If you ever visit Japanese Buddhist temples, you might see a fearsome figure like so:
But who is this fellow? In Mahayana Buddhism he is known as Ācala (sounds like “ahhh-cha-la”), but in Japanese he is called Fudō Myōō (不動明王). He is one example of a Vidyaraja “Wisdom King” who can be found mainly in esoteric Buddhism. Fudo appears as a low-caste servant in Indian society, by virtue of the hair and dress, while the sword symbolizes cutting through ignorance and delusion. Meanwhile, the cord in hand is a symbol of self-discipline and restraint.
As mentioned in a recent post about Shingon Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism is very synthetic in nature, meaning that it absorbs and refines things as it integrates with new cultures. Acala may have origins as some kind of demon, but in Buddhism despite his wrathful appearance he becomes a force for good, protecting people and dispelling delusion or ignorance.* The symbolism of Fudo also implies that he is “unmovable”, and unphased by the troubles of the world, or by sensual desires. In a sense, he’s a tough guy, but in a “Clint Eastwood” hero kind of way.
Keep in mind though that Acala is not a Buddha or Bodhisattva. He is more like a lesser guardian figure, but the point of Acala’s transformation from demon to defender of the Dharma is a reminder that even the worst beings can redeem themselves and that through the Dharma anyone can change. The process is gradual, not sudden, so in Acala’s case, he still is not yet a Bodhisattva, but clearly he’s on the right path. Also, another thing to point out is Buddhism’s strength through diversity. In the classic texts, you read about how various people would gather to hear the Buddha’s sermons. Some were humans, some were heavenly devas, and others were various demons, spirits and so on. The point here wasn’t the Buddha’s magical powers or miracles, but the diversity of his disciples. Disciples were not limited to certain people of certain backgrounds, but all would gather to hear him speak, and try to put the teachings into practice as best they could.
This why I don’t like the approach of some Western Buddhists toward reductionism. People in the West, because they don’t understand these symbols, see them as corruptions or cultural accretions, and try to cut them out, thinking that they can somehow discover the true essence of Buddhism. It’s like pruning a plant more and more until you’ve killed the plant. A little pruning from time to time might be a good thing if done with care, but people who think they can prune down to the roots will find themselves pretty dissatisfied by the results.
The irony is that these cultural accretions are the true essence of Buddhism, and rather than disdaining them, it makes more sense to understand and appreciate them. In other words, don’t knock something until you do your homework first. Buddhism cannot stay locked forever in 5th century Indian culture. It must evolve and change to meet the needs of people, but if the motivation behind this evolution is wholesome, rooted in the Dharma, and helps inspire others to live a better life, then it is a change for the better.
Nōmaku sanmanda bazaradan senda
makaroshada sowataya un tarata kanman.
P.S. Previous “who’s who” can be found here and here.
* – Another similar example is the lesser known figure, Aizen Myōō.
Hello, this blog is about my life as a father, Buddhist and Japanophile / Koreaphile. Any useful information I can pass along will hopefully make the 
The more I study Buddhism, the more I’m convinced of the depth, power, and beauty of its various traditional forms—and the less I see the need for reductionism.
Generally I think Westerners who try to “prune” Buddhism would describe themselves as secular humanists, and they like Buddhism insofar as it resembles secular humanism. Anything that strikes them as “non-secular” or “non-humanistic” (i.e. otherworldly beings, devotional practices, even core aspects of the tradition like karma), they want to get rid of or replace. This leads me to wonder why they bother with Buddhism at all, if they only want it to conform to a worldview they already hold.
He he he, hello Mr. X. Welcome to the JLR!
I’m all for a humanistic approach to Buddhism, since even Ven. Master Yin-Shun advocates it, but not to where we prune the life out of Buddhism and its traditions and culture. Those traditions enrich us if only we’d take the time to appreciate them.
As a younger man, I read a couple Zen books and thought I knew it all. I was one of those who decried its traditions as outmoded or unsuitable for a Western audience, but through my wife who’s Japanese, I got to appreciate them a lot more, and realized how little we understand Buddhism here in the West. There’s a lot of good stuff there that we’ve either ignored or just haven’t discovered yet. More work needs to be done to bring this all to light, and Westerners need to keep an open mind.
Cheers!
Hi Doug and Mr/Ms xxx!
Great post and great comments. Thank you so much. And yes, I quite agree. Western pruning of real living Asian Buddhism runs the danger of killing off the very heart of the religion. Who gains?
Namu Amitabul,
Marcus
Thanks, Doug! ^_^
I’m a big fan of the Ven. Master Yin-Shun’s Humanistic Buddhism movement, but I think this is somewhat different than humanism in the narrow sense (which is what I meant in my previous comment). It seems to me that the tendency toward reductionism in Western Buddhism tends to justify itself in terms of “modernism” and “rationalism”, which means it tends to use the language of secular humanism (a good example of this might be Stephen Batchelor’s book, Buddhism without Beliefs). Having said that, I do consider myself a humanist in a broad sense.
I think you’re doing a lot to elucidate Buddhism (both the Japanese traditions and the broader Dharma as a whole) just by keeping this website, which I keep searching through because there’s so much fascinating stuff here! ^^
I totally agree. All these beatiful figures, stories and symbols are parts of Buddha-Dharma-Sangha in Mahayana buddhism. It’s unfortunate that some people think that these are unneccesary and that there are some “pure” buddhism beyond them.