If Christianity or Buddhism will not establish paradise on the very ground on which they stand, what is the use of religion? Emancipate the principle of God from the Church, change heaven and the residence of the preacher into an electric car which runs up and down the street. Realize the spirit of religion in international trade, in diplomacy, in politics, and so forth. When religion becomes the principle of human life, true significance of religion will be realized for the first time. The preachings about God or a future for the dead who can be compared to meat which has been boiled to make soup, is out of date and useless. One who was after no good, nay had deceived the world, God and even himself, during his life, may become a pig or a snake as he likes. Is the religion which cannot even redeem people in actual life able to redeem them after life? In short, religion must become the actual power and principle of the reconstruction of life and the world which are vital and putting aside the vacant conception of God and nominal idealism. In order to attain such an existence, religion itself must become the principle of the unity of the three mental elements and the leader of the individual, home, society, state, and the world, which means the generalization of religion into every aspect of life. The difference between the religion which has to be reconstructed and the religion which is awakened consists in these attitudes towards actual life.1

1 Satomi, The Japanese Civilization, its Significance and Realization, pp. 1-8, 77-117. Kegan Paul, London.

}

VI

THE MIDDLE PATH

THE thought which greatly values differences, or attaches special importance to equality, or likes new ideas, or the thought which likes old things and hates new, all these tendencies are nothing but one-sided theories which are the results of what Bacon called idola specus; lo, how the present world is full of relative and reactive thoughts!

Let us take a few examples. What is democratic politics? It is constitutional politics and politics by the House of Representatives, which means the politics of the Government which is trusted by the majority of the nation. In other words, it signifies an administration agreed upon by the majority of the members of the House of Representatives. This political idea would give equal rights of speech without taking into account the differences of quality of the people who organize the State, except that the difference between the majority and minority is recognized. As a matter of course, democratic political thought expects special knowledge of politics in the people who are in charge of administration, and this thought gives rise to an apology that bureaucratism does not always indicate that the State is not democratic.

But democracy limits the competency of the House

of Peers as far as possible. This gives more power to the representatives of the nation and to the nation in general as far as legislation is concerned. So it is obvious that it recognizes the differences of administration, and ignores these differences in regard to legislation. This is indeed the materialistic one-sided thought which attaches importance to number and quantity. That is why I called democracy a thought of foolish majority which is the result of material impulse.

In opposition to democracy, the politics of wise men are of much account as regards the quality of the people. In the state where there is the right of property and differences of titles between the peers and common people, it is quite natural that special right is given to meritorious people in a sense, for instance, to peers, rich people, learned men, and politicians. We must not forget that there are several faults in the system of concessions which is recognized by the State. But, at the same time, it is evident that there are many dangers in democracy which set the quality of man at naught and attach much importance to the idea of quantity. In this sense it must be recognized that politics by wise men contain much truth, nevertheless, the idea of number cannot be ignored because it is natural that the number must be regarded as an important problem among the wise men themselves. Look at pacifism. Pacifists argue about the possibility of peace on the ground of people's fear and their reflections on the disasters of war, the growth of democracy, the development of humanism, and the extension of economical relations throughout the world. I am not always in opposition to these declarations.

None the less, I wonder whether pacifists have ground enough to deny the facts which disprove pacifism.

Militarism takes an opposite view to pacifism and it declares the facts of the impotency of international arbitration, in the present condition of international competition, insincerity of diplomacy, and necessity of self-supporting national economical policy.

Pacifism considers human nature optimistically, and consequently it attaches importance to the ability of reconstruction, while militarism takes quite an opposite

view.

Further, we can see the relative thought in every way. Individualists will exclaim that any invention, any reconstruction, or any arrangement could not be realized without awakened consciousness in the individual. Individualists assert individualism on the two grounds, that the individual is the real being as the subject of consciousness, and the modern age has reached the awakening of the individual.

No civilization has been realized except through individuality, that is through individuals making society or country the background to their lives. In this sense, to oppress the individual causes the retrogression of civilization. The historical facts of Sparta are one of the good examples of this kind. Traditionalism which looks upon the Bible and Aristotle as the absolute standard of truth, oppressed the authority and freedom of individual. Was the so-called Dark Age not the result of it? Let us turn our eyes to China. It was in China that the individual creation and discovery of logics were prohibited, making" It is not the way of previous ages" the standard of civilization. Owing to such a view, China was forced to retrogress

gradually and fall into the ignorance and dullness of the present days. Is not this true?

Social development has always been accomplished by excellent individualism, for instance, Smith's freedom of profession, Luther's freedom of faith, Rousseau's freedom of politics, and so forth, are indeed the outcomes of individualism. In the above sense and aspect individualism is right, nevertheless it makes itself absolute, and has no broad mind to lead it to unite with others. In other words, individualism is liable to turn to egoism and be the cause of destruction of the co-operative system.

Socialism takes quite an opposite view to individualism. However individual genius may be, Rome was not built in a day. An achievement of genius is the outcome, in a sense, of sacrifice of the flesh and blood of many nameless heroes. The individual's work has always been achieved by the social assistance which has been accumulating force for a long time. We are open to conviction for the recognition of truth which is contained in one side of socialism, nevertheless, we must not overlook its one-sidedness. Turn your eyes to the relative thought, those of optimism versus pessimism, capitalism versus labour, hedonism versus stoicism, and so forth; how relative they are, and yet they are not the principle of unity. Can they ever be the truth which will eventually be kept by people? There is no other way than to take a further step towards generosity whereby all heretical views will be brought into unison.

We must realize the thought of harmonious perfection taking precautions against relative and reactive thought which is apt to make its own conclusions