E26079

     The title of this essay comes from Buddhism, but its significance is applicable even today. As the Chinese ideograms for the phrase “Four Noble Truths” suggest, when sufferings accumulate, that is, when they increase, one can lose the way. Human beings who have much suffering may despair, and some, with their backs to the wall, may do anything. Thus, they get to a point where they lose their path. It is often said that there are two types of thieves, the truly crafty individuals, and then those who, plagued by poverty and still knowing right from wrong, commit criminal acts in desperation. Even among ladies of the evening, there are those who enjoy what they do, even though they do not really have to do it, and then there are those who do what they do only as the last resort.
     Such social defects are made use of and are exploited by communism. As a political ideology, communism seeks to create conditions where no one despairs or suffers. Such is a fundamental policy for reducing crime and maintaining public order. The phrase, “A secure livelihood is a precondition for peace of mind,” aptly illustrates this point. World Messianity’s ideal of eliminating disease, poverty, and conflict has no other meaning than the reduction of criminality and the maintenance of order. Because health is the foundation of all, the way to resolving social problems is to increase the number of healthy individuals.
     The second part of the title, “divine law and propriety,” also applies to the present. “Divine law” ” is also known as “the way,” “the path,” and “the way of the law.” The path is such when all things accord with reason. It is when all is not within reason, not in order, that there are problems among human beings, disharmony in the family, and disorder in society. The word “law” pertains not only to the rules that human beings fashion, but also to the laws of God. These laws are not visible to the eye but are absolute and no one is immune to them. In fact, all disasters and calamities having to do with human beings are punishments that are caused by breaking God’s laws. These punishments are more terrifying than those of human laws and there are no exceptions. Of course, the death penalty may apply and whether it takes form as death from disaster or from accident or death by sickness, all are the punishment of death for breaking divine laws. There are laws for everything and everyone. Laws could be considered a form of standard, of order. In simple terms, they determine what people should do and think. For example, politicians should do what politicians should do; educators should do what educators should do; men of religion, men of religion; artists, artists; bureaucrats, bureaucrats; businessmen, businessmen; and doctors, males, females, and so on. All human beings have that which they should do and that which they should not do. When these guidelines are observed, all goes well and flourishes. “Do not go beyond the laws of nature,” a phrase from old has its meaning in this sense.
     Propriety is probably the concept most appropriate for people today. In aspects of propriety our contemporaries lag far behind those of the past. I meet many people everyday, but I really cannot say that even one in ten behaves properly. Members conduct themselves perceptibly better towards me, but in their conduct with each other, I still see much room for improvement, so I hope you will all work on this point.
     In the complex world we live in, we cannot conduct ourselves properly as we like or we should, so to a certain extent lapses in etiquette cannot be helped, but what deserves close attention is not to confuse so-called democratic behavior for etiquette. Many young people do not distinguish between the higher, intermediate, and lower, and this is troubling. Of course, the distinctions made in the feudalistic era between warriors, farmers, artisans, and people of commerce were mistaken but the excess of today’s equality gone awry is also mistaken. Especially so in school education. Because of an excess of self-indulgence, the distinction between teacher and pupil is not apparent, a point that should be considered by teachers. The militaristic style of prewar Japanese education will not do, but neither will the laxness of today. What is important is to keep neutral, leaning to neither extreme and maintaining moderation. Education, needless to say, must be based on these principles. The meaning of propriety lies here, and since the ancients already have expounded astutely on this subject, contemporary people could do well to not shame our predecessors.

The essay “Kujumetsudo Dôhô Reisetsu” was included in the posthumous anthology Tengoku no Ishizue, Volume 4, published in 1960, but much later when the contents of all five volumes of the series were put together and published, this essay was not included. Therefore, it did not appear in the English translation, Foundation of Paradise, which is based on the combined Japanese edition. A translation of “Kujumetsudo Dôhô Reisetsu” appears as “’Kuju-metsudo’ and ‘Doho-reisetsu’” in the book, Meishu and His Teachings, page 56. This book bears no date but it has been estimated to have been published around 1965.