Pure Land Buddhist Studies. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2016. xii, 181 pp. US$52.00, cloth. ISBN 978-0-8248-5632-8.
Paul Watt’s new book, which features an extensive introduction to Yasuda Rijin and Pure Land Buddhist thought, followed by translations of six of Yasuda’s dense philosophical works, is not an easy read. As a premodernist most familiar with Shin Buddhism in its medieval forms, I found Yasuda’s writing, with its many invocations of German philosophy, quite challenging. But the book is well worth the effort required, for in these pages we gain access not only to the depth and seriousness of twentieth-century Shin Buddhist engagement with Indian, Chinese, and Western philosophy, but also to a crucial component of modern Japanese Buddhist intellectual history.
Watt’s book is organized as follows: Part I, which is just over 40 pages, presents a biography of Yasuda Rijin and an overview of Pure Land Buddhist thought. It then places Yasuda in the context of the Seishinshugi (“Spiritual Awareness”) movement associated with Kiyozawa Manshi (1863–1903), Kaneko Daiei (1881–1976), and Soga Ryōjin (1875–1971) and delineates Yasuda’s own reinterpretation of Shin Buddhism. Yasuda, Watt explains, was the “most articulate spokesperson” of Seishinshugi philosophy. One of the core messages of this philosophy was that Amida Buddha and his Pure Land, so central to Pure Land doctrine, were not “otherworldly realities” but rather concepts that enable sentient beings to “discover their true identity” (34). Or, as Yasuda puts it, awakening is about achieving an “inner reality” where the mind is “at ease” (75, 109).
In Part II, which comprises the remaining two-thirds of the book, Watt provides translations of six different works. He groups the first two together, under Yasuda’s earliest writings, and presents the remaining four, which are longer, individually. Attached to each is a short introduction that provides context and outlines major objectives of the work at hand. As Watt explains, most of Yasuda’s works are both focused and erudite, meaning that they often read “more like meditations rather than philosophy” (34). In other words, Yasuda tends to expand at length on a single insight or set of insights, often forgoing contextualization and restating key ideas multiple times, but in slightly different ways.
Although I would describe this book as a difficult read, Watt’s introduction is clearly written and accessible. His overview of the Shin Buddhist tradition, which traces the intellectual threads of Shin Buddhist thought back to major Indian and Chinese figures, such as Nāgārjuna (2nd-3rd c. CE), Vasubandhu (4th-5th c. CE), Tanluan (476–542), Daochuo (562-645), and Shandao (613–681), are illuminating. Here we see that many of the seemingly radical interpretations of Yasuda have roots in the classical works of these figures. Tanluan, for example, proposed that Amida could be understood as “formless, ineffable reality itself” (22). I also appreciated the deftness with which Watt draws parallels between Shin understandings of entrustment (shinjin) and the general insight, commonly articulated in Mahayana traditions, that enlightenment is ultimately about “the transformation of mind” and “insight into the true nature of reality.” When the Shin concept of shinjin is reduced to this definition, Watt explains, it sounds strikingly similar to Chan and Zen descriptions of enlightenment (24). Still, while this observation may ring true to those who have heard contemporary Zen priests describe fleeting moments of insight or “being the Buddha” in language similar to that used by Shin priests to talk about experiencing the Pure Land for brief moments within everyday life, it also begs for further explanation. In particular, it would be fruitful to examine the degree to which similarities between Shin and Zen descriptions of enlightenment reflect specific developments in the intellectual history of modern Japanese Buddhism.
Watt’s translations of Yasuda’s difficult work are quite readable, and I admire the intelligence—and mental grit—that these translations reflect. Still, some additional help for the reader would be useful. Watt does provide helpful endnotes, but in many places I would have been grateful for lengthy footnotes or even more thorough introductions. Additionally, Part I could be expanded to address the innovations of Yasuda’s thought in more detail.
I learned a great deal from this book, both from the introduction and from Yasuda’s essays, but I was also left with many questions. A number of these undoubtedly reflect my own ignorance of modern Shin thought. As I struggled to make sense of the radical re-interpretations of Shin Buddhism offered by Yasuda and his teachers, I benefitted from the volume Cultivating Spirituality: A Modern Shin Buddhist Anthology, edited by Mark Blum and Robert Rhodes (Albany: SUNY University Press, 2011). It turns out that Watt initially published several of his translations of Yasuda’s work, as well as a shorter biography of Yasuda, in Cultivating Spirituality. Blum’s introductory essay in that volume, “Shin Buddhism in the Meiji Period,” provides essential historical background that contextualizes the innovations of the Seishinshugi philosophers and, specifically, what they were reacting against. It may be that Watt did not want to repeat what Blum had already explained so effectively in this essay, but as an outsider to modern Shin Buddhist thought, I found Blum’s essay crucial for understanding Yasuda’s ideas, especially his emphasis on practice and individual experience, both of which, at first glance, might seem to contradict Shinran’s well known exhortations that we rely on tariki (Other-power) rather than jiriki (self-power).
Many of Yasuda’s writings engage with Western philosophy extensively, especially that of Heidegger, Buber, and Tillich. This is another area where I felt Watt could have provided the reader with additional context. How representative was Yasuda’s use of these philosophers? Were other Shin thinkers invoking them, and if so, what was distinctive about Yasuda’s engagement with Western philosophy? What, specifically, about these philosophers made them useful to Yasuda’s project? Along the same lines, it would also be useful to consider in an even more sustained and systematic way the roles of D.T. Suzuki and Nishida Kitarō in the development of Yasuda’s thought.
The high level of sophistication evident in Yasuda’s writing also made me wonder about his audience. What do we know about the dissemination of his ideas? Watt is clear that Shin authorities regarded many of the Seishinshugi philosophers as radicals and sometimes even heretics (33–34). I found myself wanting to know more about the demographics of those who received and supported Seishinshugi philosophy. Who was reading the journals these men published in, and who was attending their lectures?
Another, related set of questions has to do with the legacy of Yasuda’s thought. Clearly the “demythologization” of Shin Buddhist thought undertaken by the Seishinshugi philosophers has had a lasting impact on modern and contemporary Shin Buddhism. But what exactly does this influence look like, and where, specifically, do we see it? Who are the more recent inheritors of Yasuda’s intellectual legacy?
In short, Watt has left us with some very exciting questions for future research. I commend him on this important contribution to the field and look forward to future studies of modern and contemporary Shin thought.
Lori R. Meeks
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
pp. 595-597