Abstract
In the writings of the Japanese Pure Land Buddhist Shinran 親鸞 (1173–1263) we read: “I, Shinran, do not have a single disciple of my own” (SZ Supplement: 10; Saitō 2010: 242; Yuien 1996: 6). Is he simply being modest? Does Shinran defy discipleship? Does he rule out the possibility of the reception of his thought? The answer to these questions is not clear; nevertheless, what we do know is that the reader of his writings is supposed to arrive at the Buddha’s original teaching. Shinran’s voluminous works, however, exhibit more than an introduction to, or simple interpretation of, the Buddha’s preaching. We may say that Shinran has given us sermons and treatises that manifest an authentic and unique appropriation of the Buddhist tradition, and, therefore, his works offer the possibility of a thoughtful reception for his interpreters and disciples. The philosopher KUKI Shūzō 九鬼周造 (1888–1941) wrote remarkable verses about Shinran seven centuries after his death: “I will have no disciple, said Shinran; as for me [Kuki], I long to have his soul” (KSZ Supplement, 146; Saitō 2010: 242). Kuki’s poetic reflections express Shinran’s quest for an authentic life, and echo back the existentialist aspect of his philosophy. More than this, his words commit him to Shinran as his teacher. Do these words not enact the most authentic discipleship possible? In fact, SAITŌ Takako takes Kuki’s verses as empirical evidence of his receiving the intellectual legacy of Shinran. Thus, at the end of her article, the proof of historical facticity of reception retroactively justifies Saitō’s careful comparison of Kuki’s thought with Shinran’s, which began based on presuming similarities in content. In other words, the factual findings prove the validity of comparing Shinran and Kuki, although a truthful reading is impossible to verify historically. Be that as it may, Kuki’s poetic expression demonstrates the history of the reception of a pre-modern Buddhist by a modern philosopher in Japan, regardless of whether this discipleship was ultimately judged to be authentic and perfected, or an untimely failure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Quoted from Shinran’s Tannishō. English translation is Yuien’s. This exposition of Shinran and Kuki is indebted to Saitō’s article.
- 2.
To elaborate on Shinran’s philosophical reception: though often considered a religious and pious practitioner of Buddhism only, Shinran is, perhaps, the most widely read pre-modern Buddhist in Japanese philosophy since 1868. TANABE Hajime 田辺元 (1885–1962) was famous for reading Shinran and was inspired to do so by his student TAKEUCHI Yoshinori 武内義範 (1913–2012). In 1935, preceding the works of Tanabe and Takeuchi, two pertinent publications by MATSUBARA Kan and TERADA Yakichi, with the same title are found: The Philosophy of Shinran. Another writing that should be mentioned is MIKI Kiyoshi’s 三木清 (1897–1945) work on Shinran and Pascal (Miki 1999). The sheer amount of material awaits a comprehensive account. Two representative works show the range of Shinran’s intellectual readers: Bloom (2004) presents excerpts of writings by KIYOZAWA Manshi 清沢満之, SUZUKI Daisetsu 鈴木大拙, TAKEUCHI Yoshinori, and others (see Matsuoka 2009).
- 3.
See his letter to Nishitani (NKZ 19: 224–225).
- 4.
References to Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) are the most numerous with approximately 800 footnotes, as indexed in NKZ 24. More than half of the references fall into the philosophical works published during Nishida’s lifetime, vols. 1–10.
- 5.
- 6.
The Shin Buddhist influence coming from his family as well as from Japanese culture in general is left unmentioned here, since it does not necessarily contradict the reasoning about his Zen Buddhist outlook mentioned before.
- 7.
Calligraphy is a form of thoughtful expression, which should be considered more carefully as a source of Buddhist thought that Nishida was exposed to, and that was, therefore, possibly intensively absorbed by Nishida.
- 8.
The letter dates 02.12.1944 (NKZ 23: 292). Kishimoto’s writings on Jiun that Nishida refers to could not be located.
- 9.
The comment on Kūkai mentioned here is found in a newspaper interview in which he was asked if there was any philosopher in ancient Japan. Nishida’s answer remains vague but positive: “I don’t know Kōbō Daishi [i.e. Kūkai] so well, but people like him are a kind of philosopher, right?” (NKZ 24: 83–84). He adds: “Since nowadays philosophy is scientific philosophy of the West, there was no philosophy in that sense, but philosophy is not just a matter of form, but of content based on which the works of Confucius and Mencius contain philosophical import” (ibid.). In a text on cultural morphology, Nishida writes that “religions such as the philosophical [schools] of Kegon and Tendai […] did not become religions of our country. As far as the school of Shingon that was Japanized by Kōbō Daishi [i.e. Kūkai] is concerned, it seems to me that its realistic sense converges with our mentality” (NKZ 6: 352). Nishida attributes the most distinguished impact on Japanese culture to the Zen school. Finally, there is his critique on TANAKA Ōdō 田中王堂 (1868–1932). Nishida maintains that philosophy in Japan is lively and not without a pre-modern tradition to draw on. Among the Buddhists he mentions we find Shinran, Nichiren, Dengyō and Kūkai (Kōbō Daishi) (See NKZ 11: 116).
- 10.
Letter no. 3645, dated 22.08.1942 (NKZ 23:39).
- 11.
The attempt to compare the respective readings with each other and eventually with the original texts promises valuable insights of a systematic nature, if sufficient scrutiny is carried out.
- 12.
Inasmuch as philosophy is attributed to individual thinkers, not anonymous collectives, only the former are addressed here. It becomes an almost insurmountable task to identify intellectual currents when speaking of Tendai or Kegon Buddhism, or other schools in general.
- 13.
See Paul’s summary in five points: “(1) Western logocentrism, scientific orientation, and technology are no means to grasp the absolute or reality as such. Understanding this reality, however, is essential for being able to lead a life […]. Further, an understanding of the absolute is possible, for example, by means of ‘direct experience’ and mystical union. (2) Western logocentrism, its scientific orientation, and technology are dangerous because they may lead to man’s self-destruction. (3) These orientations justify an––unjustified—anthropomorphism because they are employed to enslave nature. Humans ought to live in harmony with nature. (4) The notion of nothingness (in Japanese: mu) and/or emptiness (in Japanese kū) is more fundamental, and more adequate to reality as such, than the notion of being. (5) A kind of dialectical logic is a better means to solve important problems than formal logic. Formal contradictions are no real obstacle for deep thought” (Paul 2001: 92).
- 14.
And further: “What all kanjin-style readings have in common is that, from a modern perspective, they are not exegesis, the ‘reading out’ from a text to determine its meaning, though the medieval thinkers who produced them may often have understood what they were doing as uncovering the text’s true purport. Rather, they are a deliberate eisegesis or ‘reading in’ that reconfigures the text in support of a prior insight or philosophical position—in this case, that of original enlightenment” (Stone 2003: 158). See Tuck (1990) who suggests the same division into exegese and eisegese.
- 15.
For example, Inoue uses the Buddhist notion of “hōben” 方便 to develop his philosophy.
- 16.
Dennis (2011) provides an excellent attempt to work out different levels and forms of reception in a case study on Shōtoku and a number of his recipients. While his philosophical reception will be revisited below, Dennis addresses Shōtoku’s wide reception by Shinran and other Kamakura Buddhists and beyond, making him a legendary figure within pre-modern Japan.
- 17.
Jiun is also linked to Dōgen (see Koganemaru 2009).
- 18.
Dōgen is another example of someone whose factual influence on Nishida demands a lot of scrutiny, since there are more references to the Sōtō-Zen Buddhist than to Rinzai and other Zen masters of the Rinzai tradition. Rinzai-Zen masters are also outnumbered by the amount of explicit references to Shinran who is the only pre-modern Buddhist to whom Nishida even devoted a single piece: Gutoku Shinran 愚禿親鸞. While numbers of references need evaluation and interpretation, unexpected amounts of quotes should clearly point out the importance of further study.
- 19.
The most extensive work in a Western language is Bohner (1940). There has not been a lot of philosophical research in any explicit sense since then.
- 20.
- 21.
In his concluding remarks to Hokke gisho no kenkyū, Hanayama presents “Taishi’s Buddhism as it appears in the Hokke gisho” (457–496) compiling his ideas under the headings of “The Formless [musō] and True Form of Reality [jissō],” “The Real World [genjitsu no sekai]” and “The Perfected Buddha-Fruit [risō no bukka].” First of all, as Hanayama maintains, the way Shōtoku holds the idea of emptiness (kū) of the Sanron school, the ineffability of the ultimate truth and, at the same time, his affirmation of the phenomenal world, allows us to see him as a precursor of Tendai Buddhism (in its doctrine of shohō jissō) (469). In the same affirmative stance of reality, Shōtoku aims at the eternal insistence of the dharma-body. According to Hanayama, “the dharma body is the Buddha of absolute truth and the personification of values [kachi no jinkakuka]” (474). In this sense Shōtoku merges the temporal and the eternal body of Buddha, based on the idea of the three bodies (474).
- 22.
Let me note in passing, that this debate is not represented in any detail in Nishida’s, Tanabe’s, or even in Watsuji’s works. While Watsuji tried to determine the originality of the Japanese appropriation of Buddhism in Suiko period in terms of its aesthetic or cultural historical perspective, he leaves no more than short remarks of the importance of the early Sūtra commentaries attributed to Shōtoku (WTZ 4: 33). Even in the case of Tanabe, who brought up Shinran or Dōgen as important figures for his thought, the most common judgment prevails in the way he points out: “Shōtoku Taishi introduced the system of Mahāyāna Buddhism to the Japanese spirit” (THZ 8:17). Tanabe notes this in response to MINODA Muneki. On Tanabe and Minoda fighting about the history of Japanese philosophy and thought, see IENAGA Saburō (ISS 7: 67).
- 23.
It is interesting to note that the Shingon sect never produced another great thinker and scholar such as its founder Kūkai, whose system of Shingon was never significantly altered. (See Yamasaki 1988: 33–41; Matsunaga and Matsunaga 1974, 1: 355–356). In contrast, see in the Tendai tradition after Saichō monk scholars (sōgakusha 僧学者) such as Ennin, Annen, Ryōgen and Genshin.
- 24.
Nanjō 1889: 23–27, published at Tetsugaku shoin 哲学書院 (Philosophical library). One may still note in passing Jiun’s appearance in One Hundred Funny Stories (J. Kokkei hyakuwa 滑稽百話, 1909) next to notes on prolific intellectuals and philosophers such as HARA Tanzan or NAKAE Chōmin. It was written by KATŌ Kyōei who cited a short poem of Jiun’s (Katō 1909: 49–50).
- 25.
In regard to pre-modern Buddhist ramifications, though beyond the context of the present account, it may be worth mentioning Jiun Sonja ni manabu Shōbōgenzō 慈雲尊者に学ぶ『正法眼蔵』 (Koganemaru 2009), an article on the relation of Jiun and Dōgen. Finally, it might be added, that Akiyama Manabu’s discovery of Jiun in relation to the thought of Huayen Buddhism can be taken as paradigmatic for the basic discourse of classical philology and the studies of antiquity (Akiyama 2008).
- 26.
- 27.
The passage reads in Japanese ⌈正法眼蔵九十五巻は、只管打坐の柱脚であります⌋. See Bodiford (2006: 19) mentioning that the Genzōe were open to a wider audience, not only the monks of the Eiheiji.
- 28.
MORITA Goyū comments on the existence of a one-sided preoccupation with studies on Tendai and Kegon Buddhism and calls for lectures on the Shōbōgenzō (see Kurebayashi et al. 1972, and “genzōe” in ZGDJ).
- 29.
Originally presented orally from 1905 until his death in 1910 at the genzōe, it was recorded by TOMIYAMA Soei and subsequently by KUREBAYASHI Kōdō in 1930. Nishiari’s Keiteki received a negative appraisal from YASUTANI Hakuun (1996). In turn, Brian Victoria provided biographical notes on Yasutani’s political engagement by Victoria (2006: 167).
- 30.
Nishiari revives the tradition of Shōbōgenzō commentary and places the greatest importance on a certain lineage within these commentaries since the Edo period. Kurebayashi et al. (1972) distinguish three lineages. This helps to locate Nishiari in tradition. Nishiari attempts to combine two lineages while ultimately siding with one of them (that is, the lineage of Manzan). The first line consists of Manzan, Menzan, and Banshin (not by immediate apprenticeship, but by study; they are labeled the “orthodox sectarian studies” (J. seitōshūgaku 正当宗学). The second line starts with Tenkei, then SHINNŌ Kūin, and finally FUYŌ Rōran; they are labeled “the heretics.” The third line goes from Shigetsu through Katsudō to Zōkai.
- 31.
Shōbōgenzō okikigaki by Sen‘e is included in the Shōbōgenzō shō by Kyōgō.
- 32.
Inoue gives a detailed explanations of the “steps after the enlightenment” (IES 6: 310–313).
- 33.
The reading of his name varies: Kōjun or Yōjun. For information about Yodono, see FSC (8: 375–378).
- 34.
The respective expression in Dōgen’s writings is “ryochi nenkaku” 慮知念覺.
- 35.
Akiyama gives a more detailed account of this idea based on the example of “the wind blowing” (Akiyama 1935: 94–95).
- 36.
This becomes clear in what Watsuji has to say about the encounter between the Buddha and Mahākāśyapa. He interprets the understanding of the latter as a recognition of the symbolic meaning contained in the simple gesture of holding up a flower (342). Of the many who looked on, only one understood through what he perceived.
- 37.
During the period from 1945 to 2012 the variety of continuous efforts to read Dōgen philosophically almost outnumbers any categorical system. Let us simplify the situation by distinguishing the Kyoto philosophers from the rest of the readings of Dōgen. Kim (2004) mentions such works as TAKEUCHI Michio’s Dōgen (1962) and TAKAHASHI Masanobu’s Dōgen no jissen tetsugaku kōzō (The Structure of Dōgen’s Practical Philosophy) (1967). Kim rightly points to the importance of the “intensified efforts to place Dōgen in the historical, social, and cultural contexts in which his thought was formed, rather than to study his thought in the abstract although philosophical treatments of Dōgen still continue” (2004: 8). In his reassessment of the field in 2004, he adds, for examples, NISHITANI Keiji’s Religion and Nothingness, Masao Abe’s A Study of Dōgen: His Philosophy and Religion, or works by T. P. Kasulis, Joan Stambaugh, Steven Heine, and Carl Olson as representative works of a philosophical reading of Dōgen. From the side of works published in Japanese, authors such as TAMAKI Kōshirō, KARAKI Junzō, TERADA Tōru, KASUGA Yuhō, MORIMOTO Kazuo, and SUGIO Gen’yū should be added.
- 38.
Religion and Nothingness is the English translation of Shūkyō to ha naninka (What isReligion?). Dōgen is probably the most important source drawn on in this text. In terms of Dōgen there is a second work important to mention: Nishitani’s lectures on the Shōbōgenzō (Shōbōgenzō kōwa 正法眼蔵講話), in which he enacts a reading of and introduction to Dōgen’s opus magnum. The lectures were held at the “International Research Institute for Japanese Studies” (Nishinomiya) from 1965 to 1978, and they first appeared in print in the Christian journal “Kyōdai” from 1966 to 1979. They were finally reissued in four volumes by CHIKUMA Shobō from 1987 to 1989, and later in 1991 included in Nishitaniʻs collected works as vols. 22 and 23. These lectures cannot be fully considered here, but the author prepared selected translations and commentary (Müller 2016).
- 39.
- 40.
Paul elaborates on this claim (Paul 1993: 164–195).
Works Cited
Abbreviations
DZZ: Dōgen zenji zenshū 『道元禅師全集』. 7 vols. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1988–1993.
FSC: Funyama shin’ichi chosakushū 『舩山信一著作集』. 10 vols. Tokyo: Kobushi Shobō, 1998–1999.
IES: Inoue enryō senshū 『井上円了選集』. 25 vols. Tokyo: Tōyō Daigaku, 1987–2004.
ISS: Ienaga saburō shū 『家永三郎集』. 16 vols. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1997–1999.
ITC: Izutsu toshihiko chosaku shū 『井筒俊彦著作集』. 12 vols. Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 1991–1993.
KSZ: Kuki shūzō zenshū 『九鬼周造全集.』 11 vols. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1980–1982.
NKZ: Nishida kitarō zenshū shinpan 『西田幾多郎全集新版』. 24 vols. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2002–2009.
SZ: Shinran zenshū 『親鸞全集』. 4 vols. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1985–1987.
THZ: Tanabe hajime zenshū 『田辺元全集』. 15 vols. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1963–1964.
WTZ: Watsuji tetsurō zenshū 『和辻哲郎全集』. 20 vols. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1961–1978.
YYZ: Yuasa yasuo zenshū 『湯浅泰雄全集』. 17 vols. Tokyo: Hakua Shobō, 1999–2013.
ZGDJ: Zengaku daijiten 『禅学大辞典』. 2nd edition. Tokyo: Taishūkan Shoten, 1985.
Other Sources
Akiyama, Hanji 秋山範二. 1935. Dōgen no kenkyū 『道元の研究』. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Akiyama, Manabu 秋山学範二. 2008. Jiun to kegon shisō. Koten kodaigaku kisoron no tame ni 「慈雲と華厳思想—古典古代学基礎論のために」. Koten kodaigaku『古典古代学』 1: 1–27.
Bloom, Alfred. 2004. Living in Amida’s Universal Vow: Essays in Shin Buddhism. Bloomington: World Wisdom.
Bodiford, William M. 2006. Remembering Dogen: Eiheiji and Dogen Hagiography. The Journal of Japanese Studies 32 (1): 1–21.
Bohner, Hermann. 1940. Shōtoku Taishi. Tokyo: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens.
de Rosny, Léon. 1876. Zitu-Go Kyau – Dy-Zi Kyau: L’Enseignement De La Vérité: Ouvrage Du Philosophe Kôbaudaïsi, Et L’Enseignement De La Jeunesse. Paris: Impr. de la Revue orientale et américaine.
Dennis, Mark. 2011. Rethinking Premodern Japanese Buddhist Texts. A Case Study of Prince Shōtoku’s Sangyō-Gisho. Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception 1 (1): 13–35.
Dumoulin, Heinrich. 1959. Das Buch Genjōkōan aus dem Shōbōgenzō des Zen-Meisters Dōgen. Monumenta Nipponica 15 (3–4): 217–232.
Enryō, Inoue. 1893. Zenshū tetsugaku joron. Tōkyō: Tetsugaku Shoin.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2004. Truth and Method. Ed. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. London: Continuum.
Godart, Gerard Clinton. 2004. Tracing the Circle of Truth: Inoue Enryō on the History of Philosophy and Buddhism. The Eastern Buddhist 36: 106–133.
Hanayama, Shinshō 花山信勝. 1933. Hokke gisho no kenkyū 『法華義疏の研究』. Toyko: Tōyō Bunko.
———. 1936. Shōtoku taishi to nihon bunka 『聖徳太子と日本文化』. Tokyo: Naikaku Insatsu Kyoku.
———. 1963. Prince Shōtoku and Japanese Buddhism. Studies in Japanese Philosophy 4: 23–48.
Heine, Steven. 2003. Abbreviation or Aberration: The Role of the Shushōgi in Modern Sōtō Zen Buddhism. In Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition, ed. Charles S. Prebish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heisig, J.W., T.P. Kasulis, and J.C. Maraldo, eds. 2011. Japanese Philosophy: A Sourcebook. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Himi, Kiyoshi 氷見潔. 1990. Tanabe tetsugaku kenkyū: Shūkyō tetsugaku no kanten kara 『田辺哲学研究—宗教哲学の観点から』. Tokyo: Hokuju Shuppan.
Ikeda, Eishun 池田英俊. 1976. Meiji no bukkyō. Sono kōdō to shisō 『明治の仏教—その行動と思想』. Tokyo: Hyōronsha.
Inoue, Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎. 1897. Kurze Übersicht über die Entwicklung der philosophischen Ideen in Japan. Trans. August Gramatzky. Berlin: Reichsdruckerei.
Inoue, Enryō 井上圓了. 1913. Tetsukai ichibetsu 『哲界一瞥』. Tokyo: Kokumin Dōtoku Fukyū Kai.
Ishimoto, Kiyomatsu, and P. Emil Naberfeld. 1943. Shushōgi. Eine Zenschrift Für Laien. Monumenta Nipponica 6 (1–2): 355–369.
Jauß, Hans Robert. 1970. Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory. New Literary History 2: 7–37.
Jullien, François. 2002. Der Umweg über China. Berlin: Merve.
Kagamishima, Genryū 鏡島元隆. 1995. Dōgen zenji kenkyū no kaiko to tenbō 「道元禅師研究の回顧と展望」. In Dōgen shisō no gendaiteki kadai 『道元思想の現代的課題』, ed. Rikizan Ishikawa 石川力山 and Ei’nin Kumamoto 熊本英人, 37–54. Kyōto: Tōeisha.
Kagamishima, Hiroyuki 鏡島寛之. 1995. Dōgen zenji kenkyū no dōkō kaiko 「道元禅師研究の動向・回顧」. Dōgen shisō no gendaiteki kadai 『道元思想の現代的課題』, ed. Rikizan Ishikawa 石川力山 and Ei’nin Kumamoto 熊本英人, 3–36. Kyōto: Tōeisha.
Kameya, Seikei 亀谷聖馨. 1911. Seishin kōwa 『精神講話』. Tokyo: Maekawa Bun’eikaku.
Kamstra, J.H. 1967. Encounter or Syncretism: The Initial Growth of Japanese Buddhism. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Kanaji, Isamu. 1985. Three Stages in Shōtoku Taishi’s Acceptance of Buddhism. Acta Asiatica 47: 31–47.
Katō, Kyōei 加藤教栄. 1909. Kokkei hyakuwa 『滑稽百話』. Tokyo: Bungaku Dōshikai.
Kim, Hee-Jin. 2004. Eihei Dōgen: Mystical Realist. 3rd ed. Albany: Wisdom Publications.
Kinami, Takuichi 木南卓一. 1990. Jiun sonja. Hisseki, shōgai, shisō 「慈雲尊者—筆跡・生涯・思想」. Bulletin of Tezukayama University 217: 1–40.
Kishizawa, Ian 岸澤惟安. 1963. Kōchū no nochi ni sho su 「校注正法眼蔵ののちに書す」. In Shōbōgenzō gekan 『正法眼蔵下巻』, ed. Etō Sokuō 衛藤即応, 323–329. Tokyo: Iwanami.
Kiyotaki, Chiryū 清滝知竜. 1907. Gakusha yori mitaru kōbō daishi 『学者より観たる弘法大師』. Kyoto: Rokudai Shinposha.
Koganemaru, Taisen 小金丸泰仙. 2009. Jiun sonja ni manabu shōbōgenzō 『慈雲尊者に学ぶ正法眼蔵』. Tokyo: Daihōrinkaku.
Kopf, Gereon. 2005. Critical Comments on Nishida’s Use of Chinese Buddhism. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32 (2): 313–329.
Krummel, John. 2011. Kūkai. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/kukai/.
Kurebayashi, Kōdō 榑林皓堂, Gakusui Nagahisa 永久岳水, and Shōkin Furuta 古田紹欽. 1972. Genzōka to genzō kenkyūka 「眼蔵家と眼蔵研究家」. In Shōbōgenzō zenkō 『正法眼蔵全講』, ed. Ian Kishizawa 岸澤惟安, 1–3. Geppō 月報. Tokyo: Daihōrinkaku.
Kurokami, Shōichirō 黒上正一郎. 1935. Shōtoku taishi no shinkō shisō 『聖徳太子の信仰思想と日本文化創業』. Tokyo: Daiichi Koto Gakko Shoshinkai.
Maraldo, John C. 1998. Buddhist Philosophy: Japanese. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig. London: Routledge.
———. 2010. Nishida Kitaro. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nishida-kitaro/.
Matsubara, Kan 松原寛. 1935. Shinran no tetsugaku 『親鸞の哲学』. Tokyo: Monasu.
Masunaga, Reihō 増永霊鳳. 1939. Tanabe hajime hakase cho shōbōgenzō no tetsugaku shikan 「田辺元博士著正法眼蔵の哲学私観」. Shūkyō Kenkyū 『宗教研究』 3: 616–630.
Matsunaga, Daigan, and Alicia Matsunaga. 1974. Foundation of Japanese Buddhism. Los Angeles: Buddhist Books International.
Matsuoka, Shigeo 松岡茂生. 2009. Shinran shūkyō tetsugaku no kenkyū 『親鸞宗教哲学の研究』. Nagoya: Maruzen Nagoya Shuppan Sabisu Senta.
Miki, Kiyoshi 三木清. 1999. Pasukaru, Shinran 『パスカル・親鸞』. Kyoto: Tōeisha.
Mizuno, Kōgen. 1991. Buddhist Sūtras: Origin, Development, Transmission. 4th ed. Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing.
———. 1992. The Beginnings of Buddhism. 5th ed. Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing.
Müller, Ralf. 2013. ‘Dōgen spricht auch von…’. Zitate des Zen-Patriarchen in Nishidas Philosophie. In Kitarō Nishida in der Philosophie des 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. Rolf Elberfeld and Yoko Arisaka. Freiburg: Alber-Verlag.
———. 2016. Nishitani’s Reading of Dōgen’s Shōbōgenzō (manuscript).
Nanjō, Bun’yū 南條文雄. 1889. Butsumon risshi hen 『佛門立志編』. Tokyo: Tetsugaku Shoin.
Nishiari, Bokusan. 2005. Shōbōgenzō keiteki 『正法眼蔵啓迪』, 3 vols. Tokyo: Daihōrinkaku.
Nishitani, Keiji. 1982. Religion and Nothingness. Trans. Jan van Bragt. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Oka, Sōtan 丘宗潭. 1927. Zen no shinkō 『禅の信仰』. Tokyo: Kōmeisha.
Okamura, Keishin 岡村圭真. 1963. Jiun no shōgai to shisō 「慈雲の生涯と思想」. Bokubi 『墨美』 127: 2–11.
Ono, Tōta 小野藤太. 1903. Nihon bukkyō tetsugaku 『日本仏教哲学』. Tokyo: Bunmeidō.
———. 1904. Kōbō daishi den 『弘法大師伝』. Tokyo: Bunmeisha.
———. 1905. Shingon Tetsugaku 『真言哲学』. Tokyo: Shūkyō Kenkyūkai.
Paul, Gregor. 1993. Philosophie in Japan: Von den Anfängen bis zur Heian-Zeit. Eine Kritische Untersuchung. München: Iudicium.
———. 2001. Buddhist Philosophy in Japan, Post-Meiji. In Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy, ed. Oliver Leaman, 89–95. London: Routledge.
Saitō, Takako. 2010. In the Search of the Absolute. Kuki Shūzō and Shinran. In Classical Japanese Philosophy, ed. James W. Heisig, 232–246. Nanzan: Nagoya.
Stone, Jacqueline I. 2003. Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Takeuchi, Yoshinori 武内義範. 1941. Kyōgyō shinshō no tetsugaku 『教行信証の哲学』. Tokyo: Kōbundō.
Tanabe, Hajime 田辺元. 1939. Shōbōgenzō no tetsugaku shikan 『正法眼蔵の哲学私観』. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Tanaka, Kaiō 田中海應. 1937. Jiun sonja no shisō 「慈雲尊者の思想」. In Kinsei nihon shisōka ron 『近世日本思想家論』, ed. Tetsujirō Inoue 井上哲次郎, 79–93. Tokyo: Risōsha.
Tanimoto, Tomeri 谷本富. 1908. Nihon bunmeishi jō ni okeru kōbō daishi 日本文明史上における弘法大師. Tokyo: Rokumeikan.
Terada, Yakichi 寺田弥吉. 1935. Shinran no tetsugaku 『親鸞の哲学』. Tokyo: Kensetsusha.
Theunissen, Michael. 2000. Pindar: Menschenlos und Wende der Zeit. Hamburg: C. H. Beck Verlag.
Tuck, Andrew P. 1990. Comparative Philosophy and the Philosophy of Scholarship: On the Western Interpretation of Nāgārjuna. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ueda, Shizuteru. 1995. Kaisetsu [commentary]. In Daijō butten 『大乗 仏典 23: Dōgen 道元』, ed. Shizuteru Ueda and Seizan Yanagida, 93–255. Tōkyō: Chūō kōron sha 中央公論社.
Ueyama, Shunpei 上山春平. 2004. Shinjitsu no hito jiun sonja 『真実の人慈雲尊者』. Tokyo: Daihōrinkaku.
Victoria, Brian Daizen. 2006. Zen at War. 2nd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wakatsuki, Shōgo 若月正吾. 1986. Dōgen zenji to sono shūhen 『道元禅師とその周辺』. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan.
Watt, Paul B. 1983. Jiun Sonja (1718–1804). Life and Thought. Ann Arbor: Michigan.
———. 1999. Jiun Sonja. In Buddhist Spirituality: Later China, Korea, Japan, and the Modern World, ed. Takeuchi Yoshinori, 348–358.
Watsuji, Tetsurō. 1998. Shamon dōgen [The Buddhist Dōgen]. In Nihon seishinshi kenkyū. Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten 岩波書店.
Weitsman, Mel, Michael Wenger, and Shōhaku Okumura, eds. 2012. Dōgen’s Genjō Kōan: Three Commentaries. Berkeley: Counterpoint.
Yamagami, Shōfū 山上嘨風. 1906. Dōgen zenji no uchūkan 「道元禅師の宇宙観」. Wayūshi 『和融社』 10: 32–39.
Yamasaki, Taikō. 1988. Shingon: Japanese Esoteric Buddhism. Boston: Shambhala.
Yasutani, Haku’un. 1996. Flowers Fall: A Commentary of Dōgen’s Genjōkōan. Boston: Shambhala.
Yodono, Yōjun 淀野耀淳. 1911. Dōgen no shūkyō oyobi tetsugaku 「道元の宗教及び哲学」. Tōyō tetsugaku 『東洋哲学』 18(3): 1–9, (4): 16–29, (5): 15–29, (6): 16–25, (7): 13–23.
Yuasa, Yasuo. 1993. The Body, Self-Cultivation, and Ki-Energy. New York: SUNY.
Yuien 唯円. 1996. Tannishō: Passages Deploring Deviations of Faith. Trans. Shōjun Bandō and Harold Stewart. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Müller, R. (2019). The Philosophical Reception of Japanese Buddhism After 1868. In: Kopf, G. (eds) The Dao Companion to Japanese Buddhist Philosophy. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2924-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2924-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2923-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2924-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)