What is 撃鉢の偈 (Keihatsu-no-Ge)?: Doing Nothing Superfluous, Doing What Must Be Done, and the Path to the Common Good

撃鉢の偈 (Keihatsu-no-Ge): Is the “good” for you really good?

What is 撃鉢の偈 (Keihatsu-no-Ge)?: It is a verse that we chant before a meal

Key Point: Keihatsu-no-Ge, recited before meals, corresponds to the Three Sets of Pure Precepts of the Mahayana Bodhisattva Precepts. I interpret these precepts as “doing what needs to be done without doing anything unnecessary,” which eliminates the selfish desires of the “self.” I believe that even without consciously trying to do things for others, simply fulfilling one’s own responsibilities—such as cleaning up after oneself or being punctual—naturally contributes to the public good.

What is 撃鉢の偈 (Keihatsu-no-Ge) is a verse that we chant before a meal. We chant this verse after 食三分の偈 (Jikisanbun-no-Ge). When we chant this, the food is already on the table. We hold the bowl of rice or gruel above our heads and chant this verse. After we finish it, we can finally start the meal.

In the temple where I trained, this verse did not have a special name. Therefore, I use the name “Keihatsu-no-Ge” from a book written in the early Showa period.

In the temple where I trained, this verse did not have a special name. Therefore, I use the name “Keihatsu-no-Ge” from a book written in the early Showa period(Reference: Kodo Sawaki (1941), Zazen no Shikata to Kokoroe: Fu-Gyōhatsu no Shikata [How to Practice Zazen and its Principles: With a Guide to Gyohatsu]. Yoyogi Shoin.).

This verse corresponds to 三聚浄戒 (Sanju-jokai,the Three Sets of Pure Precepts) of the Mahayana Bodhisattva Precepts.

What is the Three Sets of Pure Precepts? It is one of the main precepts in Mahayana Buddhism. In the ceremony of receiving precepts in Zen, we first perform repentance to clear our sins. After that, we receive three kinds of precepts: the Three Refuges, the Three Sets of Pure Precepts, and the Ten Grave Precepts. Traditional Theravada Buddhism values the “Vinaya” (rules) that strictly govern the details of daily life to maintain the discipline of the monastic community. On the other hand, Mahayana Buddhism focuses on the “Precepts” (vows) made by the individual. It changed the system so that it is not just a long list of complex prohibitions. Thus, Mahayana Buddhism developed a system that makes it easier for people to put the teachings into practice in their daily lives.

the Three Sets of Pure Precepts is, so to speak, a guideline for our actions. In the Three Refuges, we clarify our standpoint. In the Ten Grave Precepts, we list the things we should not do.

The table below shows the relationship between them.

I have included my own interpretation this time. This is because I often wonder if “doing good” or “acting for the benefit of others” might sometimes just be an imposition of self-satisfaction. Based on this, after reading books written in the early Showa period, I began to think that Buddhist precepts might have been adopted as morals for state control at that time. Even in the book I referenced, loyalty to the state was clearly stated as follows. Given the historical flow since 廃仏毀釈 (Haibutsu-Kishaku,anti-Buddhist movement), it seems it was difficult to avoid.

故に我等が今上陛下に對し、奉りては、皇祖皇宗並に御こは歴代の神靈が皆集つて在らせらるる御身體であるといふ意味に依つ絕對の敬意を拂ひ忠節くを盡すのであります。Jukai Sekkyo [Sermons on Receiving the Precepts] Original

Therefore, we pay absolute respect and pledge our loyal service to the current Emperor, for His Majesty’s person is the very vessel in which all the spirits of our imperial ancestors and the souls of all past Emperors who have passed away are gathered and dwell.
Jukai Sekkyo [Sermons on Receiving the Precepts] Modern Meaning

This is just one example, but Japanese Buddhism has transformed in a way that is accepted by society. If Buddhism were merely a social service, it might be sufficient to explain it through the lens of moralization. However, Zen has an aspect of withdrawing from society, so that alone is not enough. It is necessary to consider social morality and Buddhist precepts separately (Reference: Matsuura Hyakuei (1927). Jukai Sekkyo [Sermons on Receiving the Precepts]. Komeisha.).

Therefore, I interpret the Three Sets of Pure Precepts as “doing what needs to be done without doing anything unnecessary.” This is because it leaves no room for the selfish desires of the “self.” I believe that even if I do not consciously try to do something for someone else, simply taking care of my own responsibilities—such as cleaning up my own trash or being punctual—naturally contributes to the public good.

The Core

• Keihatsu-no-Ge corresponds to the Three Sets of Pure Precepts of the Mahayana Bodhisattva Precepts.
• I interpret these Three Sets of Pure Precepts as “doing what needs to be done without doing anything unnecessary.”
• Keihatsu-no-Ge is a verse recited before meals.

My Experience: Everyone is exhausted from doing things that are unnecessary

Key Point: While general morality often equates “goodness” with active, outward behavior, I believe that the true essence of goodness lies in simply doing what one is supposed to do. This approach is superior because it is free from the influence of personal desire.

I believe that social morality and Buddhist precepts should be considered separately. For example, I once had a kind-hearted woman at my workplace. She often initiated private conversations outside of work and told jokes to create a friendly atmosphere in the office. In Japanese society, this is a common occurrence; it is a way to maintain an organization that has already been established and stabilized since the period of high economic growth, and it is also a typical form of social art practiced by Japanese women. However, this behavior resulted in two male employees being transferred. She enthusiastically collected money from the staff and prepared a lovely message board and a gift. From the perspective of general morality, I believe she is a good-hearted woman.

Why did the two male employees end up being transferred, despite her efforts to improve the workplace atmosphere through her consideration? In my opinion, it is because she did too much that was unnecessary. Originally, a workplace is a place for working; it is a place where one comes on time (which is especially important in Japan), conducts necessary reporting, communication, and consultation, speaks nothing unnecessary, and focuses on what one needs to do. These two male employees were unhappy that she frequently did not arrive on time, engaged in excessive chatter, and stopped people from working. Yet, they remained silent, made no complaints, and simply accepted their transfers—as in Japan, silence is often considered a virtue.

In general morality, active behaviors—such as “helping others,” “being kind,” “making others feel happy,” or “buying gifts for others”—are often considered “good.” She acted with those very intentions, busy preparing a lovely gift. However, in my view, I wonder if the true “gift” is actually just arriving on time, refraining from unnecessary talk, and focusing on one’s own responsibilities.

Currently, I am working with a focus on “doing what needs to be done without doing anything unnecessary.” If anything, I believe the “minus” (the removal of unnecessary actions) is more significant than the “plus” (the addition of extra actions). While my approach might be perceived superficially as “unkind,” I believe I am able to provide higher-quality service because I can dedicate myself entirely to improving quality without the distraction of unnecessary small talk; I believe this is positive in the long term. And even without any intention of “doing a favor” for someone, I hope that my actions will ripple outward as a positive force.

I believe that this principle of “doing what needs to be done without doing anything unnecessary” is exactly where Buddhist precepts diverge from general social morality, and I am convinced that this ethos was a driving force that supported Japan’s high economic growth in the past.