Buddhist Terms in the Titles Dharma, Hekikan and Sōe

A Buddhist title does not by itself establish that a work illustrates a doctrine. An account of the term in a religious setting and an account of what the work associates with it are different kinds of evidence.

Dharma’s formal record explains the term in relation to truth and teaching and states a reason for returning to the figure’s religious origins. Hekikan uses its title for the shift from an architectural boundary to a surface encountered directly. This does not establish that the work recreates a method of Zen practice.^[1][2]

Tomoya Miki’s “Teachings of the Buddha” explains sōe as existence constituted in relation to others rather than in isolation. Its account of relationships between people cannot simply be equated with joining wood and resin. The application to the work is a naming decision that draws on that meaning.^[3]

In Interdependence, the wood’s curves define the resin at the centre and the resin fixes the wooden halves in place. The title connects with more than the presence of two materials: their arrangement constitutes the present form. This structure is what allows the naming decision to be examined.^[4]

Dharma and Hekikan retain these terms in their English titles, while Sōe is presented as Interdependence. A semantic translation and a transliteration give readers different initial information. Pairing the English and Japanese titles and explaining relevant meanings in the text avoids assuming that the English name alone communicates the religious context.^[1][2][4]

One way to examine naming is to distinguish what becomes available before and after learning a title. The relationship between wood and resin in Interdependence can be observed without knowing a Buddhist term. The formulation “depending on one another”, however, is not supplied by material names alone. The title directs attention to an existing structure rather than substituting for it.

Observing black surfaces and learning the religious backgrounds of Dharma and Hekikan likewise offer different starting points. After reading an explanation, one can return to the extent of coating, the boundary with wood and the remaining object. Neither definition alone nor form alone exhausts the correspondence between naming and making.