︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist
Sites in the Republic of China, 1934
Michiko Yusa

1. Introduction
Suzuki Daisetz visited China in 1934, accompanied by two Zen priests
and a cultural liaison figure, a priest who belonged to the Honganji
temple; they traveled along the coast from Shanghai up north to Beijing,
and from there briefly visited Manchuria, before returning to Japan via
the Korean Peninsula. The whole tour lasted nearly for two months,
which resulted in Suzuki’s “memoirs” of this visit, as well as his detailed
studies of the interaction of Pure Land and Chan practice in China.
During this tour, Suzuki and company met with Buddhist masters and abboots, leading lay practitioners, and scholars and academics,
wherever they went. It was an eye-opening experience for Suzuki, as his
knowledge of Chinese Buddhism (book-knowledge) was supplanted, or
challenged, by the actual practice of Buddhism carried out in the mainland China at that time. As someone who engaged in “interreligious
dialogue,” Suzuki was open-minded, interested, and non-judgmental

一

towards whatever he encountered of Chinese Buddhism.
In order to anchor my analysis, I will begin by the intellectual
rapport that developed between Suzuki and Hu Shih in the 1930s, predating his “pilgrimage” to Chinese Buddhist sites of 1934, and lasted
until thhe time of the latter’s death in 1962.

2. D. T. Suzuki and Hu ShihJapanese Buddhists (monastic and lay, as well as academic), going backat least to the last decades of the 19th century. Yang Wenhui 楊文会 (orinstance, developed a significantly productive and collaborative friendship which signalled the renaissance of Buddhist studies in China. (Lau

第二十号

Renshan 仁山, 1837-1911) and Nanjō Bunyū 南条文雄 (1849-1927), for

日本哲学史研究

Lively intercultural exchanges had already existed between Chinese and2020, 106-7) Nanjō became the second president of Ōtani University in
Kyoto (in office 1903-1923), during which time Suzuki was invited tojoin the faculty in 1921. So, all these names were in some way connectedin actuality. (Suzuki 1934c, SDZ 29.569)
In 1927, Suzuki published his major work, Essays in Zen Buddhism,
First Series, which was soon reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement.
An anonymous reviewer criticized Suzuki’s work for overlooking theDunhuang manuscripts in the treatment of early Chan history in thesewords: “It is singularly unfortunate that Dr. Suzuki is unaware of Pelliot’s
researches.” (Quoted in Barrett 1989, 117) Judging from the scholarly
tone of the review, Suzuki conjectured that it was probably written by Hu
Shih 胡適 (J. Ko Seki, 1891-1962), who happened to be doing researchin Europe then. The actual author of this review has since then been
identified as Arthur Waley and not Hu Shih, but it seems Suzuki neverfound that out. (Barrett 1989)
Upon completing his work in Europe, Hu Shih stopped by in
Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎, Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定, and Yabuki Keiki
矢吹慶輝, but it appears Suzuki was not among them. (Ibuki 2018, 369)

In Japan, long before Hu Shih’s discovery of the Dunhuang manuscripts in 1926, Matsumoto Bunzaburō 山本文三郎 (1869-1944) andother scholars were already cognizant of the Dunhuang materials as

二Japan in 1927 on his way home, and saw Japanese Buddhist scholars,

early as ca. 1910, and Suzuki was certainly aware of their existence.
(Ibuki 2020, 168) But it took this anonymous book review in the Times︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

Literary Supplement for him to become seriously interested in the
Dunhuang texts. Suzuki began to pay closer attention to this line ofresearch when Yabuki Keiki published the Dunhuang manuscript of the
Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch. (Suzuki 1934a, SDZ 29.96-97)
Meanwhile, Suzuki and Hu came to establish a personal contact
in 1931, thanks to Kim Gugyeong 金九経 (or Ku-kyung, 1899-1950?),
Suzuki’s former Korean student who studied at Ōtani University. Kim
had returned to Korea in 1927, and by 1930 was an instructor of Korean
and Japanese languages at the University of Peking, where Hu Shih was
lecturing on Chan literature. (Son 2015, 99) When Suzuki published his
Studies in the Lankāvatāra Sūtra (Suzuki 1930), he presented Kim witha copy, which the latter loaned to Hu Shih. Hu wrote a letter of thanks
to Kim (dated January 2, 1931; quoted in Son 2015, 100) with detailed
comments on Suzuki’s work; he also referred to the Dunhuang MSs thatwere in his possession. Kim related the content of Hu’s letter to Suzuki.
(Son 2015, 100) Suzuki thanked Hu for the kind interest in his work andexpressed his wish to take a look at the two sets of photographic copiesof the Ryōga shijiki 楞伽師資記 (Lengqie Shiziji) (hereafter referred toas the Shijiki). Hu had discovered one manuscript in the Bibliothèque
Nationale de Paris, and the other in the British Library in London.
(Son 2015, 98-9) Hu readily agreed to share his photographic copies
with Suzuki. (Suzuki 1932, xlvii-viii, note 1) Hu’s generous response

三

immediately won Suzuki’s respect for him. (Suzuki 1948, SDZ 30.496)
Henceforth, Suzuki always regarded Hu as a man of generosity, andthis conviction formed the foundation of their subsequent professional friendship, contrary to the commonly painted picture that the twomen were in disagreement and engaged in contentious “debates.” (Cf.
Okamura & Ueda 1999, 145-155)

At this critical juncture, Kim Gugyeong volunteered to examine
to come up with a critical edition of the Shijiki. Kim’s painstaking work
was completed in 1931, but its official publication was delayed due tothe general confusion that followed the Manchurian Incident. It wasand the other by Taixu. (Son 2015, 99)
As soon as the tentatively bound critical edition of the Shijiki

第二十号

published in September of 1933, graced by two prefaces, one by Hu Shih

日本哲学史研究the two manuscripts (the Paris MS and the London MS) side by side

became available in 1931, Kim sent Suzuki a few copies, knowing how
eager Suzuki was to see the manuscript. Suzuki wrote a summary of new
findings (dated 31 October), and published it in the November issue ofThe Ōtani Gakuhō 12.3. (Suzuki 1931) No doubt he considered this new
discovery to be of potential benefit to his fellow Japanese Buddhologists.
Suzuki introduced the Shijiki, as written by an 8th-century monk named
Jōkaku 浄覚 (Ch. Jingjue), and as one of the earliest surviving Chan documents, delineating the transmission lineage of the Chan School with
Gunabhadra as the founder and Bodhidharma as the second patriarch.
This kind of activity illustrates how Suzuki was working together withother scholars of Buddhism across national boundaries.
Two years later, Hu Shih had the occasion to meet Suzuki inperson, as he was transiting through the Port of Yokohama. The meeting
took place on October 21, 1933, at the Hotel New Grand. (Kirita 2005,
86; Saitō 1957, 261) It was Hu’s second time in Japan following his brief
1927 visit. Saitō Risuke, who accompanied Suzuki to Yokohama on that
When Prof. Hu Shih went to the U.S. to attend the PanPacific Conference, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs refused to issue him a visa to enter Japan. Prof.
Suzuki arranged a private meeting with him in Yokohama,at the Hotel New Grand. The owner of the New Grand,

四day, remembered the day as follows:Nomura Yōzō [who was Suzuki’s friend and fluent inEnglish], and I joined Prof. Suzuki, and we spent half a︺D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

day in conversation with Hu Shih...
Suzuki emphasized that the East Asian affairs
should be settled by the East Asians themselves throughtheir mutual discussion, and that it would be a shame forJapan and China to get bogged down in a political stalemate out of emotional conflicts. Suzuki pushed his pointthat China and Japan could strengthen their mutual interaction to come up with some amicable solution. Hu, while
agreeing with the tenet of Suzuki’s position, neverthelessinsisted that the majority of the Japanese did not think as
Suzuki did, and pointed out that the Japanese government
had officially acknowledged Manchukuo as an independent country. In this way, Professor Suzuki and Dr. Hu
could never reach any agreement. (Saitō 1957, 261)
Suzuki, on his part, remembered that they talked about theimportance of scientific thinking versus the traditional humanistic
learning, including the Buddhist worldview. Hu was the leading proponent of the diffusion of natural-scientific thinking as most urgently
needed among the Chinese people. In contrast, Suzuki was of the opinion that the East Asians “should preserve the way of eastern thinking
and make its merit known to the rest of the world; this is one way East
Asians could contribute to the development of knowledge on the global

五scale.” It was Suzuki’s conviction that the cultural unfolding of the Westwas not the sole paradigm for humanity as a whole to emulate. Suzuki
recalled:
In the East, we have our own lived world, shaped byhistorical events and psychological makeups. Both the
Chinese and the Japanese youth ought to study easternthought. Mr. Hu said that I had a point, but he maintained
people to be awoken from the slumber of the traditionsof the past. . . .
I said I fully understood where he was comingtific thinking for the Japanese people. But the younger
generation of Japanese was enamored with the outward

第二十号

from, as I certainly appreciated the importance of scien-

日本哲学史研究that in the present age it was most urgent for the Chinese

brilliant achievements of the West, without paying attention to the fact that modern western cultures were theoutcome of the western mode of thinking developed
over the centuries. The young Japanese nowadays do notbother to study what nurtured western thinking. My point
was that whether in China or in Japan, it is most urgent
to train each person to think independently, deeply, andcritically. (Suzuki 1948, SDZ 30.497-98)
The following year, during Suzuki’s visit to China, their paths
crossed a few times in Beijing. They talked about the Collection of
Shenhui’s writings 神會遺集 (Shenhui yiji), which was edited by Hu Shih,as well as the manuscript variant Suzuki discovered in Japan, a studyof which he published prior to his visit to China. (Suzuki 1948, SDZ
30.497) In the course of their conversation, Hu confided to Suzuki that
“I get no reaction from my Chinese colleagues on my work. Instead,you, from my neighboring land, find my work interesting and respond
could directly communicate in English, they were able to engage inmeaningful exchanges, which for Suzuki was essential in interculturalcommunication. (Suzuki 1948, ibid.)
Hu acted as the chief cultural advisor to Chiang Kai-shek and wasdispatched to the United States as ambassador in 1938. When Chiang

六to it. I am grateful to you.” (Suzuki 1948, SDZ 30.498) Because the twoKai-shek’s army retreated to Taiwan in 1948, Hu was obliged to takepolitical asylum in the U.S. So it happened in 1949 Suzuki also left for︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

the U.S., first to attend the East-West Philosophers Conference at the
University of Hawaii, and then to tour the U.S. to give lectures at various
academic institutions. Suzuki’s temporary visit to the U.S. unexpectedly
turned into an extended stay, and he eventually settled in New York,
where he lectured at Columbia University. In their changed circumstances, Hu Shi and Suzuki renewed their friendship, as there were more
occasions to see each other in person. In 1958, Hu moved to Taiwan
to be in charge of the Academia Sinica. Suzuki concluded his sojournin the U.S. in 1959, and returned to Japan via Hawaii, where Hu andSuzuki crossed their paths once again for the last time. Together with
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975, then Vice-President of India), thethree scholar-thinkers were decorated with honorary doctorates by the
President of the University of Hawaii during the East-West Philosophers
Conference. Suzuki wrote of the occasion:
What a strange turn of events! Three of us, who had
attended the same academic conference some years ago,
were again invited back by the University of Hawaii, andawarded the honorary doctorate. We three became a curious “trio.” What is too bad is that Mr. Hu Shih recently
underwent a surgery, and his health was not as robust
as it once used to be. He and I do not agree on scholarly
matters, but I am fond of him as a person, and each time七

I see him, I am always so happy. A melancholic thoughtcrossed my mind—when will I see him again?
It is truly a shame that Chinese scholars cannot
remain in their homeland and have to live scattered all
around the world. Whenever I see those Chinese scholars,
I feel for them—could something be done for them? Incomparison, it is true that Japan had lost the war, and thatremained on our land and were able to continue to carryon with our business. So, we must be grateful. Those who
were displaced by the recent war are everywhere, not only
I hope I have sketched intimate intercultural scholarly exchanges
that took place between Suzuki and Hu Shih. The visit Suzuki and com-

第二十号

in Asia but also in Europe. (Suzuki, 1959, SDZ 20.260)

日本哲学史研究

we had to endure horrific postwar years, but at least wepany made to China in May and June of 1934 had this sort of scholarly
collaboration as the backdrop.

3. Suzuki and Company: A Pilgrimage to Chinese Buddhist
Sites
3.1. Background
When political conflicts between China and Japan began to worsen
in the early 1930s, those who cherished the cultural ties with China
became increasingly concerned. Suzuki was convinced that the only way
out of military confrontation would be by way of Buddhists standing
together in solidarity and counteract the tide of materialism and military
expansionism:
If the cultural unity of Far-eastern civilization along theline marked by Buddhism is to be firmly maintained inorder to make it stand against the modern spirit of scitwo great nations of the Far East are to be solidly aligned.
(Suzuki 1935a, 328)
This idea of Buddhism offering a peaceful resistance and the vision ofcoexistence in the modern world was something that the founders of
The Eastern Buddhist Society had already advocated in 1921 in the wake八

entific and economic materialism, the Buddhists of theof the Great War that devastated Europe. (See “Editorial,” The Eastern
Buddhist 1921, 1.1:80-81)︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

Saitō Risuke, who was closely involved with the planning of thegroup’s visit to China, explained how the idea initially came about:
In the spring of 1934, following the Manchurian Incident,
Makino Nobuaki 牧野伸顕, Ikeda Shigeaki 池田成彬,
Mutō Sanji 武藤山治, Ishii Mitsuo 石井光雄, and Suzuki
Daisetz 鈴木大拙 got together a few times at my home in
Kita-Kamakura, as we were concerned about the strained
relationship between Japan and China. The conclusion wearrived at was it was best to ask Prof. Suzuki Daisetz tolead a group of Buddhists and visit China to strengthen
friendship between the two peoples. He was to be accompanied by Fujii Jōsen 藤井静宣 (of [Jōenji of] the Honganjisect), Takabatake Bizan 高畠眉山 (of Engakuji), Nakamura
Kaisen 中村戒仙 (of Daitokuji), and my son Teiichi [斎藤]貞一, acting as secretary. The group departed for China in

May and visited various Buddhist sites for two months.
Their travel expenses were to be covered by
Kanebō, Mitsui, and Mitsubishi, thanks to the commitment of Mutō Sanji and Ikeda Shigeaki. Mutō took with
him the necessary papers to speak to Mr. Katō Takeo of
Mitsubishi Bank, when on his way, a man terrorized him
and shot him on the street. He died of the wound the next

九

day. After this terrible incident, I consulted Makino and
Ikeda to see what we might do, to which they responded
without hesitation that they must go ahead with the original plan. Ikeda approached Mitsubishi Bank to secure
the funds, and Prof. Suzuki and company departed for
China.

This trip to China was realized against all the odds
Thanks to the assistance of Wang Yiting 王一亭 (J. Ō Ittei,
1867-1938), they were able to visit major Buddhist temples
and saw the abbots and venerable priests. Among them
who was on good terms with Chiang Kai-shek 蒋介石 (J.
Shō Kaiseki, 1887-1975; Long 2000, 171). The group also

第二十号

was the great master, Taixu 太虚 (J. Taikyo, 1889-1947),

日本哲学史研究at the time when political complications were escalating.

met with Venerable Yuanying 円瑛 (J. En’ei, 1878-1953),
Venerable Yinguang 印光 (J. Inkō, 1862-1940), and otherrespected important figures of the Chinese Buddhist
sangha. In Beijing, the group chanced to run into Professor
Hu Shi (J. Ko Seki), and they spoke about the possibilityof East Asian cultural collaboration and various ways inwhich Japan might maintain its contact with the Republicof China (ROC). (Saitō 1957, 260-61, emphasis added)
Mutō Sanji (1867-1934) was the President of Kanebō Textile
Company, which operated its overseas factories in Shanghai. Mutō had
a wide network of friends and acquaintances, both in Japan and China.
Among them was Wang Yiting, the most energetic lay-Buddhist in
Shanghai. Count Makino Nobuaki (1861-1949) was serving as Imperial
Minister to Emperor Hirohito between 1925 and 1935. The support andinvolvement of these men of consequence were essential for the successof the group’s visit. For instance, they were able to obtain a letter of introTokyo, to Abbot Taixu. Wang Yiting was also able to introduce Suzuki
and company to leading Chinese Buddhist monastics as well as to thegovernment officials who nurtured Buddhist faith.
It is not hard to imagine how the selfless sacrifice of Mutō
inspired and sustained Suzuki. On March 10 of the following year, at

一〇

duction from Jiang Zuobin 蒋作賓, the ROC ambassador stationed inthe first anniversary of Mutō’s death, Suzuki delivered his public talk,titled “Gisei no seishin” [The spirit of sacrifice], with which he paid spe︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

cial tribute to his departed patron and friend. (Suzuki 1935b)3.2. Highlights of the Visit to Chinese Buddhist Sites:
I reconstructed the route and the itinerary of Suzuki and the groupbased on Suzuki’s diary (Kirita 2006, 88-89) and annotated photos taken
by Saitō Teiichi (Suzuki 1934c; photos SDZ 29.523-553; annotations to
the photos SDZ 29.615-619).
<the route of their visit>

一一

I supplied background information as necessary, and incorporated pasSDZ 29.555-613) The following excerpts should give a good glimpse
into their visit to China:
May 7, Shanghai. Upon arrival in Shanghai [from Kobe], thephoto taken on this day in Wang’s Catalpa Garden carries the following
note by Saitō Teiichi:

第二十号

group paid its first visit to Wang Yiting at his private residence. The

日本哲学史研究sages from Suzuki’s “Impressions of Chinese Buddhism.” (Suzuki 1934c,

As soon as we arrived in Shanghai, we got in touch with
Mr. Wang, thanks to the good offices of Kanebō Shanghai.
When we saw him, we explained to him that we cameto China as pilgrims to visit important Buddhist sites,
and that the blueprint of the tour had been drawn by the
initiative of the late Mr. Mutō Sanji. Upon hearing this,Mr. Wang, visibly moved, told us that he supported thetenet of our visit. He then went into deep silence, andreminisced about the late Mutō—that Mutō was born inthe same year as he, and how he was so saddened by his
friend’s untimely death. (Suzuki 1934c, SDZ 29.615)
Fujii Jōsen, who accompanied the group, had studied at the Tung
Wen College in Shanghai for three years, and was quite fluent in spoken
Mandarin Chinese. He also personally knew Wang Yiting from his
Shanghai days. Fujii was an invaluable guide into the world of Chinese
Buddhists. (Sakaida 2017; Ishida 2017)
At Uchiyama Bookstore, they saw Lu Xun 魯迅, with whom theowner of the bookstore, Uchiyama Kanzō, was a trusted friend.
May 11, Hangzhou.
On this day, a learned scholar, Ruan Jianguan 阮艦光, joined thegroup as the interpreter for the rest of their journey in China. In this一二

May 10, Shanghai.

way, Suzuki et al. were ensured a high level of communication in facing
the language barrier. Even then, when Suzuki interviewed Venerable︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

Yinguang (on May 28, see below), it proved to be near impossible, as
the latter spoke a Chinese dialect which even the learned Mr. Ruan was
unable to penetrate. Suzuki resorted to writing out Chinese charactersto communicate, but such a cumbersome means could not evolve intoa philosophical discussion. Such was the actual built-in difficulty ofintercultural communication.
On this day they visited Jingci Temple (J. Jinzuji) on the Western
Lake, or Xihu, the temple, where Dōgen’s teacher Rujing resided before
he was appointed abbot of Tiandongshan.
May 12, Hangzhou: Lingyin Temple.
The Kalachakra Empowerment ceremony was celebrated at
Lingyin Temple (J. Rei’inji), and they witnessed the huge event on the
day before its climax “initiation” (or “anointment”) ritual. The generalsocial and political unrest, felt throughout China, drove wealthy donors
to sponsor this elaborate ceremony. The Panchen Lama (who took
refuge from Tibet in 1923) officiated this ceremony in order to ward off
warmongering evil spirits. The ceremony was attended not only by thewealthy donors and monastic leaders, but also by governmental dignitaries. Suzuki and company saw Chu Minyi 褚民誼, who held various
ministerial positions in Chang Kai-Shek’s government. What impressed
Suzuki the most was the big crowd of ordinary Chinese people whogathered to take part in this ceremony. He noted his impression of that

一三

day:
This event was so huge in scale. Sponsored by the key
powerful figures of the financial, political, and religious
sectors, the ceremony was intended to bring about peaceand calm to the troubling volatile situations of the day.
Lingyin Temple belongs to the lineage of Chan, and isusually a quiet place, but I must say we have witnessedtiation ceremony, not only many governmental dignitaries
attended it, but also no small amount of material goods
were transported everyday to the temple precinct. For thisby numerous congregations that gather every day, there
has to be some strong religious feeling that drives people.

第二十号

scale of event to go on for three or four weeks, attended

日本哲学史研究

something extraordinary here. During the Kalachakra ini-

I spoke about this to a young self-acclaimed progressive
Chinese Chan monk. He told me: “Rather than calling it
genuine religious faith, I would think that many ordinaryfolks just come and attend the ceremony out of curiosity.” Be that as it may, I must say that they were driven bysome deep-seated religious sentiment to take part in thisreligious ceremony. (Suzuki 1934c, SDZ 29.562-3)
Suzuki was also impressed by how a large crowd of Chinese people
moved about in an “orderly manner in chaos,” and he wondered how
the Japanese would behave in a similar situation—possibly in a chaotic
manner in chaos. The fact that he was unable to locate the main temple
building, as it was buried in the sea of huge crowd of people, indicated tohim the robust presence of Chinese followers who supported Buddhism
at the grassroots level. (Suzuki 1934c, SDZ 29.564)
May 17, Ningbo.
From Shanghai, they traveled to Ningbo to visit Master Taixu at
carried by “sedan” into the hills. Their meeting with Taixu was brief,
but it had tangible outcomes. It seems Suzuki was able to bring up thematter of establishing a study abroad program for Taixu’s disciples topursue Buddhist Studies in Japan at a university dedicated to the study ofvarious religions (today’s Taishō University). It also appears that Suzuki

一四

Xuedou Temple. They spent a few hours in automobiles before they wererelayed the sponsors’ invitation to Taixu’s senior disciples to visit Japan.
For instance, Daxing responded to this invitation and visited Japan in︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

May-June of the following year (see below).
May 19, Ningbo: Tiandongshan.
The year 1934 marked the 2,500th anniversary of Śākyamuni
Buddha’s birth. May 19 corresponded to the eve of Buddha’s birthday
according to the lunar calendar, and multiple special offerings to thedead (shuiluhui 水陸会, J. suiriku-e) were held at Tiandongshan 天童山
Monastery. It was also their overnight lodging, and they were thus able
to take part in the memorial service rituals. Suzuki noted that Chinese
pilgrims from local provinces inundated the temple ground and took
lodging there.
May 20, Ningbo: Ayuwang Temple.
The Buddha’s Birthday was cerebrated on this day. They visited
King Ashoka (Ayuwang) Temple 阿育王寺, where abbots of major monasteries and temples gathered to commemorate the 2,500th anniversaryof the Śākyamuni’s Birthday. Suzuki and company were graciously
received by the abbots Yuanying of Tiandongshan Monastery, Yuanlongof Ayuwang Temple, and Changgui of Emeishan Temple, who weredelighted to have these distinguished guests from Japan to celebrate
together this very special historical day. (Suzuki 1934c; SDZ 29.533 forthe photo caption)
Suzuki saw about one thousand pilgrims came to the temple
and attended various ceremonies that were going on simultaneously

一五in different parts of the temple throughout the day. What impressed
him the most was the “finger offering ceremony” (ranzhi gongyang 燃
指供養, J. nenshi-kuyō), which he had never seen before. He noticed

that there were even young women among the passionate devotees
who offered their fingers to Buddha in the flames. (Suzuki 1934c, SDZ
29.565)

May 22-25, Mount Potalaka.
山, the sacred center of the Guanyin cult, initiated by the Japanese monk

Egaku 慧萼 (Ch. Huie) who was dispatched to China by Empress Danrin
檀林皇后 (786-850). When Egaku was on his return voyage to Japan

this island. Egaku took this as a message from Guanyin that she wanted
to remain in China. Thus he erected a temple to enshrine the Guanyin

第二十号

with a statue of Guanyin, the boat would not proceed any further than

日本哲学史研究

From Ningbo, they took a ferry to the island of Putuoshan 普陀

statue, which has become today’s Puji Chansi (J. Fuzaiji). Suzuki andcompany took Lianchi Chanyuan 蓮池禅院 as their lodging temple
and visited the holy sites dotted throughout the island. Suzuki notedthat several thousand monks inhabited the island and practiced their
devotion to Guanyin, but he saw no female devotees living on the island.
Suzuki must have been thinking about Dōgen, who had visited
Putuoshan (ca. 1227) as he was concluding his study with Master Rujing
at Tiandongshan. At that time, Dōgen composed a poem in Chinese,prefaced “At Mt. Potalaka in the Province of Changguo.” In this poem,
Guanyin is addressing the students studying Buddha’s teaching not tolook for her apparition in the grotto, which was popularly believed tobe the place where she made herself visible to the faithful:
You, who are engaged in the inquiry into the mind,
Shall not seek the apparition of my face in this cave.
I tell whoever comes to seek me here:“Wake up! Guanyin is not here at Mt. Potalaka.”豈覓洞中現聖顔我告来人須自覚観音不在宝陀山(Kagamishima 1988, 268-271;

Dōgen, Eihei kōroku, vol. 10)

一六

聞思修本証心間May 28, Suzhou: Baoguo Temple.
From Ningbo, they traveled north. In Suzhou, they visited︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

Baoguo Temple 報国寺 to interview Venerable Yinguang (1862-1940),
a highly regarded authority of Pure Land teaching. (Suzuki 1934c, SDZ
29.606) Yinguang, then 74 years old, was observing his “spiritual seclusion” (biguan 閉関) in order to purify his faith. He granted an interview
form his niche through a small opening on the wall. In response to
Suzuki’s inquiry, he stated that Chan (i.e., seated meditation) practice
was reserved only for the spiritual elites, and that it may offer an “understanding” (jie 解) of Buddha’s teaching at best, but not an existential“proof ” (zheng 證) that one will be reborn in the Pure Land. The latter
path was directly accessible only to those who single-mindedly dedicated themselves to the practice of nienfo 念仏 (invocation of Amida
Buddha’s name).
Suzuki wanted to hear Yinguang’s reaction to his view that the meditation practice also harbored a dimension of spiritual “passivity” quite
similar to what the followers of nienfo practice experience in their utter
devotion to the saving grace of Amitābha Buddha. For Suzuki “self-power” (jiriki 自力) and “other-power” (tariki 他力) were in the end misleading
distinctions, and that “passivity” of the mind was universal in any religious experience, be it in Zen or Pure Land practice. (Suzuki 1933, 326)
As mentioned earlier, the linguistic barrier was too great for thetwo men to communicate on these subtle points. Suzuki sensed, moreover, that Yinguang’s approach to “rebirth in the Pure Land” remained

一七

moralist in core, which precluded a deeper investigation into the religious nature of sin. For Suzuki, Shinran’s experience of his own utter
helplessness in the recognition of his profound sinfulness and Amida
Buddha’s great compassion in the moments of his despair was deeper
than any moral view of good and evil. (The Japanese True Pure Landsect developed out of Shinran’s 親鸞 religious life.)Yinguang would not hear Suzuki’s point, and simply rejectedauthentic religious practice for those who seek salvation in Pure Land.”(Suzuki 1934c, SDZ 29.609) The strict observance of moral precepts was
essential for Yinguang for attaining religious salvation.
cal breakthroughs Chinese Pure Land thought might be able to make,should it freed itself from the moral bindings and delved into the spir-

第二十号

Suzuki left the interview, wondering what kind of philosophi-

日本哲学史研究that “the Japanese Shin priests eat meat and get married; that is not anitual depth, with a penetrating reflection on the human conditions.
At the end their meeting, Yinguang expressed his appreciation
to Suzuki for his visit, gave him his wrirings, and asked him to read his
ideas expressed in those pamphlets. Once back in Japan, Suzuki didexactly that, and developed his reflections further (see Suzuki 1935a).
June 8: Beijing
On this day, they visited Peking University, where they were
warmly welcomed by President Jiang Menglin. Suzuki also unexpectedly ran into Hu Shih. The group also visited the Chinese College andmet with the President, Qi Dapang.
June 10: Beijing
The group took part in the Mongolian Buddhist evening service
at Yonghe Gong. According to Saitō Teiichi:
After our visit to the Daoist temple, Baiyun Daoguan,
we spent the whole afternoon at Yonghe Gong. We wereshown throughout the temple. In the early evening, we
accompanied by a big horn and a loud drum. This evokeda mystical atmosphere. (Suzuki 1934c, SDZ 29.619)
June 11, Beijing.
Suzuki spent the day doing research in the Beijing National
Library into the Dunhuang materials housed there; he discovered the一八heard the sutra chanting by young Lamaism monks,

writings of Bodhidharma. (Suzuki 1934d-1935, SDZ 29.115-201, et
passim)︺D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

June 18: Fengtian (Shenyang), Manchuria.
Suzuki and company traveled from Beijing to Manchuria, andin Shenyang they visited the National Library, of which Kim Gugyeong
was then the head librarian. It appears Kim was out of office on one of
his field trips. No record exists of this day. From Manchuria, the groupheaded to Korea, and via Seoul, Gyeongju, and Pusan, they returned to
Shimonoseki.
June 25: Kyoto
In the evening, Suzuki arrived at Kyoto Station, concluding hissojourn of 52 nights, 53 days.

3.3. An Immediate Outcome of the 1934 Visit to China
The group’s visit was handsomely rewarded. In May, 1935 Taixu’s
eminent disciple Daxing 大醒 (1900-52) visited Japan from May toJune. Fujii Jōsen accompanied Daxing as his personal interpreter andguide. (Sakaida 2019) Daxing wrote about the Japanese Buddhist temples he visited, Buddhist activities he encountered, and the people hemet. (Daxing 1936) While in Kyoto, Daxing called on Suzuki twice;
Suzuki helped him to observe first-hand how the monks were trainedat the monastery-temple of Myōshinji in Kyoto. Daxing was also aguest at Saitō Risuke’s private home in Kita-Kamakura, where he wastreated to the refined tea ceremony and meals, all done in the most

一九

exquisite tasteful manner (“guya 古雅”). This aesthetic experience,
which evoked in him a sense of “elegant serenity” (yizhong youqu
一種幽趣), made him feel at home away from home. (Daxing 1936,

92-100, 211-216)
As for the outcomes of the 1934 visit, Saitō Risuke had the following to say:This group’s visit to Buddhist temples in China bore great
Master Taixu resulted in the study-abroad program forthe young Chinese monks to attend Japanese universities,
starting the following year. To begin with, Master Zhifeng
as Master Daxing 大醒 (J. Taisei), visited Japan, following
Suzuki’s return to Japan. After that, every year Chinese第二十号

芝峰法師, the number one disciple of Master Taixu, as well

日本哲学史研究

fruit. The discussion that took place between Suzuki andmonks came to Japan to study, altogether 14 or 15 of them.
The last student to study in Japan was Zhu Tianhui 朱
天慧 (J. Shū Ten’ei), who, upon graduating from Taishō

University, returned home and taught at the universities
in Chongqing (J. Jūkei). The tuition and expenses of these
Chinese monks studying in Japan were borne by the widowed wife of the late Mutō Sanji, Mrs. Mutō Chiyoko 武
藤千世子, who financially supported this program from1935 to 1943—nearly a decade—to carry out her late husband’s wishes. (Saitō 1957, 261-62)

4. Suzuki’s “Impressions of Chinese Buddhism”
Following his return to Japan, it was in August of 1934, when Suzuki
found free time to write about his experience in China—Shina Bukkyō
inshō-ki [Impressions of Chinese Buddhism]. (Suzuki 1934c) As a token
and sponsors of the trip but also sent them to Chinese monastics, lay
Buddhists, and scholars whom the group came to meet during theirChinese tour.
It is noteworthy that Suzuki’s booklet was immediately translated into Chinese and published in two installments in the journal

二〇of thanks, he presented the booklets among the Japanese supporters

Haichaoyin 海潮音 in 1935. (Suzuki 1935c) The translator may havebeen Zhang (or Cheung) Maoji 張茂吉, whose Chinese translation in︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

book form was published in Xiamen City in 1936. (Suzuki 1936; Kirita
2005, 49, see “List of comprehensive publications”)
As mentioned above in relation to his meeting with Yinguang,
Suzuki further reflected on Chinese Pure Land thought in relation to
Chan, which resulted in his essay in English bearing the same title,“Impressions of Chinese Buddhism” (not to be confused with Suzuki
1934c). (Suzuki 1935a)

4.1. “Impressions of Chinese Buddhism” (in Japanese) (1934c)
Suzuki began his narrative with the statement that “Buddhism isstill fully alive and well in China,” contrary to an uncritically held perception among the Japanese that “Buddhism in China is on the decline.”(Suzuki 1934c, SDZ 29.557-58, et passim) We have already seen someobservations by Suzuki in the “reconstructed itinerary” above. I shall
now try to summarize other points made in this booklet.
The huge scale of temple buildings and temple grounds struck
Suzuki. He remembered a gigantic temple building (most likely the Hallof Heavenly Deities) under reconstruction at Jingci Temple in Hangzhou.
For a building of that scale to be rebuilt, there had to be a large base offinancial support among the lay followers. After repeatedly seeing how
Buddhist temples attracted huge numbers of ordinary people to theirevents, rituals, and ceremonies, Suzuki could not help but conclude that二一

the Buddhist faith was deeply alive among the Chinese people. The layoutof temple buildings gave the feeling of “openness” in comparison withthat in Japan. For one thing, the temple floors were laid out with composite soil, and were not covered with tatami mats, facilitating the freedomof coming and going from one building to another. He was impressed by

how Chinese monks took special care of sutras and scriptures; they even

kept the “torch of eternal light” lit at night to guard the Sutra Hall. He also
in comparison with Japan, where a clerical hierarchy was more rigidly
observed. He also noticed how Chinese monks were adept in the art of
hospitality (something similar to the Benedictines in Europe).
out by wealthy lay patrons, from running printing houses (e.g., Jinglin
Press) to modern hospitals, orphanages, schools, and dormitories for

第二十号

What impressed him even more was the lively social work carried

日本哲学史研究

felt that a kind of egalitarian spirit permeated the monastic community

students. Also, he took a special note (as his wife, Beatrice, was a vegetarian) that every major city had plenty of vegetarian restaurants forlay Buddhists who followed the Buddhist diet and avoided eating meat.
As a professor of Religious Studies, Suzuki naturally paid attention to how different historical factors shaped Chinese Buddhism as
distinct from Japanese Buddhism. He saw Chan as a uniquely Chinese
adaptation of Indian Buddhism, and he knew that the Chan tradition
that flourished during the Tang and Song periods was no longer to befound in China, but that it did not necessarily mean the “decline” ofChan tradition. There in China he encountered the “nienfo” (念仏 J.
nenbutsu) practice, tracing back its origin to Pure Land practice, that has
been fused into the Chan practice of “seated meditation.” For Suzuki,
Chinese Chan may be best described as “nienfo-Chan” (J. “nenbutsu-Zen”). He also saw how popular religious practice was alive and wellin Daoist temples, and how religious rituals and activities carried out
in Daoist temples were essentially no different from those carried out
Shinto and Buddhist practice had fused over the centuries, and for the
majority of the Japanese people, the distinction between Shinto shrines
and Buddhist temples is a moot point.
Next, in the imposing figure of the smiling Buddha or Budai(J. Hotei)—the incarnation of Maitreya Buddha—Suzuki saw the

二二in Buddhist temples. This last phenomenon is also seen in Japan, wherepresence of deep Chinese psychology that affirmed worldly values.
Budai expresses the secular values of wealth, happiness, and a large︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

extended family. The need for the mysterious and the religious
was relegated to the compassionate Goddess of Mercy, Guanyin (J.
Kan’non).
Even this extended tour of China, however, could not cover
everything Suzuki wanted to see (e.g. how Chinese Buddhist monks
were trained). Suzuki was especially curious to see if Baizhang’s mottoof monastic life, “A day without physical labor is a day without food”—
something similar to “labore et orare”—was still practiced in the Chinesemonasteries, but they did not have the time to visit a Chan monastery.
(Suzuki 1934c, SDZ 29.599-601)
Suzuki concluded his “Impressions” with these words:
I wrote these pages at my abode on the Engakuji temple
compound, near the Reliquary Hall (Shariden), which
I understand was modeled after the one at Ayuwang
Temple in Ningbo, and which enshrines a small portion of the Buddha’s relics, venerated at Ayuwang Temple
and gifted to Japan about 700 years ago. Moreover, thisReliquary Hall is the oldest surviving building from the
Kamakura period, and it is well known for its Southern
Song temple architectural style. The founding abbot ofEngakuji was Mugaku Sogen 無学祖元 [Wuxue Zuyuan,
1226-1286], the Chinese Chan master, who was invited

二三

to Japan by the Hōjō Regent [Tokimune, 1251-1284]. As
I think about these connections, I renew my appreciationof the deep karmic ties that exist between Kamakura andSouthern China where I was recently. (Suzuki 1934c, SDZ
29.613)

4.2. “Impressions of Chinese Buddhism,” (in English) (1935a)same title, “Impressions of Chinese Buddhism,” in which he further
developed three points: (1) the symbolic significance of the figure oflaughing Buddha, or Budai (J. Hotei), the incarnation of Maitreya; (2)distinct “division of labor” between Guanyin and Amitābha; and (3) how
meditation and nienfo practice came to be fused in Chinese Chan prac-

第二十号

the importance of the cult of Guanyin in Chinese Buddhism and the

日本哲学史研究In 1935, Suzuki wrote another essay, this time in English, with thetice. Suzuki especially addressed in depth Yinguang’s view of Pure Landfaith in this context; he also added an extra chapter, “Recent Chinese
Pure Land Masters” in order to cover in detail how this fusion took
place. (Suzuki 1935a)
Since this highly complex and detailed essay is available in
English online (and I am quickly reaching the word limit), please refer
to https://otani.repo.nii.ac.jp (Otani University Academic Repository),
and go to “The Eastern Buddhist Society,” which carries all the backissues of The Eastern Buddhist.

5. By Way of Conclusion
Suzuki’s pilgrimage to Buddhist sites led him from “historicalbook-knowledge” to the embodied knowledge of “the present actualities”
of Buddhism in China. In this way, his scholarly interest in the early Chan
tradition gained a fresh impetus. Furthermore, his exposure to “nienAs to the view held among some scholars that the prewar Japanese
Buddhists looked down upon Chinese Buddhism “with a sense of cultural superiority” (e.g., Li 2020, 95), or the assessment that “there was ageneral complacency among the Japanese Buddhists which consideredJapanese Buddhism the most perfect form of Buddhism developed in

二四

fo-Chan” ignited his philosophical interest in the Pure Land thought.

Asia” (quoted in Sakaida 2017, 34), we need to make the folloiwing
important observation. This kind of Japanocentric view may have been︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

commonly upheld among the Japanese sectarian Buddhists and clerics (evangelical in interest), but not among the majority of Japanese
Buddhist scholars.
Buddhist scholars, precisely because of their academic training
they received, had a much more universal and borderless (a-political)
understanding of Buddhism by and large. Many leading Buddhist scholars of the prewar period had studied aboard, learned to embody western
critical scholarly methods, and maintained a global perspective in theirwork. Sanskritist Nanjō Bunyū, for instance, was trained at Oxford under
Max Müller. Many Buddhist scholars cultivated aesthetic and philosophical appreciation in their personal lives as well. Suzuki’s lifelong
friend (and later a colleague), Matsumoto Bunzaburō, who studied in
Berlin and heard the last lecture by Max Weber, developed a keen interest in Indian Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist art. Sasaki Gesshō, thethird president of Ōtani University, toured Europe and North America
and implemented internationally competitive academic standards forhis students (including language requirements).
Even among Buddhist clerics, not all shared the Japanocentric
attitude. Fujii Jōsen, for instance, was a staunch Sinophile, while herepresented the Honganji sect. When Suzuki’s Shina Bukkyō inshō-ki(Suzuki 1934c) was published in October of 1934, Fujii reviewed it in
Chūgai Nippō, November 6-7, 1934, in which he remarked that Suzuki’s

二五attitude towards Chinese Buddhism was “unbiased,” and his effort to“understand the actual practice of Chinese Buddhism was outstanding
and remarkable.” (Quoted in Sakaida 2017, 42)
In short, Suzuki’s approach to the study of Buddhism was firstand foremost existential-philosophical. The source of his questions, the“fons et origo” of his textual studies, was his desire to make sense of hisreligious experience of “awakening” (or satori). His 1934 pilgrimage
to him. His understanding was deepened, and new textual findings resonated in his mind more and more clearly. This further contributed to his
philosophical understanding of the nature of spiritual freedom. Suzuki
the world of unceasing wonder and marvel.

第二十号

thus went on with his lifelong exploration into the realm of “myō” 妙—日本哲学史研究brought the living reality of Chinese Buddhism, past and present, closer

References
Abbreviation:
SDZ Suzuki Daisetz Zenshū『鈴木大拙全集』[Collected Works of Suzuki
Daisetz]. (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1980-83), 32 vols.
(Note: The first edition, 1968-71, in 30 vols., and the newly expanded
edition, 1999-2003, in 40 vols., have different placement of essays; I usedthe 1980-83 edition).
**
Barrett, Timothy H. (1989). “Arthur Waley, D. T. Suzuki, and Hu Shih: New Lighton the ‘Zen and History’ Controversy,” Buddhist Studies Review 6.2, 116-21.
Daxing 大醒. (1936). Riben fojiao shichaji『日本佛教視察記』[Impressions ofJapanese Buddhism], (Shanghai: Guoguang Yinshuyuan).
Dōgen. (1988). See Kagamishima (1988).
Eastern Buddhist, The. (1921). Inaugural volume, 1.1. “Editorial,” 80-81.
Humphreys, Christmas. (1978). Both Sides of the Circle, The Autobiography ofIbuki Atsushi 伊吹敦. (2018). “Ko Seki no Zen kenkyū no shiteki igi to sono
genkai”「胡適の禅研究の史的意義とその限界」[A historical significanceof Hu Shih’s scholarship on Chan and its limitations], Komazawa Daigaku
Bukkyo gakubu ronshū [Research papers, Department of Buddhist Studies,
Komazawa University], vol. 49, 356-72.

二六Christmas, (London George Allen & Unwin).

Ibuki Atsushi 伊吹敦. (2020). “Suzuki Daisetz wa dōshite shoki-zenshū-shikenkyū o hajimeta ka”「鈴木大拙はどうして初期禅宗史研究を始めたか」︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

[What prompted D. T. Suzuki to turn to his study of the history of early
Chan?], Kokusai Zen kenkyū 6, 131-95.
Ishida Takuo 石田卓生. (2017). “Mizuno Baigyō narabi ni Fujii Jōsen (Sōsen)to Tōa Dōbun-shoin: Hi-seiki gakusei kara miru Tōa Dōbun-shoin no ichisokumen”「水野梅暁ならびに藤井静宣（草宣）と東亜同文書院 ̶ 非正規学
生から見る東亜同文書院の一側面」[Mizuno Baigyō and Fujii Jōsen: What

we learn about the East Asian Tong Wen College from the experience ofthe students of non-regular track], Dōbun Shoin Kinenhō 同文書院記念
報 (Nagoya, Aichi Gakuin) 25:35-60.

Kagamishima Genryū 鏡島元隆. (1988). Ed. and commentary, Eihei kōroku『永平公録』[Records of Master Dōgen’s activities], Dōgen Zenji Zenshū『道元禅師全集』[Collected Works of Zen Master Dōgen], vol. 4, (Tokyo: Shunjūsha).

Kirita Kiyohide 桐田清秀. (2005). Suzuki Daisetsu kenkyū kisoshiryō『鈴木大拙研究基礎資料』[Essential sources of Research into Suzuki Daisetz],(Kamakura: Matsugaoka Bunko).
Lau, Ngar-sze. (2020). “Recent Emergence of Theravāda Meditation
Communities in Contemporary China,” in J. S. Harding, V. S. Hori, and
A. Soucy, ed., Buddhism in the Global Eye, Beyond East and West (London,
New York, Oxford, New Delhi, Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic), 103-119.
Li, Jingjing. (2020). “D. T. Suzuki and the Chinese Search for Buddhist
Modernism,” in J. S. Harding, V. S. Hori, and A. Soucy, ed., Buddhism in
the Global Eye, Beyond East and West (London, New York, Oxford, New

二七Delhi, Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic), 87-102.
Long, Darui, (2000). “An Interfaith Dialogue between the Chines Buddhist
Leader Taixu and Christianity,” Buddhist-Christian Studies, 20: 167-189.
Okamura, Mihoko 岡村美穂子 and Ueda Shizuteru 上田閑照. (1999). Daisetz
no fūkei—Suzuki Daisetz to wa dare ka『大拙の風景、鈴木大拙とは誰か』[The scenery of Daisetz : Who was D. T. Suzuki?], (Kyoto: Tōeisha).

Otani University Academic Repository 大谷大学学術情報リポジトリ https://Saitō Risuke 斎藤利助. (1957). Shoga kottō kaiko gojūnen『書画骨董回顧五十年』[Looking back on my fifty years as an antique dealer] (Tokyo: Shikisha).

Sakaida Yukiko 坂井田夕起子. (2017). “Shina-tsū sōryo, Fujii Sōsen to NicchūBuddhist cleric versed in China, and the Sino-Japanese War], The St.
Andrew’s University Journal of Christian Studies, 52:19-53.

第二十号

sensō”「支那通」 僧侶・藤井草宣と日中戦争 [Fujii Sōsen: A Japanese

日本哲学史研究

otani.repo.nii.ac.jp.

Sakaida Yukiko. (2019). “Chūgokujin sōryo no mita kindai nihon bukkyō—
Daisei no Nihonbukkyō shisatsu-ki o chūshin ni”「中国人僧侶の見た近代日本仏教―大醒の『日本仏教視察記』を中心に」[Modern Japanese

Buddhism as viewed by a Chinese monk: The case of Daxing’s Records ofObservations of Japanese Buddhism], Kindai Bukkyō 26, 24-50.
Son, Jihye 孫知慧. (2015). “Wasurerareta kindai no chishikijin, Kim Kyūkyō nikansuru chōsa,”「忘れられた近代の知識人―金九経―に関する調査」[An
Investigation into the forgotten modern intellectual, Kim Ku-kyung”], inŌtani Gakuhō [The Journal of Buddhist Studies and Humanities], 94.2,
91-119.
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1927). Essays in Zen Buddhism, First Series. (London:
Luzac).
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1930a). Studies in the Lankāvatāra Sūtra. (London:
George Routledge & Sons; Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999, reprint 2007).
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1930b). “Zen to wa nanzo ya?”「禅とは何ぞや」[Whatis Zen?], SDZ 14.1-193.
師資記』とその内容概観」[Lengqie shizi-ji and its gist], The Ōtani Gakuhō

12.3 (November 1931), 1-33.
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1932). Trans. from the Sanskrit, The Lankāvatāra
Sūtra: A Mahayana Text. (London: George Routledge & Sons). (Reprint,
Boulder: Prajñā Press, 1978).

二八Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1931). “Ryōga shijiki to sono naiyō gaikan”「『楞伽Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1933). Essays in Zen Buddhism, Second Series.
(London: Luzac).
︺
D. T. Suzukiʼs Pilgrimage to Buddhist Sites in the Republic of China, 1934︹ Yusa

Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1934a). Tonkō-bon, Rokuso Dangyō kaisetsu「敦煌本『六祖壇経』解説」[On the Dunhuang manuscript, The Platform of the

Sixth Patriarch], SDZ 29.96-97.
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1934b). Essays in Zen Buddhism, Third Series.
(London: Luzac).
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1934c). Shina bukkyō inshōki『支那仏教印象記』[Impressions of Chinese Buddhism], (Tokyo: Morie Shoten), SDZ (1983),
29.521-619. (Note: This essay is found in SDZ (1968-71 edition) 30.463561; SDZ (1999-2003 expanded New edition) 26.79-161).
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1934d-1935). Various scholarly articles on the
Dunhuang manuscripts in comparison with other manuscripts
of Bodhidharma’s writings, SDZ 29.115-201; “Daruma no ibun,”[Bodhidharma’s texts, newly discovered]「達摩の遺文」SDZ 29.199-201.
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1935a). “Impressions of Chinese Buddhism,” The
Eastern Buddhist 6.4: 327-378.
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1935b). “Gisei no seishin”「犠牲の精神」[The spiritof sacrifice], SDZ 29. 201-210.
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1935c). “Zhonghua fojiao yinxiangji”「中華仏教印象記」, Chinese translation of Suzuki 1934b. Haichaoyin『海潮音』16.6:

26-36 & 16.7: 49-66.
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1936). Trans. Zhang Maoji 張茂吉, Zhongguo fojiao
yinxiangji 『中国仏教印象記』 [Impressions of Chinese Buddhism],
二九(Xiamen City).
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1948). “Ko Seki Sensei”「胡適先生」[Professor Hu
Shih], Bungei Shunjū『文藝春秋』26.7, SDZ, 30.495-500.
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō. (1959). “Tōzai zakkan” 「東西雑感」 [Random
Thoughts on East and West], Kokoro『心』(November), SDZ 20.260-267.