延原時行歌集「命輝く」（第2195回）（梅雨の中の七夕まつり） - 延原時行歌集「命輝く」（「番町出合いの家」鳥飼）

　　　　　　　　　　延原時行歌集「命輝く」（第2195回）

「復活の家出発進行――感謝無限の旅一歩一歩」（２１８−６）復活やの歌、宇宙のぞの歌、祈り道の歌、過日はやの歌、このところの歌、英文二新著の歌、今朝がたやの歌、第一義・第二義の歌、御友生き方の歌、嬉しきの歌、母校に翔ぶ日の歌、この道やの歌、於Claremontの歌、友方にの歌、カブ講演に寄せての歌、心にぞ暖かき雪降りしきるの歌、ホ氏や言ふの歌、会に出でての歌、西田言ふの歌、間主体intersubjectiveの歌、Room128にて早朝の歌　朝8時Mudd & Blaisdell Hall (宿舎)前にてSupershuttle待ちつつの歌、ANA機上にて思ひたるの歌(6月9日帰国)、人生はの歌。(2015年6月1日〜10日)

　　　　　　　　　　　〇(6月7日）西田言ふの歌四首

　　　西田言ふ絶対無のぞ場所こそはエコロジーのや淵源ぞかし

　　　エコロジー強調すればするほどや基準点なくトートロジー化す

　　　我妻や往く朝言へる最高の幸せ実にも誠言の葉

　　　かく書けば胸暖かき雪ぞ降る絶後笑み増す言の葉やそも

　　　　　　　　　　　　間主体intersubjectiveの歌

　　　御友はぞ間主体的人格ぞ間主体的場をぞ伝ふる

　　　間主体成すものやこそ場所とぞや御友なりけり間に御父

　　　御友はや御父に聴くや友と呼ぶ間主体のぞ両翼飛翔（備考：此処にはやthe transcendent pole of intersubjectivityとthe immanent, communitarian poleとありと、ルーヴァン大学のPh.D.candidate Valerian Mendonca (India), “An Intersubjective Understanding of the God-World-Human Relationship: The Relevance of Teilhard’s Theistic Teleology and Whitehead’s Self-Constituting Societies for the Reconceptualising of the Ho Christian Worldview as Communion”に論評せし痕跡あり。6日のことなり）　　　

　　　　　　　　　〇(6月8日）Room128にて早朝の歌十首

　　　昨日は突如講演発動すものの見事に話し言葉や（備考：28頁のペーパー用意し、Honnold Libraryにて20部コピー作成し、Track 6：The Role of Whitehead in Indigenizing Christianityのメンバーとおもなる友方に進呈したるも、6月7日Track 6の最後のセッション〆の役割任されし故、ペーパーは一切見ず、突如”Thinking Seriously about Ecology"なる演説をなせり。快調の一時間演説となれり。間にメンバーの質問あり、答へつつ進めり。我生涯会心のの英語演説となれり。人方の良き評言有難し。のちに6月1１日Dr. Cobbへの電子書簡認め、13日重要なる神学的お応えいただく、我13日これに謝せり。以下の如し：

(1) Nobuhara, June 11:　Dear Dr. Cobb, Friends and Colleagues, When you referred in your important address at the Conference Plenary: “A Whiteheadian response to the Global Crisis,” on June 5, 2015 at Bridges Auditorium, to the idea that various ideas and movements (secular and religious, academic and communitarian) in today’s world regarding Ecology are “interdependent,” I noticed that your reference to the Mahayana Buddhist idea of pratitya-samutpada or dependent co-origination (Jpn., engi) in your book (Japanese trans. mine in 1985): Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) was re-affirmed as crucially vital in any observation in any worldly and metaphysical context. If that is the case, the whole background of this notion in conjunction with the Buddhist emptiness (sunyata) has to be re-emphasized in reference to today’s Ecology, I presume. That is to say, Emptiness realizes itself in and as pratitya-samutpada or dependent co-origination because Emptiness is emptiness insofar as it empties itself.

I say this because it seems to me that at the present moment Ecology is tending to be an ideology as well as an important worldwide movement, just like Socialism and Interreligious Dialogue were in the past. These three are to be called “Zeitgeists” of the three centuries, the 19th, 20th, and 21st. I presented in our Track of Section VI: The Role of Whitehead in Indigenizing Christianity a paper entitled “Divine Ecozoics and Whitehead’s Adventure or Resurrection Metaphysics in Tandem with Ryokan.” Please find attached my document of the paper. I didn’t read the paper; but I spoke of it, given an ideal situation of discussions pretty hot and alive with Andre Cloots presiding, with my mentor at Leuven, Professor Van der Veken, and with my colleagues from India, the Philippines, and Taiwan being interdependently intuitive and talkative. The theme of my speechi was, I might say, something like “Thinking Seriously about Ecology.”

Ecology, if it is not reflected upon seriously, would tend to b a tautology if it lacks a point of reference. Ecology is important. Why so? Because it is important for such and such a reason. But the primary reason why Ecology tends to be a tautology is that it is basically Ecology of the World. People don’t go beyond the world to speak of it. Why don’t we include Ecology of God in our reference to Ecology? I think Thomas Berry might have wanted to critially review Ecology when he invented his neologism “Ecozoic” for describing a geological epoch following the Cenozoic Era; and it signifies something like “Eco or Oikos, standing in Greek for a house or a dwelling place, plus Zoe meaning life.

In order to think seriously about Ecology we might have to refer back to the most important item during the age of Interreligious Dialogue, Buddhist Emptiness as it empties itself. Our Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida spoke of the Place of aboslute Nothingness. He relied upon the Eastern (originally the Indian) perspective of emptiness and thought of it from the perspective of “field.” At the base of his metaphysics was, I think, the perception like this which Prof. Shizuteru Ueda mentions in his Works, II (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2002, p. 144): Emptiness/world. The slach “/” is God. I have been trying to envisage this perception by way of my threefold metaphysics: (1) God is loyal to Emptiness/Creativity; (2) Emptiness empties itself; and (3) God is the only one in the universe who can and does actually evoke loyalty in us creatures. Quite recently I added to the three principles my new discovery to the effect that the one who is loyal to the Divine loyalty is the Great Friend appearing in John 15: 15. The function of the Great Friend in the universe is to reciprocally relate the kingdom of heaven and the world. Jesus’ words attend to it: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5: 48).

Whitehead’s metaphysics of the Great Companion—the Fellow Sufferer Who Understands is well known (see PR, 351). Also, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote two lines of his final thought three days before his death, 7 April, 1955: “The Universe is centered. Christ is its Center” (The Future of Man, New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1964, p. 324)/

I short, I am just wondering if you could combine your reference to the interdependent dynamics of Ecologies and the idea of Emptiness/world. Thank you.

Cordially,
Toki

(2) Cobb, June 13: Dear Toki, I delight in your insights and your theological creativity. I certainly continue to find a remarkable similarity between Whitehead’s creativity and Buddhist pratitya samutpada. They both imply that there is no substantial self and thus a certain kind of emptiness. Whitehead, however, prizes the connection and cumulation of value made possible the ordering experiences into a living person. I think there are some Buddhist traditions that have analogous values, but certainly not all. Sometimes the emphasis on “emptiness” seems to count against the cumulation of value, but it need not do so. John

(3) Nobuhara, June 13: Dear John, I thank you very much for this clarification because it has made clear that your address was pointing toward the importance of the connection and cumulation of value made possible the ordering experiences of various persons and communities involved in the Ecology movements, such as were seen so gigantic and marvelously shown at Claremont Conference in conjunction with IPN and other societies, into a living and interdependent Person as Communities on Earth. I remember such an idea of Communitarian Person was in the philosophy of Josiah Royce which Hartshorne prized, right?

Cordially,
Toki)