日本を救った釈尊のことば

Na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ
Averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano.


実にこの世において 恨みは恨みによって鎮まらない。
恨みを持たないことで静まる。これは永遠の真理である。

『法句経』第1章5番


原始仏典の一つでお釈迦様の語録である『法句経(ダンマパダ)』からの引用です。
このことばは、大船観音ゆめ観音アジアフェスティバルにおいても平和宣言文の中で引用して使わせていただきました。

お釈迦さまは「怨みを持って怨みに報ぜば、怨みやまず。徳を持って怨みに報ぜば、怨みすなわち尽く」と説かれました。
大船観音の境内には、「原爆の火の塔」や「戦没者慰霊碑」等、平和への祈りが込められたモニュメントが多く立ち並んでいます。 その碑に刻まれた「核兵器もない、戦争もない、平和な世界を」めざし、慈悲の原点に立ち返り、平和共存の実現に努めることをここに宣言いたします。
第12回ゆめ観音アジアフェスティバル 平和宣言文より一部引用)

 

この法句経のことばは、ある場面である方により使われたことにより有名になりました。
それは、1951年9月6日「サンフランシスコ対日講和会議(Treaty of San Francisco)」での場面です。

サンフランシスコ対日講和会議といえば、敗戦国日本をどのような処遇にするべきかを関連国が集まって協議した会議です。
特に、ソ連はアメリカ・ソ連・イギリス・中国で日本分割を決定するべきであると強固に主張します。
もしも会議の流れがそちらの方向に進んでいたら、北海道・本州・四国・九州がばらばらに分割されていた可能性もあります。

しかし、その流れを変えたのがスリランカ(当時はセイロン政府)代表として出席していたJRジャヤワルデネ元大統領(当時は財務大臣)の演説です。


ADDRESS BY HIS EXCELLENCY J.R. JAYEWARDENE
LEADER OF ThE DELEGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CEYLON (SRI LANK) / AT THE CONFERENCE FOR THE CONCLUSION AND SIGNATURE OF THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN - SAN FRANCISCO, USA / 6TH SEPTEMBER 1951 / HIS EXCELLENCY J.R.JAYEWARDENE IS PRESENTLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANK


I consider it a great privilege to be afforded the opportunity of placing before this assembly of fifty-one nations the views of the Government of Ceylon on the draft Treaty of Peace which we have been invited to approve. My statement will consist of the reasons for our acceptance of this treaty, and I shall also attempt to meet some of the criticisms that have been levelled against it. It is true that I can speak only on behalf of my Government, but I claim that I can voice the sentiments of the people of Asia in their general attitude towards the future of Japan. I need not deal with the events that led to the formulation of the final draft of the treaty which we are considering. Mr Dulles, the American representative, and Mr.Kellneth Younger, the British representative, have given us a full and fair account of those events, beginning with the capitulation of Japan in August 1945. It may, however, be mentioned that there was a serious conflict of opinion between the four major powers as to the procedure that should be adopted to draft this treaty. The Soviet Union insisted that the four major powers alone - that is, the Council of Foreign Ministers of the USA, UK, China and the USSR -should alone undertake it, and that the power of veto should be reserved to them if any others were admitted for the purpose of drafting the treaty.

The United Kingdom insisted that the Dominions should be consulted and the United States of America agreed with this. They also supported consltation with all the countries that took part in the war against Japan.

Among these countries, too, there was a difference of opinion as to the actual terms of the treaty actuated by various considerations, some by a fear of the raising of a new militaristic Japan, and others yet unable to forget the damage and horrors caused by the Japanese invasions.

I venture to submit that it was at the Colombo Conference of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers held in January, 1950, that for the first time the case for a completely independent Japan was proposed and considered. The Colombo Conference considered Japan not as an isolated case, but as part of the region known as South and Southeast Asia, Containing a large proportion of the world's wealth and population, and consisting of countries which have only recently regained their freedom, whose people were still suffering as a result of centuries of neglect. Two ideas emerged from that Conference - one, that of an independent Japan, and the other, the necessity for the economic and social development of the peoples of South and South-east Asia, to ensure which, what is now known as the Colombo Plan was launched.

Mr Kenneth Younger has explained how, after that Conference, a Working Committee of Commonwealth High Commissioners worked on a draft treaty, and later had consultations with the American representative, Mr Du11es.

The treaty now before us is the result of those consultations and negotiations. It represents some of the views that my Government had, and some of them which it did not have. I claim that at the present moment it represents the largest common measure of agreement that could be attained among the countries that were willing to discuss peace with Japan.

The main idea that animated the Asian countries, Ceylon, India and Pakistan, in their attitude to Japan was that Japan should be free. I claim that this treaty embodies that idea in its entirety.
There are other matters which are external to the question of Japan's freedom - namely, should that freedom be limited to the main islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku, or should it extend to several minor islands in the neighbourhood? If not, what should we do with those islands? Should Formosa be returned to China in accordance with the Cairo Declaration of 1943? If so, to which Government of China? Should China be invited to the Peace Treaty Conference? If so, which Government? Should reparations be exacted from Japan? If so, the amount. How is Japan to defend herself until she organizes her own defence?

On the main question of the freedom of Japan, we were able to agree ultimately, and the treaty embodies that agreement. On the other matters, there were sharp differences of opinion, and the treaty embodies the majority views. My Government would have preferred it if some of those quetions were answered in a different way, but the fact that the majority don't agree with us is no reason why we should abstain from signing the treaty, which contains the central concept of a free and independent Japan.

We feel that the allied matters I mentioned earlier are not insoluble if Japan is free, that they are insoluble if Japan is not free.
A free Japan, through, let us say, the United Nations organization, can discuss these problems with the other free nations of the world and arrive at early and satisfactory decisions. By signing this treaty we are enabling Japan to be in a position to do so, to enter into a treaty of friendship with the Government of China if she decides to recognise her, and I am happy to state, enabling her to enter into a treaty of peace and friendship with India. If we do not sign this treaty, none of these eventualities can take place,

Why is it that the peoples of Asia are anxious that Japan should be free ? It is because of our age-long connections with her,and because of the high regard the subject peoples of Asia have for Japan when she alone, among the Asian nations, was strong and free and we looked up to her as a guardian and friend. I can recall incidents that occurred during the last war, when the co-prosperity slogan for Asia had its appeal to subject peoples, and some of the leadders of Burma, India, and lndonesia joined the Japanese in the hope that thereby their beloved countries may be liberated.

We in Ceylon were fortunate that we were not invaded, but the damage caused by air raids, by the stationing of enormous armies under the South-East Asian Command, and by the slaughter-tapping of one of our main commodities,rubber, when we were the only producers of natural rubber for the Allies, entitle us to ask th1at the damage so caused should be repaired. We do not intend to do so, for we believe in the words of the Great Teacher whose message has ennobled the lives of countless millions in Asia, that (hatred ceasesnot by hatred, but by love'. It is the message of the Buddha, the Great Teacher, the Founder of Buddhism, which spread a wave of humanism through South Asia, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Siam, Indonesia and Ceylon, and also northwards through the Himalayas into Tibet, China, and finally, Japan, which bound us together for hundreds of years with a common culture and heritage. This common culture still exists, as I found on my visit to Japan last week on my way to attend this Conference; and from the leaders of Japan, Ministers of State as well as private citizens, from their priests in the temples, I gathered the impression that the common people of Japan are still influenced by the shadow of that Great Teacher of peace, and wish to follow it. We must give them that opportunity.

That is why I cannot subscribe to the views of the delegate of the Soviet Union when he proposes that the freedom of Japan should be limited. The restrictions he wishes to impose, such as the limitation on the right of Japan to maintain such defence forces as a free nation is entitled to, and the other limitations he proposes, would make this treaty not acceptable not only to the vast majority of the delegates present here, but even to some of the countries that have not attended this Conference, particularly India, who wished to go even further than this treaty visualizes. If again the Soviet Union wishes the islands of Ryukyu and Bonin returned to Japan, contrary to the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, why should then South Sakhalin, as well as the Kurile be not also returned to Japan?
It is also interesting to note that the amendments of the Soviet Union seek to insure to the people of Japan the fundamental freedoms of expression, of press and publication of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting - freedoms which the people of the Soviet Union themselves would dearly love to possess and enjoy.

The reason why, therefore, we cannot agree to the amendments proposed by the Soviet delegate, is that this treaty proposes to return to Japan sovereignty, equality and dignity, and we cannot do so if we give them with qualifications. The purpose of the treaty then is to make Japan free, to impose no restrictions on Japan's recovery, to see to it that she organizes her own military defence against external aggression, and internal subversion, and that until she does so, she invites the aid of a friendly power to protect her, and that no reparations be exacted from her that harm her economy.

This treaty is as magnanimous as it is just to a defeated foe.
We extend to Japan a hand of friendship, and trust that with the closing of this chapter in the history of man, the last page of which we write today, and with the beginning of the new one, the first page of which we dictate tomorrow, her people and ours may march together to enjoy the full dignity of human life in peace and prosperity.


下線部分を和訳でご紹介します。

何故アジアの諸国民は、日本は自由であるべきだと切望するのでしょうか。それは我々の日本との永年に亘るかかわり合いの故であり、又アジア諸国民が日本に対して持っていた高い尊敬の故であり、日本がアジア緒国民の中でただ一人強く自由であった時、我々は日本を保護者として又友人として仰いでいた時に、日本に対して抱いていた高い尊敬の為でもあります。
私は、この前の戦争の最中に起きたことですが、アジアの為の共存共栄のスローガンが今問題となっている諸国民にアピールし、ビルマ、インド、インドネシアの指導者の或人達がそうすることによって自分達が愛している国が開放されるという希望から日本の仲間入りをした、という出来事が思い出されます。
セイロンに於ける我々は、幸い侵略を受けませんでしたが、空襲により引き起された損害、東南アジア司令部に属する大軍の駐屯による損害、並びに我国が連合国こ供出する自然ゴムの唯一の生産国であった時に於ける、我国の主要産物のひとつであるゴムの枯渇的樹液採取によって生じた損害は、損害賠償を要求する資格を我国に与えるものであります。

我国はそう(損害賠償を要求)しようとは思いません。何故なら我々は大師(釈尊)の言葉を信じていますから。
大師のメッセージ、「憎しみは憎しみによっては止まず、ただ愛によってのみ止む」はアジアの数え切れないほどの人々の生涯(生活)を高尚にしました。仏陀、大師、仏教の元祖のメッセージこそが、人道の波を南アジア、ビルマ、ラオス、カンボジア、シャム、インドネシアそれからセイロンに伝え、そして又北方へはヒマラヤを通ってチベットへ、支那へそして最後には日本へ伝えました。これが我々を数百年もの間、共通の文化と伝統でお互いに結びつけたのであります。この共通文化は未だに在続しています。それを私は先週、この会議に出席する途中日本を訪問した際に見付けました。又日本の指導者達から、大臣の方々からも、市井の人々からも、寺院の僧侶からも、日本の普通の人々は今も尚、平和の大師の影の影響のもとにあり、それに従って行こうと願っているのを見いだしました。我々は日本人に機会を与えて上げねばなりません。(引用元

 

JRジャヤワルデネ元大統領の演説中、「セイロンに於ける我々は、幸い侵略を受けませんでしたが、空襲により引き起された損害、東南アジア司令部に属する大軍の駐屯による損害、並びに我国が連合国こ供出する自然ゴムの唯一の生産国であった時に於ける、我国の主要産物のひとつであるゴムの枯渇的樹液採取によって生じた損害」は、主に日本帝国陸軍による印度洋作戦・セイロン島コロンボ空襲のことです。
この空襲により、連合軍の航空部隊、船舶に大損害を与え、さらにトリンコマリー基地空襲により空母ハーミスを撃沈、インド洋東西海域の制海制空権を日本帝国軍が掌中に収めます。
しかし、この後の拙攻により日本は敗戦への道を歩みます。

少なからずセイロン島に損害をもたらした日本に対し、JRジャヤワルデネ元大統領は「日本の掲げた理想に、列強国からの独立を望むアジアの人々が共感したことを忘れないで欲しい」と述べた上で、冒頭の『法句経』を引用し、日本に対する賠償請求を放棄し、日本が再び国際社会に復帰する道筋を作ってくれたのです。

この演説を日本人は知っておかなければなりませんし、決して感謝の心を忘れてはならないでしょう。


今月開催された第60回WBF世界仏教徒会議スリランカ大会の場で、日本代表として河野太通全日本仏教界会会長は、スリランカ大統領をはじめ世界各国から集まった仏教者代表、スリランカの仏教徒の前で、改めて1951年のJRジャヤワルデネ元大統領の演説に感謝し、改めて各国に与えた事実に懺悔と反省の意を表し、過ちを二度と繰り返すことの無いよう平和を誓うことを宣言しました。
会場からは万雷の拍手を受けました。
とても心に残る世界仏教徒会議でした。

実にこの世において 恨みは恨みによって鎮まらない。恨みを持たないことで静まる。

このことばは、被害者が使わなければ意味を持ちません。
加害者がいくら謝罪をしても、被害者が受け入れてくれなければいくら謝罪をしても事足りないのです。


「1000倍にして返す」=砲撃犠牲2兵士の告別式―韓国
北朝鮮による延坪島砲撃で死亡した21歳と19歳の韓国海兵隊員2人の告別式が27日午前、ソウル近郊の国軍首都病院で行われた。式の様子は主要テレビが生中継した。
同隊で最高の「海兵隊葬」で営まれた式には遺族や、辞任が決まった金泰栄国防相ら約600人が参列。上官は弔辞で、「われわれの愛する兵士を殺したことを後悔するよう、(北朝鮮に)100倍、1000倍にして返す」と語り掛けた。
李明博大統領は26日に弔問し、2人に勲章を授与した。砲撃ではこのほか民間人2人が死亡している。
(時事通信2010年11月27日)


今日の記事を書いていたら、このようなニュースが飛び込んできました。
釈尊の教えを実践することがいかに困難かということがわかります。

投稿者: kameno 日時: November 27, 2010 11:59 AM

コメント: 日本を救った釈尊のことば

>釈尊の教えを実践することがいかに困難かということがわかります。

困難だからこそ......ですね!

投稿者 叢林@Net | November 27, 2010 10:42 PM

叢林@Netさま
このような時代だからこそ仏教者の果たす役割は大きいものがありますね。

投稿者 kameno | November 30, 2010 12:27 AM

Superb blog post, I have book marked this internet site so ideally I’ll see much more on this subject in the foreseeable future!

投稿者 massage therapists | January 5, 2011 11:35 AM

コメントを投稿