Great Construction

Theory of Method Versus Theory of Result

     As it is a matter for regret that the Johrei therapy of healing disease now being offered by the Japan Kannon Church is likely to be misunderstood by members of the general public, I would like to address these misinterpretations here in detail.
     The wonderful results from healing shown by the Kannon Church Johrei therapy have recently become known to a large section of the general public, but because I still continue to hear that there exists a great amount of misunderstanding on the part of many, particularly by one group of specialists, I write this essay to enlighten all.
     In the complaints of those who have so far criticized us, there is not one word about our results being fewer or worse than those produced by medical science. The point of contention is said to be that our method is mistaken. The method is mistaken because it is taken to be unscientific and superstitious. I refute this criticism. When it is said that our method is unscientific and superstitious, they say so because we do not use that which is material such as instruments and drugs. Such an assertion, moreover, is not unreasonable. Not unreasonable because the object of therapy, the physical body, is taken by these critics to be animalistic and regarded as material. To which we state that the human body is not merely material, but that although invisible to the eye there is also spirit, and that what consists of elements of both the spiritual and the physical is the human being. Furthermore, we continue by saying that spirit predominates and that the movement of spirit, that is, volition, propels the physical body. Needless to say, these two assertions show the difference between a materialistic interpretation and a spiritual one. In simple terms, it is the difference between the predominance of the physical over the spiritual and the predominance of the spiritual over the physical.
     Accordingly, those who advocate a physical interpretation heal material with the material. In contrast, we heal spirit with spirit. To determine which of these two approaches is right and which is wrong, how to form a definite conclusion—this must be the key to resolution of the question. As a condition for determining without any error whatsoever the right method, no other way is there than to base the determination on actual results.
     As to the procedure for determining the correct approach, whereas many find it quite easy to accept the materialistic interpretation that takes as its point of reference substance which is visible with the eye, in contrast is how troublesome it is found that not easily accepted is the spiritual approach that takes as its reference point something akin to nothing which is not visible to the eye. Taking advantage of this difference in ease to understanding, those who always censure us never refer to our results and always criticize our method. Since their criticism concerns the physically visible, acceptance comes as a matter of course. However, the facts concerning the methods for healing the sick are that regardless of the extent to which instruments and drugs may be used, patients are not cured as opposed to our use of no instruments or drugs of any kind where we merely hold the palm of the hand over the patient and are able to manifest astonishing results of healing. In short, one method is logical but does not cure while the other is not logical but cures. The former’s primary emphasis is method; the latter’s, results. The point of this difference deserves attention. Now, the answer to the question of whether method theory is right or wrong or result theory is right or wrong is rather obvious.
     When this argument is given more thorough attention, it probably leads to the following. That is, even if the method that does not produce results is scientific, since it does not actually benefit, then the conclusion must be that such a method is not correct science. In contrast, if the way that emphasizes results does produce results, it is the correct science that actually does benefit. The only difference between the two methods is of that between what is visible and what is not visible; the former being visible and nonscientific, the latter being invisible and scientific.
     If the points of my argument are in error, they should be refuted, but if a rebuttal cannot be made and one is persuaded, hereafter the methodological argument should probably be withdrawn and initiated a vigorous debate of material healing versus spiritual healing based only on result theory. Thus can be anticipated the development of a new culture that truly benefits humanity.

Hikari, Issue 19, July 23, 1949
    translated by cynndd

　　　　　　　　＊　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊　　　　　 　　　　　　　　＊


“Hôhôron to Kekkaron” was reprinted with minor revisions on page 73 of Narratives, Jikan Library, Volume 12 (Jikan Sôsho Daijûnihen Jikan Setsuwashû), January 30, 1950 [Essays / E25-055 on this site]. The Hikari, Issue 19 version has appeared previously in translation. The citation is given below for reference.

     “Methods and Results,” A Hundred Teachings of Meishusama, page 131, no date.