Otani University Academic Repository / 大谷大学学術情報リポジトリ

澤﨑, 瑞央

サワザキ, ズイヨウ

SAWAZAKI, Zuiyo

With respect to upāya required of avinivartanīya in the Da zhidu lun

Nasu, Eishō

"e Eastern Buddhist 2/2: 85–95
©2022 !e Eastern Buddhist Society
BOOK REVIEWS
Aspiring to Enlightenment: Pure Land Buddhism in Silla Korea. By Richard D. McBride 
II. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2020. Hardcover. ISBN-13: 978-0-8248-
8260-0.
N,'( E%'*<
Because Pure Land practices in Korea never developed a separate lineage as in China, 
or diverged into independent Buddhist schools as in Japan, they have remained largely 
overlooked within scholarship on East Asian Buddhism. Richard McBride’s Aspiring 
to Enlightenment, the 1rst book-length work on Korean Pure Land practice, is thus a 
most welcome addition to the study of the greater East Asian Pure Land tradition gen-
erally and its Korean incarnations speci1cally. !e book represents the culmination of 
twenty years of research and re3ection by the author, providing a comprehensive vison, 
for the 1rst time, of how Pure Land Buddhism was accepted and developed during the 
Silla period (ca. 300–935) at both the monastic and popular levels. By examining both 
the doctrinal texts on, and the popular cultic practices of, Amit8bha Buddha, together 
with 1eld research at Silla-period sites, McBride demonstrates how Pure Land Bud-
dhist practice became a vital and vibrant part of Silla society. 
!e book introduces the subject in the 1rst two chapters by explaining the histori-
cal, cultural, and doctrinal background in which Pure Land practices were introduced 
to the Korean Peninsula. In the 1rst chapter, “!e World of Buddhist Scholars in 
Silla Korea,” the author points out that Silla’s royal adoption of Buddhism formed a 
part of its participation in Sinitic high culture, and, with the construction of the 1rst 
temples in the mid-sixth century, monasteries worked largely to support the state (pp. 
4–5). Pure Land Buddhist texts were introduced to Korea in this sociocultural context. 
Although Silla Buddhist scholars adopted Sinitic intellectual and cultic understandings 
of Pure Land Buddhism (pp. 8–12), McBride stresses that “there were no 1rm scholas-
tic traditions, lineages, or schools of thought” (p. 15), and that the scholar monks of 
both Korea and China understood Pure Land practice as part of the larger Mahayana 
path (pp. 15–16).
In chapter 2, “Pure Land !inkers in Medieval China,” the author provides a con-
cise summary of the development of the Chinese Pure Land tradition from Lushan 
T H E  E A S T E R N  B U D D H I S T  2 ,  286
Huiyan 廬山慧遠 (334–417) to Fazhao 法照 (d. ca. 830). In this chapter, the author 
spends much of his e5orts introducing the Pure Land thought of major Chinese mas-
ters, namely Tanluan 曇鸞 (ca. 476–542), Daochuo 道綽 (562–645), Jiacai 迦才 (3. 
626–649), and Shandao 善導 (613–681). !is chapter is particularly useful for readers 
who are not familiar with the doctrinal foundations of meditative practices focused on 
the Buddha (Skt. buddh$nusmṛiti, Ch. nienfo, K. yŏnbul 念仏) developed by Tanluan 
and the popular vocal “ten intonations” (Ch. shisheng 十聲) of Amit8bha’s name pro-
moted by Shandao. 
Following this background material, chapter 3, “!e Pure Land Practice of Silla’s 
Buddhist Intellectuals,” focuses on Silla scholars’ understanding of the practice of 
“ten recollections” (Ch. shinian 十念, K. simnyŏn). In contrast to earlier East Asian 
Mahayana practices, in which the ten recollections were a contemplative form of prac-
tice, in the Sinitic Pure Land tradition the ten recollections became popularly identi-
1ed with the ten vocal recitations of Amit8bha’s name, intended for those incapable of 
performing the advanced contemplative practices discussed in the Guan wuliangshou 
jing 観無量寿経. !e author discusses the main Silla scholars, namely Wŏnhyo 元暁 
(617–686), Pŏbwi 法位 (3. 661–681), Hyŏnil 玄一 (ca. late 7th to early 8th c.), Ŭijŏk 
義寂 (ca. late 7th to early 8th c.), and Kyŏnghŭng 憬興 (ca. late 7th to early 8th c.). 
Here, the author focuses particularly on the contributions to Pure Land exegesis made 
by Wŏnhyo and Kyŏnghŭng. Wŏnhyo introduced a novel reading of the Pure Land 
scriptures, saying that it is not how one practices but rather the arousing of bodhicitta 
(the aspiration to enlightenment) that is the primary cause of birth in the Pure Land (p. 
34). He also developed the concept of the Pure Land “esoteric” (ŭnmil 隠密) ten recol-
lections (pp. 37–40) and used Tanluan’s metaphor of “crossing the river expedient” 
(toha pangbyŏn 渡河方便) to demonstrate his idea that salvation is possible even with 
only “one recollection” (illyŏn 一念) of buddh$nusmṛti (pp. 40–43). In his discussion 
of Kyŏnghŭng, McBride makes the signi1cant point that Silla scholars did not neces-
sarily agree with Shandao’s interpretation of “ten recollections” being the same as “ten 
intonations.” In particular, Kyŏnghŭng, as a scholar of the Sinitic Yog8c8ra tradition, 
rejected Shandao’s simple blending of the “ten recollections” with the “ten intona-
tions.” Kyŏnghŭng’s critical view is clearly demonstrated in his saying that “You should 
not wrest the words (purŭng nanŏn 不應難言) [from the sutras]!” directed against lib-
eral interpretations of the scriptures by Shandao and his disciple Huaigan 懐感 (3. late 
7th c.; pp. 54–55).
In chapter 4, “Interaction and Reaction between the Amit8bha and Maitreya 
Cults,” the author introduces doctrinal debates concerning the competing popu-
lar cultic practices of Amit8bha and Maitreya and demonstrates the ecumeni-
cal nature of Silla’s Pure Land practice by examining the writings of Wŏnhyo and 
Kyŏnghŭng. Both Wŏnhyo, who is considered the promulgator of “comprehensive 
B O O K  R E V I E W S 87
Buddhism” (t’ong pulgyo 通仏教, p. 58), and Kyŏnghŭng, representing mainstream 
Korean scholarship on Sinitic Buddhism (p. 61), wrote commentaries on scrip-
tures related to Maitreya worship in which they demonstrated their impartiality to 
both types of Pure Land practices. Kyŏnghŭng went even further to suggest that 
the 1ve kinds of practice prescribed in the Wangshen lun 往生論 of Vasubandhu (3. 
ca. 4th or 5th c.) for Amit8bha worship are also applicable for Maitreya worship 
(pp. 62–63). In the past, many researchers have been confused by the Yusim allak to 
遊心安楽道 attributed to Wŏnhyo, which has often been used to maintain that 
Wŏnhyo was very sympathetic to Amit8bha worship. However, as the author points 
out, this text was most likely composed by a later scholar and should not be counted as 
an authentic work of Wŏnhyo (pp. 72–75; see also “Epilogue,” pp. 125–26).
Chapter 5, “!e Amit8bha Cult in Practice,” the last and longest chapter, is devoted 
to the author’s examination of “icons and images, epigraphy, literature, and tradi-
tional narratives” (p. 78) related to Pure Land practices of the later Silla period and 
their connection to the development of early Japanese Buddhism (pp. 113–15). !e 
number of cases cited in this chapter is impressive, and they amply demonstrate how 
the Amit8bha cult was actually “practiced” in Silla Korea, not only by monasteries but 
also by people of various status levels in society. However, because of the lack of clear 
historical records, the author was not able to connect this material evidence with the 
earlier examination of doctrinal issues, except for brief notes on Wŏnhyo’s propagation 
of the recitation of the Buddha’s name and his composition of a popular poem, titled 
“G8th8 on Amit8bha’s Attaining Buddha-Nature” (Mit’a chŭnsŏng ke 弥陀證性偈, pp. 
105–6). !ese large gaps in the historical record make it di4cult to determine connec-
tions or large trends in Silla Buddhism. In the end, McBride recommends that it might 
be helpful to compare Silla Buddhism with that of early Japan in order to overcome 
the gap in the Korean historical record (pp. 113–15). 
In the “Epilogue,” subtitled “!e Legacy of Silla’s Pure Land Buddhism,” the author 
concisely summarizes how the interpretation of buddh$nusmṛti by Silla Pure Land 
exegetes continued to be re1ned by the following generations of Korean Buddhist 
scholars. As the author points out, while reading the Silla scholars’ Pure Land com-
mentaries, we need to be aware that, though they were written to promote the practice 
of buddh$nusmṛti, they were meant to propagate the practice as part of the Mahayana 
tradition and never as a “Pure Land tradition.”
Although there are still many lacunae in our understanding of Pure Land Bud-
dhism in Silla Korea, the author’s examination of the development of ideas about 
buddh$nusmṛti combined with his 1eld research greatly advances this gravely under-
studied area within contemporary academic studies of East Asian Buddhism. One of 
the most important legacies of the writings of Silla scholars is that their impact was 
not limited to Korea. Japanese monks were perhaps those most in3uenced by the 
T H E  E A S T E R N  B U D D H I S T  2 ,  288
introduction of Pure Land commentaries by Korean scholars (pp. 121–26). !erefore, 
this book is strongly recommended for those who are also interested in the history of 
the development of Japanese Pure Land practice.
Given the importance of the book’s contents, it is regrettable that it is marred with 
quite a few unfortunate typographical errors. For example: the title of Wuliangshou 
jing youpotishe wangsheng jie 無量寿経優波提舎往生偈 should be read Wuliangshou jing 
youpotishe yuansheng jie 無量寿経優婆提舎願生偈 (p. 21, l. 19, and p. 168, l. 6); the 
phrase “people of underminded natures” would be better rendered “people of undeter-
mined natures” (p. 36, l. 12); incorrect characters are given for the phrase ha samsaeng 
下生下品, which should instead be rendered 下三生 (p. 49, l. 9); and, the heading on 
the last page of the epilogue is mistakenly rendered as “Chapter 5” (p. 128). !ese 
mistakes do not undermine the value of the book, but they do suggest that the reader 
needs to be familiar with East Asian Buddhist terms and texts to avoid confusion. For-
tunately, the primary readership for this book will most likely be academic specialists 
and advanced graduate students who will be able to exercise the appropriate level of 
caution in this regard.
Kindai no bukky! shis! to Nihon shugi 近代の仏教思想と日本主義 (Modern Buddhist 
!ought and Japanism). Edited by Kond" Shuntar" 近藤俊太郎 and Nawa Tatsunori 
名和達宣 under the supervision of Ishii K"sei 石井公成. Kyoto: H"z"kan, 2020. xiii + 
556 pages. Hardcover. ISBN-13: 978-4-8318-5560-2.*
F()('*%+, E%=(
As Kond" Shuntar", one of the editors of this volume, points out, studies on wartime 
Japanese Buddhism have focused on pursuing the responsibility of Buddhists in abet-
ting and supporting the Japanese war e5ort. Such studies condemned wartime Bud-
dhist monks and organizations for distorting the original nature of Buddhism under 
the in3uence of “Japanism” (Nihon shugi 日本主義). !is approach was dominant 
among scholars in the 1eld long after the end of the war. !eir research praised the 
exceptional people who “resisted” the system while consigning the rest to the dark “his-
tory of submission to the emperor-centered Japanese state” (p. ii). De1ned by the two 
extremes of “resistance” and “submission,” studies on wartime Japanese Buddhism were 
forced into an impasse without being able to engage in any productive arguments. 
* T*%' 0.>%.? was 1rst published in Japanese, in Tosho shinbun 図書新聞 (!e Book Review Press), 
no. 3489, March 27, 2021, p. 5.


BOOK REVIEWS  Richard D. McBride II. Aspiring to Enlightenment: Pure Land Buddhism in Silla Korea

Roy, Starrs

Starrs, Roy

B O O K  R E V I E W S 91
volume also eloquently show that studies on wartime thought and Japanism can no 
longer be pursued without reference to Buddhism.
Among the conditions that made it possible to compile this epoch-making volume, 
perhaps the most important is that Japanese scholars have been liberated from their 
obsession with pursuing the wartime responsibilities of Japanese Buddhists. !is is 
due in large part to the fact that the contributors included in this volume are relatively 
young: both of the editors were born in 1980 and many of the contributors were born 
after 1975. Moreover, the fact that the contributors do not necessarily locate them-
selves in a discursive 1eld that intersects with established Buddhist schools has also 
made it possible for them to approach their subject critically. Describing the editorial 
policy of the volume, Nawa writes, “We tried to distance ourselves as much as possible 
from the sort of arguments about war responsibility that are found in earlier studies. 
!is is because, even if we pursue the matter of Buddhist war responsibilities, it is hard 
to see how it would contribute to solving the problems of the present” (p. 540). !is, 
of course, does not mean that the problem of the war responsibilities of Japanese Bud-
dhists is being ignored. Rather, without glossing over the fact that many problems of 
the postwar Japanese system have been carried over from wartime Japan, the aim of 
the volume is to advance the study of war responsibilities to a higher level. !ere is no 
question that this volume will have a major impact on future scholarship in the 1eld.
(Translated by Robert F. Rhodes)
"e Awakening of Modern Japanese Fiction: Path Literature and an Interpretation of Bud-
dhism. By Michihiro Ama. Albany: SUNY Press, 2021. 342 pages. Hardcover. ISBN-
13: 978-1-4384-8141-8.
R#@ S/,00'
!is book will be welcomed by anyone interested in the spiritual sources of modern 
Japanese literature, and in particular, the profound in3uence Buddhism continued to 
exert on that literature in the early twentieth century, despite the mounting incursions 
from the Judeo-Christian West. As the author, Michihiro Ama, points out, Western 
scholars of Japanese literature have largely ignored or underestimated this in3uence, 
which of course makes this book all the more welcome. !e writers dealt with include 
four of the most popular novelists of the period: Natsume S"seki 夏目漱石 (1867–
1916), Tayama Katai 田山花袋 (1872–1930), Shiga Naoya 志賀直哉 (1883–1971), and 
Matsuoka Yuzuru 松岡譲 (1891–1969), as well as, interestingly, less popularly known, 
T H E  E A S T E R N  B U D D H I S T  2 ,  292
though important Buddhist priests such as Kiyozawa Manshi 清沢満之 (1863–1903) 
and Akegarasu Haya 暁烏敏 (1877–1954). For the 1rst time in English, partial transla-
tions of Akegarasu’s confessional memoir, Before and After My Rebirth (K!sei no zengo 
更生の前後, 1920) and Matsuoka’s best-selling Shin Buddhist historical novel, Guard-
ians of the Dharma Castle (H!j! o mamoru hitobito 法城を護る人々 , 1923–1926) are 
helpfully appended to the book.
If one looks for “Buddhist in3uence” in modern Japanese 1ction, one can of course 
1nd it in many di5erent varieties and intensities, ranging from an explicit engagement 
with Buddhist ideas and practices to a vague aura of Buddhist presence in the cultural 
background. At the direct or explicit end of the spectrum is a work such as S"seki’s "e 
Gate (Mon 門, 1910) in which the protagonist Sosuke struggles towards enlightenment 
through Zen practice—not very successfully, it seems, although Ama points to hints in 
the text that he will persevere with his Zen training nonetheless. Of all major modern 
Japanese novelists, S"seki is probably the one who engaged most sympathetically with 
Buddhism—or perhaps one should say nostalgically, since he hoped Zen might o5er 
him some relief from the neurosis and alienation he su5ered, in his view, as a condi-
tion of modernity. !us it is understandable that, as Ama tells us, this “study initially 
began as an exploration of S"seki and Buddhism,” and that “S"seki is the thread that 
binds the contexts of this book” (p. 8). And that, of course, is also to be welcomed, 
given both S"seki’s great stature in modern Japanese literature and his intense but ulti-
mately unful1lled engagement with Buddhism. 
Two other signi1cant examples Ama o5ers of novels that may be regarded from a 
Buddhist perspective as “path literature”—that is, as stories of “spiritual growth that 
leads to the attainment of Buddhist realization” (p. 2)—are Tayama Katai’s "e Miracle 
of a Buddhist Monk (Aru s! no kiseki ある僧の奇蹟, 1917) and Shiga Naoya’s A Dark 
Night’s Passing (Anya k!ro 暗夜行路, 1921–1937). Of these two, the Shiga novel is 
the more ambiguous case—the protagonist Kensaku’s relation with Zen is sometimes 
openly adversarial—and perhaps for this reason Ama’s central argument, it seems to 
me, begins to go slightly astray at this point. 
On the one hand, Ama writes of Kensaku’s “turning of the mind” and “Buddhist 
awakening,” but on the other hand he objects to my suggestion, in my book on Shiga, 
that Kensaku’s mystical experience of rapturous union with nature on Mount Daisen 
大山, in the celebrated scene that forms the culminating climax of the novel, might be 
compared to a Zen satori, albeit one attained “naturally,” outside of formal Zen prac-
tice (pp. 184–85).1 Since Ama has already referred to Kensaku’s “Buddhist awaken-
ing” (p. 7), the reader might wonder whether he thinks that “Buddhist awakening” is 
somehow di5erent to satori and, if so, in what ways? He never speci1es. Nonetheless, 
1 Starrs 1998, pp. 106–17.
B O O K  R E V I E W S 93
whether this is a contradiction in Ama’s argument or not, I think we should examine 
his objections more closely, since they encourage us to rethink the question of how 
exactly Buddhism is relevant to our interpretation of modern Japanese 1ction. 
In my view, the beautifully written Mount Daisen scene that ends A Dark Night’s 
Passing is the most convincing depiction of a satori experience in all of modern 
Japanese 1ction—there are a number of other famous examples, for instance in nov-
els by Kawabata Yasunari 川端康成 (1899–1972) and Mishima Yukio 三島由紀夫 
(1925–1970), but none of these, in my view, is as compelling and powerfully moving 
as Shiga’s. !us, I would have expected Ama to present it as the supreme example of 
what this book purports to be about: the “awakening” of modern Japanese 1ction. But 
Ama rejects this view for two reasons: because Kensaku has already had earlier experi-
ences of union with nature, independently of any Zen in3uence, and “because there is 
no discussion of Buddhist philosophy” (pp. 184–85). But this begs the question: Is the 
Buddhist interpretation of a work of Japanese 1ction only appropriate when the pro-
tagonist’s experience is presented in explicit and orthodox Buddhist terms? If this is the 
position Ama adopts here, then surely it threatens to undermine, or severely restrict, 
the larger purpose of his book: to demonstrate that modern Japanese writers live, willy-
nilly, in a profoundly Buddhist cultural context—even when ostensibly they oppose 
Buddhism as an established religion, as does Shiga’s hero with his proud refusal, as he 
puts it, to sit “humbly at the feet of some smug Zen priest.”2 To me Kensaku’s dialecti-
cal relation with Zen only makes his naturally achieved satori all the more convincing. 
In fact, whereas Ama seems to think that Kensaku’s experience is “Buddhist” but 
not satori, I am more inclined to take the opposite view: that it is satori but not neces-
sarily Buddhist. Obviously one cannot claim that Kensaku attained his “enlightenment” 
by any orthodox Zen methods such as zazen, koan study, or direct mind-to-mind 
transmission from a “smug” Zen master. But, on the other hand, it does seem reason-
able to assume that Kensaku—and Shiga himself, who had a similar experience—were 
especially receptive to what R. C. Zaehner called “natural mysticism”3 because of their 
cultural heritage, which included in particular the “nature-friendly” Buddho-Daoist 
culture of Zen. Zen, we should also remember, was still relatively vibrant—and indeed 
undergoing something of a renaissance among writers, artists, and intellectuals—in 
early twentieth-century Japan. 
But how do we determine whether Kensaku’s experience is really satori? First of all, 
no one in the Zen world has ever argued, to my knowledge, that satori is possible only 
through Zen training—and even less has anyone argued that it can be obtained only 
through the study of Zen philosophy! As D. T. Suzuki tells us: “By them [the early 
2 Shiga 1976, p. 187.
3 Zaehner 1957.
T H E  E A S T E R N  B U D D H I S T  2 ,  294
Chinese Zen masters] satori was placed above sutra-learning and scholarly discussions 
of the sastras and was identi1ed with Zen itself.”4 Furthermore, he tells us, satori is “the 
perception of Reality itself,” and reality, of course, is not the exclusive property of any 
one particular spiritual tradition (although some religions may claim it is). !e key 
passage that describes Kensaku’s experience reads as follows (in Edwin McClellan’s 1ne 
translation): 
He [Kensaku] felt his exhaustion turn into a strange state of rapture. He 
could feel his mind and his body both gradually merging into this great 
nature that surrounded him. It was not nature that was visible to the eyes; 
rather, it was like a limitless body of air that wrapped itself around him, this 
tiny creature no larger than a poppy seed. To be gently drawn into it, and 
there be restored, was a pleasure beyond the power of words to describe.5 
Whereas on earlier occasions Kensaku had resisted nature’s embrace, now his physi-
cal and mental exhaustion causes him to surrender completely. To quote Suzuki again: 
“Satori comes upon a man unawares, when he feels that he has exhausted his whole 
being.”6 Kensaku’s surrender of body and mind reminds us also of the expression that 
inspired D"gen’s satori, shinjin datsuraku 身心脱落 (casting o5 body and mind). Being 
absorbed into nature frees Kensaku of his body/mind, expands his consciousness, and 
allows him to experience muga mushin 無我無心 (no-self, no-mind), a rapturous spiri-
tual state of emptiness in which the subject/object duality between self and nature van-
ishes. (“It was not nature that was visible to the eyes; rather, it was like a limitless body 
of air that wrapped itself around him.”) !ese are all marks of satori. As Suzuki puts it: 
“Life becomes more enjoyable and its expanse broadens to include the universe itself.”7 
And, “!e world now appears as if dressed in a new garment, which seems to cover up 
all the unsightliness of dualism, which is called delusion in Buddhist phraseology.”8 
Most importantly, there is a sense of a loving, compassionate presence at the heart of 
nature: Kensaku feels he is being “gently drawn into it,” there to “be restored.” Anyone 
who has experienced some level of samadhi in meditation will recognize both the cog-
nitive and the emotional accuracy and authenticity of this description. It may not be a 
“full awakening,” but certainly it is moving in the right direction. To judge the tree by 
its fruit, we may note also that the novel ends with Kensaku’s profound transformation 
for the better, as his long-su5ering wife gratefully recognizes: 
4 Suzuki 1964, p. 96.
5 Shiga 1976, p. 400.
6 Suzuki 1964, p. 95.
7 Suzuki 1964, p. 95.
8 Suzuki 1964, p. 98.
B O O K  R E V I E W S 95
Without saying anything Kensaku looked at her. His gaze was like a caress. 
She thought she had never seen such gentleness, such love, in anyone’s 
eyes before. She was about to say, “Everything is all right now,” but she 
refrained, for in the presence of such contentment and quiet, the words 
seemed hollow.9
As Suzuki says of the aftere5ects of satori: “All your mental activities will now be 
working to a di5erent key, which will be more satisfying, more peaceful, and fuller of 
joy than anything you ever experienced before. !e tone of life will be altered.”10 
Of course, the greatness and profundity of Shiga’s novel is not contingent upon our 
giving it a Buddhist interpretation. But if one chooses to o5er such an interpretation, 
as Ama purports to do here, then why not acknowledge the obvious a4nities between 
Kensaku’s mystical experience and a Zen satori? Whether these a4nities are a result of 
direct or indirect Zen in3uence, or are purely coincidental—Kensaku’s Daisen experi-
ence being seen as entirely the outcome of his lifelong psychological struggles—is of 
course open to debate and may not ultimately be determinable one way or the other. 
Finally, one might ask if it makes any signi1cant di5erence whether Kensaku’s expe-
rience is satori or not? Surely it does make a di5erence if one wishes to interpret the 
novel from a Buddhist perspective because, as Suzuki notes: “Satori is the raison d’etre 
of Zen without which Zen is no Zen.”11 !us, if it is true, as I believe, that Kensaku’s 
experience is the most convincing depiction of satori in any modern Japanese novel, 
then surely this is a signi1cant fact if we are interested in the Buddhist “awakening” of 
modern Japanese 1ction?
At any rate, my disagreement with Ama on this one point does not lessen my grati-
tude for his excellent study, which no doubt will encourage further research in this 
fascinating but rather neglected area.
REFERENCES
Shiga, Naoya. 1976. A Dark Night’s Passing. Translated by Edwin McClellan. Tokyo: Kodansha.
Starrs, Roy. 1998. An Artless Art: The Zen Aesthetic of Shiga Naoya. London: Routledge.
Suzuki, D. T. 1964. An Introduction to Zen Buddhism. New York: Grove Press.
Zaehner, R. C. 1957. Mysticism: Sacred and Profane. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9 Shiga 1976, p. 407.
10 Suzuki 1964, p. 97.
11 Suzuki 1964, p. 95.


BOOK REVIEWS  Michihiro Ama.The Awakening of Modern Japanese Fiction: Path Literature and an Interpretation of Buddhism

"e Eastern Buddhist 2/2: 127
©2022 !e Eastern Buddhist Society
BOOKS RECEIVED
Friday Night Talks with D.T. Suzuki: On Shin Buddhism, Shinran, and Saichi. 
Translations by W. S. Yokoyama. Edited by Edythe Vassall. New York: American 
Buddhist Study Center, 2022. 159 pages. Paperback. ISBN-13: 978-0-9911360-2-5. 
Le Sens des arcanes des “Trois Traités”: Contribution à l’étude du M$dhyamika dans 
le bouddhisme d’Extrême-Orient. By Jizang 吉藏 (549–623). Edited and translated 
by Jérôme Ducor and Henry W. Isler. Genève: Librairie Droz, 2022. 416 pages. 
Paperback. ISBN-13: 978-2-600-06383-8.


BOOKS RECEIVED

大谷大学博士（文学）doctoral thesi

千葉, 一生

親鸞における「浄土真実証」――二つの「必至」の誓願――

谷口, 愛沙

鈴木大拙の妙好人論

宮﨑, 健司

ミヤザキ, ケンジ

MIYAZAKI, Kenji

Résumés of Papers Presented at the Otani Public Lecture, Spring 2023　Emperor Shōmu and Buddhist Novice Shōman

栫井, 大輔

カコイ, ダイスケ

KAKOI, Daisuke

Study on the Basic Role of Critical Friends in Self-study: Using Metaphors to Transform Students' Impression of Physical Education Classes and Teachers as Feedback

Jinhua Jia

English

ARTICLES  The Dating of the Zutang ji and the Shaping of Classical Chan Literature and History

Robert F. Rhodes

#e Eastern Buddhist 3/1: 113–127
©2023 !e Eastern Buddhist Society
BOOK REVIEWS
Bukky! to ekurich"ru: Daij! ky!ten no kigen to keisei 仏教とエクリチュール：大乗経典
の起源と形成 (Toward a New Frame of Reference for Research on Mahayana Sutras in 
Light of the Linguistic Turn). By Shimoda Masahiro 下田正弘. T%ky% Daigaku Shup-
pankai, 2020. x + 332 + 27 pages. Hardcover. ISBN-13: 978-4-13-010415-9.
R,A(): F. R+,-(.
!is volume, written by one of Japan’s leading scholars of Indian Buddhism, is an 
extremely ambitious attempt to reconsider the origin of Mahayana Buddhism by 
making use of the poststructuralist thought of Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), Paul 
Ricoeur (1913–2005), Hayden White (1928–2018), Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1916–
2000), and others. As Shimoda Masahiro notes, the greatest mystery concerning the 
origin of Mahayana Buddhism lies in the fact that although a number of Mahayana 
Buddhist texts were already in existence by the 5rst century BCE to the 5rst century 
CE, there is no evidence that communities of Mahayana Buddhists actually existed 
until much later. Hence the question: How can there be Mahayana Buddhist texts 
without Mahayana Buddhists? A number of theories have been set forth to explain 
this enigma. In this volume, Shimoda provides a new tantalizing solution by argu-
ing that, contrary to the commonsense view that Mahayana texts were produced by 
existing Mahayana communities, the ideals set forth in Mahayana texts provided the 
impetus for the creation of Mahayana communities (p. iii). In other words, Mahayana 
texts preceded the creation of Mahayana Buddhist schools and not vice versa. How 
such a counterintuitive turn of events is possible is the topic of this highly original 
and thought-provoking book.
!is volume consists of eight essays that were originally published between 2002 
and 2019. !ey are grouped into three sections: (1) “Ekurich4ru ron kara terasu 
bukky% kenky4” エクリチュール論から照らす仏教研究 (Buddhist Studies Illumi-
nated from the [Perspective of ] the !eory of Écriture), (2) “Bukky% to seiten” 仏教と 
聖典 (Buddhism and Scriptures), and (3) “Bukky% to media” 仏教とメディア (Bud-
dhism and the Media). !e 5rst section, consisting of two chapters, provides a suc-
cinct introduction to Derrida’s theory of texts (or, as Shimoda calls it, écriture) and 
explores the ways it can be applied to the study of Mahayana sutras. !is is arguably 
T H E  E A S T E R N  B U D D H I S T  3 ,  1114
the most impressive—and certainly the most challenging—part of the volume. In the 
5rst chapter, Shimoda criticizes studies by earlier scholars that tried to recreate the his-
tory of Indian Buddhism by accepting uncritically the events described in Buddhist 
texts as actual fact. Based on his reading of Derrida and other thinkers, Shimoda notes 
that a text is a product of a complex interplay of signi5ers and signi5ed and that the 
discourse it develops is not necessarily a re3ection of the actual state of a$airs out there 
in the real world (so to speak) as traditional historians would claim. !is clears the way 
for his argument that even if there are a large number of sutras describing monastics 
and laypeople practicing the Mahayana path to buddhahood, it is unwarranted to 
assume that such people actually existed.
In the following chapter and the four chapters that comprise section two of the 
volume, Shimoda considers the ways in which the understanding of Mahayana texts 
outlined above can explain the fundamental mystery of early Mahayana Buddhism 
noted above: the existence of a vast array of Mahayana texts coupled by the lack of any 
evidence indicating the existence of organized schools of Mahayana believers and prac-
titioners. To explain this puzzle, Shimoda begins by focusing on the issue of orality and 
literacy that was 5rst highlighted by Walter J. Ong (1912–2003) and argues that the 
origin of Mahayana Buddhism is to be found in the transition from reliance on oral-
ity to reliance on written texts in the transmission of Buddhism. It is well known that 
Buddhist sutras were 5rst transmitted orally by Buddhist monks. Taking his cue from 
Richard Gombrich (who, in a paper published in 1988, theorized that “the rise of the 
Mah#y#na is due to the use of writing”),1 Shimoda argues that when sutras were being 
transmitted orally, their authority had to be con5rmed and rati5ed by the entire Bud-
dhist community of monks and nuns. Sutras not accepted as authentic by the monas-
tic organization were not deemed worthy of being transmitted. To this e$ect, Shimoda 
quotes (p. 168) the following passage from Gombrich: “Under these circumstances, 
any text that is critical of the current teachings or introduces something which is pal-
pably new has no chance of survival. It is possible that hundreds or even thousands of 
monks, nuns and Buddhist lay followers had visions or other inspirations which put 
new teachings into their mind . . . but we shall never know. For without writing those 
texts could not be preserved.”2
However, with the transition to written texts, individuals within the Buddhist 
community were freed from such institutional constraints, enabling them to express, 
disseminate, and preserve whatever radically new visions of the way to liberation 
inspired them. It is this development that provided an opening in the discursive space 
that made possible the rise of Mahayana Buddhism. However, Shimoda emphasizes 
1 Gombrich 1988, p. 29.
2 Gombrich 1988, p. 38.
B O O K  R E V I E W S 115
that this did not lead monks in3uenced by the Mahayana sutras to actually form 
independent Buddhist communities distinct from the established monastic institu-
tions. In fact, even though early Mahayana sutras are highly critical of the established 
Buddhist organizations, there is no record that any attempts were actually made to 
change these organizations (p. 106). !e early Mahayana movement was entirely tex-
tual in nature.
In another passage, Shimoda also speculates as to who were involved in the produc-
tion of early Mahayana sutras. Prefacing his words with the caveat that it is impossible 
to determine who exactly created these sutras from the sources available to us today, he 
suggests that they may have been created within the Buddhist monasteries by monks 
entrusted with ensuring the transmission of sutras. !e rules in the Vinaya Piṭaka, 
Shimoda notes, evolved over time in response to changing circumstances; similarly, 
new texts were created and added to the Abhidharma Piṭaka as scholar-monks debated 
the 5ner points of Buddhist doctrine and sought to codify their thought into compre-
hensive scholastic systems. In Shimoda’s view, something similar must have happened 
with the sutras: the monks responsible for reciting and transmitting the sutras began 
to re3ect on the true meaning of the Buddha’s teachings, leading them to produce new 
Mahayana sutras embodying their views (pp. 195–96). 
!e third section of the volume consists of three chapters, one on the question of 
orality and Buddhist texts, another analyzing the mediums through which the Bud-
dhist texts and canon have been transmitted through the ages and the impact that new 
digital technologies are having on the study of Buddhism, and 5nally one with the 
tantalizing title “Shis% no konseki toshite no tekisuto” 思想の痕跡としてのテキスト 
(!e Text as the Trace of !ought), originally published in a collection of essays enti-
tled Shisha to no taiwa 死者との対話 (Communicating with the Dead).3 In the latter, 
which begins with a lyrical rumination on death and remembering, Shimoda re3ects 
on the fact that one remembers the past through the “traces” of one’s past experiences 
impressed in one’s unconscious and argues that these traces can be understood as a 
kind of “text.” After musing on this point, in the second part of the chapter Shimoda 
provides a succinct summary of the central issues in the study of early Mahayana Bud-
dhism in order to discuss the role that such “traces of thought” preserved in such “texts” 
play in religious discourse.
!e above are just some of the numerous insights found in this volume. I must 
hasten to add that I have only been able to give the bare outline of the book under 
review. In actuality, Shimoda takes up a wide range of issues related to the origin of 
Mahayana Buddhism, and his arguments are much more intricate and nuanced than 
I have been able to present. !is is a highly provocative book that should be read by 
3 Shimoda 2014.
T H E  E A S T E R N  B U D D H I S T  3 ,  1116
anyone interested not only in the rise of Mahayana Buddhism but also in the intellec-
tual history of Buddhism as a whole. 
REFERENCES
Gombrich, Richard. 1988. “How the Mah#y#na Began.” P$rigaku bukky! bunkagaku パーリ学
仏教文化学 1, pp. 29–46.
Shimoda Masahiro 下田正弘. 2014. “Shis% no konseki toshite no tekisuto” 思想の痕跡としての
テキスト. In Shisha to no taiwa 死者との対話, edited by Akiyama Akira 秋山聡 and Nozaki 
Kan 野崎歓, pp. 43–62. T%ky% Daigaku Shuppankai.
Nihon bukky! to rongi 日本仏教と論義 ( Japanese Buddhism and Doctrinal Debate). 
Edited by Kusunoki Junsh% 楠淳證, Noro Sei 野呂靖, and Kameyama Takahiko 亀山
隆彦. Ry"koku Daigaku Ajia bukky! bunka kenky" s!sho 龍谷大学アジア仏教文化研究
叢書 13. Kyoto: H%z%kan, 2020. vii + 581 + 34 pages. Hardcover. ISBN-13: 978-4-
8318-6380-5.
M*<&B0 B&'()
!e past decade has seen a welcome rise in publications pertaining to the study of 
rongi 論義, or “debates,” in premodern Japan. Japanese scholars such as Nagamura 
Makoto, Minowa Kenry%, Takayama Yuki, Kusunoki Junsh%, and others, have pub-
lished an abundance of scholarship on the format and content of debates that were a 
central part of the Dharma Assemblies (h!e 法会), such as the Vimalak9rti Assembly 
(Yuima-e 維摩会) at K%fukuji 興福寺, or debates held within Tendai 天台 Buddhism. 
In 2009, Minowa Kenry% published his Nihon bukky! no ky!ri keisei 日本仏教の教理 
形成, which was followed by Kusunoki Junsh%’s edited volumes Nanto gaku, Hokurei 
gaku no sekai 南都学：北嶺学の世界 (2018) and Nihon bukky! to rongi 日本仏教と 
論義, the topic of this short review. In general, these are works that approach debates 
and their doctrinal content as an integral part of ritual, transcending not only the rigid 
division between doctrine and ritual, but also the sharp academic rift between Bud-
dhist studies and history.
Nihon bukky! to rongi presents a wide range of chapters on debates in the context of 
the Hoss% 法相, Kegon 華厳, Tendai, and Shingon 真言 schools. !is is both an obvi-
ous and most welcome selection as these schools provide the main players in the doc-
trinal opposition and occurring syntheses within Buddhist thought during the Heian 
平安 (794–1185) and early Kamakura 鎌倉 (1185–1333) periods. For example, one of 


BOOK REVIEWS  Shimoda Masahiro. Bukkyō to ekurichūru Daijō kyōten no kigen to keisei (Toward a New Frame of Reference for Research on Mahayana Sutras in Light of the Linguistic Turn)

Not a member yet

With respect to upāya required of avinivartanīya in the Da zhidu lun

BOOK REVIEWS Richard D. McBride II. Aspiring to Enlightenment: Pure Land Buddhism in Silla Korea

BOOK REVIEWS Michihiro Ama.The Awakening of Modern Japanese Fiction: Path Literature and an Interpretation of Buddhism

BOOKS RECEIVED

親鸞における「浄土真実証」――二つの「必至」の誓願――

鈴木大拙の妙好人論

Résumés of Papers Presented at the Otani Public Lecture, Spring 2023　Emperor Shōmu and Buddhist Novice Shōman

Study on the Basic Role of Critical Friends in Self-study: Using Metaphors to Transform Students' Impression of Physical Education Classes and Teachers as Feedback

ARTICLES The Dating of the Zutang ji and the Shaping of Classical Chan Literature and History

BOOK REVIEWS Shimoda Masahiro. Bukkyō to ekurichūru Daijō kyōten no kigen to keisei (Toward a New Frame of Reference for Research on Mahayana Sutras in Light of the Linguistic Turn)

10,548

10,604