Ethics; religious ethics; exile; Judaism; comparative religious thought
摘要
While interest in Maimonides’ (1136 – 1204) thought and influence remains high among scholars, he has never been placed in a hypothetical conversation with any East Asian thinker. Similarly, Shinran (1173 – 1262) has been compared with some Christian thinkers (i.e. Calvin and lately Heidegger), yet his thought has never been compared with the thought of any Jewish thinker. This dissertation focuses on these two medieval thinkers: Shinran, founder of Japanese True Pure Land Buddhism (Jōdo Shinshū) and Maimonides, Jewish philosopher, rabbi, community leader and physician. This comparison takes into account Shinran’s and Maimonides’ respective exilic conditions and demonstrates that this experience was instrumental in the development of some of their views. When Maimonides’ views, informed by the Aristotelian privileging of the rational, are juxtaposed with those of Shinran, informed by Eastern tradition embedded in Indian, Chinese and Japanese medieval thought, we are forced to re-examine some of the premises that are often assumed to be universal. This juxtaposition reinforces the universality of the human desire to attain happiness, although understood differently by these two thinkers. Second, this analysis points to the fact that their respective views concerning happiness are embedded in the mechanisms that shaped human character; this is exemplified not only in their thought but also their behavior. and the way their respective environments of displacement accentuated, attuned and sensitized their construction of ethics in terms of “otherness.” This dissertation uses an interdisciplinary approach, building on, rather than discarding or neglecting, the strengths of a disciplinary model, which allows for integrating knowledge from philosophy, religious studies and theology. Specific attention, based on detailed textual analysis, is paid to the following themes: Shinran’s view on Amida Buddha, his theories of shinjin, nenbutsu, and hakarai and his conceptualization of ethics; Maimonides’ views on God, human nature, human rationality and the role of the commandments. Comparing these themes allows us to argue that their construction of ethics is greatly affected by their views on human nature. This comparison demonstrates further that their approach to the “other,” based on their view on human nature, informs their reliance upon normative requirements that reflect tolerance and acceptance. Finally, it points out that their views on human nature and their subsequent articulation of a number of concepts are implicitly colored by their respective experiences of their own exilic conditions. This thematic juxtaposition of their thought provides a more nuanced understanding of such issues as inclusion and exclusion and demonstrates that Shinran’s and Maimonides’ thoughts have contemporary relevance with respect to issues of tolerance and pluralism.
