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 Buddhism? 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) affiliated with Tokyo Imperial University “Buddhism in Japan” (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 signifiers? 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 offers a detailed study of the his‐ there was or is much differentiation 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 define, 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 offers focused inquiry into the history of the writ‐ opus, his Bukkyōtōitsu ron (Treatise on the unifi‐ 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 “influx 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 unifiedfeld or of “Indian philosophy.” (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 “scientific” 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 proffer 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 Chinese Buddhism 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 influence 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 defining this pan-Taishō emphasis on Japa‐ dhism was compatible with the state and the im‐ nese familism (kazokushugi) into Buddhist par‐ perial system.