ONLINE ISSN 2435-3019

PRINT ISSN 2435-5259

Journal ofWorld Buddhist Cultures
Vol. 6
CONTENTS❖ Articles ❖◆ The Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts: Through the Creation of
the Bibliography of Japanese Buddhist Texts
Nobuya DAKE

❖ Book Reviews ❖◆ Review of Nishida, Kawabata, and the Japanese Response to Modernity by Andrew Feenberg
A. Can PIRTICI◆ Review of Theosophy Across Boundaries: Transcultural and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on aModern Esoteric Movement edited by Hans Martin Krämer & Julian Strube
Gouranga Charan PRADHAN

Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures,
Ryukoku University

2023.3

Journal ofWorld Buddhist Cultures
Vol. 6

Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures,
Ryukoku University－ March 2023 －Editorial Note
Kenichi Wakita
Director, Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures

The Research Centre for World Buddhist Cultures (RCWBC) was able to arrange
two symposia and as many as twenty-five colloquiums, seminars, workshops, and otheracademic events during the 2021-2022 academic year. We also successfully conducted
several academic events in collaboration with the Research Institute for International
Society and Culture, Ryukoku University. Some of them were in-person events, while
many were conducted in hybrid formats. It has already been three years since Covid19
pandemic began and we are not yet fully out of the difficult situation. We strongly believethat it was only due to the active support of all the stakeholders that we at RCWBC weresuccessful in organizing such a large number of academic events despite the ongoingdifficult times.
With great pleasure, we present the sixth volume of the Journal of World Buddhist
Cultures. The journal upholds the rigorous standards of a peer-review process. We arevery proud of the articles that have been included in this volume and would like to thankall the reviewers for their kind and thoughtful comments. We would also like to express
our sincere gratitude to all the contributors.
One of the main objectives of our center is to make RCWBC an international hub
for Buddhist studies. Together with all the stakeholders from all over the world, we willcontinue to make every effort to promote Buddhist studies. We look forward to yourcontinued support in the future.

i発 刊 の 辞脇田 健一
世界仏教文化研究センター長

2022 年度、龍谷大学世界仏教文化研究センターでは、二つのシンポジウム 、二十五回ほどの講演会・セミナー等を開催することができました。また、国際社会文化研究所との共催でも研究会を開催することができました。いずれも、オンライン、そしてオンラインと対面のハイブリッド形式により実施されました。新型コロナウイルス感染拡大が始まってから 3 年目になりますが、厳しい状況が続く中でも、このような充実した研究活動を展開できていることは、関係者の皆さんのご尽力の賜物と考えております。
さて、このような活発な研究活動を通して、『世界仏教文化研究』第 6 号を皆様のお手元にお届けできることを心より喜んでおります。本誌は厳しい査読審査を設けており、今号に掲載された学術論文は、そのような査読を通過した優れた水準を持つものと自負しております。査読いただきました皆様には、心より御礼申し上げます。
世界仏教文化研究センターのミッションのひとつは、仏教研究の国際的なハブを構築することにあります。世界各地の皆様と共に仏教研究を推進していけるよう、今後とも努力をして参りたいと考えております。何卒、よろしくお願いいたします。

ii

Table of Contents
Editorial Notei

Table of Contentsiii❖

Articles ❖The Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts: Throughthe Creation of the Bibliography of Japanese Buddhist Texts
Nobuya DAKE❖

3

Book Review ❖Review of Nishida, Kawabata, and the Japanese Response to Modernity by Andrew
Feenberg

A. Can PIRTICI

35

Review of Theosophy Across Boundaries: Transcultural and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on aModern Esoteric Movement edited by Hans Martin Krämer & Julian Strube
Gouranga Charan PRADHAN

40

Purpose of the Journal

46

Authors’ Profiles

49

iii

目

次

発刊の辞

i

目次

iii

❖ 論

文 ❖

The Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts: Through theCreation of the Bibliography of Japanese Buddhist Texts
Nobuya DAKE

❖ 書

3

評 ❖

Review of Nishida, Kawabata, and the Japanese Response to Modernity by Andrew
Feenberg

A. Can PIRTICI

35

Review of Theosophy Across Boundaries: Transcultural and Interdisciplinary Perspectives
on a Modern Esoteric Movement edited by Hans Martin Krämer & Julian Strube
Gouranga Charan PRADHAN

40

発刊の目的

46

執筆者一覧

49

iv

凡

例

1, 本誌は、英語を主言語とするが、日本語による投稿もさまたげない。したがって、目次、巻末執筆者等は、英語と日本語を併記する。
2, 漢字表記については、翻訳を含む日本語原稿の場合、一部の人名、書名を除き、原則、
常用漢字に統一する。
3, 本誌中に使用されている図版の無断コピーは固く禁ずる。

v

vi

ArticlesNobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖The Construction of History in English Translations of
Shin Buddhist Texts:
Through the Creation of the Bibliography of Japanese Buddhist Texts

Nobuya DAKE
Ryukoku University
Part-time Lecturer3❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

Abstract
In this paper, I analyze some of the main Shin Buddhist texts translated into English in theearly Meiji period as part of my larger project to construct a history of English-translated texts.
Previous studies have shown the way modern Japanese intellectuals converted and adopted
religious concepts originating from the West. Further scholarship has pointed out that theseideas were rearranged and disseminated within the Japanese context and also had an impact
when they spread back to the West. However, few studies have attempted to link these twopatterns. This paper aims to bring these two approaches together by specifically considering
the process of translation. The analysis of English translations (of Shin Buddhist) texts fromthe early Meiji period can contribute to shed light on the dynamics of the circulation of ideas
on religion between Japan and the West. This paper especially focuses on four English
translations: Akamatsu Renjō’s “A Brief Account of Shinshiu”; James Troup’s “On the Tenetsof Shinshu or True Sect of Buddhists”; Nanjō Bunyiu’s A Short History of The Twelve
Japanese Buddhist Sects; and Katō Shōkwaku’s “Shinshu Catechism.” These weretranslations spun by Japanese Buddhists as they struggled with Westernization, and some ofthem were English translations of Shin Buddhism. Through the analysis of these international
collaborations for translation productions, this paper will contribute to the scholarly debate
on the modern “co-creation” of Buddhism.

4Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖The Construction of History in English Translations of
Shin Buddhist Texts:
Through the Creation of the Bibliography of Japanese Buddhist Texts*
Nobuya DAKE

Keywords:

Translation, Strategic Occidentalism, Buddhism, Shin Buddhism

1. Introduction“Westernization" and “Western Impact” are key indicators of the modernization ofJapanese Buddhism. 1 The opening of Japan to the West at the end of the Edo period(1603-1867) was a major shock to Japan. As Japan sought to join the ranks of “civilized
nations (文明国)”, it was necessary to immediately embrace Western thought as one’s
property, and Japanese Buddhism was no exception to this trend. Japanese Buddhists
made serious efforts to incorporate the latest academic achievements by actively
establishing opportunities for exchange with the Western world, such as the Iwakura
Mission (1871–1873) to Europe, the invitation of theosophist Henry Steel Olcott (1832–1907), and the importation of European Buddhist studies. They also attempted toincorporate the latest scholarly achievements by actively engaging in exchanges with theWestern world. Shinshū priests were among the first to adapt to this “Westernization”
trend. 2
Most previous studies focusing on the issue of Buddhist Westernization have

* I deeply appreciate the comments of Paride Stortini and Nathan Jishin Michon. I also would like to thank
Gouranga Charan Pradhan and two anonymous reviewers at the Research Center for World Buddhist
Cultures of Ryukoku University. This paper was funded by a grant from “Seiyōsekaiheno Nihonbukkyō no‘hasshin’ to Juyō’ 西洋世界への日本仏教の「発信」と「受容」” (Dake Nobuya, JSPS number:22K12985).
1Ōtani, “Kindai ka to Bukkyō no Kankei toha?,15–16.
2
Honganji Shiryōken, Zōuho kaiteiban honganji Shi 3,383.

5

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

followed the movements of people who traveled to Europe. 3 For example, in 1872,
Kōnyo 広如, the head of the Jōdo Shinshū Nishi Honganji branch (Honganji-ha 本願寺派), ordered the priest, Umegami Takuyu 梅上沢融 (1835–1907) to carry out a study
tour of Europe and the United States, and Shimaji Mokurai 島地黙雷 (1838–1911) was
assigned to accompany him. In the same period, Akamatsu Renjō 赤松連城(1841–1919),
Horikawa Kyō’a 堀川教阿 (date of birth and death unknown), and Kōda Inen 光田為然 (1848–1875) traveled to England and Germany to study scientific approaches to
Buddhism and religion. It is well known that Shimaji Mokurai, based on the knowledge
that he gained during his travels in Europe, wrote “Sanjō Kyōsoku Hihan Kenpaku Sho”
三条教則批判建白書 (Critical Commentary on the Sanjō Doctrinal Rules), and madean important contribution to the debate and establishment of the laws governing freedomof religion and the separation of church and state in Japan, modeled on Western legislation.
Akamatsu Renjō, who studied in England and Germany, served as an international liaison
for the Honganji. 4 On the other hand, in the Jōdo Shinshū Higashi Honganji branch(Ōtani-ha 大谷派), Gennyo 現如 (1852–1923), the head of the sect, sent Kasahara
Kenju 笠原研寿 (1852–1883), Nanjō Bun’yū 南条文雄 (1849–1927), and others toEngland in 1876. The purpose of their visit was to collect sutras and specifically study
the Sanskrit versions of the Pure Land sutras. In particular, the methodologies andapproaches to texts that Nanjō Bun’yū learned under the Indologist Max Müller(1823–
1900) at Oxford University laid the foundation for the so-called “Kindai Bukkyō Gaku
近代仏教学(Modern Buddhist studies)” in Japan. The catalog that he composed whileworking in Europe as a way to correct Chinese translations with Sanskrit texts that Nanjō
brought back to Japan, commonly known as the “Nanjō Catalog,” played an importantrole in the development of modern Buddhist studies in Japan.
Recent scholarships have traced the footsteps of these Japanese scholar priests
abroad, identified who trained them, and what they brought back to Japan. 5 Their studyabroad experiences, from an intellectual perspective, were the driving force behind therapid modernization of Shinshū. However, little attention has been paid to the English
translations of Buddhist texts, which can shed light on the knowledge gained by thesetraveling scholar priests. A critical consideration of these English translations reveals thestrategic use of Western knowledge in the translation process.
Important results include Ogawara, Kindai nihon no Bukkyō-sha－Ajia taiken to shisō no henyou, Dake,
Yoshinaga and Ohmi, Nihon bukkyō to seiyō sekai.
4Isabella Bird evaluates Akamatsu Renjō as “a priest of great intellect, high culture, indomitable energy,
wide popularity, and far-fetching ambitions for the future of his faith.” See, Isabella, Unbeaten tracks inJapan, 248.
5
See Dake, Yoshinaga, Ohmi (eds.), Nihonbukkyō to seiyō Sekai.
36Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖It is well known that Japanese intellectuals brought back Western thoughts while
returning from abroad. However, they did not simply bring back Western thoughts. Indeed,
several conflicts existed. The first section of this paper illustrates the premise of this study,
which is the relationship between Orientalism and the Japanese reception of modern
Western concepts of Religion and Buddhism. These topics are important to reconsider
English-translated texts in Japan. The second part of this essay presents prior research on
the English translations related to Japanese Buddhism. Previous scholarships havefocused on the World Parliament of Religions held during the 1893 Columbian Expositionin Chicago and on the role of D. T. Suzuki (1870–1966). However, I believe it is importantto analyze the surrounding circumstances as well to have a better grasp. In particular, it
is important to take into account the entangled pre-history of these translations. Finally, I
will lay the foundation for writing a “history of English translations of Shin Buddhist
texts.” In this study, the texts under consideration will be organized into two categories:
English-translated texts and English texts, and particular attention will be paid to the texts
from the early Meiji period (1879–1889). Through this study, I will examine the processof what David McMahan calls “co-created Buddhism,” by looking at it from the Japanesecontext of the early Meiji period. 6
2. The Reception of Japanese Buddhism in the Western Context
2-1 Orientalism
Until the eighteenth century, the term “Orientalism” was a Western academic term thatgenerally indicated knowledge of the language, science, customs, and history groundedin the Orient. However, the meaning of the term underwent a major shift with theappearance of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Said took issue with the analytical method of“Orientalism,” and criticized this system for creating a violent relationship in which theWestern world is the supreme subject of representation and non-Western societies are
merely posited as the objects of recognition, unilaterally defined by the representing
subjects “Orient.” According to Said, “If the essence of Orientalism is the ineradicabledistinction between Western superiority and Oriental inferiority, then we must be
prepared to note how in its development and subsequent history Orientalism deepened
and even hardened the distinction.” 7 In short, Said pointed out that a power structure of“ruler” and “ruled” is embedded in the academic system, which is far from its claims ofneutrality and objectivity.
6
7

McMahan, The Making of Buddhist Modernism.
Said, Orientalism, 51.

7

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6The category of “Orientalism” that Said considered problematic is mostly limited
to the aspects of literary works and linguistics of the Islamic world of the Middle East.
However, this framework has gained traction in other fields of the humanities and has
been applied to religious studies and Buddhist studies as well. One of the earliest works
that applied Said’s criticism of Orientalism to the field of the modern study of Buddhism
is Philip C. Almond’s The British Discovery of Buddhism. 8 In his study, Almond argues
that the modern image of the “Buddha” is a product of Western perceptions. He reveals
that Western “Oriental Studies” represented the Buddha alternatively as an African, aMongol, or a deity of various nations when they first started to explore Buddhist texts.
Almond’s work illustrated that this image of the “Buddha” was created in a way that
conformed to Western worldviews, revealing the impact of Orientalism in Buddhist
studies. Despite its pioneering role in applying postcolonial theory to the study of
Buddhism, Almond’s book has been criticized by scholars for several methodologicalproblems.
As Charles Hallisey has pointed out, “Orientalism makes it materialize and embody
an absolute division between ‘the West’ and ‘the East,’ and rejects the voice of the ‘East’.”9

The concept of Orientalism, a Western-centered view of history, implies that the “East,”
as defined by the West, is the correct form that should exist. As a result, Almond’s
approach created a dichotomy between “Western Buddhism” and “Eastern Buddhism.”
For example, in eighteenth-century European Buddhist studies, the concept of Buddhism
was based on the idea that its original meaning had to be sought in ancient texts, which
informed prejudices against the Mahāyāna-based traditions of East Asian Buddhism, as
they were far removed from the Sanskrit and Pali sources. 10 Thus, Almond’s perspective
risks to reinforce the clear power relationship between the “West” as ruler and the “East”
as ruled, as it ignores the reality of Buddhism and actual Buddhists in Asia.
Building on these considerations, David L. McMahan and Donald Lopez Jr took
the responsibility to develop a new study called “Buddhist modernism.”11 For instance,
McMahan has astutely pointed out that the modern concept of “Buddhism,” was not
simply “Western Buddhism,” but a “Global Buddhism” co-created by Asians andWesterners. 12 James Ketelaar, Judith Snodgrass, Jørn Borup, and other have elucidated
this point by focusing on the Japanese context. Snodgrass, for example, has argued that
the Japanese had a strategy to promote “Japanese Buddhism” as “Eastern Buddhism” at
Almond, The British Discovery of Buddhism.
Hallisey, “Roads Taken and Not Taken in the Study of Theravâda Buddhism,” 32.
10
For more detail, see Hayashi,“Kindainihon ni okeru bukkyōgaku to shūkyōgaku”, 29–53.
11
Lopez Jr, “Buddha,”31–62.
12
McMahan, The Making of Buddhist Modernism, 259–261.
898

Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago, the world’s first international religious
congress. 13 On the other hand, Yoshinaga Shin’ichi, while focusing on the relationshipbetween Japanese Buddhism and Theosophy, has shown the process by which D. T.
Suzuki’s thoughts became prominent in Western representations of Zen. 14 These studies
reveal that the modern concept of Buddhism was not created unilaterally, but through a
two-way process involving both Euro-American and Asian intellectuals and religious
leaders. As previous studies have pointed out, there is a serious need to redefine theirrespective roles in this complex and intertwined relationship. To consider this point inmore detail, it is useful, first of all, to briefly provide an overview of the recent scholarshipon the construction of the concept of religion in modern Japan.
2-2 Concept of Religion in Modern Japan
Isomae Jun’ichi is largely credited with the recent burgeoning research in the intellectual
history of religion in modern Japan. After examining discussions of Orientalism in theWest, Isomae pointed out the problem that “discussions by Western religious scholars
tend to cite Japan as a means of rethinking Western religious studies and concepts, andthat their ultimate goal is self-criticism of Western society.” 15 In other words, the studyof Orientalism in the West has mostly aimed solely at self-criticism but has yet to actively
address issues and problems from the Japanese context. Isomae rightly states: “In order
not to be reduced to a tool in the struggle for intellectual hegemony among indigenous
elites over the incorporation of Western intellectual fads, one must be aware of one’s
position and for what purpose one is discussing this issue.” 16 He further adds: “We canno longer regard the concept of religion as a neutral observational description. Rather, itis the very construction of our cognition or subjectivity.” 17Thus, Isomae’s scholarship shows how the idea of “religion” and “religious studies”
were born and transformed in Japan. He concluded that “religion” in modern Japan wascharacterized by a transition from a practice to a belief-based meaning and he has reemphasized the need for research on the concept of religion in modern Japan. According
to him, from the standpoint of the Christian concept of religion, to even call Japanese

13
Snodgrass, Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism and the Columbian Exposition, 198–
221.
14
See Yoshinaga, Shinchigaku to bukkyō, Jørn Borup, “Pizza curry skyr and whirlpool effects - religious
circulations between East and West,”13–21.
15
Isomae, Kindainihon no shūkyō gensetsu to sono keifu－Shūkyō・Kokka・Shinto,14.
16
Ibid.,19.
17
Ibid.,30.

9❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

religiosity by the term “shūkyō” may be seen as incongruous. Nevertheless, the Japanese
do believe in the workings of unseen presences. If that belief is called “religion,” thenJapanese society has its own way of being religious, though it might differ from theWestern way. 18 Isomae redefined religion and religious studies in the context of therelationship between non-Western Japan and Western civilization, and in the context of
the Japanese Imperial system. The pioneering work by Isomae has spearheaded a lively
debate in later research on the concept of religion in modern Japan.
Hoshino Seiji’s study offers a concrete model of what Isomae has proposed.
Hoshino’s research shows that the term “religion” has been viewed as universal andahistorical, but that such a perception itself is historically constructed. His research has
focused on the writings of several Christians of the Meiji period, such as Kozaki
Hiromichi 小 崎 弘 道 (1856–1938) and Nakanishi Ushirō 中 西 牛 郎 (1859–1930). 19
According to his interpretation, Christians were searching for ways in which the term“religion” could be reconstructed in the Japanese context. Ultimately, Hoshino argued
that the term “religion” was redefined in a way to fit the Japanese context through themedium of modern Japanese Christians such as Ozaki and Nakanishi. His study has
demonstrated that the word “religion” gained a new meaning, which often conflicted with
Western conceptual conventions. Hoshino’s study can be considered a concrete exampleof how Isomae’s call was met by a growing scholarly debate over the concept of religion
in modern Japan.
Hans Martin Krämer re-examined the idea of “religion” through the case study of
Shimaji Mokurai. Krämer has analyzed how Western elements in early Shimaji’s thoughts
were reorganized and used by Shimaji, and argued that Western thought was not simply
transplanted through Shimaji, but rather he made the concept of “religion” his own
through a complex process. 20 Krämer showed how Western elements were reorganized
and appropriated in Shimaji’s formative thought. The landmark of Krämer’s study is thatit revealed that Shimaji did not merely “accept” Western concepts but “reconstructed”
them in a way that was in line with the Japanese context.
The scholarships on the concept of religion in modern Japan are not limited to the
exploration of the term “religion” but they have also studied the term “Buddhism.” Orion
Klautau’s research focused on prominent scholars who contributed to the birth of“modern Buddhist studies 近代仏教学” in Japan, such as Murakami Senshō 村上専精
(1851–1929) and Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 (1866–1945). Klautau analyzed “howIbid.,66.
Hoshino, Kindainihon no shūkyōgainen-shūkyōsha no kotoba to kindai, 210.
20
Krämer, Shimaji Mokurai and the Reconception of Religion and the Secular in Modern Japan,3–9.
18
19

10

Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖modern Japanese Buddhist scholars accepted and rejected various concepts (Buddhism,
religion, science, philosophy, etc.) which were introduced from the “West.” His researchconcludes that the modern Japanese term for Buddhism, Bukkyō 仏教, in its current
usage, especially in the context of yasokyō 耶蘇教 (Christian) is found in modern Japan
since the early 1870s, but this concept was not widely accepted until the late 1880s. 21 As
for the specific process of acceptance, he concludes, “Although we can already findexamples of the use of Bukkyō as a translation for the Western word Buddhism in 1876,
the use of ‘Buddhism’ in 1884 was still confused with the idea of ‘Buddhist law’ andcould not be said to have taken root.” 22 In this sense, Klautau states that it is possible toview the process of the establishment of the word “Buddhism” or the process ofunderstanding “Buddhism” as a “religion” as the narrative of Bukkyō becoming
Buddhism. When the European conceptualizations of Buddhism started to spread in Japan
in 1876, they were not yet clearly defined, and their meanings were not concrete.
Therefore, Modern Japanese Buddhist scholars were entrusted with the mission ofshaping what the word “Buddhism” meant. Klautau’s study, after discussing the work ofseveral Buddhist scholars, comes to the following conclusions:
In the context of public universities, “Bukkyō” was reconstructed within the newframework of academic knowledge brought about by the “civilization andenlightenment” movement, but this process was by no means smooth. In otherwords, among those who could be called “Buddhist scholars” from today’s
perspective, various opinions coexisted on how Buddhism should be understood,
the role it should play in society, and the concrete methods to achieve this role. 23
Japanese Buddhists did not simply comply with Western ideas of “Buddhism.” Rather,
within the Japanese intellectual context, there were active attempts to convert andincorporate it into the Japanese academic system, and there were discussions about its
social role and specific methods of researching Buddhism. As Klautau claims: “Buddhism
was not a religion but a philosophy, a philosophy rather than a religion or a philosophy at
the same time, and through this process, ‘Buddhism’ was shaped by its disciplinary
framework within its academic field of ‘Indian philosophy’.”This brief sketch of recent scholarship shows that there has been a broad discussion
on how Japanese intellectuals not only received but also reconstructed the WesternKlautau, Kindainihonshisō toshite no bukkyōshigaku,26.
Ibid.,85.
23
Klautau, “Kindainihon no bukkyōugaku niokeru “Bukkyō Buddhism” no katarikata,” 68–86.
21
22

11

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

derived concepts of “Religion” or “Buddhism” in Japan.
2-3 Circulation of Religious Concepts: Making Transnational Buddhism
How did then the religious concepts that were accepted and redeveloped in Japan maketheir way back to Europe and North America? Ketelaar, Snodgrass, and others havesuggested that Japanese Buddhists strategically transmitted these concepts to the West,using specifically the World Parliaments of Religions in Chicago as their platform. 24 For
a recent example, Aihua Zheng examined how the Japanese Buddhist delegates to theWorld Parliaments of Religions in 1893 prepared in Japan for their task of representing
Japanese Buddhism to the West. 25 There is no doubt that these are very importantresearch. However, Japanese Buddhists reconceived modern concepts of religion andtransmitted them to the West not only at the Parliament of World Religions but also
through English translations that I will analyze in this paper. In doing so, this paper willcontribute a “prehistory” of Shinshū conceptualizations of Buddhism leading to theParliament of Religions in Chicago. Were they simply following ideas and approaches
they learned in Europe and America? Did the Japanese have their own unique theory? If
so, what were the specific methods used? These questions can be elucidated through theanalysis of the Japanese Buddhist texts translated into English.
The aim of this paper is also to introduce the project of a “History of Japanese
Buddhist texts translated into English.” By this, I mean the activities of those Japanese
Buddhists who transmitted abroad the concept of religion that they had reorganizedborrowing selectively from Western sources. By analyzing these translation works, we
can present an aspect of transmission that goes beyond acceptance, and which has notbeen given much attention by previous scholars. In addition, English translation differs
depending on the translator. Therefore, by carefully considering their translation choices,
we can hypothesize the contexts and projects of the translators. Through this study, we
will be able to understand how modern Japanese intellectuals “transmitted” their ideas tothe West by referring to Western knowledge, and shed light on how they strategically used
this frame of European Buddhist studies to spread their own ideas about religion,
Buddhism, and civilization to the West.
In the context of Shinshū studies, this study falls within the field of Shin Buddhist
24
See Ketelaar, Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution. Also see
Snodgrass, Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism and the Columbian Exposition.
25
Zheng, “Buddhist Networks: The Japanese Preparation for the World’s Parliament of Religions,1892–
1893,” 247–270.

12

Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖doctrinal history. This is a field that examines how Shinran 親鸞 (1173–1263), thefounder of Shinshū (真宗), has been read and interpreted over time. However, thetraditional focus of Shinshū studies has been on Shinran’s thoughts in Japan and little
attention has been paid to the reception of Shinran’s thoughts in other countries. There
are studies focusing on international missions, but they have focused on how Shinran’s
thoughts were “accepted” in those countries. In short, very few scholars have studied how
Shinran’s thought was transmitted and accepted outside Japan, or the relationshipbetween Japanese modern re-conceptions and their reception in the West. 26 Analyzing
the process of translation makes it possible to show how Japanese Buddhists received andtransmitted Western concepts. In other words, a more circular analysis between accepted
and transmitted ideas is possible. The history of English-translated texts of Shin
Buddhism, the subject of this study, is the history of “transmission” woven by scholars,
priests, and sometimes Christian missionaries involved in the propagation of Shinshū
while struggling to communicate their ideas across different cultures. 27 This method
promoted Shinshū understanding in the Western world by substituting expressions usedin the Christian Bible as translations of Shinshū doctrine. By analyzing English-translated
texts of Shin Buddhism, I believe I can shed light on an aspect of the history of globalizing
Shin Buddhist doctrine that has been overlooked by previous scholarship.
3. History of Shin Buddhist Texts Translated into English
3-1. Previous Scholarship
There have been only a few studies that focus on English translations of Shin Buddhist
texts. An overview of research methods reveals that most studies have focused on
individual aspects such as texts, translators, and translated terms. 28 Scholarship in thisfield has overwhelmingly focused on D. T. Suzuki’s English translations, especially,
Suzuki’s own texts in English and important Buddhist sutras translated by him. This islargely because he is regarded as a leading figure in spreading Japanese Buddhism inNorth America and Europe. He was the pioneer of the global interest in “zen,” and also
Galen Amstuz shows how Shin Buddhism is interpreted in European and American contexts. For moredetail, see Amstuz, Interpreting Amida: History and Orientalism in the study of Pure Land Buddhism.
27
I will not get into detail here, but the debate on Christianity in Japan began during the late Meiji period.
In this respect, Christianity and Shin Buddhism were to follow a cooperative path in the translation process
in the late Meiji period.
28
For example, Ishi, “Suzuki Daisestu no “ ‘ejaculation’ wo megutte,”102–110, Dake, “Shinshū niokeru
eigohonyaku no kenkyū－Suzuki Daisetsu no eiyaku wo chūshinni－,”17–38, Tamura, “Ugokidasu Daihi:“The Original Prayer” ni tsuiteno ichi kosatsu,”254–227, Ando, Daisetsu.
26

13❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

played an essential role in the international study of Mahāyāna Buddhism through his
writings and translations, such as Açvaghosha's Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in
the Mahāyāna and Outlines of Mahāyāna Buddhism. In a recent study of D.T. Suzuki’s
global influence, Shizuka Sasaki described his work as “a new scripture that should becalled the ‘D.T. Suzuki’s Mahāyāna Sūtra’ (鈴木大乗経) on the same level as Buddhist
scripture, such as the Heart Sūtra 般若心経,’ the Avataṃsaka Sūtra 華厳経, and other
Buddhist scriptures.” 29
The important role that D.T. Suzuki played in English-translated texts on Buddhism
can also be seen more specifically in his Shinshū texts. For example, the recently
published volume Selected Works of D.T. Suzuki - Pure Land, collects both his translations
and original writings in English related to Pure Land Buddhism. 30 Further, various
scholars have translated Suzuki’s English Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証 back into modern
Japanese. 31 In addition to translations of Shin Buddhist doctrinal texts, Suzuki alsotranslated many other works related to Shinshū, such as the Tannishō 歎異抄 and hepublished studies on the “Myōkōnin 妙好人” in English. The large body of scholarship
focused on Suzuki as previously mentioned is largely due to his enormous contributions
to Buddhist scholarship in the English language. Even though D.T. Suzuki was a towering
figure in English-language publications and his knowledge of Shinshū was high,nonetheless he was not the only translator and popularizer of Shinshū in English. During
the Meiji and Taishō eras, a wide variety of individuals, including Shin Buddhist priests
in Japan, Buddhist missionaries to North America, Christian missionaries, scholars of
Buddhism, and scholars of religion made efforts to translate Shin Buddhist texts, while
dealing with the cultural and social challenges of the times. Their work has not received
adequate academic attention. Why have these English translations of Shin Buddhist texts
not received attention? There are two major reasons which have made it difficult toanalyze these texts and the translation process.
First, there is a lack of documentation of English-translation related to Shin
Buddhism during the Meiji and Taishō periods. An important exception to this lack ofscholarship is the recent study of the international exchange between Japanese Buddhism
and the West in Bukkyō kokusai nettowāku no genryu－Kaigai Senkyōkai (1888～1893)
no hikari to kage 仏教国際ネットワークの源流－海外宣教会の光と影 (The
Origins of the International Network for Buddhism―Lights and Shadows of Overseas
Missions). This study pointed out that the main factors that facilitated the contact between
D.T. Suzuki, Sasaki Shizuka trans., Daijōbukkyō gairon, 490–491.
Dobbins and Jaffe (eds.), Selected Works of D.T. Suzuki, Volume Ⅱ: Pure Land.
31
Shinran Bukkyō center (eds.), Shinran Kyōgyōshinshō (gendaigoyaku).
29
30

14

Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖Japanese and Western Buddhists were the networks and exchanges between Japanese
Buddhism and the Theosophical movement. Examples of these interactions were theinitiative to invite Henry Steel Olcott(1832–1907) to Japan and the establishment ofoverseas missions by the school of the Nishi Hongwanji sect (Futsū kyōkō 普通教校). 32
Particularly important from the perspective of this paper is the English journal The Bijou
of Asia (1888–1893), which has been recently rediscovered by historians and republished.
This was an English-language magazine published by the members of the Kaigai Senkyō
kai 海外宣教会 (Overseas Mission Association). It is noteworthy that in the early Meiji
period, Jōdo Shinshū priests were already seeking to establish relations with the Westernworld and to promote internationalization at a very early stage. The fact that the journal
was both in English and in Japanese shows an effort in spreading Buddhism not only
among first-generation Japanese immigrants but also to anglophone readers. The
rediscovery of this English-language journal has prompted the publication of the recent
volume Bukkyō Eisho Dendō no Akebono 仏教英書伝道のあけぼの (The Dawn of
Buddhist-English Book Propagation). This book features several English translations of
Buddhist texts prior to the publication of The Bijou of Asia and introduces the content ofeach of them. Nakanishi Naoki points out the importance of analyzing Buddhist texts in
English from the Meiji period in the introduction of the book, “In considering what
modern Buddhism tried to convey to different cultures in the West, future research needs
to re-examine the English texts that emerged during the Meiji period.” 33 However, thisbook and other scholarship focus only on the first half of the Meiji period, while theEnglish translations and texts on Shinshū from the later period have not been fully
investigated. This lack of a complete picture of English texts is one of the reasons why
research on English translations has not progressed.
The second reason for the little scholarly attention given to English translations is
the lack of an overall picture that brings together both English texts on Shinshū andEnglish translations of Shinshū texts, which so far have been studied separately. The lackof a general view of the historical process of translation and publication has also affected
the kind of arguments and analyses, which have focused on single texts. It is necessary totake a bird’s-eye view of the English-translated texts and debates on Shinshū of the same
period, otherwise, we will fall into the narrow tendency to consider individual texts. Oneof the reasons for the current research situation that focuses on the analysis of D. T.
Suzuki’s English-translated text is the lack of clarification of the whole picture. The
Nakanishi, Yoshinaga (eds.), Bukkyō kokusai nettowāku no genryu－kaigai senkyōkai (1888～1893) nohikari to kage,65–66.
33
Nakanishi, Nasu, Dake (eds.), Bukkyō eisho dendō no akebono, 25.
32

15

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

investigation of the whole picture of English translations and publications on Shinshū
will also help to contextualize D.T. Suzuki’s English works on Shinshū, which so far havereceived limited attention. Without a complete picture of English-translated texts in eachperiod, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the English texts and translated books.
Based on the considerations above, this paper aims at introducing a “History ofEnglish Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts” during the early Meiji era. In the following
sections, I will outline the characteristics of the English-translated texts related to Shinshū
in the early Meiji period (1879–1889).
3-2. Clarification of Key Terms and Purpose of Study: Transmission and Reception
My analysis is based on a distinction between “English-translated texts” and “English
texts.” The term “English-translated texts” here refers to texts for which original texts
exist, for instance in Japanese or various forms of classical Chinese and Sino-Japanese(kanbun), including English translations of sutras or medieval texts such as Tannishō.
Most of the authors of the English-translated texts are translators who have been involved
in different ways with the context of Japanese Buddhism. On the other hand, I define“English texts” as those texts that exist only in English. Most of the authors of theseEnglish texts are Western intellectuals. Of course, it is difficult to completely separate thetwo categories of English-translated texts and English texts, because sometimes thesetexts were written by a group of authors. In this paper, however, we will make an effort
in categorizing them and use the terms “English-translated texts” and “English texts.”
The reason for this categorization choice is that it helps to point out that the cultural
backgrounds of the authors of the English texts are completely different from those of the
English translations of Buddhist texts, even though they are written in the same language.
The English translation of a Buddhist text can analyze the ideas that lie beyond the“acceptance” and “reconstructed” in line with the Japanese context. On the other hand,
English texts are more affected by the influence of Orientalism. Some of these English
texts were scathingly critical of Japanese Buddhism, some others were defensive ofJapanese Buddhism. The English-translated texts and English texts were published in thesame period, and the ideas contained in them were in dialogue with each other and in
response to each other. Therefore, the classification of English-translated texts andEnglish texts enables us to analyze similar circulating content written in English byconsidering it into two separate aspects of its “transmission” (English-translated texts)
and “reception” (English texts). By precisely separating these two aspects, it is possible
to shed light on both Japanese and the Euro-American approaches, and on their
16

Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖combination in a hybrid form of modern, co-created Buddhism. This process reveals the
dynamics of the creation of co-created “Japanese Buddhism” by Asians and Westerners
on a global scale. In the following section, I am going to examine more in detail bothcategories of texts, pointing out the reciprocal influences and the relations establishedamong them.
4. The Formation of “co-created Buddhism” through the Translation Process
4-1 English Translations of Shinshū Buddhist Texts, 1879–1889
Previous studies have pointed out that the English-translated Buddhist texts of this period
were influenced by the publication of A Buddhist Catechism 34 by Henry Steel Olcott.35
Therefore, the English-translated texts of the early Meiji period can be considered to be“co-created Buddhism”: a joint effort between members of the Theosophical Society andJapanese Buddhists. Several English-translated texts were published in this period, but inthis study, I will focus on four Buddhist doctrinal texts written by Shinshū priests, because
they were particularly successful in leaving a strong imprint on the Euro-American
reception of Buddhism. 36 In this section, I will analyze the four texts and try to answer
the following important question. What methods were used to translate English-translated
texts of Japanese Buddhism before Olcott’s arrival in Japan, and how were they evaluatedin the Western context? In doing so, I hope this study will supplement the previous
scholarship to better understand the conception of “co-created Buddhism.”(1) Akamatsu Renjō, “A Brief Account of Shinshiu”, 1879
One of the pioneering works in the translation of Shinshū doctrines in English was “A
Brief Account of Shinshiu,” a Japanese pamphlet Shinshū Taii Ryakusetsu 真宗大意略説 37 translated into English by the Honganji Shinshū priest Akamatsu Renjō in 1879. As
for its publication, the Buddhist magazine Kyōgaku Ronshū 教学論集 states that it was
prepared by Akamatsu to be sent to Senator Edward J. Reed (1830–1906), a member ofthe British Parliament. This English translation of the Buddhist text first states that
Buddhism is a teaching focused on “cause-and-effect” relationships, and then explains
Olcott, A Buddhist Catechism.
Nakanishi and Yoshinaga (eds.), Bukkyō kokusai nettowāku no genryu－Kaigai senkyōkai (1888～1893)
no hikari to kage,76–80.
36
For more detail on the English-translated texts and English texts related to Japanese Buddhism, see the“Appendix” given at the end of this paper.
37
Akamatsu, “Shinshū Taii Ryakusetsu.”
34
35

17

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6and translates the words “self-power 自力,” “other-power 他力,” and “gratitude 報恩,”which are central doctrines in Shinshū. At the end of the text, under the title “Creed,” anEnglish translation of Rennyo’s Ryōge-mon 領解文 (“Creed”) is provided. 38 Akamatsu
laid the foundation for the Western reception of Shinshū doctrine, as this was the firstpublication to introduce Shinshū to the anglophone readership. If we consider this text
from the perspective of its connection with its Western audience, we can make two
important observations.
First, it sheds light on Japanese Buddhist ways of seeing the concept of nirvāṇa atthat time. Akamatsu apparently translated this book without much awareness of thealready heated debates in European scholarship on Buddhism centering on the idea ofnirvāṇa. For example, Akamatsu explains the word nirvāṇa as follows:
The principal object of Buddhism is to enable men to obtain salvation frommisery according to the doctrine of//extinction of passion//(sic). This doctrine isthe cause of saluation (sic), and salvation is the effect of the doctrine. Thissalvation we call Nirvâna which means eternal happiness and is the state of
Buddha. 39
It is not clear to what extent Akamatsu was familiar with European Buddhist studies atthis point. However, the fact that his adaptation of the above-mentioned passage indicatesthat he did not interpret nirvāṇa as emptiness, as was the case in the work of many
European scholars of Buddhism. 40 Therefore, Akamatsu may not have been aware of thedebates around the idea of nirvāṇa in the European intellectual milieu.
The second point is that this text reflects an intense awareness of anti-Christian
discourse. In fact, in an interview after the publication of this text, Akamatsu explainedthat one of his intentions in publishing this pamphlet was to criticize Christianity.41 In
this regard, Akamatsu’s English translation emphasized the content of the sentence “kigan
suru koto wo kinzu 祈願スルコトヲ禁ズ” by translating it as “forbids all prayers” in
his English version. In my interpretation, the text was aimed to distinguish between
Christianity and Jōdo Shinshū touched on the problem of translating with the word

38
Rennyo 蓮如 (1415–1499) was the eighth abbot of the Honganji school of Jōdo Shinshū and was
responsible for the wide dissemination of Jōdo Shinshū throughout Japan.

Akamatsu, “A Brief Account of Shinshiu.”
Akmatsu states “ 楽 邦 即 涅 槃 界 に 往 生 せ し め ん と い へ る ” in the original Japanese text. See
Akamatsu “Shinshū Taii Ryakusetsu.”

39

40

41

See Kinichi Shinpō, “Eibun Shinshū taiino hyō.”18Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖“prayer” the Shinshū practice called Sangō Wakuran 三業惑乱. 42 However, such astrong emphasis on forbidding prayer in Akamatsu’s translation was not retained in thefollowing translations by the same author. As evidence of this, in one of his later
publications, the chapter on Shinshū in the volume A Short History of The Twelve
Japanese Buddhist Sects, edited by Nanjō Bun’yū, the English sentence “forbid all
prayers” was replaced by “neither spells nor supplications.” 43 The term “prayer” cameto be used to refer to Amida Buddha's “Original Prayer 本願.” This is because Akamatsu
learned that the Sanskrit word praṇidhāna should be translated as “prayer” with Nanjo’s
help. This pattern also can be found in a statement by James Troup. 44 The emphasis in
the translation was on making the terminology as Sanskrit as possible.
How was this book read and understood in terms of the English text (reception)from the English-translated texts (transmission)? The person for whom the pamphlet was
originally written, Edward Reed, published an account of his travels in Japan in 1880. In
this book, Reed described his understanding of Shinshū doctrine based on Akamatsu’s “A
Brief Account of Shinshiu.” Reed’s understanding reflects a reconstruction of Shinshū
doctrine based on Christian worldviews. Just as “Buddha” was represented in various
ways and through orientalist projections in the Western world, Shinshū ideas were readthrough the filter of Christianity. For example, Reed quotes Akamatsu’s text in its entirety
and then evaluates Shinshū as follows:
It is obvious from this statement coming from a source entirely unquestionable,that for six centuries and a half there has existed and flourished in Japan a sectionof Buddhists who believe in the doctrine of salvation by faith; who consider
heaven attainable at the close of this life using that faith; who have swept aside
many of the most prominent restrictions of what we have all supposed to be theancient Buddhist faith—Celibacy, penances, fastings, seclusions, pilgrimages,
etc. 45
In his English text, Reed interpreted the expression “enter into paradise” in Akamatsu’s
Sangō Wakuran 三業惑乱 concerns the understanding of “tanomu 頼む(prayer),” which was not only
a dispute among scholars but also escalated into a riot involving the local monks.
43
Akamatsu wrote “Kinyō kitō no Hō wo mochiizu”(禁厭祈祷ノ法ヲ用イズ) in his original text. See
Ogurusu Kōcho (ed.), Bukkyō Junishu Yōko, 111.
44
James Troup states “In this paper, the term “Prayer” has been used throughout, and not “Vow,” as thetranslation of the character 願, which it appears, is used as the equivalent of “praṇidhāna,’ which is better
rendered by “prayer” than “vow.” The expression “Hon-gan” (Transaction Vol.ⅩⅥ page8, et al.) had betterbe rendered,“Great Prayer.” See Troup, “The Gobunsho or Ofumi of Rennyo Shōnin,” 111.
45
Reed. Japan: Its History, Traditions and Religions,86–89.
42

19

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

pamphlet according to the Christian idea of “reaching heaven,” and this contributed to
Reed’s positive evaluation of the Shinshū sect. However, it was by no means clear that
this was Akamatsu’s intention. From the perspective of Reed’s English text (reception) of
Akamatsu’s English-translated text (transmission), Akamatsu's purpose of criticizing
Christianity and proclaiming the uniqueness of Shinshū had failed. As Reed’s assessmentof Shin Buddhism as “a religion closely linked to the ideal form of Christianity” 46 shows,
Shinshū doctrine was still interpreted in the light of Christianity.
(2) James Troup, “On The Tenets of the Shinshiu or ‘True Sect’ of Buddhists,” 1885
On October 21, 1885, James Troup, British Consul in Osaka and Kobe, presented areading of “On The Tenets of the Shinshiu or ‘True Sect’ of Buddhists” at the Asiatic
Society of Japan. This text is a direct translation of Ogurusu Kōchō’s Shinshū Doctrine(Chinese text, 真宗教旨), published in 1876. 47 This book was reviewed by Nanjō
Bun’yū who had just returned from his study abroad at Oxford University, and Akamatsu
Renjō.
Troup’s translation was to consult Nanjō and Akamatsu about the points of theShinshū doctrine that he did not understand, which facilitated his steady progress intranslating the text into English. Troup also mentioned that he received help from James
Summers(1828–1891), who was teaching English literature at Tokyo Kaisei Gakko 東京
開成学校 (the predecessor of Tokyo Imperial University) to complete the translation.
At the time, the only text that gave an outline of Shinshū doctrines in English was
the previously mentioned “A Brief Account of Shinshiu” by Akamatsu Renjō. Therefore,
Troup’s translation contributed to the creation of some of the earliest English terminology
for many Shinshū doctrinal terms. This translation received high praise in the press. 48
However, when seen from the perspective of our definition of English texts (reception)from an English-translated text (transmission), we can shed light on different aspects ofthis text. Troup’s translation was once on the list of books that the representatives ofJapanese Buddhism were planning to bring to the World Parliaments of Religions ofChicago in 1893. 49 Nonetheless, it was decided not to include it in the list of items tobring to Chicago. Despite its great domestic reputation, this book was not used fordissemination to the Western world and was never brought to the World Parliament ofReligions in Chicago. Moreover, it was not used as a missionary tool for the propagation
Ibid.,89.
Ogurusu, Shinshu Kyōshi.
48
See “Osaka Tsushin.”49
Kaigai Senkyōkai (eds.), “Eigo Bussho Sehon,” 20.
46
47

20

Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖of Shin Buddhism in North America. Nor, as far as I can tell, did it appear as a referencein any English-language texts outside of Japan.
The reason for this lack of success abroad could be ascribed, in my view, to themethodology of translation used in Troup’s text. The book was mostly based on Chinese
terminology and mostly focused on showing the points of contact between Chinese
Buddhism and Japanese Buddhism. The book mostly referred to Chinese Buddhist
terminology. For instance, Troup states “The term ‘temporary,’ ( 權 ) is explained by‘means,’ or devices used towards an end, as opposed to the ‘true’ (實) or real.” 50 Troupemployed a translation strategy that sought the meanings directly in the Chinesecharacters. Further, James Troup introduces the origin of Shin Buddhism from the Tendai
sect in China and describes how Pure Land Buddhism in China has been passed down
through Hōnen and Shinran. Such a Sino-centric approach was criticized by scholars who
were informed by the methods of modern European Buddhist studies, which gave priority
to finding a connection between later forms of Buddhism with Indic forms and with thehistorical founder Śākyamuni. The reason why this book was not widely disseminatedoutside of Japan, despite its high reputation, is largely because it was adapted from
Ogurusu’s Shinshū Kyōshi 真宗教旨, which used categories and approaches based on
Chinese Buddhism.51 In other words, Troup’s text was never used to establish a dialogue
with Europeans and North Americans because it was intended for an audience withfamiliarity with Chinese Buddhism and its language. In this sense, this book did notcontribute to developing “co-created Buddhism,” but was used only by Japanese readers
who wanted to study Buddhism in English.
(3) Nanjō Bunyiu, A Short History of The Twelve Japanese Buddhist Sects, 1886
Nanjō Bun’yū’s English text A Short History of The Twelve Japanese Buddhist Sects, andits Japanese edition Bukkyō Jūnishu kōyō 仏教十二宗綱要 appeared simultaneously in
December 1886. 52 The proposer of these books was the publisher Sano Shōdo 佐野正
道 (?–1917), who wanted to publish a book offering an overview of the twelve sects ofJapanese Buddhism. The most significant feature of this book is its use of Buddhist
terminology in transliteration from Sanskrit rather than Chinese. This is due in large partto the involvement of Nanjō, who studied Sanskrit and worked as an editor of Buddhist
texts under the guidance of Max Müller at Oxford University.
Troup, “On The Tenets of The Shinshiu or ‘True Sect’ of Buddhists,”4.
Ogurusu, Shinshū Kyōshi.
52
Japanese edition: Ogurusu (ed.), Bukkyō Junishū Yōko, English edition: Nanjio (ed.), A Short Historyof the Japanese Buddhist Sects.
50
51

21

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

Looking at it from the perspective of dynamics of translation (transmission to
reception), this book has been used as a source of reference in numerous English texts on
Buddhism, and it has served as an introduction to understanding Japanese Buddhism in
the anglophone world. Shortly after its publication, it was also translated into French. In
1889, Fujishima Ryōun 藤島了穏 (1852–1918), a Honganji priest who was sent to study
in France, translated Nanjō’s book into French and published it. 53 In recognition of hisachievement, Fujishima was awarded the Officier d’Académie by the French government.
This fact shows that Nanjō’s book was highly evaluated in France, which was one of themost important countries for scholarship on Buddhism at that time.
The appearance of this book by Nanjō made it possible to connect Westernperceptions of Buddhism with English translations of Japanese Buddhist texts. With the
publication of A Short History of The Twelve Japanese Buddhist Sects, English-translated
texts related to Japanese Buddhism took a new step toward joining the scholarly debate
on Buddhism in the West. In this sense, this book is a monumental text in that it marks
the transition from translations based on Chinese to English translations based on Sanskrit.
(4) Katō Shōkwaku, “Shinshu Catechism”, 1889
In September 1889, Katō Shōkwaku 加藤正廓(1852–1903), a Shinshū priest, publisheda series of articles titled “Shinshu Catechism” in the theosophical magazine The
Theosophist. The series ran for three months until December 1889. These essays offered
an introduction to the doctrines of Shin Buddhism in a question-and-answer format
following the style included in Henry Steel Olcott’s Buddhist Catechism (1881). The
introduction to the book was written by Olcott himself. In the introduction, Olcott
mentions a number of Shinshū believers and presents some of the characteristics of theirsect’s doctrines and practices, such as the so-called hisō hizoku 非僧非俗 (neither monk
nor layman) principle for Shinshū priests of “non-monasticism” and permission to havea wife.
Olcott pointed out the curious coincidence of Shinshū doctrine with Nestorianism, anancient form of Christianity that spread in China around the sixth century, which
prompted Olcott to hypothesize a Nestorian influence on the origins of Shinshū. Since
the introduction also stated that the comparison of Shinshū doctrine with Christianity wasessential for the future propagation of Shinshū, the reader might be led to think that thisbook preached Shinshū in parallel with Christianity. However, in his text, Katō made it
clear that his aim was not to preach Christianity, but to present the historical contact of
See Fujishima, Le Bouddhisme Japnais Doctrines Et Historie Des Douze Grandes Sects Bouddhisques
Du Japon, 25.
53

22

Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖Shin Buddhism with the historical Buddha, as in the following passage:
Q. How do you know that the preaching of this doctrine was the original desire of
Sâkyamuni?
A. Because it is explained by him in the sūtra, and, moreover, it is Buddha’s mercy topity them who are sinful and helpless; just as a life-boat is prepared for drowning men
and not for anyone on the bank. 54
Although this book used the “catechism” method following Olcott’s example and was
inspired by a substrate of Christian methods of proselytism, the focus of Katō’s text was
not the history of Christianity, but a comparison between Southern Buddhism andNorthern Buddhism. The reason for this may be that he wanted to coordinate that theroots of Olcott’s conception of Buddhism and the Japanese conception of Buddhism are
different. In a recent scholarship, Baba Norihisa astutely pointed out that Shaku Sōen 釈
宗演 (1860–1919) had a strategic classification of Buddhism. 55 This translation clearlyshows that Japanese Buddhists became aware of the position of their Buddhism on a
global scale after encountering Olcott. The dialogue with the Southern Buddhists, Olcottgave Japanese Buddhists an opportunity to become aware of their different traditions.
Therefore, although the book has a question-and-answer format, it reveals a clear
awareness of concepts and methods of European Buddhist studies, rather than a reflectionof Christian ideas and approaches to proselytization.
4-2 Characteristics of “co-created Buddhism” through Translations in Early Meiji
The analysis of the four texts above shows that English translations of Shinshū texts
contributed to modern “co-created Buddhism.” However, the co-creation of Buddhism
through these translations and the circulation of ideas still reveal conflict between selfexpression and Westernization. The translators show different and at times conflicting
ways of assimilating Western concepts. These conflicts can be classified into three majorgroups.
First of all, the methods and terminologies used in the translations shifted fromfollowing traditional models of Japanese Buddhist Studies to European Buddhist Studies.
For example, one of the characteristics of these texts of the early Meiji period was theshift from translations that had previously been based on Chinese Buddhist terminology
54
55

Katō, “A Shin Shu Catechism,” 753.
See Baba, “Kindai ni okeru daijōbukkyō to Jōzabu Bukkyō no Sōzo,” 213–241.

23

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

to translations that stressed the association between Japanese Buddhist terms and Sanskrit
ones. This is particularly visible in Nanjo’s text, where he particularly emphasized the useof Sanskrit, even if the terminology was not refined. This can be interpreted as a result ofJapanese Buddhist’s acceptance of European approaches in Buddhist studies and theirapplication to their transmission.
The second point of conflict shown by the texts analyzed can be seen in thequestion-and-answer format as a kind of strategy to introduce Japanese Buddhism. The
question-and-answer format was an innovative means in the Japanese context and was
originally inspired by Christian proselytism. A publication that followed this model
closely was Olcott’s Buddhist Catechism. Katō Shōkwaku’s “Shinshu Catechism”
adopted this text’s question-and-answer structure. Despite using Olcott’s book as a model,
Katō did not frame his presentation in terms of the relationship between Buddhism andChristianity as Olcott did, but portrayed Shinshū in the form of a question-and-answer
discussion between Southern and Northern traditions of Buddhism. This is probably
because the audience for “Shinshu Catechism” was not a general Christian one, but was
ideally made of Theravada Buddhists or European scholars of Buddhism with whom
Japanese Shinshū priests were engaging in discussing their own tradition.
The third and last point of the conflict centered on a strong awareness in the English
translations of Shinshū texts of the debate concerning the fact that “Mahāyāna Buddhism
was not the word of the Buddha (daijō hibussetsuron”大乗非仏説論). This debate isfamously exemplified by the scholarship and polemics raised by one of the most famous
historians of Buddhism of the Meiji period, Murakami Senshō 村上専精 (1851–1929),
who separated historical and doctrinal approaches, and took the following conclusion:“From the perspective of the Mahāyāna theory of buddhakāya 仏 身 論 (“Buddhabodies”), we can state that Mahāyāna Buddhism was definitely Buddhism.” 56 It was
already an obvious assumption for Buddhist intellectuals of the late Meiji period that the
Mahāyāna was not a direct teaching of the Buddha. However, a similar point had alreadybeen strongly forwarded by translators in the early Meiji period.
In short, the process of translation into English of Shin Buddhist doctrines in theearly Meiji period reveals a search for Shin Buddhism’s position within the ambivalentrelationship of cooperation and confrontation with European scholarship.

Murakami Senshō is a famous scholar and Buddhist priest who belonged to the Shinshū sect. He devoted
himself mainly to the development of higher education during the Meiji and Taisho eras. In particular, he
has conducted research on Buddhist thoughts and history in a form that can withstand criticism frommodern academic systems. For more detail of daijō hibussetsuron”大乗非仏説論 see Murakami, Bukkyō
touitsuron taikō, Klautau (ed.), Murakami Senshō to nihon kindai bukkyō.
5624Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖5. Conclusion
This paper examined four English-translated texts on Shin Buddhism written during theearly Meiji period. Previous studies have shown how modern Japanese intellectuals
adopted and converted the religious conceptions they learned through their contact with
the West. These ideas were then reformulated and circulated within the Japanese contexts,
from where they again traveled back to the West. However, little effort has been done byprevious research to link these two patterns. This paper has brought these two patterns ofcirculation of ideas together by analyzing in detail the process of translation.
The first part of this paper offered an overview of the previous relevant scholarshipin order to introduce a key concept: “co-created Buddhism.” Previous studies havefocused on Orientalism and the historical reception of Japanese Buddhism in the West,providing the premise for this study. Orientalism also affected the study of Buddhism,
and in recent years the study of various forms of Buddhist modernism has produced avibrant scholarly debate. This paper especially builds on what David McMahan definedas “co-created Buddhism,” pointing out that the concept of “Buddhism,” which became
globalized in the modern era, was not simply the product of Western representations of
Buddhism, but a co-creation by Asians, Europeans, and North Americans intellectuals.
The second part of this paper focused on the English texts and translations of Shin
Buddhism and on the methodology employed in this paper to analyze the translations andcirculation process. A review of the research methods revealed that most studies have
limited their attention to individual aspects of this textual production, such as texts,
translators, and translated terms. In addition, these scholarships have been almost
exclusively centered on D. T. Suzuki’s English texts and translations. However, this paperargues that it is important to read the texts in their broader historical contexts with an eye
on the periphery in order to unravel the whole picture. In terms of the methodology, I
made a distinction between “English-translated texts” and “English texts.” The term“English-translated texts” here refers to those texts for which original Japanese texts exist.
Most of the authors of the English translations of Buddhist texts are translators involvedin the context of Japanese Buddhism as priests, lay intellectuals, or teachers. On the other
hand, the English-language text exists only in the English language without any direct
adaptation from Japanese sources. Most of the authors of these English texts are Europeanand American intellectuals. Through a close reading of the dynamics of the translation
process, I have attempted to elucidate the conditions under which the modern concept of
Buddhism is created and developed globally.
Finally, I observed some salient characteristics of translations in the early Meiji
25❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

period. One of the features of early Meiji period translation was the circulation anddialogue between Japanese and European Buddhist study circles. The translation ofJapanese Buddhism, which had previously followed a strong reference system to Chinese
language canonical sources, was facilitated with the start of Nanjō Bunyu’s scholarship,
which influenced the production of English translations of Shinshū texts building on theapproaches of European Buddhist studies. Although the vocabularies were not yet refined,
the aim was to produce translations that showed a connection between Japanese
Buddhism and Sanskrit sources. The search for a way to place Japanese Buddhism within
European-based modern Buddhist studies was one of the hallmarks of the English
translation history of Japanese Buddhism in the early Meiji period. The second
characteristic of the texts produced in this period is the employment of a question-andanswer format, such as the case of “Shinshu Catechism.” Although this essay uses theword “catechism” in its title and is modeled on the question-and-answer structure of
Christian missionary literature, its focus nonetheless was not a comparative study of thehistory of Buddhism in relation to Christianity, but it focused a comparison between
Southern Buddhism and Northern Buddhism. The third feature of the texts analyzed inthis paper is that there was a strong awareness of the debate around Mahāyāna Buddhism
not being the direct utterance of the historical Buddha. These three characteristics which
emerged from my analysis of the texts show that it was truly a time when translators weresearching for ways to deal with new ideas and methods coming from the West, and indoing so they participated in the co-creation of the modern concept of Buddhism with theWest.
The four English-translated texts this paper discussed clearly help better understandwhat McMahan calls “co-created Buddhism.” Through the exploration of such dynamics
of international translation processes, this paper aimed at contributing to the ongoing
scholarship about “Global Buddhism” or “Buddhist Modernism.” Of course, theexamples discussed here are only a small fraction of what can be investigated. Further
developments of this research project will shed more light on the historical developmentof English texts and translations of Shin Buddhism.

26

Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖Appendix
English texts and English-translated texts mention "Japanese Buddhism"
Year(年)

著者(Author)

論文・書籍名(Title)

掲載誌（Journal）・出版社(Company)

1879

Akamatsu Renjio

A Brief Account of "Shinshiu"「興隆雑誌」（Kōryū zasshi）

12

1879

Bruhmet, M. A.

Religion of Japan

Potter's American Monthly
Transactions of the Asiatic Society ofJapan
The Missionary Herald13
7
75(12)New York:G. P. Putnam’s Sons
Theosophical Society in Colombo
The Royal Asiatic Society
Anecdota Oxonesia
Theosophist
Theosophist

Book
Book
Book
Book
3(1)
3(3)

Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum
Edinburgh:James Gemmell
Theosophist
A Handbook for Travelers in Central andNorthern Japan
Theosophist
Theosophist

1
2
2
Book
4(12)

1879
1879
1880
1881
1880
1881
1881
1881
1881
1882
1882
1882
1883
1884
1885
1885
1886
1886
1886
1887
1887

Satow, Ernest M.
Ancient Japanese Rituals (Part I, II)
Unknown
A Buddhist Tract
Bird, Isabella L. Unbeaten tracks in Japan; an account of travels in the interior including(Isabella Lucy)
visits to the aborigines of Yezo and the shrine of Nikkô
Henry steel Olcott Buddhist Catechism,According to the cannon of The Southern Church
Max Muller
On Sanskrit Texts Discovered in JapanMax Muller, Nanjo
Buddhist Texts from Japan
Unknown
The Religions of Japan
Unknown
The Pupil of Swami Dayanund at the Congress of Orientalists
The Shinshiu Buddhist doctrine of Amida Buddha and the Theism ofGordon, M. L.
the Old Testament
Gordon, J. W.
The Legend of Amida Buddha
Gordon, M. L.
The Doctrine of Amida Unauthentic
William Gray Dixon
The Land of the Morning,
Unknown
Col.Olcott's Buddhist Catechism
Buddhism
A Bewithoued LifeA Bewithoued Life
A Short History of Twelve Japanese Buddhist Sects
On the Tenets of Shinshiu
The Buddhisms of Japan
Buddhism in Japan
Literary Notes

Vol (Number)1888

Satow, Ernest M.
H.P.Blavatsky
H.P.Blavatsky
Nanjo Bunyiu
James Troup
Gordon, M. L.
Maurice Fredal
William.Q.Judge
Matsuyama
Matsutaro

Asiatic Society of Japan
Andover Review
Theosophist
The Path

Book
6(11)
6(12)
Book
14
5 (27)
82(7)Extracts from Letters

The Buddhist Ray

1(7)

1888

Matsuyama
Matsutaro

Questions and Answers

The Buddhist Ray

1(10)

1888

Unknown

WHAT WE MEAN

The Bijou of Asia

1(1)

1888

Unknown

Precious Gatha

The Bijou of Asia

1(1)

1888

William Q.Judge

Literary Notes

The Path

3(5)

1888

Eusebio Urban

A Buddhist Doctrine(「英文真宗教旨」)

The Path

3(6)

1888

Unknown

A Brief Outline of Buddhism in JapanThe Bijou of Asia

1 (1)

1888

Richard Collins

Nirvana, as the final goal of the Buddhist

The Bijou of Asia

1(2)

1888

Belle Budsh

The Highest Love; Little Bijio!(Japan)

The Bijou of Asia

1(2)

1888

Theodore WrightLittle Bijou

The Bijou of Asia

1(2)

1888

Unknown

Precious Gatha

The Bijou of Asia

1(2)

1888

Unknown

A Brief Outline of Buddhism in JapanThe Bijou of Asia

1(2)

1889

Japan

The Path

4(2)

1889

William Q. Judge
Matsuyama
Matsutaro

Japan

The Path

4(5)

1889

Unknown

A Buddhist Propaganda(The Bijou of Asia)

The Buddhist Ray

2(3)

1889

M.Matsuyama

The Six Paramitas

The Buddhist Ray

2(6)

1889

Shokwaku Kato

A Shinshu Catechism Part 1

Theosophist

10(120)1889

Shokwaku Kato

A Shinshu Catechism Part 2

Theosophist

11(121)

1889

Shokwaku Kato

A Shinshu Catechism Part 3

Theosophist

11(122)

17
Book
10

Tokyo:Bukkyō Sho Eiyaku Shuppankai

1889
1889

James Troup
Archibald Scott,D.D

The Gobunsho or Ofumi, of Rennyo Shōnin
Buddhism and Christianity-A Pararell and a Contrast

Transactions of the Asiatic Society ofJapan
Edinburgh: David Douglas

1889

One of the Staff

Off to Japan

Theosophist

27

Journal of World Buddhist Cultures❖ 2023.3 ❖Vol. 6

Bibliography
Aihua Zheng. “Buddhist Networks: The Japanese Preparation for the World’s Parliamentof Religions,1892-1893.” In Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 46 (2) 2019:247-270.
Akamatsu, Renjio 赤松連城. “A Brief Account of //Shinshiu//” In Kōryu-Zasshi 興隆
雑誌 3, 1879.
Ando Reiji 安藤礼二. Daisetsu 大拙. Tokyo: Kōdansha, 2019.
Baba Norihisa 馬場紀寿. “Kindai ni okeru daijō Bukkyō to Jōzabu Bukkyō no Sōzo” In
Bukkyō no Seitō to Itan, 仏 教 の 正 統 と 異 端Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku
shuppankai (2022) : 213-241.
Bird, Isabella L. Unbeaten tracks in Japan; an account of travels in the interior including
visits to the aborigines of Yezo and the shrine of Nikkô,2 New York: G. P. Putnam’s
Sons,1880.
Charles, Hallisey. “Roads Taken and Not Taken in the Study of Theravâda Buddhism.” In
Lopez Jr., Donald (ed.), Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Buddhism Under
Colonialism, ed. Donald Lopez. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1995.
Dake Mitsuya 嵩満也. Yoshinaga Shin’ichi 吉永進一, Ohmi Toshihiro 碧海寿広
(eds.). Nihon Bukkyō to seiyō Sekai 日本仏教と西洋世界, Kyoto: Hōzōkan,2020.
Dake Nobuya 嵩宣也. “Shinshū ni Okeru Eigohonyaku no Kenkyu－Suzuki Daisetsu
no Eiyaku wo Chushinni－”真宗における英語翻訳の研究－鈴木大拙英訳を中心に－, In Ryukoku Daigaku Daigakuin Bungaku Kenkyuka Kiyou 龍谷大学
大学院文学研究科紀要 38, (2016):17-38.
Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki 鈴木大拙. Açvaghosha's Discourse on the awakening of faith in
the Mahāyāna. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company,1900.
———.

Outlines of Mahāyāna Buddhism, London: Luzac Company,1907.

Daisetz Teitarō Suzuki trans. Kyōgyōshinshō: The Collection of Passage Expounding theTrue Teaching Living, Faith, and Realizing of the Pure Land. Edited by Eastern28

Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖Buddhist Society. Kyoto: Shinshū Ōtaniha, 1973.
D.T.Suzuki, Sasaki Shizuka trans 鈴木大拙著・佐々木閑訳. Daijō Bukkyō Gairon 大乗仏教概論, Tokyo: Iwanami Bunko, 2016.
David L. McMahan. The Making of Buddhist Modernism, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008.
Edward J. Reed. Japan: Its History, Traditions and Religions, London: John Murray, 1880.
Edward W. Said. Orientalism, New York: Pantheon books,1978.
Fujishima Ryōun 藤島了穏. Le Bouddhisme Japnais Doctrines Et Historie Des Douze
Grandes Sects Bouddhisques Du Japon, Paris Et Ch. Leclerc, Éditeurs 25 Quai
Voltarie, 25,1889.
Galen, Amstuz, Interpreting Amida: History and Orientalism in the study of Pure Land
Buddhism, New York: State University of New York Press, 1997.
Hans Martin Krämer. Shimaji Mokurai and the Reconception of Religion and the Secularin Modern Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press,2015.
Hayashi Makoto 林 淳. “Kindainihon niokeru bukkyōgaku to shūkyōgaku”近代日本における仏教学と宗教学. In shūkyō Kenkyu 76, no.2 (2002):29-53.
Henry Steel, Olcott. A Buddhist Catechism, Tokyo: Meikyō-sha, 1886.
Hongwanji Shiryo Kenkyusho 本願寺史料研究所 (eds.). Zouho kaiteiban hongwanjishi 3 増補改訂版本願寺史 第 3 巻, Kyoto: Honganji Shuppansha, 2019.
Hoshino Seiji 星野靖二. Kindai Nihon no shūkyōgainen-shūkyōsha no kotobato Kindai,
近代日本の宗教概念―宗教者の言葉と近代― Tokyo: Yushisha, 2012.
Ishi Shūdo 石井修道. “Suzuki Daisetsu no ejaculation wo megutte” 鈴木大拙の
ejaculation の説をめぐって, In Indogaku Bukkyō gaku Kenkyu 印度学仏教学
研究 64 ,no.1, (2015):102-110.
Isomae Jun’ichi 磯前順一. Kindainihon no shūkyō gensetsu to sono keifu－Shūkyō・
Kokka・Shinto 近代日本の宗教言説とその系譜―宗教・国家・神道, Tokyo:
Iwanamishoten, 2003.
29

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6James C. Dobbins, Richard. M. Jaffe (eds.). Selected Works of D.T. Suzuki, Volume Ⅱ:
Pure Land. California: University of California Press, 2015.
James, Troup. “On The Tenets of The Shinshiu or ‘True Sect’ of Buddhists”, In The
Asiatic Society of Japan 14, Tokyo: The Hakubunsha 1886.
———. “The Gobunsho or Ofumi of Rennyo Shōnin”, In The Asiatic Society of Japan
Vol.17, Tokyo: The Hakubunsha 1889.
Jørn, Borup. “Pizza curry skyr and whirlpool effects - religious circulations between Eastand West.” In Jørn Borup, Marianne Qvortrup Fibiger (eds)., Eastspirit
Transnational Spirituality and Religious Circulation in East and West. Boston:
Brill, (2017):13-35.
Judith, Snodgrass. Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism and theColumbian Exposition, Chapel hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
Kaigai Senkyōkai 海 外 宣 教 会 (eds.). “Eigo Bussho Sehon 英 語 仏 書 施 本 ”, In
Kaigai Bukkyō Jijō 海外仏教事情, Kyoto: Kaigai Senkyōkai, Vol.34, 1893.
Katō Shōkwaku 加藤正廓. “A Shinshu Catechism” In the Theosophist, 10(120) 1889.
Ketelaar, James Edward. Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its
Persecution. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Lopez Jr., Donald. “Buddha” In Lopez Jr., Donald (ed.), Donald Critical Terms for the
Study of Buddhism, Chicago: Chicago University Press, (2005):31-62.
Murakami Senshō 村上専精. Bukkyō touitsuron taikō 仏教統一論 大綱論 Kyoto:
Kinkō-dō,1901.
Nanjō Bunyiū ed. A Short History of the Japanese Buddhist Sects, Eibun Bukkyō Junishu
Yoko 英文仏教十二宗綱要、Bukkyō Sho Eiyaku Shuppankai, 1886.
Nakanishi Naoki 中西直樹, Nasu Eisho 那須英勝, Dake Mitsuya 嵩満也 (eds.).
Bukkyō Eisho Dendō no Akebono 仏 教 英 書 伝 道 の あ け ぼ のKyoto:Hōzōkan,2018.
Nakanishi Naoki 中西直樹, Yoshinaga Shin’ichi 吉永進一 (eds.). Bukkyō Kokusai
Nettowāku no Genryu－Kaigai Senkyōkai (1888～1893) no hikari to kage 仏教
30

Nobuya DAKEThe Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts❖ Articles 1 ❖国際ネットワークの源流－海外宣教会（1888～1893 年）の光と影－,
Kyoto:Sanninsha, 2015.
Ogawara Masamichi 小川原正道 (ed.). Kindainihon no bukkyō-sha－Ajia taiken to
shiso no henyou 近代日本の仏教者―アジア体験と思想の変容―, Tokyo:
Keio Gijuku Shuppankai, 2010.
Ōtani Eiichi 大谷栄一. “Kindai ka to Bukkyō no Kankei toha?,” in Ōtani Eichi 大谷栄一, Yoshinaga Shinichi 吉永進一, Kondo Shuntaro 近藤俊太郎. (eds.), Kindai
Bukkyō Studies－Bukkyō kara Mita mouhitotsu no Kindai 近代仏教スタディー
ズ－仏教からみたもうひとつの近代 Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2016.
Ogurusu Kōcho 小栗栖香頂. Shinshū Kyōshi 真宗教旨, Kyoto: Shinshū Higashi-ha
Honganji Kyōikuka, 1876.
Ogurusu Kōcho 小栗栖香頂 (ed.). Bukkyō Junishū Yōko 仏教十二宗綱要, Kyoto:
Bukkyō Eiyaku Shuppankai,1886.
Orion Klautau オ リ オ ン ・ ク ラ ウ タ ウ . Kindainihonshisō
toshitebukkyōshigaku 近代日本思想としての仏教史学,Kyoto : Hōzōkan 2012.

no———.“Kindainihon no bukkyōugaku ni okeru“Bukkyō Buddhism”no katarikata,”
代日本の仏教学における“仏教 Buddhism”の語り方. In Sueki Fumihiko 末木文美士, Hayashi Makoto 林淳, Yoshinaga Shinichi 吉永進一, Ōtani Eichi 大
谷栄一 eds, Buddha no Henbō ブッダの変貌, Kyoto: Hōzōkan, (2014):68-86.
Orion Klautau オリオン･クラウタウ (ed.). Murakami Senshō to nihon kindai bukkyō
村上専精と日本近代仏教 Kyoto : Hōzōkan, 2021.
Osaka Tsushin「大阪通信」. Kinichi Shinpō 奇日新報 April 25, 1886.
Philip, C. Almond. The British Discovery of Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988.
Rhys, Davids. Buddhisme, Londres: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1877.
Shinran Bukkyō Center 親鸞仏教センター (eds.). Shinran ‘Kyōgyōshinshō (Gendaigoyaku)’ Suzuki Daisetsu no Eiyakuni motoduku Gendainihongoyaku, 親鸞『教行信証』
（現代語訳）－鈴木大拙の英訳にもとづく現代日本語訳－, Kyoto:31❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

Higashi Honganji Shuppan, 2015.
Tamura Akinori 田村晃徳. “Ugokidasu Daihi: “The Original Prayer” ni tsuiteno ichi
kosatsu” 動き出す大悲： “The Original Prayer”についての一考察, Gendai to
Shinran 現代と親鸞 36, (2017):254-227.
Yosinaga Shin’ichi 吉永進一. Shinchigaku to Bukkyō 神智学と仏教, Kyoto: Hōzōkan,
2022.

32

Book Review

A. CAN PIRTICI
Review of Nishida, Kawabata, and the Japanese Response to Modernity❖ Book Review ❖Book Review
Feenberg, Andrew
Nishida, Kawabata, and the Japanese Response to Modernity. Studies inJapanese Philosophy 18.
Nagoya : Chisokudō Publications, 2019. 148 pages.
ISBN 978-170200678. US $8.00 (paperback) | US $5.00 (kindle)

A. Can PIRTICI(Graduate Student, Graduate School of International Studies, Global Studies,
Ryukoku University)

Andrew Feenberg’s book Nishida, Kawabata, and the Japanese Response to Modernity is acollection of the author’s articles written on the examination of Nishidan philosophy, Zen
Buddhism, and Japanese literature with the aim of tracking ways for alternative modernity. Even
though Feenberg is not a specialist in the field of Japanese studies, as he has duly stated, he is aremarkable philosopher of the 21st century and is known for his writings on critical theory andtechnology. He was also a student of one of the leading members of the Frankfurt School, Herbert
Marcuse (1898-1979). Feenberg writes that the Japanese case of modernisation and Japanese
thinkers’ approach to modernity inspired him to revise his own works and to investigate Japanfurther (1). Feenberg points out that many Japanese thinkers, most notably Nishida Kitaro (18701945), struggled to create an alternative way of Asian modernity which would be rooted in theirown culture by using Western sources (38-39). He argues that this collective initiative has beensuccessful for Japan to a considerable extent. Thus, he points out that today’s Western society,which is undergoing a crisis of cultural self-confidence, has much to learn from the example ofJapan to rejuvenate itself intellectually, just as Japan did in the past (1).
The book consists of an introduction and five different articles. The introduction has been
written by Yoko Arisaka, who is a Japanese philosophy expert at the University of Hildesheim inGermany, wherein she shares her personal experience by relating it with the author and the themeof the book. The first article “Technology in Global World”, explores Miki Kiyoshi’s and Nishida
Kitaro’s idiosyncratic insights into ‘rationality’ as an effort to find a mediation between its
Western and Japanese forms. The second article “The Problem of Modernity in the Philosophyof Nishida”, explores Nishida’s alternative understanding of modernity established around amulticultural worldview. The third article entitled “Alternative Modernity? Playing the JapaneseGame of Culture”, reviews Nobel Prize-winning Japanese author, Kawabata Yasunari’s (1899-35

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 61972) novel The Master of Go (1951) in the context of the confrontation between the aestheticism
of old Japan and new Western methods. In the fourth article “Experience and Culture: Nishida’s
Path to ‘The things themselves’”, Feenberg evaluates Nishida’s concept of ‘pure experience’,‘basho’, and ‘absolute nothingness’ in reference to Heidegger, Zen Buddhism, and some otherphilosophers. The final article “Zen Existentialism in America”, introduces Henry Bugbee (19151999), a Western Philosopher to the readers, who was influenced by Zen existentialism throughthe writings of D.T Suzuki.
In the introduction, Arisaka Yoko introduces us to the content and significance of articles
through her personal story about how she came to the United States to study Western philosophy,
but with the encouragement of Feenberg, how she found herself in a process that would lead her
to Japanese philosophy, and how these articles of Feenberg in the book emerged during the yearsof her academic dialogue with Feenberg. She also mentions her experience of how she came to
the United States in the 1980s to get away from the ‘rigid’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘freedom-robbing’society in Japan, but surprisingly finds herself as a ‘Japanese’ who looks at Japan from ‘outside’
that helped her to develop a new way to appreciate the Japanese way of life, Zen Buddhism andNishidan Philosophy (5-14). This personal anecdote at the beginning gives us a clue about theoverall calling of the book for searching ‘alternative’ ways of modernity and globalisation.
In the first chapter, Feenberg criticises today’s problematic understanding of ‘pure
rationality’ which cuts the ties of ‘technology’ with ‘culture’. In this regard, he examines Nishida
Kitaro’s ‘truly global world’ (jp. sekaiteki sekai) theory which envisions a multi-cultural way ofmodernity structured on the understanding of ‘rationality’ as historically and culturally
conditioned through dialectics (24). He gives historical anecdotes from Japan on how modern
techniques and methods imported from the West have changed through a process wherein
Western technologies have been kept to the extent that they are more advantageous for the
everyday life of people compared to traditional technologies, but also merging with Japanesetraditional crafts and technique. He gives also concrete examples from the invention of theJapanese national anthem to the miniaturisation of computers (18-19, 22). He finds Nishida’s
globalisation vision genuine since this way of globalisation brings different cultures andtechniques into the cross-cultural dialogue in which they can express themselves and contributeto a single fund of inventions (29-30). Therefore, he argues that reason with its technologicalrealizations cannot/should not be accepted as ‘universal’ because, they are always concrete
expressions of ‘particular’ culture, and there has been no distinction between technical insights
and ethical/aesthetics values (33-36). He ends this chapter with the claim that technology cannot
be neutral in the sense of culture and politics if it is a ‘particular’ expression of ‘doing things
technologically’ (11, 35-36).
In the second chapter, Feenberg analyses Nishida's thoughts on modernity,
universality/particularity, and culture, comparing it with Buddhism and the thoughts ofphilosophers such as William James, Leibniz, Heidegger, Hegel, and Marcus. He also analyses

36

A. CAN PIRTICI
Review of Nishida, Kawabata, and the Japanese Response to Modernity❖ Book Review ❖the oft-discussed relationship between Nishida's philosophy and Japanese ultranationalism in thecontext of Nishida's intellectual transformation during his lifetime (37-42). Feenberg emphasises
Nishida's idea that each culture has the potential to contribute something to world civilization andthat in order to do so it must first actualize its own self-realisation. In this regard, he argues thatin the presence of such a world system based on the equality of cultures, as envisaged by Nishida,each particular culture and tradition can contribute something to today's technological andscientific developments in its own way (64-67).
In the third chapter, he reviews Kawabata Yasunari’s famous novel, the Master of Go,
from a different perspective. He uses the main theme of the novel as if they are metaphors for hisargument on alternative modernity. He examines Kawabata’s narration of the championship of
the Go match between the old master representing the aestheticism and tradition of old Japan;
the young challenger representing Western scientific rationality and individualism (2). He
emphasises the fact that even though both the players aim for victory, they reflect ‘rationality’from different standpoints. On the one hand, the old master aims self-realisation by losing all his
awareness of self while waiting for the other side’s move, or by ‘no-mind (mushin)’ state of Zen
Buddhism, and tries to be ‘one’ with the ‘board’, ‘adversary’ and ‘the game’ in order to reach arealm of harmony and aesthetic game (75-77). On the other hand, the young challenger is full of
ambitions to gain victory and uses modern methods including aggressive manoeuvres and tricks.
He violates all etiquettes of Go and disturbs the harmony and pattern of the game. His aggressive
and individualistic strategy makes the master disturbed and puzzled, who sees himself as one
with ‘the game’, and the game goes to the young adversary after a match that lasted six months(77-86). Based on this case, Feenberg calls us to think about the fact that the relationship between
formal rules and their cultural context has the same pattern as the relationship between
technology and culture, and he claims that there are layers of meaning in the system of all culture,
just like in the game (86-89). Consequently, he posits that even if we draw scientific perspectives
from this system, we must also not forget the cultural background which helps make concrete
sense (94-95). He concludes this chapter with the insights that we must search for alternative
ways of modernity, which would be culturally concrete and universally available. He further
notes that it is necessary to renew the tradition, not in a way that is not a mere imitation of thewestern tradition, but in a way that contributes genuinely to the global system (99-101).
In the fourth chapter, Feenberg scrutinises various concepts of Nishida such as ‘absolutenothingness’, ‘basho’, ‘action intuition’, and especially ‘pure experience’, and their reflections
on the understanding of culture and modernity. He puts forth identical and distinctive dimensionsof these Nishidan concepts with Husserlian phenomenology, Heideggerian existentialism, andJamesian ‘pure experience’. He argues that Nishidan ‘pure experience’ founds its roots in Zen
Buddhism’s ‘no-mind’(mushin) by referencing dialogues of Nishida with D.T Suzuki (105), andpoints out how traditional Western understanding of experience, as ‘the foundation of knowledge
or ontology’, is different from Zen understanding of ‘experience’ which puts experience prior to37

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6‘the knowing self’ (103-105). Feenberg claims that Nishida’s ‘pure experience’ based on no-mindof Zen, represents a plural, and more inclusive universality than Western reason that relies on
self-centered experience, rational pursuit of knowledge, reduction of experience to measurable
form by excluding ‘subjective’ dimension (104). In this regard, he introduces Nishida’s
understanding of history, culture, and world system by referencing his concepts of ‘absolutely
contradictory self-identity’ (jp. zettai mujunteki jikodooitsu), ‘place’ (jp. basho) (117-121).
However, he does not forget to mention Nishida’s ambivalent remarks, on Japan’s positions inworld politics in the 1940s, into consideration from a point of view that takes care to be impartial(121-123). He reaches the conclusion that Nishida’s understanding of a global world, whichassures truly cosmopolitan self-realisation and cross-cultural dialogue of world and nations
without sacrificing their particular ‘experiences’, can provide us with an alternative way toconstruct modernity (123-125).
In the final chapter, Feenberg introduces us to a distinctive American existentialist
philosopher, Henry Bugbee (1915-99), who was influenced by the Zen concept of experiencethrough D. T. Suzuki’s introduction of Zen Buddhism to the West, especially the US. Feinberg
highlights the fact that Suzuki was the first Zen Buddhist to claim that Zen experience could bearticulated in different systems of thought such as Western philosophy as if he joins Nishida’s
efforts to build a conceptual bridge between the West and the East (126-127). According to
Feenberg, Suzuki’s efforts have paid off to a certain extent because a Western philosopher,
Bugbee, came along and entered a dialogue with the East. He elaborates on Bugbee’s philosophy
as part of his dialogue with Zen existentialism and American pragmatism. In this context,
Feenberg compares Bugbee’s notion of ‘standing forth’ with the Nishidan ‘place of nothingness’,or he searches the roots of his concept of ‘pre-reflective experience’ with Zen tradition notion of
immediate unity of acting subject and the world (128). Besides, Feenberg also points out that
Bugbee was keen on finding a way to build a bridge between American pragmatism whichprioritises action over abstract thought, and Zen. Toward the end of the chapter, Feenberg remarksthat even though Bugbee was influenced by Zen and Suzuki’s thoughts, he was equallyunsatisfied with Zen, since Zen emphasises the opposition between experience and reflection,and disregards the creativity of the agent and personal identity (131-133). Feenberg claims that
Bugbee’s attitude makes him closer to Nishida, who also emphasises the creativity of
individual(s) (133-134).
Even though the book is a collection of five separate articles, surprisingly, these fivearticles remain faithful to the main theme of the book, which is to trace a way of alternative
modernity through the example of Japan, as is stated in the title of the book. Additionally, the factthat Feenberg participates in the dialogue in order to interpret the philosophers’ thoughts from his
own point of view shows us how a philosopher from a relatively different philosophical tradition
can bring a remarkable perspective to understand different traditions of thought. Moreover, hebuilds a conceptual bridge between his philosophy of technology and Nishidan philosophy as he38

A. CAN PIRTICI
Review of Nishida, Kawabata, and the Japanese Response to Modernity❖ Book Review ❖did in his various articles and books but notably in his salient books, Between Reason andExperience Essays in Technology and Modernity (2010) and Transforming Technology: A
Critical Theory Revisited (2002). In this sense, while constructing his own philosophy, Feenberg
as a Western philosopher indeed entered into a dialogue with the Eastern thought. Therefore, sucha position Feenberg brings him closer to Bugbee too.
This book is clearly a product of the author’s endeavours to overcome the West-East
duality through creative processes by ensuring a dialogue between both traditions. It serves as aprecedent for readers who want to interact with other systems of thought such as Japanesephilosophy or Zen Buddhism and contributes original perspectives to the intellectual world.
Bibliography
Feenberg, Andrew. Between Reason and Experience Essays in Technology and Modernity.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010.
Feenberg, Andrew. Transforming Technology: A Critical Theory Revisited. New York, NY:
Oxford Univ. Press, 2002.
Bugbee, Henry Greenwood. The Inward Morning: A Philosophical Exploration in Journal
Form. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1999.

39

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6

Book Review
Krämer, Hans Martin & Julian Strube, eds.,
Theosophy Across Boundaries: Transcultural and Interdisciplinary
Perspectives on a Modern Esoteric Movement.
New York: SUNY Press, 2020, 486 pages
ISBN 9781438480428. US $34.95 (paperback) | US $95.00 (hardcover)

Gouranga Charan PRADHAN(Postdoctoral Fellow,
Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures,
Ryukoku University)

The problem of historical epistemology for scientific knowledge production has constantly
been a hot topic in scholarly debates within the emerging field of ‘global history’ over thelast several decades. We have come a long way from the Wallersteinian world systems thatneatly divide the singular world into blocks based on asymmetrical power relationships
and claim that culture flows in a unidirectional direction. One of the many factors thatsignificantly shaped the field of global historiography in the recent past is undoubtedly
the theoretical tools offered by postcolonial discourses. Postcolonial studies offer
research methodologies that help to decenter the linear narrative model of scholarship.
Edward Said’s conception of ‘contrapuntal,’ for instance, is immensely helpful to expose
the dialogic and intertwined nature of the historical realities within the seemingly binary
asymmetrical dynamics. For we now know that while the so-called ‘superior’ ‘civilized’
Europeans welded power over their non-European counterparts, so did the non-Europeans
have access to devices to subvert the very power structure.
The volume under consideration here persuasively attests to the aforesaid fact. But it
goes beyond that by showing how power dynamics also create ‘indistinctive zones,’ toborrow a term from Agamben, which allows the formation of subjectivity that not only
disrupts hierarchical power structure but also creates its own power zones. By doing so, thisvolume brings a new perspective to global history through intervention from a variety offields; history, religious esotericism, Buddhism, art history, and politics with a broader
geographic viewpoint covering Europe, South Asia, South-East Asia, East Asia and beyond
and does a noteworthy contribution to our understanding of the historical milieu of the latenineteenth and early twentieth century.

40

Gouranga Charan PRADHAN
Review of Theosophy Across Boundaries❖ Book Review ❖The book begins with an exhaustive introduction by the editors which sets the pathfor this otherwise voluminous volume with multiple and intertwined themes. It is composedof two thematically arranged parts. The first part consists of seven essays bound together
with a common thread of ‘New Perspective on Theosophy.’ The second part constitutes six
essays that concern the broader theme of ‘Theosophy in Literature, the Arts and Politics.’
The first part of the volume “attempt(s) to map the global landscape of Theosophy’s
manifold and often ambiguous influences” (9) by investigating hitherto unexploredgeographical areas like the Middle and Far Eastern countries such as Israel, Vietnam, andChina. In that sense, as the editors rightly claim, this book is a “pioneer” in the field of
theosophy as well as in global esoterism. For instance, the first essay by Hanegraaff squarely
shows the way Western esoterism in the early days of the Theosophical movement was verymuch informed by the premodern European notion of “the East” that revolved around theidea of a “universal Kabbalah” with its origin in the oriental Chaldea and Egypt. Indeed, thisgeneral Western interest in Kabbalah might have contributed to, in whatever small way, thenumerous British excavation expeditions in Egypt in the 1880s and the resulting
expropriation of artifacts. The early Western Theosophical leader’s interest in Kabbalah wasa process of their subjectivity formation for which the presence of the Other, in this case,preoccupations with the Kabbalah studies, was not merely a coincidence but a necessity.
Similarly, the second essay by Bergunder is important not only because it focuses on
the “non-Western” actors situated in the margins but the way these non-state actors working
at the margins shaped the very identity of the “Western” Theosophy. This essay is critical toappreciate how the present-day socio-political and religious conditions of some parts of theworld, India in this case, were shaped by the Theosophist movement at the turn of thetwentieth century. The following two essays by Jérémy Jammes and Chuang Chienhi focus
on Vietnam and China respectively, two previously unexplored geographical areas where
Theosophy also left its imprint. Jammes’s chapter shows the complex and intertwined processof cultural flow and the way Theosophist doctrines were ingested and reproduced in local
Vietnamese contexts. Chuang’s study in turn shows how Theosophy in early twentiethcentury China was more than merely an esoteric religious movement but was equally activein the domains of politics, education, and even anti-imperialist activities. The extraterritorial
territories occupied by the Western powers like the Shanghai International Settlement, whichis Chuang’s focus of study, served as rife grounds for the activities of non-state actors likethe Theosophists which in the case of China worked to subvert the myth of Western cultural
superiority by introducing local cultural ethos through establishing schools and spreading
education.
Ulrich Harlass, in the fifth chapter, revisits the role of the Indian-origin Theosophists,
who were mostly ignored from prior scholarship despite they played a crucial role in theformation of the movement in South Asia. His study on the tangled relationship between A.P.
41

❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6Sinnet and Mahatma Gandhi and the vital contributions of T. Subba Row, one of the earliest
Indian supporters of Theosophy but completely forgotten today, are insightful to understandthe way non-Western actors played an equally vital role in shaping the core tenets of
Theosophy.
Perry Myers, in chapter six, takes a closer look at the political consequences of
Theosophy in India and Germany and shows how the conditions in India echo thecontemporary German Theosophical developments despite a lack of any direct connections
but engendered largely by their respective local applications. The last essay of part one by
Boaz Huss, on the other hand, concerns the Jewish Theosophists and their understanding of
Kabbalah. Huss exposes the inherent contradictions in form of the concurrent presence of“modernity” and “tradition” in the Jewish Theosophist’s articulation of Kabbalah and how it
shaped what we know as Jewish Theosophy today.
Whereas the seven essays constituting part one offer unique perspectives on the
Theosophical movement by exploring varied geographical areas, the six essays included inpart two explore the way Theosophy molded, sometimes in a very substantial way, the local
political, historical, and above all, the cultural and aesthetic milieus by playing out inaltogether new ways than what the founding leaders of the movement envisioned. For
instance, Laurence Cox and Alicia Turner’s in-depth study of the Arakan branch of
Theosophy in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries explicate how the Arakan leaders“appropriated,” to borrow a postcolonial terminology, the available resources, including
human resources like Olcott and Dharmapala, to promote their own agendas, such as therevival of local as well as international Buddhism. Likewise, Hans Martin Krämer’s chapter
on the interactions between Paul Richards and his Japanese Pan-Asianist interlocutors
demonstrates how Theosophy played out differently in different parts of Asia. Paul Richards,
as Krämer shows, was a somewhat reluctant supporter of Theosophy and called upon his
Japanese associates to help remove the Westerners from Asia. But at the same moment, hisJapanese associates and fellow Theosophists like Okawa Shumei, Uchida Ryohei, and others
were working diametrically in the opposite way for building an Asian colony.
These area-specific unique development informed by a specific glocalized milieu
finds a detailed treatment in Hashimoto Yorimitsu’s chapter. He takes a closer look at the
Irish poet James Cousins and demonstrates how the cosmopolitan globe-trotting Westerners’
disillusionment with their socio-political and religious conditions combined with theirorientalist image of Asia led them to support Theosophy. Cousins, like many of his Westerncontemporaries, exalted Asian religions and called for a synthesis of all religions to nurturea perfect spiritual human being. But at the same time, he could never get rid of his deeprooted Western superiority complex for he viewed Western religious traditions as superior.
Cousins believed in a civilizing mission as the Westerners’ responsibility to guide the inept
non-Westerners to the realm of light. This essay also attests to the fact that non-state

42Gouranga Charan PRADHAN
Review of Theosophy Across Boundaries❖ Book Review ❖cosmopolitan agents like Cousins worked at the margin in collusion with disgruntled bodies
like the Kokuryukai (Black Dragon Society) in Japan that shaped the broader contour of Asian
historiography having a far-reaching impact on the past global history to which our present
belong.
One of those many pasts created through interactions with Theosophy in which ourpresent lies is the artistic and architectural productions that Helena Čapková’s focuses on inher chapter. She explores the hidden history behind the construction of the GolcondeDormitory in Puducherry which is considered by many as India’s first modernist building
structure and was commissioned by the Aurobindo Ashram. The Aurobindo Ashram was a
newly formed spiritual community, the founder of which envisioned, like the founders of
Theosophy, “[a] higher spiritual consciousness and embody a greater life of the spirit” for thefollowers of this faith. (Aurobindo, 2011) Interestingly though, irrespective of their generalambivalent attitude towards Theosophy, the Ashram commissioned the building’s design
work to two Theosophist couples; the Czech-French Raymonds and the Polish Łubienskis,
which clearly shows how history is constitutive of nonlinearity and contradictions.
Yan Suarsana’s penultimate chapter on the “making of esoteric Bali,” a locale that is
also often overlooked while studying Theosophy, shows how the image of the present-day
Indonesian province of Bali as an esoteric spiritual hub was actually a product of Bali’scolonial past intersected with its association with Theosophy. The process of plotting Bali inthe map of global Hinduism, according to Suarsana, began with Indonesia’s Dutch colonial
rulers and was furthered in the early twentieth century with the revival of Neo-Hinduism inIndia, a development in which Theosophists played a crucial role. However, as Suarsana
rightly mentions, the Balinese past reverberates today in Indonesia’s politics, economy, andreligion as much as in people’s everyday social practices.
The final essay by Björn Seidel-Dreffke explores Theosophy’s cultural impact on
Russia, another often ignored but critical region, to fully appreciate the global bearing of the
movement. Unlike the Balinese Theosophist experience however, which was the sum of a
combination of factors like colonialism, Theosophy, and the rise of New Hinduism in India,
the Russian Theosophy was mostly an organic development rising out of the Russian
intellectual’s quest for a new spiritual human from a synthesis of science and religion
something which Theosophy offered. Writing in 1916 on Theosophy in Russia, philosopher
Nikolai Berdyaev mentions “[theosophy] has begun to play a remarkable role in Russian
spiritual life, within our cultural strata, and its role undoubtedly will grow” which proves the
movement’s popularity as well as its prospects. (Berdyaev, 1916) Of course, the impact ofTheosophy in Russia, as Seidel-Dreffke’s states, was not restricted to a handful ofintellectuals but it had far-reaching cultural significance most prominent among which is thedistinct Russian symbolism artistic movement. What’s more, unlike the dwindling number43❖ 2023.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 6of Theosophists in most parts of the world, Seidel-Dreffke mentions the thriving Theosophist
circles in present-day Russia, a topic that merits its own independent study.
All the articles included in this volume brilliantly show, to borrow Helena Čapková’s
words, the “horizontal and voluntary social associations intersecting at several points” that
resulted in “a set of unforeseen complex social dynamics.” (376) Needless to say, theconsequences these interactions resulted are far beyond mere “social dynamics.” For as
Bergunder, Suarsana, and others’ essays demonstrate, the present socio-political, religious,and even economic dynamics of some of the regions covered in this book are shaped by
Theosophy. The rise of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism in present-day India is perhaps oneof those prime examples that show the extent to which Theosophy shapes our present.
Likewise, the religious and political skirmishes in present-day Indonesia cannot be
understood without Indonesia’s past relationship with Theosophy. Seen from this perspective,
this volume goes a long way in decentering the earlier historiography on Western esoterism
in general and Theosophy in particular.
While the multifaceted scholarship offered on global Theosophy in this volume isundoubtedly enriching, nonetheless a lacuna, which is perhaps generic to these kinds ofstudies, haunts the volume. Most of the individuals covered in this book are social elites andthe episodes concern the upper echelons of their respective societies. This lacuna makes it
difficult to appreciate the way ordinary followers of Theosophy in various parts of the world,
who were situated in the margins as was often the case, shaped Theosophy and consequently
global history. Do the local resources, for instance, regional newspapers printed in vernacularlanguages during the early twentieth century shed some light on the involvement of people
from the margins? Or can we still find traces of global Theosophy in the local religions andpractices that might have been impacted through syncretism? We will wait for more researchon Theosophy to know more about its global bearings.
All chapters in this book are well annotated and come with extensive bibliography
something which seasoned scholars as well students interested in Theosophy, as well as
global history, will find very useful. The volume also has an index which is equally helpful
to wade through the hundreds of individuals and key concepts covered in this book. This
book deserves a place in all university libraries.
Bibliography
Aurobindo, Sri, “Letters on Himself and the Ashram,” in The Complete Works of Sri
Aurobindo, Vol. 35, Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust (2011): 593.

44

Gouranga Charan PRADHAN
Review of Theosophy Across Boundaries❖ Book Review ❖Berdyaev, N. A., “Theosophy and anthroposophy in Russia.” Russkaya Mysl’, 1916, trans. S.
Janos. Last accessed on Jan 31, 2023.
http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1916_252b.html

45

Journal ofWorld Buddhist Cultures

Purpose of the Journal
The Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures at the Ryukoku University in Kyoto, Japan wasestablished with the aim of forming an international research institute for Buddhism, which could respondto the serious challenges facing the modern world. An important mission of the center is to accomplish awide variety of academic projects on Buddhism and thereby contribute to an increasingly globalized society.
All knowledge is expected to be transformed into information in a globalized society. Thus, at its
inauguration last year, the center also decided to publish an electronic journal to disseminate the center’s
research results more widely in order to fulfill its main purpose—in line with global trends ofinternationalization and informatization. Electronic journals have become indispensable platforms tointeract with researchers, Buddhists, and adherents of other religious traditions outside Japan, and tocooperate with foreign universities and research institutes.
The Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures has started a new electronic journal, Journal ofWorld Buddhist Cultures. In its long history, the Ryukoku University has accumulated a large body ofknowledge on Buddhism. The center hopes to develop this knowledge further and actively disseminate
it all over the world by means of this electronic journal, through which the center will also attempt toencourage international intellectual exchange and seek solutions to various problems facing people incontemporary society.
In contemporary society, people’s values are significantly diversified and complicated, and we areindeed hardly able to recognize what is “true.” Journal of World Buddhist Cultures will include not only
scholarly articles on Buddhism, but also articles that respond as a guide to urgent problems that arise inevery part of the world. Buddhism has been practiced all over the world for more than 2 500 years. The
journal will invite submissions in which this universal religion is discussed from a global perspective.
In addition, Journal of World Buddhist Culture will also include reviews of books on Buddhism,
records of lectures organized by the center, and a wide variety of translated works. It especially welcomes
papers written in English. Through this electronic journal, the center hopes to establish an international
platform for Buddhist studies and contribute to Buddhism’s further development.

46

Objective of the Research Center for World
Buddhist Cultures at Ryukoku University

1. Comprehensive Academic Research of Buddhism
Our objective is to contribute to the advancement of academic research on Buddhist philosophy,
history, culture, and other relevant fields while searching for ways to respond to the challenges facing
our modern world. By using effective and appropriate research methodologies, we aim to explore
Buddhist topics that meet the needs and concerns of our modern world.

2. Interdisciplinary Research that Combines the Fields of Humanity, Science, andReligion and the Creation of New Wisdom
By combining the three fields of humanity, science, and religion, we will explore the prospects ofcreating a new wisdom for the 21st century. We will aim to become a global research hub wherescholars from both Japan and abroad can converse and interact in order to provide guidelines that canhelp address social issues and global crises from a Buddhist perspective.

3. Building a Global Platform for Buddhist Studies
By collaborating with universities and research institutions in Asia, the Americas, and Europe, wewill carry out projects with overseas scholars, Buddhist priests, and academics of religion. We will
publish our research results through our website and publications and provide them in English andother languages. Also, by using information and communication technology (ICT), we will collaborate
with overseas universities and research institutions in real time in both the graduate and undergraduate
programs. In addition, we will build a system that can quickly respond to requests from overseas
research institutions who may ask for information about local historical sites by employing various
views from across the university.

4. Research Results that will Benefit the Undergraduate and Graduate Schools
By collaborating on the curriculum for each academic area, we aim to build an integrated
program that spans across all the departments. We will also promote participation in educational
collaboration programs—not only within our university, but with other educational institutions as
well. We will recruit short-term research fellows from graduate and post-graduate programs inand outside of our university, by providing research grants (scholarships) and publishing theirfindings online or on print.

47

Significance of the Publication of Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

The

ResearchCenterfor World

Buddhist Cultures consists of following
three research divisions: Basic Research,
Applied Research, and International
Research. Among them, the International
Research Division plays a central role in
the publication of the electronic journal.

International Research Division
The International Research Division will be responsible for sharing information about the activitiesof the center with the international community while continuing the project of translating andpublishing Buddhist canons and texts that was originally carried out by the Research Institute for
Buddhist Culture. In addition to the publication of the e-journal and the management of the center’s
website, the division will also promote exchanges with overseas scholars, other Buddhists, andreligious specialists through ICT. The division will encourage collaboration with universities andresearch institutes in different parts of the world, and sponsor international symposiums and invite
scholars from overseas to attend them.
As religion becomes more global and multi-dimensional in contemporary society, there has been agrowing awareness of a need for inter-religious dialogue. The division will encourage theseconversations and interactions by collaborating with various religious research institutions abroad.
Under the theme “Inter-Faith Education” the division will carry out research at institutions of higher
education.
In the international context of inter-religious dialogue, this division will explore how Japanese
Buddhist ideology is viewed by the outside world and what Japanese Buddhism can do to contribute
further to inter-religious education. Through these activities, the division’s core focus will be todevelop young scholars’ understanding of the importance of having an international mindset and to
facilitate global interaction between scholars.

48

Contributors
Nobuya DAKE

Part-time Lecturer,
Ryukoku University

Shin Buddhist Studies, Religious
StudiesA. Can PIRTICI

Graduate Student,
Graduate School of International
Studies, Ryukoku University

Global Studies

Gouranga Charan PRADHAN Postdoctoral Fellow,

Research Center for World
Buddhist Cultures, Ryukoku
University

Japanese literature, Japanesestudies

執 筆 者 一 覧

嵩 宣也
A. Can PIRTICI

龍谷大学 非常勤講師

宗教学、真宗学

龍谷大学グローバルスタディーズ学科 大学院生

国際関係

Gouranga Charan PRADHAN 龍谷大学世界仏教文化研究セ
ンター

博士研究員

49

日本文学、日本研究

Editorial Board

Editorial Board
Kenichi WAKITA（Editor-in-Chief）

Aya HONDA

Mami IWATA

Junshi NOMI

Kosuke SHIMIZU

Yuka OTANI

Junshin UCHIDA

Sei NORO

Markus RÜSCH

Yasuro ABE

Micah AUERBACK

Mitsuya DAKE

Yasuko FUKUYAMAPaul GRONER

Janet GYATSOCharles HALLISEY

Dennis HIROTA

Shoryu KATSURA

Noriko KAWAHASHI

Chon-hak KIM

Seiji KUMAGAI

Hideaki NAKATANI

Wenliang ZHANG

Masaaki NONIN

Eiichi OTANIEric SCHICKENTANZ

Chih-yu SHIH

Jacqueline STONE

Fumihiko SUEKI

Kenneth TANAKA

Jong-min SUH

Yozo TANIYAMA

Yusho WAKAHARA

Eisho NASU

Assistant Editor
Gouranga Charan PRADHAN

Advisory Board

51

Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures, Ryukoku University

Journal of World Buddhist Cultures~ Vol. 6 ~March 31, 2023
EditorResearch Center for World Buddhist Cultures, Ryukoku University, Editorial Board

Publisher

Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures, Ryukoku University
125-1 Daiku-chō, Shichijō-dōri Ōmiya
Higashi-iru, Shimogyō-ku, Kyoto 600-8268
Hakuakan (Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures)
Phone Number：075-343-3812 (domestic)
International：+81-75-343-3812
E-mail: rcwbc-ejournal@ad.ryukoku.ac.jp
URL: http://rcwbc.ryukoku.ac.jp

Printer

Kawakita Printing Co., Ltd.

© 2023 by Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures, Ryukoku University, JapanAll rights reserved.

世界仏教文化研究
第6号
コンテンツ
❖ 論 文 ❖◆ The Construction of History in English Translations of Shin Buddhist Texts: Through the Creation of
the Bibliography of Japanese Buddhist Texts
Nobuya DAKE

❖ 書 評 ❖
◆ Review of Nishida, Kawabata, and the Japanese Response to Modernity by Andrew Feenberg
A. Can PIRTICI◆ Review of Theosophy Across Boundaries: Transcultural and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on aModern Esoteric Movement edited by Hans Martin Krämer & Julian Strube
Gouranga Charan PRADHAN

龍谷大学世界仏教文化研究センター

2023.3