and it was the primary duty of man therefore to seek above to all else to enter and embrace that kingdom and His righteousness (Matthew 6:33).

When Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God, he never implied a duality or some escapism like abandoning one’s focus on earthly relationships.  Instead, the heavenly perspective informs and guides out understanding of this world.  Loving God with all of one’s being and loving one’s neighbor was oneself is meant to be two sides of the same coin (Matthew 22:34-40).  Righteousness and the Kingdom are inseparable.

Jesus knew everything about this life as well as death.  Would one accuse Jesus of skimping on ritual or propriety?  Well, actually, yes, I suppose they often did so.  Nevertheless, there is no man who more fully understood knew the “Mandate of Heaven” (“My food is to do the will of Him who sent me”) and followed the heart of God’s law.  He did not slavishly conform to the traditions of man.

God is infinitely worthy of all our praise.  What is this insane injustice that His creation does not render to him the honor he deserves?  How is it that the man who claims to follow Christ does not fully yield his heart to the glory of Jesus?  How could we for a moment forget his bountiful blessings and focus instead on the fleeting and vain earthly pleasures, preferring video games or social media over and against the High King of Heaven?

Confucius was guilty of minimizing the glory of God.  For him, the goal to strive for was a virtuous life, but inwardly focused – like the man who stands at the podium to accept an award and devotes the majority of his speech to his own accomplishments with but a passing reference to the aid of Heaven. 

– “The Master said, ‘The superior man in everything considers righteousness to be essential. He performs it according to the rules of propriety. He brings it forth in humility. He completes it with sincerity. This is indeed a superior man’ ” (Analects 15:17).

– The Master said, “The object of the superior man is truth. Food is not his object. There is plowing - even in that there is sometimes want. So with learning - emolument may be found in it. The superior man is anxious lest he should not get truth; he is not anxious lest poverty should come upon him” (Analects 15:31).

A hearty amen.  Righteousness and truth are indeed worthy to be strived after, but outside of manners and mien, these values are left undefined.  For him, there is no transcendent standard from which to measure our definition of truth and righteousness.  This shortcoming leaves his ethical system open to interpretation. 

To hunger and thirst for wisdom and righteousness more than gold or silver or bread, like the Scriptures enjoin, is indeed of first importance, but unlike Confucius, the Scriptures set forth exactly what is meant and needed to be righteous and wise.  These are relational values.  For example, part of true righteousness is treating the poor well and not oppressing them.  But even more so, these abstract values are tied to our relationship with Creator God, walking with him and not resisting his word.  “To fear the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”  Righteousness comes from entrusting our lives to His rule.

Confucius would have agreed that one should defer to one’s conscious rather than blindly follow the next fellow higher up the hierarchical chain.  And yet, we are never given the answer of what would happen should we violate our conscious, as we often do.  Is there any consequence to our moral actions beyond that of government jurisdiction?  Is there such a thing as divine reward and punishment for such a thing as envy or pride or greed or lust?  If not, how can we pretend there is such a thing as true justice?  How would any of us actually know if we have become “superior men” or are still “mean men”?  Though Confucius often praised some of his contemporaries, he also can cast a fairly negative opinion on the moral condition of man.

– “I for my part have never yet seen one who really cared for goodness, nor one who really abhorred wickedness” (Analects 4:6).

– “As to being a divine sage or even a good man, far be it from me to make any such claim” (Analects 7:33).

– “The master said, the ways of the true gentleman are three. I myself have met with success in none of them” (Analects 14:30).

But that did not mean he did not think it attainable. 

– “The Master said, ‘Is goodness indeed so far away? If we really wanted goodness, we should find that it was at our side’” (Analects 7:9).

And yet, Confucius at other times seems to hint that goodness is not found in self-effort alone.  It is not something one attains (self-righteousness, if you will), but rather to be obtained from above. 

– “Heaven produced the virtue that is in me” (Analects 7:22). 

In short, a man of virtue is a rare thing to find, but not impossible.  To achieve it, one must have the help of Heaven.  But as for Confucius himself, he fell short of reaching such a standard. 

At any rate, Jesus in Matthew 19 (and Luke 18) responds that the only truly good teacher is divine.  Jesus proclaims that he alone is the good shepherd; all others are worthless and false teachers (John 10).

Elsewhere, Paul quotes the ancient psalms of King David to lay out,

“There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one […] and the way of peace they do not know.  There is no fear of God before their eyes.  Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.  Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.  This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:10-12, 17-24).

It is strange and sad that Confucius could come no closer to realizing the truth of the matter than seeing that there was some element of personal responsibility that man had to own up to: 

– “The Master said, ‘In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself’” (Mean, 14:5).

But neither does this surprise us.  Any ethic without an eternal reference is no different from being stuck in the Matrix of one’s own best guess at reality and human nature.  Jesus though brings forth truth as one who has power and authority.  There is the thunder of majesty in his words when he declares what is so in heaven and on earth, in life and in death. 


Of Life and Death

When Confucius or Socrates speak of death, we are left with nothing substantial to hold on to.  Confucius acknowledges the baseline of theology, that Heaven/God is benevolent, and it is possible to offend against him to the point of punishment, but not much beyond that.  Presumably he would imagine himself good enough to escape such a punishment, but again we have precious little of his thoughts on that, so it would be better to turn back to Socrates’ thoughts at this point.

I’m a great admirer of Plato and love to read his stories of the snarky brilliance of Socrates.  Nevertheless, it’s clear that their understanding of a righteous life was largely confined to heeding one’s conscience (or in Socrates’ case the “prophetic voice”) and the norms of society, and not any sense of having to answer to a holy God.  In this way, Socrates greatly overestimates his standing in light of what he could expect after death.  In his ignorance, he is far too confident of what awaits him.

In Plato’s Apology he tells his jury, “Moreover, we may hence conclude that there is great hope that death is a blessing. For to die is one of two things: for either the dead may be annihilated and have no sensation of anything whatever; or, as it is said, there is a certain change and passage of the soul from one place to another. And if it is a privation of all sensation, as it were, a sleep in which the sleeper has no dream, death would be a wonderful gain. […] If, therefore, death is a thing of this kind, I say it is a gain; for thus all futurity appears to be nothing more than one night.

“But if, on the other hand, death is a removal from hence to another place, and what is said be true, that all the dead are there, what greater blessing can there be than this, my judges? For if, on arriving at Hades, released from these who pretend to be judges, one shall find those who are true judges, and who are said to judge there. Minos and Rhadamanthus, Æacus and Triptolemus, and such others of the demigods as were just during their own life, would this be a sad removal? At what price would you not estimate a conference with Orpheus and Musæus, Hesiod and Homer? I indeed should be willing to die often, if this be true. For to me the sojourn there would be admirable, when I should meet with Palamedes, and Ajax son of Telamon, and any other of the ancients who has died by an unjust sentence. The comparing my sufferings with theirs would, I think, be no unpleasing occupation.

“But the greatest pleasure would be to spend my time in questioning and examining the people there as I have done those here, and discovering who among them is wise, and who fancies himself to be so but is not. At what price, my judges, would not any one estimate the opportunity of questioning him who led that mighty army against Troy, or Ulysses, or Sisyphus, or ten thousand others, whom one might mention, both men and women? with whom to converse and associate, and to question them, would be an inconceivable happiness. Surely for that the judges there do not condemn to death; for in other respects those who live there are more happy than those that are here, and are henceforth immortal, if at least what is said be true.”

Of course, what he omits is the third option – that the bar to paradise is high and those who have any stain of guilt and shame must be condemned to Tartarus.  This excluded middle is naturally far from his mind.  To dwell on it would be to despair.  In the first chapter of Romans, the apostle Paul put it directly when he said that universally men know the truth that God is just and punishes sin.  Jesus also tells us they hate this idea since their deeds are evil and would rather hide in darkness.  Therefore people suppress this truth in unrighteous so that they can go about and live as they like.

Later, Socrates relaxes in his cell with his friends before downing his cup of hemlock.  There’s a great touch in Plato’s Phaedo when his friends are remonstrated for their emotional reaction to his impending death.

“Until then the majority of us had been able to keep ourselves from crying reasonably well, but when we saw him drinking and that he had finished it … no longer. And my own tears poured out of me with the force of a flood, and I hid myself in shame and cried for myself—for truly I was crying not for him but for my own misfortune, that I was being deprived of a man like this as my friend.

“Crito had turned away even before I did, when he was unable to restrain his tears. Apollodoros had been crying throughout the entire time, and when he howled with grief and anger at that moment in particular, nobody who was present could help breaking down, except Socrates himself.

“And he [Socrates] said, ‘What a way to behave, you remarkable men! I sent the women away mainly for this reason, so that they would not make such an offensive sound, because I have heard that one must meet one's end in calmed silence. So be quiet and collect yourselves.’

“And when we heard this we were ashamed and ceased crying.”

Finally, to complete the picture, Socrates further gives his reasoning on why he can go calmly to his grave.  In Crito, he tells his friend that he is comforted by the guiding voice that whispers in his head.  He says that he knew what consequences to expect from his actions long ago and that his conscience is clear - he had made his bed and now he had no choice but to lie in it.  It’s very interesting too that here he explicitly mentions some sort of accountability to or opinions of “the princes of the world below”, presumably the great men (now judges) of the past.

Crito wishes Socrates to escape while he could and flee to another country that had a non-extradition treaty.  Thessaly perhaps.  Socrates retorts that such is the path of cowardice.

A true friend, Socrates says, would offer the following deathbed advice: “Think not of life and children first, and of justice afterwards, but of justice first, that you may be justified before the princes of the world below. For neither will you nor any that belong to you be happier or holier or juster in this life, or happier in another, if you do as Crito bids. Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of the laws, but of men. But if you go forth, returning evil for evil, and injury for injury, breaking the covenants and agreements which you have made with us, and wronging those whom you ought least to wrong, that is to say, yourself, your friends, your country, and us, we shall be angry with you while you live, and our brethren, the laws in the world below, will receive you as an enemy; for they will know that you have done your best to destroy us. Listen, then, to us and not to Crito.”

It was common for Greek thought to imagine the Underworld as a rather bland state of existence, the way Homer described it.  Most ordinary people and quite a few notable figures generally just moped around by themselves emo-style, while the exceptional folk were able to enjoy a more conscious state of awareness and fellowship.  If Socrates imagined himself good enough to make it to Elysium Fields or the Isles of the Blessed, then of course he had no need to fear death.  Worse case scenario, he would just be assigned a space with average folk and amble about Asphodel Meadows.  No big deal.  Although what Socrates called “the laws of the world below” are apparently none to friendly to promise-breakers. 

Before Confucius or Socrates, the Prophet Daniel spoke to the actual nature of the realm of the dead.  “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (12:2).

Paul of Tarsus even went to heaven (either physically or in a vision), and received from Christ firsthand knowledge of the afterlife. 

When staying with Phillip the Evangelist in Caesarea, a prophet named Agabus visited him.  He prophesied that if Paul continued in his mission to return to Jerusalem that he would be arrested by the Jewish leaders and given over to the Roman authorities so that they could put him to death.  Paul’s friends then urged him to stay away.

“Then Paul answered, ‘Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.’  When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said, ‘The Lord’s will be done.’  After this, we started on our way up to Jerusalem” (Acts 21:13-15).

So he could say, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21).


On the Words of God and Judgment to Come

Here is the conclusion to the matter.  A loving God is not silent, and we do not have to speculate about eternal things; the very Word of God came down to live among us. 

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.  The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Hebrews 1:1-3).

Jesus was not shy to speak clearly and urgently about the Day of the Lord, also known as the Day of Judgment.  In fact, he spoke about hell more than any other topic.  This was no armchair speculation or philosophical musing for him.  Full of the love of God, he declared the truth in the boldest of terms and made dire pronouncements on who is allowed entrance and who is cast out.

His parables about the Kingdom are double-edged: they set forth the importance of entering the Kingdom as well as the warning about the dire consequences for those who persist in their own self-centered sinfulness.  Despite all of our excuses, at the end of the day, evil is evil and the Judge of all the earth will do what is right and just.  A good and holy God cannot and will not wink at sin.  Will any man, be he a Socrates or Confucius, pretend to justify himself before such a King?  

And so the writer of Hebrews warns, “It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment […] Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.  How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?  For we know him who said, ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’  It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (9:27; 10:28-31).

More than a tenth of his teachings or half of Jesus’ parables are concerned with this warning.  Here are but a few examples.

“For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). 

“But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12). 

“Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). 

“The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matthew 13:41-43).

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:31-46).

With these terrifying images, we are given a command to repent and an invitation to come and receive forgiveness. 

Like a firefighter rushing from room to room to wake people up before the flames could reach them, Jesus tirelessly sought to rescue men from damnation.  Then, to fulfil his mission, in the ultimate expression of love he gave his life in the place of sinners as a sin offering to the Father.  As a perfect sacrifice on the cross, he bore the righteous wrath of God.

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; ‘by his wounds you have been healed.’ For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:24-25).

If God is so evident, so forthright in his word to us, so loving in his bearing on his back the punishment for sinners, it is a great error to presume to try to live our life separate (or rather against) his ways. 

If Confucius says he is ignorant and silent about the ways of God, then let us hear Jesus as he speaks the very word of God.  It is neither wise nor safe to continue to shut our ears to his call.  He has gone to the trouble to explain to us the truth about our condition and has loved us so wonderfully to provide the cure. 

"Your Story" Gospel video (日本語で)

Where did I come from?  Why am I here?  Where am I going?

This video is a great telling of the gospel as it deals with the "big questions."  It's also available in various languages.  Normally I wouldn't just re-post stuff like this (that's what Facebook or Tumblr is for), but I wanted to share this in a little more permanent way and maybe toss in a comment or two.

A minor note, but on a close listening, the "big questions" headers don't actually quite correspond with the content under each one.  Things about our purpose in life are raised under the "Where did I come from?" question, rather than "Why am I here?"  Also, the Japanese version is several minutes longer than the English version, so that may turn off a few of our more attention-challenged folks if you are sharing this video on the fly.

Regardless, I really like the word-picture of rotten rungs on a ladder as an apt description of how foolish it is to think of reaching heaven by a ladder.  Particularly effective is the image of a cloud above the person to symbolize the separation between them and God.  Works well with the word-picture of a black/dirty heart vs. how God and His Heaven are clean/pure.

And they managed to squeeze in a lot of Scripture - John 3:19; John 14:6; John 3:16; John 3:36; John 1:29; John 1:12; and John 6:37.  Kudos.


Your Story - Japanese from The Pocket Testament League on Vimeo.

How do you like this telling?

Gleanings from Shinto Theology

'Shinto theology' might almost seem like a contradiction in terms since there is little sacred corpus of writings or core doctrine to shape itself around.  The Kojiki and Nihongi are the closest to that, but even they were not counted in that capacity until the revisionist revival of 'National studies' (kokugaku) of the Tokugawa period.

Like most primitive/animistic/shamanistic religions, the emphasis in Shinto is more on getting ceremonially cleansed or blessed or protected from evil spirits by offerings or the help of exorcism rituals.  The fear/power continuum is the key religious impulse, albeit not from a cognitive standpoint.  In other words, one does not rely on logic when purchasing 'demon insurance' in the form of a lucky charm.  It just seems like the thing to do.  Just in case, you know.  Probably none of it is real, they think, and I don't really want to bother with it, but anyway this little transaction is all I need to worry about.

The National revival scholars, starting with Motoori Norinaga (1730-1801), are absurdly, well, nationalistic in their rhetoric.  They don't worry about petty things like logical chains of reasoning.  Their approach is all about forceful, gut-level propaganda in their effort to purify Japan from all foreign influence like Buddhism and Confucianism.   

A notable exception I came across is a short portion of Hirata Atsutane's (1776-1843) Kodō taii on the Creator God, derived largely from his exposure to contraband Matteo Ricci's missionary works from China and whatever Dutch sources he had access to.  I'm not sure if we can properly classify him as a theologian, but nevertheless his claim is especially striking:

If we examine the origins of the name Mi-musubi given to two of the gods, it is clear from facts recorded in the annals of the divine age that the name stems from their miraculous creative power.  We are also informed by the positive declaration of the gods of the sun and the moon that Takami-musubi must be created with the creation of Heaven and earth, that he is a god of incomparable power, and that he without a doubt resides in Heaven and reigns over the world.  Despite the pellucidly clear nature of these truths, scholars whose minds have become damaged by Chinese and Indian learning (as well as people who in their ignorance display impious disbelief) do not understand that the very fact of their own birth is immediately attributable to the creative power of this god.  They persist in their skepticism and declare that the ancient truths are merely legends peculiar to Japan which they refuse to believe.  These truths, however, are by no means confined to Japan.  In many other countries it is believed that the seed of man and all other things owe their existence to the powers of this god.

As proof of this we may cite different foreign traditions. In the ancient Chinese legends, where this god is referred to as Shang Ti or T'ien Ti, it is recorded that he resides in Heaven and reigns over the world, and that man was created by him.  Moreover, the legend states that it was Shang Ti who implanted in men's hearts such true principles as humanity, righteousness, decorum, and wisdom.  This legend is preserved in general form in ancient works like the Book of Odes, the Book of Documents, and the Analects, as all can plainly see who take the trouble to look.  However, since the Chinese are of an irreverent disposition, some perverted scholars assert that the ancient legends are merely parables, and voice other such theories.  I have elsewhere dealt with this matter in detail [in New Discussion of the Gods].

In the ancient Indian legends the god Musubi is called Brahma the Creator.  Here again we find him described as residing in the extremely lofty heaven of the thirty-three devas, and it is stated that he reigns over the world and that the heavens and the earth, man and all things were created by him.  The most ancient traditions have it that no god is as holy as he.  However, in later times a man named Shākyamuni appeared who invented what he called Buddhism, a religion to suit his own tastes.  He deceived men with his so-called divine powers, which were actually a kind of black magic.  The false opinion was spread that Buddha was more sacred than Brahma, and even learned priests were deceived by the lien.  No one now is left in India who knows the truth.

Far to the west of India there are numerous other countries, and in each of them there are traditions of a god of Heaven who created the heavens and earth, man and all things.  This may be known from reading Dutch books.

Thus, in all countries, as if by common consent, there are traditions of a divine being who dwells in Heaven and who created all things.  These traditions have sometimes become distorted, but when we examine them they afford proof of the authenticity of the ancient traditions of the Imperial Land.  There are many gods, but this god stands at the center of them and is holiest of all. Ϯ

I can almost hear Paul at the Areopagus: "As some of your own poets have said..."

Now, I'm no Shinto scholar, but I dare say he is playing a bit fast and loose with his texts and conflates Takami-musubi and Kami-musubi into one being.  Why would he do such a thing?  To me, it seems a fair induction to assume that in examining other cultures, like the Chinese, Indian, and Judeo-Christian countries, he found in their earliest records a description of a Creator God, a henotheistic ruler who is missing from the earliest Japanese records.  Such a concept made sense to Atsutane, so not be left out, and in order to bolster Shintoism, he simply read between the lines and wrote him in.

Do we have any evidence that Shinto once held a belief in a Creator God somewhere back in the midst of antiquity?  I doubt it.  But I'm not one to be particular about historical proof, considering Shinto could  be related to the shamanistic folk religion of the Ainu, with their Creator God Kandakoro Kamui (sounds like takami/kami), or neighboring regions like China and Korea, or else at some point derived from a family or tribe that came from Shem, son of Noah.  All ancient peoples can look back to Adam and Eve's recognition of the High God and see how such observances began to deteriorate and become corrupted as early as Cain and his unacceptable form of sacrifice and worship, and as chaotically as dispersal of the Tower of Babel.

I need to find a more complete copy of this writing, but if Atsutane was serious about his Creator God assertions, then I wonder why he never made more of a deal about it.  The ramifications are staggering and far-reaching.  It would mean the unraveling of Shinto's animistic practices if followed to its logical conclusions.  A God so wise and powerful and loving so as to bring about the wonder of this world would surely have much to say to humans about the life he wants us to live and desire to reveal to us marvelous insights into his character.  Did any of this occur to Atsutane?  Did it drive him to his knees to seek out this Unknown God wrapped away in the far-off clouds of glory?  Or was it all just an intellectual exercise for him?  How about for you?


Ϯ Excerpted from Sources of Japanese Tradition, Volume II. Compiled by: William Theodore De Bary, Ryūsaku Tsunoda, Donald Keene.

The rumors are true...

In an effort to prevent an international scandal, and after pointed talks with the State Department, the Japanese Diet has decided to grant a reprieve and allow yours truly back into the country on the condition that I never again attempt to misuse His Imperial Majesty's vending machines or operate a sushi truck without proper licensing.  Also, the stipulation is that I must swear not to reveal anymore secrets of the yamabushi masters.

Fair enough.

I'm going back to Japan!  We're talking precise-to-the-second bullet trains, pine-dark mountain views, mist-shrouded cliffs, and the precious people.

I know, you're thinking, like, what could be cooler than that?

Besides a Jack Burton action figure, that is.

... and, right, of course, Maki Shizusawa jamming on the electric guitar.

Nevertheless, #3 on the Most Awesome List is my heading back to Japan after a five-year stint in Houston.

I'll be back in the Kansai area - Osaka to be exact.  Home of Japanese comedy and drama.  A stone's throw from Nishinomiya.  If you're thinking of how things went south last time, I'm confident this time will be different.

For starters, I'm staying far away from dragons this go 'round.

Um, yeah, let's turn the page, shall we?

So I'll be working a lot with university students, facilitating community, addressing the social issues of identity/belonging, and all the other stuff I've been going on about in past articles.  (Yes, all of those posts were converging for a reason).  I'm pretty stoked to be working with a crack international team, all of us specialists in our fields, seasoned operatives. 

On the downside, this will probably mean I'll be more disconnected from the typical Houston events I used to share on this blog.  I'm glad to have guest bloggers send stuff in, of course, but I imagine you'll be seeing this space look a little more like "Sunrise Osaka Japanese Network" from here on out.  I could start a separate blog for it, but I wouldn't count on it.  Most folks that view this site usually aren't even from Houston.

Only got a few days now.  Much as I'd normally like to fade into the shadows without much fanfare, I've had a great time with all the 別れ会 (farewell parties) and trying not to feel too awkward accepting all the 餞別 (farewell gifts/money).  Like they say, still all pretty surreal.  I don't think it'll all quite hit me until I'm on the plane, or frolicking amid the falling cherry blossoms, or running hard with the hot, sulfurous breath of wingèd creatures on my neck. 

Got my visa in hand, one-way plane ticket in the other, and a dying prayer on my lips.  So in the immortal words of our beloved Spike Spiegel:

(~ Olly Moss copyright.)

                                                                        SEE YOU SPACE COWBOY ...

Moonwalker: Astronaut Charlie Duke

If you're looking for something awesome to see Friday night...

Astronaut Charlie Moss Duke, Jr. give a talk and testimony at ACF this Friday night. 
Dinner at 6:30, speaking 7:30-9:30PM.  Free, by the way.  Lots of good friends to see there too.
 
Or, as they put it:
宇航員Charles Moss Duke Jr. 佈道會
時間：3月22日（週五）7:30PM
地點：First Presbyterian Church
5300 Main Street, Houston, TX 77004
主要講員及內容：Charles Moss Duke Jr. 1972駕駛Apollo 16登陸月球
聯絡電話：713-204-2982

Doubt and Despair in the Shadowlands

Speaking of trying to answer the questions people pose, like “Why are you in Japan?” or “Why did you come here?”, sometimes I just wish I could show them a video or concrete image to show what I mean and not have to say anything.  I often do a terrible and awkward job of trying to explain myself. 

Actually, I did put together a slideshow that I've shown to about a hundred or so people.  But in the moment of conversation a quick reply is needed.

Were I alert, I would like to answer them something like, “Do you know the leading cause of death among youth men (aged 22-44) and women (aged 15-34)?  From 1998 to 2011, Japan has seen over 30,000 fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters kill themselves each year.  People give up hope and destroy their life by jumping from buildings and hanging themselves and other means.  By God’s grace, I aim to share the hope of life with them.”

Recently I came across a video that nicely elucidates one tip of the iceberg from a secular point of view.  I hope many people will watch it.  I hear it’s already been making a big impact.  I would love to know what you think about it.



But more than that, consider what if someone is brought back from the edge of the cliff and resumes a “normal” life of work, family, etc. and goes on to live a long life.  Maybe like many in Japan they even live to be over a hundred, and then die and go to hell for eternity.

Suddenly, the importance of that suicide prevention becomes meaningless in the big scheme of things as their lives are yet empty, meaningless, and “righteousnessless”, without true identity, individuality, significance, and belonging, separated still from a trust relationship with their loving Maker, who is the Lord God Almighty.  One cannot save someone from physical death, without also sharing true life with them so that they are protected from “the second death” (Revelation 2:11; 20:6; 20:14; 21:8).  A status quo life merely means going about underneath the just condemnation and wrath of God (John 3:16-21, 36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:1-3).

“Be merciful to those who doubt,” Jude 1:22-23 counsels, and, “Rescue others by snatching them out of the fire [from the flames of judgment]. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating even the garment stained by the flesh [the sins that contaminate/pollute/defile their lives].”

In learning Japanese and researching issues like this, I’ve learned a few helpful words along the way.  “Ikigai” (生き甲斐), for example, means one’s purpose in life.  Japanese may not care what it is so long as they have any kind of hobby to keep them occupied.  They are usually doubtful that one could have certainty about finding the true meaning of why we have been given life on this earth.  “Inochi no monban” (いのちの門番) means a gatekeeper of life, one who recognizes the warning signs of someone who might be thinking of suicide and can intervene and bring help.  That’s what I want to be.

I know the gatekeeper (John 10:7-10, 27-30; 14:6) and he is full of loving-kindness.  Indeed, He provides the light of life for the whole family (Acts 16:25-34; Psalm 36:9).  People talk about “professional” help as real help or serious help, and certainly there are benefits to having some training in counseling, but I’ve never known a soul whose life has been transformed like the countless folks I’ve met that Jesus has changed (Psalm 30:11).  I’ve gotten to talk to several Japanese doctors of a Buddhist/humanist worldview about what they might say to persuade someone to not take his life - especially someone with no family.  They admitted they had no compelling reason to give why the person should choose life.  Even if they believe in the soul/spirit or some afterlife, there is no place in their understanding for real hope.

The One who knows the depths of our hearts (Psalm 139:1-2) says that He “is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit” (Psalm 34:18), “He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds” (Psalm 147:3), and He even went so far as to take up our infirmities and carry our sorrows (Isaiah 53:4).

In their place, He promises true joy and true peace to comfort us in the midst of our troubles (John 14:27; 16:20, 22, 33).  “For He Himself has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’ So we may boldly say: ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?’ ” (Hebrews 13:5-6).  Together with my Japanese brothers and sisters in the Lord, I have known that peace and comfort He gives - hope for the heart.  It sure beats a prescription for Xanax.

Paul of Tarsus also was well acquainted with the great crushing weight of alienation, rejection, persecution.  His letters are filled with his reflections on such trials and how God has proved His faithfulness over and over:

“We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt we had received the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us again. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many” (2 Corinthians 1:8-11).

P.S. - I would be remiss if I did not include this precious vision that's restoring hope among the disaster-ravaged region.  We can see His life at work in these survivors (2 Corinthians 4:8-12).