Obaku Zen: The Emergence of the Third Sect of Zen in Tokugawa Japan [Paperback]

Helen Josephine Baroni (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: February 2000 | ISBN-10: 0824822439 | ISBN-13: 978-0824822439

This is the first detailed English-language study of the Obaku branch of Japanese Zen. Beginning with the founding of the sect in Japan by Chinese monks in the seventeenth century, the volume describes the conflicts and maneuverings within the Buddhist and secular communities that led to the emergence of Obaku as a distinctive institution during the early Tokugawa period. Throughout, the author explores a wide range of texts and includes excerpts from important primary documents such as the Zenrin shuheishu and the Obaku geki, translated here for the first time. She provides an impressive portrait of the founding Chinese leadership and the first generation of Japanese converts, whose work enabled the fledgling sect to grow and take its place beside existing branches of the closely related Rinzai Zen sect.

Obaku's distinctive Chinese practices and characteristics set it apart from its Japanese counterparts. In an innovative investigation of these differences, the author uses techniques derived from the contemporary study of new religious movements in the West to explain both Obaku's successes and failures in its relations with other Japanese Buddhist sects. She illuminates the role of government support in the initial establishment of the main monastery, Mampuku-ji, and the ongoing involvement of the bakufu and the imperial family in Obaku's early development. Hers is a thorough and well-governed analysis that brings to the fore a religious movement that has been much neglected in Japanese and Western scholarship despite its tremendous influence on modern Japanese Buddhism as a whole.

--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Helen J. Baroni is associate professor in the Department of Religion, University of Hawaii. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Product Details

• Paperback: 280 pages
• Publisher: Univ of Hawaii Pr (February 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0824822439
• ISBN-13: 978-0824822439
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,608,487 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An interesting account, July 6, 2005

By 

Hakuyu "Ikeda" (Kyoto, Japan) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Obaku Zen: The Emergence of the Third Sect of Zen in Tokugawa Japan (Paperback)

This book constitutes the first detailed English-language study of the Obaku branch of Japanese Zen, hitherto nelected in Western studies. It endeavours to outline the background to the emergence of the Obaku-shu in the Tokugawa and its reception within the Japanese community - secular and religious.

While not claiming to be a guide to the practices of the Obaku-shu, Baroni's study does touch on the distinctive methods which have characterised the school. To this end, Baroni has examined primary sources detailing the formation of the Obaku-shu, including those available at the Mampukuji Obakuzan, the Honzan or main temple of the Obaku-shu in Uji, near Kyoto. As Baroni observes "Rinzai scholars have generally dismissed Obaku as an abberant or even heretical form of Rinzai practice , the study of which adds nothing significant to an understanding of Rinzai teaching or history. " A current Western Zen glossary has described the Obaku-shu as 'practically of no importance today' - but, with 460 temples scattered throughout Japan(587, including smaller branch temples), that is unfair judgement.Baroni's study goes some way to revise that rather jaundiced perspective. However, she has included material from Mujaku Dochu's 'Obaku-geki' and Keirin Sushin's 'Zenrin Shuhei shu' - which present the Obaku-shu in a less than favourable light.

As a relatively 'late' arrival (most of the famous Rinzai and Soto temples in Japan had been established in the Kamakura), the appearance of Ingen Zenji (1592-1673) and teachings informed by the 'Ming' re-statement of Ch'an/Zen, aroused mixed reactions. It effectively led to the formation of the 'Obaku-shu' as the 'third' school of Zen in Japan. This says something about the politics of Japanese Buddhism, for technically speaking, Ingen - the Chinese founder of the Obaku Shu, came from a Lin-chi(Rinzai) background. Going by Baroni's remarks, it seems doubtful whether the authorities who invited Ingen to take up residence in Western Japan had originally envisaged setting up a 'third' school. Baroni explores the various tensions which led to the formation of the 'Obaku-shu' as a separate entity in Japanese Zen Buddhism.

Ostensibly, the chief issue here, likely to be of interest to Western Buddhists, is the status of the Obaku-shu's joint Zen/Pure-Land -practice. While some of the Kyoto Buddhist fraternity welcomed the arrival of 'fresh blood' from China, others seem to have adopted a less favourable view. As noted above, Ingen's teaching reflected Ch'an/Zen as found in its 'Ming' style (the incorporation of Pure-land practices with Ch'an/Zen, by then having become an established fact). Alongside other factors, this was not to the likings of key figures at the Myoshinji, even though Ingen had been invited to Western Japan through the initative of Ryokei (1602-1670) - then Abbot of Myoshinji, who had even envisaged placing Ingen in charge of this renowned temple. Expectations had been high, after the first reports of Ingen's teaching came from the temples in Nagasaki, where Ingen had more or less been confined since his arrival in Japan.

What Baroni relates concerns a rather complex process of inculturation. Up to a point, the very appeal of Ingen's circle was its 'Chineseness.' Without offering a contrast, or some distinguishing feature to set it apart from the established Zen schools, the Obaku-shu would not have been able to garner support or patronage. As we learn from Hakuin's experience, Rinzai Zen was in a state of decline in the Tokugawa. Hence, the fresh arrival of Chinese masters promised to be a welome source of stimulation. The downside to this, is that the Obaku-shu appears to have cultivated certain elitist traits, encouraged by - or affected by, some Japanese supporters. It seems that some monks in Ingen's circle paraded their 'Chinese' orthodoxy a little too ostentatiously. Still, the extent to which Ingen personally chose to exploit the 'difference' remains open to question. As we have noted, in the context of Chinese Buddhism, Ingen was technically a member of the Rinzai (Lin-chi)shu. Paradoxically, the title 'Obaku-shu' (Huang Po sect or school) suggests identity, even as it marks or signifies difference, for the name was taken from the mountain/temple where Rinzai's master (Huang-po) had been ordained. In the years prior to his departure for Japan, Ingen had presided over the restoration of the Obaku-zan Mampukuji (Huang-po shan, Wan Fu Ssu) in Fujian.

To an extent, the defining 'difference' - what set the Obaku-shu apart, had been determined by external factors. In other respects, doctrinal and institutional factors - peculiar to Ingen's background, did make him different. Along with the joint Zen/Pure Land practice, Ingen had introduced a revised form of ordination ceremony, utilising a platform with three levels (san-dan kaie). In itself, that ought not to have presented problems. However, Ingen's transmission line was linked with Fei-yin's 'Wu Teng yen-tung' (J. Goto gento) - 'The Exact Lineage of the Five Lamps' effectively claiming to present a 'revised' definition of the major Ch'an lineages. Fei-yin's account made Ingen's transmission line the 'Lin-chi chen-tsung' (J. Rinzai shoshu) or 'authentic school of Lin-chi Ch'an.' Given the bearing this would have had upon Rinzai centres in Japan, whose 'orthodoxy' had been shaped centuries before Fei-yin penned the 'Wu Teng yen tung,'one might have expected to find this issue discussed at length - but, somewhat surprisingly, Baroni says relatively little about the matter, confining her remarks in that respect, to four or five pages. Far from registering opposition, Baroni notes the positive influence the 'Wu-teng yen-tung' exerted, convincing Japanese Buddhists such as Choon (1628-1695)to approach Ingen. Retrospectively, Fei-yin's lineage chart included the eminent Chung-feng (1262-1323), whose influence upon Japanese Rinzai Zen had been considerable. Choon felt a particular affinity with Chung-feng's teachings, and thus placed himself under Ingen's tutelage. Choon secured patronage in Edo, and eventually founded the Zuisho-ji, Obaku's main temple in Edo, going on to found twenty- five branch temples in the provinces of Kozuke and Shinano. As such, the Obaku-shu is not quite the isolated school it has sometimes been painted as. It is of note that the retired Emperor, Gomizunoo, placed himself under Ingen's tutelage, albeit indirectly, according to custom, through a senior Japanese monk, and evidently practised with sufficient resolve, to be listed as 'Zen-ji' in Obaku-shu records.

The Obaku-shu's rather distant relationship with the Rinzai temples in Kyoto and other centres, brings us back to the question of its definining practices. Explicit critics of the Obaku-shu, such as Muchaku Dochu, had felt troubled by the prospect of joint Zen/'Pure-land' practice' - with 'ethnic' complications to boot. His 'Obaku Geki' is scathing toward the Obaku-shu, frowning on the way certain Obaku followers touted their 'Chinese' orthodoxy. There appears to have been a kind of 'double snobbery' involved. Looking back to their roots in the Kamakura, influenced by eminent monks from Sung China, or else Japanese masters who had visited Sung China, some Japanese Buddhists began to parade their own brand of elitism. Still, it is worth noting that the Obaku-shu regarded some koan practices - by then well established in Japanese Rinzai Zen - as sterile and artificial, which raises the question whether they were of Chinese origin at all, despite the usual assumptions. Baroni notes that according to the records, Ingen often devised spontaneous koan of his own, according to the situation - without reference to the quasi-canonical sources (e.g. the Hekiganroku, Mumonkan etc.). It is a pity that Baroni did not make more of such material.

Hakuin - writing in the later Tokugawa, was critical of joint Zen/Pure Land practice - but, strangely enough, he refers to it as if it had been a relatively recent phenomenon. It first appeared with definite shape, as part of an explicit 'synthesis' - in the teachings of Yung Ming (904-975)and especially his 'Tsung-Ching Lu' (Jp. Sugyoroku) - a work not only well known to Japanese Buddhists in the Rinzai 'Gozan' (Five Mountain)system, but reprinted by them in the late Kamakura and Muromachi periods. Eminent monks such as Enni Benen (1202-1280) in charge of the Tofukuji, had given lectures on this text. The Tenryuji had authorised a reprint in 1371. Earlier generations of monks in the Rinzai tradition had evidently taken a deep interest in Yung-ming's ideas, embracing a 'synthesis' between Zen and Pure Land. Thus, all things considered, it would be hard to argue that Ingen's teaching per se, represented a radical departure from these earlier precedents. Hence, derogatory appelations such as 'Ming Zen' need to be viewed with caution, if the intention is to present the Sung-influenced Zen of the Kamakura as a 'purer' model - devoid of 'syncretistic' elements. Besides, Chung-feng -who lived well after the Sung, and whose writings had been extolled by Hakuin, also recognised 'Pure Land' practices. Hakuin hadn't rejected the 'Pure-land' method as such, and even recommended it as a separate practice. He just didn't think it was a good idea to combine them. The problem here, is that the type of 'Pure Land' practice which had struck the dominant note in Japanese Buddhism (i.e. Shinran's) more or less ruled out 'joint-practice.' As an extreme form of 'tariki' or reliance on 'other power,' it was hard to reconcile with Zen and its stress on 'jiriki' or 'self-power.' Still, Baroni is clear about the fact that this problem would not have applied to the Obaku-shu's understanding of 'joint-practice' - for whom 'Pure-land' would not have meant absolute 'tariki. For its own part, the perspective of the Obaku-shu is 'Pure-land on the outside,... Read more ›