Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: September 24, 2020 at 10:40:19 AM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Buddhism]: Grace on Victoria, 'Zen Terror in Prewar > Japan: Portrait of an Assassin' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Brian Daizen Victoria. Zen Terror in Prewar Japan: Portrait of an > Assassin. Lanham Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2020. 392 > pp. $34.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-5381-3166-4. > > Reviewed by Stefan Grace (Assistant Editor, Digital Dictionary of > Buddhism) > Published on H-Buddhism (September, 2020) > Commissioned by Erez Joskovich > > _Zen Terror in Prewar Japan_ centers around a biography of Inoue > Nisshō (1886-1967), infamous prewar political agitator and > ringleader of a band of murderous activists, told principally through > Inoue's own words. The author, Brian Daizen Victoria, deftly handles > Inoue's autobiography so that the line between his self-aggrandizing > and the additional historical background provided is always clear to > the reader. As is obvious from the title of Victoria's book, the two > most important hypotheses are that: (1) Inoue's actions make it > appropriate to define him as a "terrorist" and (2) though commonly > described as a "Nichiren sect priest," Inoue is best understood as > being an adherent of Japanese Zen Buddhism. > > To prove his hypotheses, outside of the eleven chapters on Inoue and > general history, Victoria gives roughly equal space to discussing (1) > the concept of terrorism and how it applies to Inoue (see esp. > chapter 13) and (2) Mahāyāna and Zen Buddhist philosophy and how > their ethics--or rather the lack thereof--allow them to be used as an > ideological weapon in the hands of terrorists such as Inoue (see esp. > chapter 14). While the proofs provided are convincing on the whole, > it might be argued, as I will do more fully below, that a slight > modification of the hypotheses to focus more on prewar nonsectarian > Japanese Buddhism (avoiding the complicated issue of defining > "sectarian affiliation" in prewar Japan) and dealing with the concept > of fascist violence more generally might have brought a more fruitful > result. > > In this final book of Victoria's trilogy on the relationship between > twentieth-century Zen Buddhism and Japanese expansionism and > militarism, the author ties up and refines many of the arguments from > the earlier two books, _Zen at War_ and _Zen War Stories_.[1] > Accordingly, Victoria introduces an abundance of fascinating > historical and philosophical side notes throughout, meaning that > every chapter provides so much more than its title would suggest. > Below, however, I will attempt to summarize its contents as briefly > as possible. > > After a foreword by James Mark Shields of Bucknell University, the > preface discusses the reaction, both positive and negative, to the > first two, highly influential books of this trilogy. On the negative > side, Victoria notes that readers "charged, for example, that my > translations of [D. T.] Suzuki's [1870-1966] war-related writings, or > those of well-known Zen masters, were taken out of context or > exaggerated, or simply mistranslated," while, on the positive side, > Robert Aitken wrote, "Victoria exposes the incredible intellectual > dishonesty of Japanese Buddhists who perverted their religion into a > jingoistic doctrine of support for the emperor and imperial expansion > during the period 1868-1945. Good job! We must face this dark side of > our heritage squarely" (p. xvi). > > In the first chapter Victoria defines and briefly discusses the > concept of terrorism. Among several possible definitions, he chooses > to employ the following as a lens through which to discuss the > actions and statements of Inoue: "a tactic employed, typically by the > weak, to place pressure on the powerful, especially governments, to > do the terrorists' bidding" (p. 2). Victoria claims that the > "ultimate goal" of the book is "to take readers inside the mind, > inside the very 'skin,' of one terrorist leader, a leader who, > together with his followers, felt he had found in his Zen training > the basis and justification for acts of terrorism" (p. 8). In my > opinion, it would have been helpful for readers conversant in > Japanese to have seen a discussion here of the source words that were > translated into English as "terrorism" (and its variants).[2] > > In order to "get into the skin" of the terrorist Inoue, after some > historical background in chapter 2, the subsequent chapters recount > his life as told through his own words in sources such as the > transcripts of his extensive 1933-34 courtroom testimony following > the Blood Oath Corps Incident of 1932 and his own 419-page > self-aggrandizing autobiography, published in 1953 under the title_ > Ichinin, Issatsu _(lit. One Person Kills One [Person])_. _Victoria's > reasoning for allowing Inoue to tell his own story is inspired by the > work of Norman Cohn, from which Victoria draws the conclusion that > the only way to "truly understand the 'subterranean world' Inoue and > his band members inhabited" is by entering that world and "walking in > their footsteps" (p. 4). Victoria cautions, however, that entering > Inoue's world is not a positive acknowledgment of the repugnant > thoughts of terrorists (p. 4) or of the actions of Inoue that > "changed, with tragic consequences, the course of modern Japanese > history" (p. 5). > > Chapter 13 mainly tackles the issue of terrorism and Inoue's > relationship with it. However, subsections "Toward a Theoretical > Understanding," "An Alternative Possibility," and "Who Benefits?" > present alternative models, outside the lens of terrorism, for > understanding Inoue's actions and the phenomenon of ideological > assassinations in general. One of the suggestions points to the > early-postwar work of political scientist Maruyama Masao, who makes > use of the idea of "fascism from above and fascism from below" to > place the actions of figures such as Inoue on the lowest rung in a > hierarchy of "Shrine," "Official," and "Outlaw" fascism. Another > method presented here for understanding Inoue's actions is by way of > "a question that is key to legal and police investigations: 'Cui > bono?'" (p. 184). Here, Victoria raises the question of whether > powerful and influential men, such as Tōyama Mitsuru, may have been > the "voice of Heaven" who directed Inoue's "actions at pivotal > moments in his life" (p. 185), conceivably with Emperor Hirohito > pulling the strings behind the scenes and using Inoue as a hitman. > > As Victoria indicates in the acknowledgments at the opening of his > book, Herbert Bix, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book > _Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan_ (2000), was an important > influence in making it clear to Victoria that "Emperor Hirohito's > wartime role was far more important than his popular image as a > powerless puppet of Japan's military leaders" (p. ix). It is clear > that Bix's work, in combination with the important questions Victoria > raises, provides grounds for renewed analyses of the prewar period in > Japan. Through the suggestion of these alternate models, Victoria > opens the path for interesting future research that further explores > the wider, multifaceted concept of fascism in prewar Japan and the > role of the emperor in political violence. > > Chapter 14, "Unraveling the Religious Matrix," explores Victoria's > second main hypothesis, namely that it is most appropriate to > understand Inoue's spiritual beliefs as being reflective of > affiliation with Zen. The chapter discusses the characteristics of > the Nichiren sect, to which Inoue is commonly ascribed affiliation, > and through an analysis of its history, argues that Inoue should not > be considered an adherent of such for two main reasons: (1) while > Inoue showed deep interest in both Zen and the writings of Shinran > (who is primarily followed by the True Pure Land sect), the Nichiren > sect "demanded every other sect of Buddhism in Japan be destroyed as > _jakyō_ (false teachings)" (p. 200) and (2) "Nichirenism had its own > unique political program" (p. 201), which meant that Inoue would have > to abandon his complete faith in the emperor, with the latter taking > second place to the authority of the Nichiren sect leaders. > > This chapter also discusses the famous story of the Buddha > "compassionately" murdering a robber, as told in the _Upāyakauśalya > Sūtra_ (The Skill in Means Sutra), to highlight the fact that > sophistry has been used in both the Therāvada and Mahāyāna > traditions since ancient times to justify acts of violence (see esp. > p. 206). Although Victoria claims that a longer analysis of Buddhist > ethics is outside the scope of the present work (p. 220), as a reader > I was left wanting more on this topic and would have liked to see > Victoria's take on a few of the many Zen _kōan_ that explicitly deal > with themes of violence, iconoclasm, or antinomianism such as > "Nanquan Kills a Cat" (_Biyanlu_, Case 63), on which Inoue is known > to have lectured (p. 113). Although the chapter indirectly discusses > the antinomianism that has long been read into the ethical worldview > of Chan/Seon/Zen, Victoria strangely never mentions this term, > perhaps in order to make the ideas more understandable for a wider > audience. In any case, it would have been useful to hear his take on > the validity of applying this term, particularly in the context of > arguments such as that made in D. T. Suzuki's _Nihonteki reisei_ > (Japanese Spirituality; 1944) regarding Christian antinomianism and > the rejection of the possibility of such in Japanese Zen.[3] > > In chapter 15, Victoria provides a conclusion to his trilogy of works > on Japanese Zen and violence, stating that "Zen, at least in its > Japanese form, is essentially 'ethics-less'" (p. 221). This is > apparently due to the fact that Zen monks promoted the teachings of > Confucianism "in order to provide a religious sanction for the > existing social order," which meant a "reciprocal relationship of > justice between superiors, who ought to be benevolent, and > subordinates, who are required to be loyal to their superiors" (p. > 222). This reciprocity later becomes a one-way relationship, with > citizens having an unconditional filial obligation to obey the > emperor, and this obligation was reinforced by prominent Zen > figures--leading Victoria to opine that this "ethics of unquestioning > loyalty unto death" was "the very antithesis of Buddhist ethics." > Personally, however, I find this opinion questionable. That is to > say, considering the previous chapter on Buddhist ethics throughout > history and the ensuing discussion in chapter 15 on Buddhist > justifications for violence, it seems a "No true Scotsman" fallacy to > argue that Zen philosophy, in particular, is the antithesis of > Buddhist ethics. In Victoria's own words, "As much as Buddhists, East > and West, may seek to deny it, Buddhism has a long history of > justifying killing, one way or the other" (p. 230). The remainder of > the book is composed of an epilogue that contextualizes the issue of > terrorism in our own times, with reference to events in the United > States and other countries, and a set of three appendices that > provide important and interesting historical background to the events > outlined in the main body. > > The overarching hypothesis of this book, and the trilogy as a > whole--namely that Zen lent fertile intellectual ground to Japanese > expansionism and militarism--is convincingly argued. However, as an > important part of the significance of this particular work lies in > the possible implications of high-ranking figures' involvement in > political violence, it may be argued that the term "terrorist" > conversely obfuscates the point. On the one hand, Victoria bases his > labeling on the fact that terrorism is "a tactic employed, typically > by the weak, to place pressure on the powerful, especially > governments, to do the terrorists' bidding." On the other hand, > however, the fifty-odd pages of appendices and other content > throughout the main body seem very much designed to insinuate that > Inoue was well connected to highly influential men who may have been > controlling his actions for their own gain. What is more, the > insinuation is made (particularly in the section on Tōyama Mitsuru, > pp. 293-95) that Emperor Hirohito may have supported--or even > directed--Inoue's terrorist acts. Surely Hirohito was the polar > opposite of "weak." And, while Inoue is on record referring to > himself as a terrorist (as noted above), why should we take him at > his word when there is evidence to suggest misdirection may have > benefited him? > > When we turn to the issue of Inoue's status as an adherent of the Zen > sect, it is important to note that Victoria's model for defining what > counts as a "Zen Buddhist" in this book appears to be mainly based on > the writings of D. T. Suzuki (see esp. p. xvi). However, as Richard > Jaffe has pointed out, Suzuki's flavor of intellectualized Buddhism > becomes more coherent when understood as a combination of various > religious and philosophical thought traditions of both "East" and > "West."[4] I believe that an important clue to understanding Suzuki > can be found in Judith Snodgrass's suggestion that his understanding > of Buddhism took on a variety of different names over his long > lifetime--with him first promoting it as "Mahāyāna Buddhism," then > "Eastern Buddhism," and then "Zen"--but that the content remained > essentially the same throughout.[5] That is to say, "Zen," in this > case, refers less to the temple-based sect as traditionally > conceived, and more to the idiosyncratic lay spirituality embraced by > Suzuki and other contemporaneous intellectuals such as Inoue > Enryō--with this spirituality being popularly consumed by Japanese > intellectuals in the prewar period under the banner of "Buddhism." > > Viewing Suzuki in this light makes it necessary to question the > legitimacy of labeling other prewar lay Buddhists, such as Inoue > (Nisshō), as being strictly affiliated to any given sect. As in the > case of "terrorism," Inoue certainly does refer to himself as being > an adherent of Zen (see, e.g., pp. 114 and 200), but Inoue's own > statements muddy the waters on this issue: "I don't belong to any > particular sect. My family was affiliated with the Rinzai Zen > sect.... However, at present, my thoughts are almost entirely those > of the Mahāyāna school of Buddhism" (p. 145). Note here that > Snodgrass argued that Suzuki also saw himself primarily as a > "Mahāyāna Buddhist" early in his writing career. Perhaps in this > comment, Inoue had intended to ascribe himself membership to a > similar sort of intellectualized lay Buddhism. Another issue relevant > to explore would be the existence of "pan-Buddhist" organizations > such as Myōwa-kai, which Victoria mentions in relation to its > support of Japan's full-scale invasion of China in 1937 (p. 219). > Perhaps it would be appropriate to understand Inoue's thought more in > the context of prewar intersectarian movements such as the Myōwa-kai > or against the background of efforts by those such as Henry Steel > Olcott and the Theosophical Society to unify the different sects of > Buddhism. > > On a related note, Victoria discusses Inoue's second and most > profound major spiritual experience, which occurred while in prison, > and details how it was primarily brought on through a contemplation > of the writings of Shinran (1173-1263). The authenticity of this > experience, Victoria tells us, was praised by Rinzai Zen master > Yamamoto Gempō; however, Victoria's explanation of Inoue's > overcoming of "what the Zen sect calls the "no-self "(_muga_)" could > be misleading for some readers (p. 110). That is to say, it is very > important to note that the term _muga_ is not at all exclusive to > Zen. And, the obvious question would be, how is _muga_ treated in the > context of Shinran's writings? Although it does not appear > frequently, it can be seen as part of a quote from the _Nirvāṇa > Sūtra _in Shinran's magnum opus, the _Kyōgyōshinshō_. Fittingly, > there is an English translation of this passage by none other than D. > T. Suzuki himself, who renders _muga_ as "no ego": > > "There is really no such thing as murder. Even when the ego really > exists, no harm comes out of the act of murdering. If there is _no > ego_, what harm can come out of it? Why? If there is an ego, the ego > is not subject to change; it is eternal. It then cannot be killed.... > How can we make a criminal case out of killing? If there is _no ego_ > at all, all things are impermanent. If impermanent, they go through > changes every moment. As they are constantly reduced to nothing, both > the killer and the killed are also constantly reduced to nothing. > This being so, who is to be considered guilty? [italics mine]" (p. > 166).[6] > > Here, the_ Nirvāṇa Sūtra_ (at least in Shinran's Japanese > translation) lays out, albeit in the "heretical" voice of court > minister Kichitoku, a logic under which murder becomes not only > permissible but irrelevant and no hindrance to salvation. While a > conclusive analysis of Inoue's relationship with the thought of > Shinran is beyond the scope of this review and my own exegetical > skills, the above quote seems to be of sufficient relevance to > warrant further investigation. Regardless of the result of such, I > would argue that the issue of Inoue's exclusive affiliation to the > Zen sect requires more attention. > > Although obviously only a matter of personal taste, I would have > preferred to have seen the focus on Zen in_ Zen Terror in Prewar > Japan_ being shifted more to an exploration of nonsectarian Buddhism. > The sections on terrorism could have been greatly reduced or excluded > to be replaced with a discussion of the larger issues of fascism and > political violence. And, it would have perhaps improved the flow of > the book to have the appendices reworked into the main body, given > their great importance to the central themes. Victoria's use of the > unreliable autobiographical emic narrative of a terrorist carefully > juxtaposed with objective historical facts, etic categorization, and > elements of what was at the time "pop" Japanese Buddhist philosophy > (I am referring here to works such as those by Suzuki) is an > interesting methodologic template for future studies. It might be > opined, however, that in bringing personal narratives more into focus > in Buddhist studies, we must be ever more vigilant in balancing them > correctly to avoid falling back into a Carlyle-esque "Great Man" > modernist worldview or into a world of moral relativism where values > and "goodness" become irrelevant. > > One of the great benefits of this book is bringing back more squarely > into view an understanding of Japan's wartime aggression as a > backdrop to understanding modern Japanese Buddhism in today's time of > political correctness. Victoria refers to or implies several times > the greed of Western countries in their expansionism in Asia, and it > is important to note that _Zen Terror in Prewar Japan_ is not "Japan > bashing." Rather, it shows how Japan and Japanese Buddhism are not > somehow mystically superior to the West and Western Christianity, but > rather are similarly culpable when it comes to their morally > questionable histories. While the book feels to me like several > monographs squeezed into one, Victoria provides so many helpful and > interesting resources in this book that any small flaws are dwarfed > by its overall importance. Regardless of the ultimate validity of its > hypotheses, the book is sure to open new paths for researchers > concerning the idea of modern Japanese Buddhism and political > violence. I personally found that it reinvigorated my own interest in > the topic and provided many important leads to follow, particularly > in connection with the role Buddhist philosophy may have played in > advice given to the emperor by his inner circle. > > Notes > > [1]. Brian Daizen Victoria, _Zen at War_ (New York: Weatherhill, > 1997), and _Zen War Stories_ (London: Routledge, 2002). > > [2]. That being said, an investigation of Victoria's sources where > Inoue directly or indirectly refers to his own actions as "terrorism" > (see, e.g., pp. 154 and 190) shows that Inoue actually used the > katakana loanword "_tero_," which is satisfying to know in light of > the accusations Victoria mentions of misdirection or mistranslation > in previous works. > > [3]. I refer here to the printing of _Nihonteki reisei_ found in vol. > 8 (1999) of the 1999-2003 edition of Suzuki's complete collected > works, _Suzuki Daisetsu zenshū, _40 vols. (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten); > see pp. 132-33. > > [4]. See Richard Jaffe, ed., _Selected Works of D. T. Suzuki, Volume > I: Zen_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015), > introduction, esp. pp. xiii-xv. > > [5]. Judith Snodgrass, "Japan's Contribution to Modern Global > Buddhism: The World's Parliament of Religions Revisited," _The > Eastern Buddhist _43, nos. 1 and 2 (2012): 81-102; see pp. 82-83 and > 100. > > [6]. Daisetz Teitarō Suzuki, trans., _Shinran's Kyōgyōshinshō: > The Collection of Passages Expounding the True Teaching, Living, > Faith, and Realizing of the Pure Land, _ed. The Center for Shin > Buddhist Studies under supervision of Sengaku Mayeda (New York: > Oxford University Press, 2012). Note that this particular version of > Suzuki's translation, completed circa 1965, was first published in > this edition. See Shinshū Seiten Henshū Iinkai, ed., _Shinshū > seiten_ (Kyoto: Higashi Honganji, 1978), p. 256, for the True Pure > Land sect's version of Shinran's quote of the _Nirvāṇa Sūtra_. > > Citation: Stefan Grace. Review of Victoria, Brian Daizen, _Zen Terror > in Prewar Japan: Portrait of an Assassin_. H-Buddhism, H-Net Reviews. > September, 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55549 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1901): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/1901 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/77060028/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
