ISHII KŌSEI

KEGON PHILOSOPHY AND NATIONALISM IN MODERN JAPAN

It is often said that Kegon philosophy was used as a doctrinal justification for the planning of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere and Japan’s militaristic ac- tivities. This assessment probably derives from the fact that in roundtable discus- sions published in Chūōkōron 中央公論 immediately after the start of the Japan–US War and henceforth, Kyoto school scholars such as Kōyama Iwao 高山岩男 (1905– 1993) and Nishitani Keiji 西谷啓治 (1900–1990) justified Japan’s aggressive be- havior through a combination of Hegel’s philosophy of history, Ranke’s historical view, and Kegon philosophy.1 These scholars in turn had a serious impact on intel- lectuals and university students. In fact, however, even though they were philoso- phers having nationalistic leanings, they cooperated with some elements in the Navy who were against war party in the Army. They had received information that Japa- nese military activities in China were in fact a war of aggression with little likeli- hood of resolution, and were aware of the fact that if Japan waged war against the United States, Japan would have no chance of winning. While they justified Japa- nese military activities in China as a war to liberate Asian colonies, they also tried to lead the Japanese war effort in a more moral direction and to avoid the expansion of the war aimed for by the Army and militarists.2 Consequently, they insisted that Ja- pan should lead world history by integrating Asian countries in a way that was different from Western colonialism, and by resisting Western powers from the posi- tion of representative of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. They argued that Kegon philosophy, which spelled out the relationship between “individual” and “whole” or “absolute,” could serve as a theoretical underpinning for such a new world order.3 However, they were criticized by the Army and rightwing extremists, and their activities were gradually limited. In the end, their only accomplishment was to adorn the Japanese war with philosophical language. Shortly before the rise of the Kyoto school, the Japanese Buddhist community and Buddhist academic community had linked Kegon philosophy with nationalism.

1 Horio 1994. 2 Ōhashi 2001. 3 Ishii 2000a.

326 ISHII KŌSEI

In order to protect from Shintō chauvinists, who regarded Buddhism as an alien idea and tried to eliminate it, they emphasized the fact that the imperial fam- ily had been worshipping Buddhism for a long time and that Buddhism had been the national from the very beginning; thus it was fully integrated into the state. They put great emphasis on the fact that Prince Shōtoku (574–622) propa- gated . Taking as examples Emperor Shōmu’s 聖武 (r. 724–49) achievements in establishing the Great Buddha in Tōdaiji Temple 東大寺 and set- ting up provincial monasteries (kokubunji 国分寺), they emphasized that the wor- ship of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra was the basis of Emperor Shōmu’s faith. From the mid-1930s, Kegon philosophy was often used to explain the relationship between in- dividuals and the state under an authoritarian regime.4 This kind of use by the Kyoto school was just one example. However, the most extreme nationalistic groups that propelled Japan to war in the early Shōwa period were in the of state Shintō, the sect, the Jōdo- shin sect, the sect, and other sects. For example, the National Pillar Society (Ko- kuchūkai 国柱会), which was organized by TANAKA Chigaku 田中智学 (1861–1939) and which had a great influence on military personnel, consisted of group of people who followed Nichiren and the Lotus Sūtra. The Japan Principle Society (Genri nip- pon sha 原理日本社), which criticized professors who showed a liberal political ori- entation and had them expelled from their universities one after another, was a group of waka 和歌 (Japanese short poem) poets who followed .5 No private reli- gious group existed that actually believed in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra and developed a radical political movement. Kegon philosophy was probably too theoretically ab- struse to serve as a guideline for activists. This situations stands in sharp contrast to the case of Chinese intellectuals, such as KANG Youwei 康有為 (1858–1927), TAN Sitong 譚嗣同 (1866–1898), and ZHANG Taiyan 章太炎 (1868–1936), who made the best use of philosophy and the mind-only philosophy to aim at social re- form and revolution.

The Avataṃsaka-sūtra and the State in Japan

When the “Eye-Opening” ceremony was held at Tōdaiji Temple in 752, (Bodaisenna 菩提仙那), an Indian monk, and Daoxuan 道璿, a Chinese monk, conducted the ceremony accompanied by Chinese, Indochinese, and Korean music. The Imperial Court needed the appearance of having all the Asian nations willingly participating in the Japanese emperor’s Buddhist ceremony. It was not merely a co- incidence that the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere was justified later by Ke- gon philosophy. Study of the doctrines of the Kegon school flourished afterwards, centered at Tōdaiji Temple. However, unlike the Lotus Sūtra and the Diamond Sūtra,

4 Ichikawa 1975: 222. 5 Ishii 2002a.

KEGON PHILOSOPHY AND NATIONALISM IN MODERN JAPAN 327 laymen seldom transcribed the Avataṃsaka-sūtra for the merits of their ancestors. The Avataṃsaka-sūtra was probably considered to be the national sacred text wor- shipped by Emperor Shōmu, and was not an object of worship among ordinary people. This is quite different from the situation in China and Korea. It is often said that Fazang’s 法藏 (643–712) Kegon (Ch. Huayan) philosophy became the guiding force of the social ideology during the reign of Empress Wu 武 (624–705). However, this was just a hypothesis of the late Prof. KAMATA Shigeo 鎌 田茂雄. Kamata criticized the Kyoto school and TAKAKUSU Junjirō 高楠順次郎, who utilized Kegon philosophy to justify the Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere and totalitarianism, and supposed that the same thing held true in the Tang dynasty.6 It is true that Fazang and Empress Wu took the best advantage of each other, but Fazang was in the lower ranks of the monastic hierarchy and other famous monks were far more respected than he was. The Kegon School in various temples in Nara, such as in Tōdaiji Temple, was a public school for the purpose of studying Kegon philosophy. In the Tōdaiji Temple Kegon school in the , Gyōnen 凝然 (1240–1321), a great scholar monk, composed numerous texts on Kegon philosophy as well as many books sur- veying the histories and doctrines of various Buddhist schools, including Kegon. In the Edo period (1600–1867), Gyōnen’s works, such as the Essence of Eight Schools (Hasshū kōyō 八宗綱要), were used as standard introductory texts for Buddhism. Moreover, many studied Kegon philosophy to gain basic Bud- dhist doctrinal knowledge. Among these sects, Jōdoshin Sect and Shingon Sect were particularly keen on studying Kegon philosophy, because their originators greatly esteemed the Avataṃsaka-sūtra and Kegon philosophy. Hōtan 鳳潭 (1654–1738), an Edo period reviver of the Kegon School, often held heated discussions with the scholar monks of other sects. As a result, despite the fact that many scholar monks developed detailed philological and historical studies, the Kegon studies at Tōdaiji Temple remained on the wane. Moreover, because, unlike other sects, Tōdaiji Temple did not have an enormous number of believers, its influence further waned after the Meiji Restoration. In 1872, when the Meiji Government ordered each temple to clarify to which sect it belonged, Tōdaiji Temple was forced to be man- aged under the Jōdo (Pure Land) sect. It was only in 1886 that Tōdaiji Temple re- gained independence as the head temple of the Kegon School.

Kametani Seikei’s Revival of Kegon Philosophy

In this situation, it was KAMETANI Seikei 亀谷聖馨 (1858–1930) who approached Kegon philosophy from a modern perspective, regarding the Avataṃsaka-sūtra as the supreme Buddhist scripture.7 Kametani, who served as a secretary to a national-

6 Kamata 1960. 7 Ishii 2002b. 328 ISHII KŌSEI istic politician, moved to Tōdaiji Temple in his mid-thirties and devoted himself to the research of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. Then, working as a newspaper writer and an educator, Kametani wrote a number of books on the history and doctrines of the Kegon school. Comparing Kegon philosophy with that of Kant and Hegel, Kametani insisted that the philosophy of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra was the most profound, and that all Western philosophies could be subsumed within it.8 He also tried to demon- strate that Kegon philosophy was not incompatible with Einstein’s Theory of Rela- tivity.9 Kametani, who respected and followed Emperor Meiji’s Imperial Rescript on Education, argued that it reflected Kegon philosophy. Moreover, believing in the Sun Goddess Amaterasu – held to be the Imperial ancestor – to be equivalent to Vai- rocana Buddha in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, Kametani tried to link Kegon philosophy with kokutai 国体 or National Polity of Japan.10 Intellectuals and students read Ka- metani’s works written from this perspective to a certain extent, and they seemed to stimulate interest in Kegon philosophy. While Kametani was an old-style patriotic Buddhist who respected the Imperial family and emphasized loyalty and filial piety, he recognized the merits of Christi- anity. He was also a pacifist who did not cease to have positive hopes for results from the activities of the International Peace Conference and so on. However, he regarded Japan’s war as a kind of holy war for peace. The combination of Prince Shōtoku, Emperor Shōmu, and the Avataṃsaka-sūtra that Kametani worshiped was simply a combination that the Buddhist community used as a vindication against attacks on Buddhism by extreme nationalists in the decade starting from the mid- 1930s.

Kihira Tadayoshi’s Nationalistic Kegon Philosophy

Kametani was on good terms with INOUE Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎 (1855–1944), a famous nationalistic philosopher who wrote an officially recognized commentary on the Imperial Rescript on Education. KIHIRA Tadayoshi 紀平正美 (1874–1949), a student of Inoue, who helped Hegelian philosophy to get firmly accepted in Japan, became familiar with in his youth and wrote books on Chinese Zen, Shinran, and . Kihira particularly respected Prince Shōtoku’s Seventeen Article Constitution, Kegon philosophy, and Shinran’s philosophy. One feature of Kihira’s interpretation of Buddhism is its thorough linkage with nationalism.11 While Kihira evaluates Kegon philosophy as superior to Hegelian philosophy, he was cautious about its doctrine of “non-obstruction between distinct phenomena.” This is because if the doctrine were applied to the situation in Japan, the common

18 Kametani 1923. 19 Kametani 1922. 10 Kametani 1912. 11 Ishii 2000b.

KEGON PHILOSOPHY AND NATIONALISM IN MODERN JAPAN 329 people and the emperor would be seen as equals because they have unlimited virtues in common. This kind of thinking also has affinities with Western democracy. Therefore Kihira emphasized that the ancestors of the Imperial family were the fundamental source of all virtues. He identified this situation with the doctrine of “dependent co-arising from the tathāgatagarbha” which argued that everything comes out of tathāgatagarbha. As the Avataṃsaka-sūtra included these doctrines, he believed that Japan stood in the middle between the doctrine of “non-obstruction be- tween distinct phenomena” and the doctrine of “dependent co-arising from the tathā- gatagarbha.” In other words, each person was different according to his occupation and societal status, but everyone was equal under the absolute Emperor, and he ar- gued that the Great Buddha in Tōjdaiji Temple represented this idea.12 Like Inoue, Kihira had a close relationship with the Ministry of Education from early on.13 When the Ministry of Education established the Institute of National Spiritual Culture (Kokumin seishin bunka kenkyūjo 国民精神文化研究所) in 1932 for the purpose of study and teaching of nationalism, Kihira became quite active as the head of its thought division. The Ministry of Education made a nationalistic pam- phlet entitled Cardinal Principles of the National Entity of Japan (Kokutai no hongi 国体の本義), primarily written by the institute’s members, which was distributed to schools all over Japan. Its central theme utilized Kihira’s argument.14 As soon as Car- dinal Principles was published, Kihira published its manual via the Ministry of Edu- cation. Arguing that “wa 和 (harmony)” advocated by Prince Shōtoku was not mere pacifism but “daiwa 大和 (great harmony)” that could include resorting to military force, Kihira justified the application of force for peace.15 Putting Kegon philosophy into practice, Kihira believed that this “daiwa” was the amalgamation of equal indi- viduals and the absolute state, which was a special feature of Japan. However, be- cause Kihira was cautious about the socialist movement in Japan and argued for the harmony of a variety of people while completely ignoring Asian nations, he did not pay any attention to the problem of rationalizing Japanese rule over Asian nations through Kegon philosophy.

Tsuchida Kyōson’s Liberal Interpretation of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra

Kihira was cautious about Kegon philosophy, aware that the philosophy contained a principle of equality that could be used to deny monarchy. It is possible that Kihira had taken into account the opinions of TSUCHIDA Kyōson 土田杏村 (1891–1934). Tsuchida entered the Kyoto University department of philosophy, where he studied phenomenology under NISHIDA Kitarō 西田幾多郎 (1870–1945). He subsequently

12 Kihira 1930: 117–118. 13 Kihira 1932. 14 Ajisaka 1991. 15 Kihira 1938. 330 ISHII KŌSEI chose a career not as a university professor, but as a freelance critic. In his Philo- sophy of Symbols (Shochō no tetsugaku 象徴の哲学) published in 1919, he criti- cized the notion that an entity has various attributes, and tried to develop his own epistemology using Kegon philosophy. In 1921, he published the Short Essays on the Kegon Philosophy (Kegon tetsugaku shōronkō 華厳哲学小論攷) that dealt with the Avataṃsaka-sūtra and the Awakening Faith in Mahāyāna. In this book, he ar- gued that Buddhist philosophy should not be a merely passive theology, declaring that any principle to reform society should be based on the philosophy of the doc- trine of “non-obstruction of distinct-phenomena” of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. In other words, considering the idea of private ownership as the source of various social problems, he aimed at formulating a liberal social system free from such attach- ments. Tsuchida highly evaluated Kegon philosophy as a theory to articulate this kind of social system. He published his own journal entitled Culture, introducing philosophies and social conditions of Western Europe, including communism and anarchism, but opposing dogmatic Marxism. He also cooperated with the Free Uni- versity of Shinano 信濃, which was a small learning society run by young people, considering this system as a model of liberal and democratic society. Consequently, academic scholars, the thought police, and Marxists regarded him as heretical phi- losopher, a dangerous activist spreading socialism, or a reactionary fascist.16 In this way, Tsuchida was a philosopher who respected liberty and equality, and used Kegon philosophy to inform his personal thinking and lifestyle. However, in his later years, he made an argument that came close to state socialism.17 As he insisted on the necessity of a national agency that would implement equitable poli- cies to fill the gap between rich and poor, his arguments ended up becoming even closer to state socialism. He died at the age of 43 before the onset of World War II, but if he had lived for ten more years, we can imagine that his arguments would have moved even closer to state socialism with the rise of nationalism in Japanese society.

Nationalistic Interpretation of Kegon Philosophy in the Buddhist Community and the Buddhist Academic Community

TAKAKUSU Junjirō (1866–1949), a major figure within the Buddhist academic com- munity and well-known as the editor of the Taishō Tripitaka, gave a lecture entitled “Buddhist Totalitarian Principle” at a meeting sponsored by the Ministry of Educa- tion six months after the publication of Cardinal Principles of the National Entity of Japan. This lecture was published by the Ministry of Education in the following year.18 He argued that Japan had been totalitarian since the foundation of the coun-

16 Ueki 1971: 360–361. 17 Yamaguchi 2004. 18 Takakusu 1938.

KEGON PHILOSOPHY AND NATIONALISM IN MODERN JAPAN 331 try, taking Tōdaiji Temple and its provincial monasteries as prime examples. He articulated the specific totalitarianism in Japan through Kegon philosophy, and insisted that the Japanese people should devote themselves to the country under such a national system. Since Takakusu, like Kihira, belonged to the Institute of National Spiritual Culture and participated in the editing of Cardinal Principles, Kihira proba- bly had an influence on Takakusu. Takakusu from the beginning respected liberty and peace. He made efforts to promote international exchange programs, and de- voted himself to educating women, but he was strongly cautious about the growth of Christianity from his youth and this attitude became stronger with age. When he was young, Takakusu became deeply involved with Anagarika Dharmapala (1864– 1933), a Sinhalese nationalist fighting for the revival of Buddhism and independence of Ceylon. In his third visit to Japan in 1902, Dharmapala had a long discussion with TANAKA Chigaku, a representative of modern Japanese nationalistic Buddhists, and they had a strong impact on each other. Based on an ancient legend reported by Dharmapala, Tanaka began to argue that Emperor Jinmu came from India and the Imperial Family was descended from Chakravarti-rājas or Śākya clan. He claimed that Japan should morally integrate the world and coined the notorious phrase, “All the world under one roof (hakkō ichiu 八紘一宇).” Dharmapala not only met with many nationalistic Buddhists in Japan with whom he exchanged mutual influence, but also stimulated YANG Wenhui 楊文會 (1837–1927), a key player in the revival of Buddhism in China. Though Dharmapala was himself a pacifist, he played a significant role in linking Buddhism with nationalism in modern Asia. Besides Takakusu, there were many scholars and Buddhist monks who gradually came close to extreme nationalism through protecting Buddhism from extreme right- wingers and came to use Kegon philosophy to justify war. Concerning the behavior of these scholars and Buddhist monks, ICHIKAWA Hakugen 市川白弦 (1902–1986) persistently surveyed their behaviors and sought to clarify the responsibility for the war among the Buddhist Community and Buddhist Academic Community, as well as his own responsibility.19 Ichikawa made his points in a series of articles entitled “War Experience in Buddhism (Bukkyō ni okeru sensō taiken 仏教における戦争体 験)” (1959–1962). These people included famous scholars, Buddhist monks, and in- tellectual Buddhists who wrote books about the Avataṃsaka-sūtra and Kegon phi- losophy, such as KANEKO Daiei 金子大栄, YAMABE Shūgaku 山辺習学, KAMEKAWA Kyōshin 亀川教信, EBE Ōson 江部鴨村, and others. Some of these people were respected for their righteousness, deep beliefs, and scholarship. Why were these peo- ple easily swayed by nationalism and why did they develop their nationalistic argu- ments using Kegon philosophy? Did Kegon philosophy have something common with the Imperial Rescript on Education? This situation held true for Nishida Kitarō, a representative philosopher of mod- ern Japan. Nishida was originally a liberal, but as he defended himself against per- sistent attacks from the right wing, his argument gradually became close to that of

19 Ishii 2004. 332 ISHII KŌSEI ultranationalists. In his last years, Nishida deepened his own philosophy and often used the phrase “non-obstruction between distinct phenomena” and explained Japan’s distinctive features centered on the Imperial family. In other words, Nishida opposed the crude arguments of radical nationalists, while writing articles that gave theoretical significance to the foundation of their arguments, such as Japan’s promi- nence and Japan’s particularity, based on his own ideas and on Kegon philosophy.20 Nishida, however, did not study Kegon philosophy in a systematic way. In later years, Nishida adopted Kegon philosophy into his own ideas because his close friend D. T. Suzuki was actively discussing Kegon philosophy, and his students, Kōyama and Nishitani, had organized an Avataṃsaka-sūtra study group and studied Kegon phi- losophy while they were graduate students. While he was young, Nishida had contact with Kihira, who went to the same university, but in later years, they became enemies. During the war, Kihira and his followers actively criticized Nishida’s philosophy as unpatriotic.

D. T. Suzuki’s and Ichikawa Hakugen’s Perspectives on the Avataṃsaka-sūtra

Unlike many aggressive Zen masters during the war, D. T. Suzuki (1870–1966) did not praise the holy war or suicide attacks. He well understood the power of the Western nations and predicted that Japan would lose the war. During the war, Su- zuki began to search for a means to revive Japan in the postwar era. With this pur- pose in mind, he paid particular attention to the philosophy of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. Suzuki was the first Buddhist scholar in East Asia who clearly claimed that it was necessary to separate the philosophy of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra itself from the philo- sophy of the Kegon school. However, in his Construction of a Spiritual Japan (Rei- seiteki nihon no kensetsu 霊性的日本の建設) published in the year following the defeat in the war, he regarded the philosophy of “non-obstruction between distinct phenomena” of the Kegon school as the basis for rebuilding Japan as a democratic country. In other words, using Kegon philosophy, Suzuki described a picture where nations in the world could freely mingle with each other on an equal footing, and where at home all the people respected each other’s freedom, and freely related with one other. This is reminiscent of KANG Youwei’s “society of great harmony (datong shijie 大同世界)” because both had utopian ideas. Suzuki regarded the Emperor as the center of Japan and expected the Emperor to function as the nucleus of an equita- ble society where independent people could judge everything for themselves. This is different from the totalitarian idea that prevailed during the war, in which the state and the military controlled every aspect of people’s lives. Suzuki did not regard the Emperor as an absolute God and believed that inde- pendent individuals should act according to their own judgment. However, it is true

20 Ishii 2002c.

KEGON PHILOSOPHY AND NATIONALISM IN MODERN JAPAN 333 that the structure of Suzuki’s idea resembles a rationalization of the totalitarianism of Kegon philosophy. In fact, later in his life, Suzuki wished that the philosophy of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra would achieve the democratization of Japan and break the deadlock of Western civilization, believing that such a philosophy of the Avataṃ- saka-sūtra would become activated only through Japanese spirituality.21 We can find in Suzuki a link between internationalism and nationalism. Early on, Suzuki rated Ichikawa Hakugen highly, and Ichikawa was greatly in- fluenced by Suzuki. However, in the postwar era, Ichikawa began to criticize Suzu- ki. One of the reasons was that Suzuki did not express opposition to militarism dur- ing the war, but after the war, suddenly began to criticize Shintōism and Zen mas- ters’ wartime behavior. Another reason was that even though Suzuki tried to create a democratic Japan, he situated the Emperor at the center of Japan. Ichikawa, who had been familiar with anarchism since he was young and actually participated in mod- erate anarchist political movements in the postwar era, appreciated Suzuki’s ap- proach, but did not accept the idea of seeing the Emperor as the center of Japan. Ichikawa believed that the society Suzuki pictured should be like the society of “unity of order and anarchy” idealized by Proudhon, and the World of the Lotus Treasury in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra is exactly such a society.22 Even in his later years, Ichikawa probably was unaware of reformist and revolutionists in China who util- ized Huayan philosophy.

Conclusion

In this way, Kegon philosophy was often used in connection with nationalism in modern Japan. This can be partly attributed to the fact that Kegon philosophy had been studied under authority of Emperor Shōmu. More importantly, because Kegon philosophy taught the interpenetration of the individual and the whole, it was easy for it to be connected with totalitarianism. On the other hand, there were some schol- ars who regarded Kegon philosophy as a theory for a society to be established by free and equal individuals. But these people were in an extreme minority and did not have any meaningful social influence.

References

Ajisaka Makoto 鯵阪真: “Wa no shisō to nippon seishin shugi: Kokutai no hongi no seiritsu jijō” 「和」の思想と日本精神主義－『国体の本義』の成立事情－ [The thought of wa and the worship of the Japanese spirit] in Nihon kagakusha kaigi shisō bunka kenkyūkai (ed.): Nihon bunka ron hihan 日本文化論批判. Tokyo: Suiyōsha, 1991.

21 Suzuki 1946: 158–163. 22 Ichikawa 1961. 334 ISHII KŌSEI

Horio Tsutomu 堀尾勉: “The Chūōkōron Discussions, Their Background and Meaning” in James W. Heisig and John C. Maraldo (eds.): Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School, & the Ques- tion of Nationalism. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1994. Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦: “Zen kegon anakizumu” 禅・華厳・アナキズム [Zen, Kegon, and Anarchism]. Jiyūshisō 自由思想 (1961) 5: pp. 23–38. [Ichikawa hakugen chosakushū 市川白 弦著作集 vol. 3. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1997, pp. 325–330.] Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦: “Bukkyō ni okeru sensō taiken” 仏教における戦争体験 [War ex- perience in Buddhism] in Ichikawa: Nihon fashizumu ka no shūkyō 日本ファシズム下の宗教. Tokyo: Enuesu-shuppankai, 1975. Ishii Kōsei 石井公成: “Kyōto gakuha no tetsugaku to nihon bukkyō; Kōyama Iwao no baai” 京都 学派の哲学と日本仏教－高山岩男の場合 – [Philosophies of the Kyoto School and the Japanese Buddhism: with special reference to Kōyama Iwao] in Kikan Bukkyō 季刊仏教 (2000a) 49: pp. 111–119. Ishii Kōsei 石井公成: “Daitōa kyōeiken no gōrika to kegon tetsugaku (1) – Kihira Tadayoshi no yakuwari o chūshin to shite” 大東亜共栄圏の合理化と華厳哲学(一) －紀平正美の役割を 中心として [Justification of the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and Huayan philosophy (1) – with special reference to the role played by Kihira Tadayoshi]. Bukkyōgaku 仏教学 (2000b) 42: pp. 45–70. Ishii Kōsei 石井公成: “Shinran o sangō shita chōkokkashugisha tachi (1): Genri nipponsha no Mitsui Kōshi no shisō” 親鸞を讃仰した超国家主義者たち(一) －原理日本社の三井甲之 の思想 [Ultranationalists who worshipped Shinran(1)－the thought of Mitsui Kōshi, one of the founders of the Genri Nippon sha (the Japan Principle Society)]. Komazawa Tanki Daigaku Bukkyō Ronshū 駒澤短期大学仏教論集 (2002a) 8: pp. 45–70. Ishii Kōsei 石井公成: “Dai Tōa kyōeiken ni itaru kegon tetsugaku: Kametani Seikei no Kegonkyō senyō” 大東亜共栄圏に至る華厳哲学－亀谷聖馨の『華厳経』宣揚 – [Huayan philosophy leading to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere – the enhancement of the Avataṃsaka- sūtra by Kametani Seikei]. Shisō思想 (2002b) 943: pp. 128–146. Ishii Kōsei 石井公成: “L’idée de《Sphère de co-prospérité de la Grand Asie Orientale》et la philosophie bouddhique – Le rôle de l’École de Kyôto,” traduit par Frédéric Girard. Cipango (2002c) Numéro hors-série printemps: pp. 71–112. Ishii Kōsei 石井公成: “Shūkyōsha no sensō sekinin: Ichikawa Hakugen sono hito no kentō o tō- shite” 宗教者の戦争責任—市川白弦その人の検討を通して [War responsibility of believ- ers－ through the case of Ichikawa Hakugen himself] in Bōryoku 暴力 [Violence]. Tokyo: Iwanami-shoten, 2004. (Iwanami kōza shūkyō 8.) Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄: “Kegon tetsugaku no konpon tachiba” 華厳哲学の根本立場 [Basic standpoint of Huayan philosophy] in Nakamura Hajime (ed.): Kegon shisō 華厳思想 [Huayan thought]. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1960. Kametani Seikei 亀谷聖馨: Kyōiku chokugo to shūkyō 教育勅語と宗教 [The Imperial Rescript on Education and Religions]. Tokyo: Meikyō Daigaku sōsetusho,1912. Kametani Seikei 亀谷聖馨: Kegon no tetsuri to sōtaisei genri 華厳の哲理と相対性原理 [Kegon philosophy and the principle of relativity]. Tokyo: Meikyō gakkai, 1922. Kametani Seikei 亀谷聖馨: Kegon tetsugaku to taisei tetsugaku 華厳哲学と泰西哲学 [Huayan philosophy and Western philosophies]. Tokyo: Tetsugakushūkyo kennsankai, 1923. Kihira Tadayoshi 紀平正美: Nippon seishin 日本精神 [Japanese spirit]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1930.

KEGON PHILOSOPHY AND NATIONALISM IN MODERN JAPAN 335

Kihira Tadayoshi 紀平正美: Nippon seishin to benshōhō 日本精神と弁証法 [Japanese spirit and dialectic]. Tokyo: Monbushō nai shisō mondai kenkyūkai, 1932. Kihira Tadayoshi 紀平正美: Waga kokutai ni okeru wa 我が 国体に於ける和 [Harmony in our national polity]. Tokyo: (Monbushō) Kyōgaku kyoku, 1938. Ōhashi Ryōsuke 大橋良介: Kyōto gakuha to nihon kaigun 京都学派と日本海軍 [The Kyoto School and the Japanese Navy]. Tokyo: PHP Kenkyūsho, 2001. Suzuki Daisetsu 鈴木大拙: Reiseiteki nihon no kensetsu 霊性的日本の建設 [Construction of a spiritual Japan]. Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1946. Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎: “Bukkyō no zentaisei genri” 仏教の全体性原理 [Buddhist totali- tarian principle] in (Monbushō) Kyōgaku kyoku (ed.): Nihon shogaku shinkō iinkai kenkyū hō- koku 日本諸学振興委員会研究報告, vol. II. (Tetsugaku). Tokyo: Kyōgaku kyoku, 1938. Ueki Toshirō 上木敏郎: “Kaisetsu-Tsuchida Kyōson no shōgai” 解説―土田杏村の生涯 [Kai- setsu-the life of Tsuchida Kyōson] in Tuchida Kyōson: Shōchō no tetsugaku. 象徴の哲学. To- kyo: Shinsensha, 1971. Yamaguchi Kazuhiro 山口和宏: Tsuchida Kyōson no kindai 土田杏村の近代 [Modernity for Tsuchida Kyōson]. Tokyo: Perikan-sha, 2004.