Orion Klautau. Kindai nihon shisō to shite no bukkyō shigaku. Kyōto: Hōzōkan, 2012. Illustrations. iv + 334 pp. n.p., cloth, ISBN 978-4-8318-7364-4.

Reviewed by Ryan Ward

Published on H-Shukyo (October, 2014)

Commissioned by Jolyon B. Thomas (University of Pennsylvania)

What is Japanese ? Such a question “Japaneseness” of Buddhism as found in the bur‐ might seem empirically obvious or begging for a geoning Japanese state. tautological answer, but Orion Klautau broaches To begin answering this question, Klautau this very question in the preface to his Kindai Ni‐ traces the historiography of “Japanese Buddhism” hon shisō toshite no Bukkyō shigaku (The study of as seen in the writings of Japanese academics and Buddhist history as modern Japanese thought).[1] Buddhist scholars (these two categories are often Indeed, are “Japanese Buddhism” (Nihon Bukkyō), porous) afliated with Tokyo Imperial University “” (Nihon ni okeru Bukkyō), (Tōdai) during the late Meiji (1868–1912), Taishō and the “Buddhism of Japan” (Nihon no Bukkyō) (1912–26), and early Shōwa periods (1926–45). In analogues, homologues, or just foating signifers? the frst part of this book, Klautau sets his sights One could also tack on terms like “Japanese-style on Hara Tanzan (1819–92), Murakami Senshō Buddhism” (Nihon-teki Bukkyō) or “Buddhism of (1851–1929), Takakusu Junjirō (1866–1945), and the Japanese” (Nihonjin no Bukkyō) to this collec‐ Hanayama Shinshō (1898–1995). The latter half of tive mess, but therein lies the rub: I do not think this monograph ofers a detailed study of the his‐ there was or is much diferentiation between the torian Tsuji Zennosuke (1877–1955) and his theo‐ uses of these terms among scholars writing on ry of the “Decline of [Japanese] Buddhism.” What “this” subject in Japanese. What is of importance we have received is not a typical monograph on —as Klautau argues—however, is the appearance the history of Japanese Buddhism. Monographs of an almost universal trend among Japanese on Japanese Buddhism by a previous generation Buddhist scholars from the late Meiji period of scholars were often characterized by long and (vaguely speaking, after around 1900) onward to derivative explications on Heian and Kamakura attempt to defne, delimit, and demarcate the Buddhism with a bit of Tokugawa and “modern” Japanese Buddhism slapped on at the end as an H-Net Reviews uncomfortable afterthought. By contrast, Klautau Murakami’s failed attempt at penning a magnum ofers focused inquiry into the history of the writ‐ opus, his Bukkyōtōitsu ron (Treatise on the unif‐ ing of the history of Japanese Buddhism in the cation of Buddhism, or is it Treatise on the unity “modern” period. As scholars now know, there of Buddhism?), published in three volumes from was much more going on during this period than 1901 to 1905, has been the subject of academic in‐ attempts at rectifying the dates of founders, posi‐ quiry in much recent scholarship, Klautau con‐ tivistic probing into temple origins, transcribing vincingly argues that Murakami’s gloss on Japa‐ faded manuscripts, and canonizing sutras. nese Buddhism can already be located in earlier If one wishes to argue that the deployment of writings, such as his Nihon Bukkyō-shi (Japanese heuristics like “Japanese Buddhism” and “Bud‐ Buddhist history, published in 1897).[4] As in his dhism in Japan” already betrays a sense of cate‐ later works, Murakami claimed that the current gorical schizophrenia and muddled thought on state of the study of Japanese Buddhism was— the part of those who have so carelessly used mainly due to the “infux of modern western com‐ them, the author’s frst fgure of inquiry, Hara parative religious studies”—based only on “the Tanzan, is a case in point. Through an invitation comparative research of individual Buddhist by Katō Hiroyuki (1836–1916), Hara, a one-time schools.” Sadly, he lamented, no scholar had yet to defrocked Sōtō monk, pseudo-scientist, and attempt to “unify” the various competing sectari‐ Asakusa-based fortuneteller, taught some of the an “doctrines” (p. 90). I should add that similar earliest lectures on Japanese Buddhism at Tokyo lamentations are found throughout Murakami’s Imperial University under, ironically, the rubric oeuvre. This attempt at creating a unifedfeld or of “Indian .” (So, here at least, we can systematic framework by which to position (Japa‐ surmise that “Japanese Buddhism” was somehow nese) Buddhism was based not only on Muraka‐ equated with “Indian philosophy.”) In his writings mi’s barely tenable positivistic historiography, but and in his lectures, Hara attempted to portray— also on his interest in the “rediscovery” of the vis-à-vis a posited Christianity—that Buddhism 1268 Hasshū kōyō (Essentials of the eight sects, was based on the direct experiment/experience of authored by Gyōnen [1240-1321]) from the Meiji the Buddha himself.[2] Christianity began and period onward. But, as Klautau notes, Murakami ended in belief. Buddhism, being “scientifc” and was less concerned with unifying Buddhism per a “philosophy” in its essence, also started from be‐ se and more concerned with promulgating the su‐ lief but culminated in “logical proof for the indi‐ periority of Japanese Buddhism over its Asian vidual” (p. 73).[3] Hence, for Hara, Buddhism was counterparts. In doing so, Murakami argued for a deemed a (the?) true religion. Unlike the scholar‐ prominent role for Japanese Buddhism in the Ja‐ ship of fgures who appear in later chapters of panese society of the day. Klautau’s work, Hara’s “scholarship” was based Murakami’s conception of Japanese Bud‐ more on his own intellectual peregrinations than dhism as being the natural outcome of a kind of on serious philological or source-based inquiry. It Buddhist evolution takes on more saliency in the would be the next generation of Tōdai scholars third part of chapter 2 (“Murakami Senshō on the whose “modern” intellectual armament would al‐ Characteristics of Japanese Buddhism: Precepts, low them to profer a more academically accept‐ Philosophy, and Faith”). Klautau draws on a num‐ able veneer to their agendas. ber of published public lectures and essays by Chapter 2, “The Birth of Japanese Buddhism,” Murakami that span almost twenty years (1906– turns to the early writings of the Ōtani priest and 24). As he makes clear, what is astounding in Buddhist historian Murakami Senshō. Although these quoted passages is that Murakami—one of the foremost scholars of Japanese Buddhist histo‐

2 H-Net Reviews ry in his day—seems to have been trapped in a dressed in chapter 3, which outlines a relatively discourse of ahistoricity and conjecture. Although unknown text by Takakusu Junjirō. Takakusu, one can trace the “development” of precepts and who spent some seven years studying Indology doctrine in the history of Indian Buddhism, it was and Buddhology in Europe before embarking on “questionable” as to whether Indian Buddhists his academic career in 1897 as a lecturer at Tokyo had real “religious faith” (shūkyō teki shinkō, p. Imperial University, is best known for his work on 98). Turning to China, we are told that it is hard to supervising the collation and editing of the Upan‐ imagine that had much in the ishads (published 1922–24), the Taishō Tripiṭaka way of organizational or systematic development (1922–34), and the Nanden daizōkyō (1936–41). and that it was also lacking in “religious faith.” Takakusu’s 1916 work, Bukkyōkokumin no risō Murakami correctly noted the infuence of Dao‐ (The ideals of a Buddhist citizenry) shows us a dif‐ ism on Chinese Buddhism but he then summarily ferent side to the Oxford-trained Buddhologist. dismissed Chinese Buddhism in that it never tran‐ Despite (or because of) his sojourn in Europe, scended the “faith of the lower classes.” Muraka‐ Takakusu warned that one must be judicious in mi further asserted that although the Chinese did importing foreign culture to Japan. Takakusu set practice the nenbutsu (recitation of the Buddha's up a crude (yet all too common) binary scheme name), it was limited to “a small number of lo‐ that bifurcated “Japan” and the “West.” (Note that cales,” nothing more than the provenance of “the Takakusu spoke of “Japan” and not the “East.”) lower classes,” and was not comparable to the “Ja‐ Japan had “spirit, family, and morality.” The West, panese nenbutsu” (p. 98). What set Japanese Bud‐ in juxtaposition, valued “material[ism], the indi‐ dhism apart from its Asian antecedents was that it vidual, and knowledge” (pp. 127, 128). One can managed to transform itself into a “developed re‐ quickly guess where Takakusu, a Shin layman, ligious faith.” Murakami stated that this level of was headed next: Shinran (1173–1263). Shinran’s religious faith in Japan was “most likely incompa‐ Shinshū, we are told, is the “culmination of the rable [to the religious faith found] in all of the evolution of Japanese Buddhism.” Why so? Shin‐ countries of the world” (p. 99). Despite being re‐ ran—the meat-eating family man—and his Shin‐ membered as one of the architects of the academ‐ shū were in “exact accord with the nature of Japa‐ ic study of Japanese Buddhism, in terms of his nese citizenry” (p. 130). In many ways, Takakusu’s motivations, Murakami often seem to be in line emphasis on the family—pace Western individu‐ with his fortune-telling predecessor, Hara: both alism and materialism—should be seen as being concurred that Japanese Buddhism was the only highly derivative in light of the fact that an untold religion in which one fnds true faith. Chapter 2 number of non-Buddhist writers and intellectuals closes by showing that by the 1890s Murakami’s were concurrently espousing similar views. What writings evinced an emergent discourse on how— is of importance here is that Takakusu was fur‐ again, unlike in India or China—Japanese Bud‐ ther defning this pan-Taishō emphasis on Japa‐ dhism was compatible with the state and the im‐ nese familism (kazokushugi) into Buddhist par‐ perial system. Such a rhetorical move, Klautau lance. We will come across a similar argument maintains, was also no doubt played out with put forth in the writings of Hanayama. such incidents as Uchimura Kanzō’s (1861–1930) As we have seen, both Murakami and refusal to pay homage to the Meiji emperor and Takakusu were not mere Buddhologists. (I have the Imperial Rescript on Education in mind. never met a “mere Buddhologist,” for the record.) This newfound discourse on the compatibility Both were developing an organic and nationalis‐ (nay, sociopolitical necessity) between Japanese tic vision of Japanese Buddhism based on the Ja‐ Buddhism and the modern imperial state is ad‐ panese family unit. It is also easy to imagine how

3 H-Net Reviews both of these scholars—and both of whom were gen [1200–53]) still fourished in the postwar peri‐ afliated with Shin Buddhism—faced little intel‐ od in the writings of such scholars as Ienaga lectual dissonance when arguing for how individ‐ Saburō (1913–2002). Although Ienaga and other ual families and the imperial family, Amida and postwar scholars went to great pains to expunge the emperor were all cords in a single fabric. And the nationalist underpinnings that we fnd in both men, like Hara, held that what they were do‐ writers like Murakami, Takakusu, and Hanayama, ing was purely academic. Murakami and the fascination with the ur-moment of the Ka‐ Takakusu, if we follow Klautau’s logic, had al‐ makura founders remained sanguine. Whether or ready mapped out much of the tectonics that not one chooses to see fgures like Shinran as a would be eagerly employed by Japanese Buddhist nationalist family man or as a proponent of thinkers during the interwar years. democracy and individualism (Ienaga), one is still Hanayama Shinshō’s Nihon Bukkyō no playing the same game (albeit under a diferent tokushoku (Characteristics of Japanese Buddhism, heading): Japanese Buddhism and its history of 1936), the subject of chapter 4, shows exactly how great men are mere palimpsests for the politics du this earlier discourse on the uniqueness and supe‐ jour. (Hanayama, for example, conveniently ter‐ riority of Japanese Buddhism revealed itself in the minated his “research” on Prince Shōtoku after years before Japan’s fateful period of total mobi‐ the Pacifc War.) lization. Hanayama, also a professor at Tokyo Im‐ At this point, the reader may be disillusioned perial University and a Shin priest (one begins to by the fact that many of the most prominent Tōdai see a pattern emerge), located the fundaments of historians of Japanese Buddhism (sans Ienaga) Japanese Buddhism in Prince Shōtoku (574?–622) seem to have been intellectual opportunists and and his teaching of the One Vehicle (Ichijō).[5] crypto-apologists for the Japanese state. Not all Ja‐ Hanayama’s intent was far from sublime: the Ja‐ panese scholars, however, saw Japanese Bud‐ panese imperial state was founded by a Buddhist dhism as a positive infuence. The Tokyo Universi‐ regent who espoused an organic doctrine of the ty historian Tsuji Zennosuke, who is the subject of sublimation of daily life, the state, and religion the second part of this work, honed in on what he (Buddhism) into a collective whole. This formed identifed as the decrepit and moribund state of and, some one thousand years later (!), still in‐ the Japanese Buddhist clergy. Tsuji, unlike his col‐ formed the essential ground and lebensraum of leagues in Buddhist studies, grounded his re‐ the Japanese people. As with his teacher search in the readings of temple gazetteers, di‐ (Takakusu), Hanayama saw Shinran as being the aries, missives, and other forms of “non-philo‐ frst Japanese Buddhist who, through his disavow‐ sophical” media. What he found was that Japa‐ al of the precepts, was able to spread Buddhism to nese Buddhism (in its lived and historical contin‐ the Japanese populace (kokumin). We now arrive gencies) seemed rotten to the core. Today, Tsuji is at something of an apogee in prewar Japanese regarded as one of the frst scholars to undertake Buddhist historiography. The Buddhist Heian an “objective” and “positivist” study of Japanese prince is interlinked with the familist Shinran Buddhist history, and also known for presenting and, in turn, the essence of Japan and the Japa‐ the still popular theory of the “Decline of [Japa‐ nese is laid bare. nese] Buddhism” (Bukkyō daraku ron). Although Hanayama’s work would be con‐ An observant reader, and Klautau is one of signed to the archives after the war, Klautau them, will be readily cognizant that this concep‐ points out that the fascination with the Kamakura tion of the decline of Japanese Buddhism was also (1185–1333) founders (notably, Shinran and Dō‐ present in the historical sketches provided by

4 H-Net Reviews those like Murakami and Takakusu. Indeed, all of their daily temple activities. Klautau uses the ex‐ these writers lamented the degenerate nature of ample of Tokugawa Shin doctrinal debates and Japanese Buddhism in the Tokugawa period and practical concerns as to whether children could the devastation caused by the Meiji separation of be born in the Pure Land (i.e., the Shōni ōjō ronsō buddhas and kami (shinbutsu bunri). This, con‐ ). Like Catholic missionaries confronted with the versely, was in opposition to the “golden age” of question as to whether or not unbaptized “hea‐ Kamakura Buddhism. Although many Japanese thens” could be saved, Shin clergy and parish‐ scholars and Japanese Buddhist thinkers still toe ioners wondered and worried as to whether in‐ this line today, seeing the Kamakura period as the fants and children (and the elderly, incapacitated, apex and culmination of Japanese Buddhism has and senile), who were not yet able to grasp Shin more to do with hagiography than it does with teachings, could be born on lovely lotuses in the historiography. Land of Bliss. Tsuji, who was one of the frst to It is true that Tsuji’s writings did little to sal‐ discuss this doctrinal debate in an academic set‐ vage or exonerate Japanese Buddhism. One fnds ting, argued that this phenomenon was emblem‐ no program for arguing for the superiority of Ja‐ atic of the pejorative “formalization” of Buddhist panese Buddhism or for its obvious necessity doctrine (pp. 254–255). Against this, Klautau coun‐ within the modern imperial state. Here Tsuji dis‐ ters with the obvious. (Obvious, of course, after unites with Murakami, Takakusu, and Hanayama. Klautau has pointed the problem out.) That a sat‐ Hence, he is often regarded as being a “pure” his‐ isfactory doctrinal answer was never achieved is torian who was only interested in the facts. a moot point. That priests and parishioners were mutually engaged with these issues is indicative What Tsuji shared with these thinkers, how‐ of intellectual and religious vibrancy, not of Toku‐ ever, is twofold: frst, he held that it was the con‐ gawa clerical degeneracy. vergence of politics and Buddhism that led to the decline of the Japanese saṃgha during the Toku‐ Part 2 ends with a brief discussion of later Ja‐ gawa period; second, his historical trajectory is panese Buddhist historians’ (Tsuji’s disciple, one of pure teleology. Murakami, Takakusu, and Tamamuro Taijō [1902-66]; Tamamuro’s son, Fu‐ Hanayama—while accepting the supposed va‐ mio; and the former Ōtani University professor, grancy of Tokugawa Buddhism—felt that this his‐ Ōkuwa Hitoshi) attempts at rethinking Buddhism torical contingency could be efaced or artlessly in the Tokugawa period. Despite these noble ef‐ avoided by simply bracketing it of. Tokugawa forts to transcend Tsuji’s “Decline of Japanese Buddhism was a mere aberration or lacuna in the Buddhism in the Tokugawa” paradigm in the post‐ grander and progressive movement of Japanese war period, Klautau concludes by observing that Buddhism. Tsuji saw it as the beginning of the we have a long way to go. end. It would seem, then, that Tsuji ofered some‐ Allow me to close with several concerns I thing of a sober corrective to the rosy hopes of sal‐ have about this work. One fgure who is conspicu‐ vation for modern Japanese Buddhism. ously missing from an extended discussion is As Klautau aptly shows, however, a major Sakaino Kōyō (1871–1933). Understanding how faw in Tsuji’s theory of decline is that it falls Sakaino’s prolifc and infuential body of work on apart when he admits that the Tokugawa period Japanese Buddhist universality and Prince Shō‐ was characterized by great achievements in Japa‐ toku fts into the writing of modern Japanese Bud‐ nese Buddhist scholasticism, and that it was also a dhist history is an unavoidable piece in Klautau’s time in which the Buddhist clergy was actively overall argument. Likewise, I wonder if the focus struggling to apply this nascent scholasticism to on Hanayama’s writings on Shōtoku comes at the

5 H-Net Reviews expense of a broader inquiry into the role the his‐ Japanese intellectual history” would have been a tories of Prince Shōtoku (and there were many; more apropos English translation. too many to list) penned in the 1930–40s played. [2]. Readers unfamiliar with the modern Japa‐ Granted, such an inquiry is a book in its own nese Buddhism argot may fnd the confation of right. That said, the reader is left to ponder how “experience” (keiken) and “experiment[ation]” relevant Hanayama’s writings were among what (jikken) odd. This is further exacerbated as the we may call the “prewar Shōtoku industry.” Final‐ term taiken (often translated—correctly or not— ly, I would have liked to have seen Klautau take as “physical experience”) is often also used in a on some of the later writings of Tsuji. To cite one similar sense. What is noteworthy here is that example, does a work like Tsuji’s Kōshitsu to Ni‐ many Japanese religious fgures and scholars hon seishin (The imperial family and the Japanese were wont to argue that religious experience was spirit, 1944) not evince a certain penchant for in fact analogous to scientifc experimentation playing up the connection between emperors and (i.e., “ultimate” religious experience was demon‐ Buddhism? strably empirical in nature). Tracing the genealo‐ Such points for future research aside, Klau‐ gy of the uses and abuses of these terms would be tau’s study provides future scholars with a solid a worthwhile project in its own right. start for rethinking the history (and the writing of [3]. Here, of course, “logical proof for the indi‐ the history) of Japanese Buddhism. It is no doubt vidual” does not refer to proof that individuals ex‐ more than time enough to begin to reconsider just ist, but that Buddhist experience leads to incon‐ what it is when we utter, type, or think the very trovertible truth for those who immerse them‐ term “Japanese Buddhism” and all of its vaguely selves in it. familiar glosses. This work is also commendable [4]. For the most comprehensive study of Mu‐ in that it opens up a much broader space in which rakami in English, see the articles contained in to rethink the construction of modern Japanese The Eastern Buddhist 37, nos. 1-2 (2005). Also see intellectual history itself. Such a work makes it Michel Mohr’s recent Buddhism, Unitarianism, difcult to relegate the history of “Japanese Bud‐ and the Meiji Competition for Universality (Cam‐ dhism” to the narrow academic and sectarian bridge: Harvard University Press, 2014). confnes of “Japanese Buddhist studies.” Although the dialectics of research will no doubt lead to fu‐ [5]. For another recent Japanese work dis‐ ture revisions and retractions concerning the cussing Shōtoku Taishi in this period, see Aratano writing of Japanese Buddhist history in the mod‐ Kazunobu’s Kōdō Bukkyō to tairiku fukyō (Tokyo: ern era, Klautau’s overarching argument will be Shahyo, 2014), esp. chap. 1, 1. hard to overturn: the modern project of writing [6]. For another take on Klautau’s work, see Japanese Buddhist history was more often than Micah Auerback’s “Politics and Scholarship in the not a writing of the Japanese state.[6] Modern Reinvention of Japanese Buddhism,” Reli‐ Notes gious Studies in Japan 2 (2014): 23–26. [1]. As a personal aside, Kindai Nihon shisō toshite no Bukkyō shigaku sounds fne in Japa‐ nese. In English, the translation provided on the book's copyright page—“The study of Buddhist history as modern Japanese thought”—resonates in a faintly odd cadence to my overly sensitive ears. Perhaps “Buddhist historiography in modern

6 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-shukyo

Citation: Ryan Ward. Review of Klautau, Orion. Kindai nihon shisō to shite no bukkyō shigaku. H- Shukyo, H-Net Reviews. October, 2014.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=38985

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

7