The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 14 | Issue 17 | Number 7 | Article ID 4921 | Sep 01, 2016

1

Reconsidering Zen, Samurai, and the Martial Arts

Oleg Benesch

Anders Breivik at his trial

On July 22, 2011, Anders Behring Breivikcommitted one of the most devastating acts ofmass murder by an individual in history. Overthe course of one day, he killed 77 people inand around Oslo, Norway, through acombination of a car bomb and shootings. Thelatter took place on the island of Utøya, where69 people died, most of them teenagersattending an event sponsored by the Workers’Youth League. During his subsequent trial,Breivik remained outwardly unemotional as heclearly recounted the events of the day,including the dozens of methodical execution-style shootings on the island. His calmness both

on the day of the murders and during the trial,shocked many observers. It was also animportant factor in an attempt to declareBreivik insane, a move that he successfullyresisted. Breivik himself addressed this subjectat some length, crediting his supposed abilityto suppress anxiety and the fear of deaththrough concentrated practice of what hecalled “bushido meditation.” He claimed tohave begun this practice in 2006 to “de-emotionalize” himself in preparation for asuicide attack.1 According to Breivik, hismeditation was based on a combination of“Christian prayer” and the “bushido warriorcodex.”2 Bushido, or “the way of the warrior,” isoften portrayed as an ancient moral codefollowed by the Japanese samurai, although thehistorical evidence shows that it is largely atwentieth-century construct.3

The extent to which the methodical nature ofBreivik’s terror attack could be ascribed to hismeditation techniques, “bushido” or otherwise,has been called into question by those who seeit as another manifestation of serious mentaldisturbance. On the other hand, Breivik’sstatements regarding “bushido meditation”have parallels with the “Warrior MindTraining” program implemented by the USmilitary during the Iraq War. This programclaims to have its roots in “the ancient samuraicode of self-discipline,” and is described as ameditation method for dealing with a host ofmental issues related to combat.4 Both AndersBreivik and Warrior Mind Training reflect apersistent popular perception of the samurai asfighting machines who were able to suppressany fear of death through the practice ofmeditation techniques based in Zen Buddhism.Zen has also been linked with the Special

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

2

Attack Forces (or “Kamikaze”) of the SecondWorld War, who supposedly used meditationmethods ascribed to Zen to prepare for theirsuicide missions.5 This view of Zen as a tool formilitary use is found in many works onJapanese history and culture, which tend toaccept the supposedly ancient relationshipbetween Zen and the samurai.

Suzuki Daisetsu

The relationship between the samurai and ZenBuddhism is often traced back to the thirteenthcentury, which saw both a rise of warriorpower and the increased introduction of Zenteachings from China. The affinity of warriorsfor Zen is generally explained by their ability toidentify with Zen teachings and incorporatethem into their lives. As Winston L. King writesof Zen, “from the beginning of Zen’s ‘new’presence, its meditation and disciplinecommended themselves to the samurai, of bothhigh and low rank.”6 The modern Zenpopularizer Suzuki Daisetsu (D.T. Suzuki;1870-1966) was one of the best-knownpromoters of theoretical connections betweenZen and Japan’s warrior class. In his best-

selling Zen and Japanese Culture, Suzukiclaimed that Zen was “intimately related fromthe beginning of its history to the life of thesamurai…” and “…activate(d)…the fightingspirit of the Japanese warrior.”7 The martialarts are often portrayed as an important pointof intersection between Zen and the samurai,epitomized through a number of popular works.The most influential text linking Zen and themartial arts is Eugen Herrigel’s (1884-1955)orientalist 1948 book Zen in der Kunst desBogensch iessens (Zen in the Ar t o fArchery).8 Herrigel’s contentions rested largelyon a personal fascination with mysticism andZen, combined with confusion arising from aserious language barrier between himself andh i s a rchery ins t ruc to r , Awa Kenzō(1880-1939).9 Through the influence of theseand other modern interpreters, the martial artshave come to be seen as a window throughwhich Zen and the “samurai spirit” areaccessible to millions of people around theworld today.

This article will show, however, that therelationship between Zen, samurai, and themartial arts is neither as close, nor as ancient,as it is widely believed to be. In fact, theaccepted connections between the three arelargely products of the late nineteenth andearly twentieth centuries, when Japanesethinkers in an era of rapid change soughtanswers and legitimacy in ancient and nobletradition. To this end, this article first considersthe historical evidence to question thesupposed close connection between Zen andthe samurai, as well as Zen and the martialarts. It then provides an overview of thedevelopment of bushido in the late Meiji period(1868-1912), which completely revised popularunderstandings of the samurai. The article thenconsiders the activities of promoters of martialarts and Zen Buddhism in the development ofbushido, as they sought to tie their causes tothe burgeoning new ideology. Finally, thisarticle looks at the ways in which the Zen-samurai connection became established in

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

3

mainstream understandings of Japanese historyand culture in the decades leading up to 1945,and how this view continued to be acceptedlargely without question in the postwar period.

Historical backgrounds

The popular view that Japanese warriors havelong had an affinity for Zen is not entirelyincorrect, as Zen institutions did have severalpowerful patrons in the Kamakura (1185-1333)and Muromachi (1336-1573) periods. On theother hand, recent scholarship indicates thatZen’s popularity among the elite was mostoften motivated by practical considerationsrather than doctrine. Martin Colcutt arguesthat Zen teachings were too difficult for manylower-ranking warriors, “most of whomcontinued to find a less demanding, but equallysatisfying, religious experience in the simplerBuddhist teachings of Shinran, Nichiren, orIppen.”10 Colcutt further argues that even at itspeak in the late fourteenth century, Zen couldbe called “the religion of the samurai” merelybecause most of its followers were warriors,but this did not mean that most warriorsfollowed Zen, let alone reach a high level ofp rac t i ce . 1 1 As o ther scho la r s havedemonstrated, the vast majority of warriorsfollowed other schools of Buddhism, includingboth established and new orders, with moreaccessible teachings.12

Among elite military families, patronage of Zenwas based on political, economic, and culturalfactors that were largely unrelated to doctrine.On the political front, Zen presented a non-threatening alternative to the powerful Shingonand Tendai Buddhist institutions thatdominated Kyoto and were closely allied to theimperial court.13 Economically, trade withChina was an important source of revenue forearly medieval rulers, and Zen monks’knowledge of Chinese language and culture,combined with their administrative abilities,made them a natural choice as ambassadors tothe continent. As Zen institutions grew, the

frequent sale of high temple offices becameincreasingly lucrative, eventually bringing evengreater income than t rade wi th thecontinent.14 With regard to the culturalimportance of Zen to elites, Zen templesconducted diplomacy with Song (960-1279) andYuan China (1271-1368), which were theprimary sources of artistic and culturalinnovations in this period, including teaceremony, monochromatic paint ing,calligraphy, poetry, architecture, gardendesign, and printing.15

Political, economic, and cultural considerationswere the primary factors behind the officialpromotion of Zen institutions by the Kamakuraand Muromachi shogunates, although therewere a few military and court leaders whoattempted to delve more deeply into Zenpractice. The shogun Hōjō Tokimune(1251-1284) is reported to have been a devotedstudent of Zen, studying under the Chinesemonk Wuxue Zuyuan (1226–1286). An anecdoterelated by Colcutt provides a glimpse into theshogun’s practice, including some of thedifficulties experienced by his teacher:“Discussions on Zen (zazen) were conductedthrough an interpreter. When the masterw i s h e d t o s t r i k e h i s d i s c i p l e f o rincomprehension or to encourage greaterefforts, the blows fell on the interpreter.”16 Themajor Zen temples consolidated their positionsas wealthy and powerful administrativeinstitutions, but as the medieval period wenton, there was a serious decline in doctrinalcontent. By the late fifteenth century “little orno Zen of any variety was being taught in theGozan [major Rinzai institutions].”17 Thesituation was similar in other Zen schools.These underwent a major dilution of doctrinethrough the increased displacement of Zenstudy by esoteric elements and formulaicapproaches that made teachings moreaccessible.18

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

4

Zen in the Art of Archery

The doctrinal connection between the Zenschools and Japanese warriors before theseventeenth century was certainly superficial,and even after this time, there is little evidenceof exceptional samurai interest in Zen doctrine.In contrast, a number of scholars argue thatsamurai engaged with Zen practice rather thandoctrine, and the martial arts are often invokedas supposedly providing such a connection:“The ethos of modern martial arts is derivedfrom the Japanese marriage of the samuraicode to Zen in Kamakura times,” when the“samurai practiced martial arts as a pathtoward awakening.”19 Heinrich Dumoulin’sseminal History of Zen takes a typically vague

approach, reflecting the lack of evidencelinking Zen and the martial arts. On the onehand, Dumoulin speculates that “Long beforethe introduction of Zen meditation, Japaneseinfantry-archers were probably acquainted withZen-like—or better, Yoga-like—practices suchas breath control.”20 On the other hand,Dumoulin cites Herrigel’s problematic accountas evidence for a Zen-archery connection,claiming that Herrigel’s instructor Awa Kenzōwas “full of the spirit of Zen,” when Awahimself denied having any connection withZen.21 At the same time, Dumoulin concedesthat the evidence for a strong link between Zenand archery is circumstantial: “Like all aspectsof Japan’s cultural life during the middle ages,the art of archery also came under theformative influence of Zen Buddhism. Amongthe many famous master archers of that period,not a few had had Zen experience. They didnot, however, form any kind of association.”Furthermore, “The different archery groups inJapan have maintained their independencefrom the Zen school.”22

While many promoters of the Zen-samuraiconnection focus on the Kamakura period,others situate the relationship much later in theTokugawa period (1603-1868): “The applicationof Zen theory and practice to the training ofmartial skill and technique, and the investing ofthe warrior life with spiritual values, are reallyTokugawa phenomena.”23 As evidence for thislatter claim, modern Zen popularizers often citethe interest in swordsmanship displayed by afew Zen figures during the early seventeenthcentury. However, this does not mean that asignificant number of Zen practitioners werealso swordsmen, nor does it mean that amajority of the innumerable fencing schoolshad any Zen connections. As Cameron Hurstwrites, “We have to be very careful with theidea of combining Zen and swordsmanship orasserting that ‘swordsmanship and Zen areone’ (kenzen ichinyo). There is no necessaryconnection between the two, and few warriorswere active Zen practitioners.”24 Dumoulin also

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

5

addresses this subject, writing that “During theEdo period, the art of swordsmanship—like theindependently popular art of archery—wasinspired just as much, if not more, by theprevalent teachings of Confucianism.” Hecontinues: “it is clear that the military arts ofarchery and swordsmanship do not belongessentially to the world of Zen, despite certainclose relationships. Both arts maintained ani n d e p e n d e n t i d e n t i t y o f t h e i rown.”25 Dumoulin’s claims in this regard arebased on the popularly accepted connectionsbetween Zen and the martial arts, rather thanhistorical evidence.

The ideal of the Zen swordsman is epitomizedby the writer Yoshikawa Eiji’s (1892-1962)influential, and largely fictional, portrayal ofMiyamoto Musashi (1584?-1645) in his best-selling novels Miyamoto Musashi, firstpublished between 1935 and 1939. Relativelylittle is known of the historical Musashi, andYoshikawa fleshed out his narrative by addingmany details and anecdotes. One of theseinvolved having Musashi study under the RinzaiZen master Takuan Sōhō (1573-1645), althoughthere is no evidence that the two men evermet.26 Here, Yoshikawa was inspired by modernpromoters of the Zen-samurai connection, andespecially the ideas of his close friend, thenationalist Yasuoka Masahiro (1898–1983).27 AsPeter Haskel implies, Takuan would have towait until the modern period to have hisgreatest influence, as his writings were firstpicked up by bushidō ideologists in the lateimperia l per iod and then revived bybusinessmen—the so-called “economicsoldiers”—in the 1970s and 80s.28

With regard to the historical Takuan, while hehad no discernible connection with Musashi,and was not a skilled swordsman himself, hedid provide guidance to the fencing instructorYagyū Munenori (1571-1646).29 In his writingsto Yagyū, Takuan explained the advantages ofZen training to swordsmen, stating that theconcepts of “no-mind” and “immovable

wisdom” applied to all activities, includingfencing, but th is was only one of h isinterests.30 Takuan was not exclusivelyinterested in martial matters, and his writingswere certainly not only addressed to warriors.William Bodiford summarizes the influence ofTakuan’s Record of Immovable Wisdom(Fudōchi shinmyōroku), which was finallypublished in 1779, as follows: “…Takuan’sinstructions have been included in innumerableanthologies addressed not only to martial artdevotees but to general audiences as well, andthus they have helped promote the popularperception that Zen is an intrinsic element ofmartial art training. It would perhaps be moreaccurate to say that success in the martial artsdemands mental discipline, a topic about whichZen monks (among others) have much to say.”31

A similar situation can be seen in the case ofSuzuki Shōsan (1579-1655), a samurai whoexperienced various battles before becoming amonk. Suzuki is often cited by later writersattempting to link Zen and the warrior class,especially as he wrote precepts specifically forsamurai and had actual military experience.However, the image of Suzuki’s teachings as“warrior Zen” was created through carefulselection of his writings, which span half acentury and vary widely. Over his lifetime,Suzuki included elements of Daoism,Confucianism, Pure Land Buddhism, and Shintoin his teachings, and his attitude towards deathdid not always reflect the stoic detachmentlater attributed to samurai Zen. While some ofhis texts speak of eliminating the self anddrawing energy from death, elsewhere Suzukiwrote of his own fears of death and arguedagainst killing. “What I teach is Buddhism forcowards,” Suzuki wrote, later adding that “If itwas up to me I’d say I practice just because Ihate death….Everybody loves Buddhism. Iknow nothing about Buddhism. All I work at isnot being subject to death…” Of his ownabilities, Suzuki stated that “The only thing Ihave over others is the degree to which I detestdeath. That’s what’s made me practice with the

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

6

warrior’s glare. Really, it’s because of my verycowardice that I’ve made it this far.”32 Suzuki’sprecepts for samurai should further be seen inthe context and goal of his best-known work,Right Action for All (Banmin tokuyō), whichaddressed all classes and sought to promote hisown interpretation of Buddhism as the correctfaith.3 3 Like Takuan, Suzuki desired todemonstrate that his teachings could beapplied to all activities and classes, andwarriors were merely one group that he feltcould benefit from them.

A third Tokugawa-period Zen figure often citedby proponents of the Zen-samurai connection isHakuin Ekaku (1686-1768), an influential figurein the Rinzai school.34 Hakuin believed that histeachings could be useful to all classes, andalso discussed specific ways in which Zenpractice could be of use to samurai. However,this should be seen in the context of his desireto spread Rinzai teachings, rather than asevidence of any exceptional interest in thesamurai, who Hakuin described elsewhere as“useless.”35 Hakuin echoed the thoughts ofmany of his contemporaries when he wrote ofthe “timid, negligent, careless warriors of thesedegenerate days,” who had declined from along-past ideal. “They scream pretentiouslythat they are endowed at birth with asubstantial amount of strength and that there isno need to depend upon being rescued byanother’s power, yet when an emergency arisesthey are the first to run and hide and tobesmirch and debase the fame of their warriorancestors.”36 Hakuin’s harsh criticisms of hissamurai contemporaries have generally beenleft out of modern works seeking to place himin a “samurai Zen” tradition.

Relatively few Zen figures showed an interestin the martial arts, and their attitudes did notnecessarily align with the interpretations putforth by modern promoters of “samurai Zen.”On the other hand, like samurai in general,martial arts practitioners in the Tokugawaperiod were largely ambivalent towards

Zen.3 7 Although many fencing schoolsincorporated spiritual elements, these weretyp ica l ly an ec lect ic mix o f Sh into ,Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism, and folkreligion specific to the individual teacher.38 Inhis detailed case study of the Kashima-Shinryūschool of martial arts, Karl Friday has arguedthat it was “compatible with almost anyreligious affiliation or lack thereof,” andvarious generations of masters drew upon awide variety of different religious andphilosophical traditions to construct their ownspiritual frameworks.39 This applied to manydifferent schools of martial arts in Japan.Alexander Bennett describes even early schoolsof swordsmanship as resembling “pseudo-religious cults,” a condition that became moreestablished during the peace of the Tokugawaperiod.40 Spiritual elements, especially thoseborrowed from esoteric religious traditions,were important marketing tools for martial artsschools, as they promised prospective studentsaccess to unique and secret knowledgeunavailable to outsiders. Later, around the turnof the twentieth century, promoters of Zen tookadvantage of this ambiguity, and portrayed Zenteachings as having been the dominant force inthe typically opaque mixture of spiritualtraditions that coursed through the martial artsschools of the Tokugawa period.

From the various perspectives of samurai, Zenfigures, and martial artists in the Tokugawaperiod, the evidence does not support a clearand significant connection between Zen andthe martial arts or any “way of the samurai.”Conversely, the texts most frequently cited assources of bushido in modern Japan contradictmany of the assertions made by promoters ofZen. Tokyo Imperial University philosophyprofessor Inoue Tetsujirō’s (1856-1944) 1905collection of Tokugawa-era documents, TheBushido Library (Bushidō sōsho), establishedthe core of the bushido canon until at least1945, and his selection continues to have astrong influence on scholarship today. WhenInoue was selecting texts for this collection,

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

7

promoters of Zen were still in the early stagesof engagement with bushido discourse. Thetexts chosen by Inoue were quite diverse intheir interpretations of the duties andobligations of samurai, but were almost all inagreement in their rejection of Buddhism,reflecting the dominant sentiment amongTokugawa samurai.41 The Bushido Libraryincludes writings by Kumazawa Banzan(1619-1691), Yamaga Sokō (1622-1685),Yamazaki Ansai (1619-1682), Muro Kyūsō(1658-1734), and Kaibara Ekiken (1630-1714),all of whom are frequently cited by modernbushido theorists.42

Inoue Tetsujiro

Bushido Library (Bushido sosho), 1905

Yamaga Sokō, the most important exponent ofsamurai ethics in the eyes of most modernbushido theorists, dismissed Zen as useless, aview shared by his influential later student,Yoshida Shōin (1830-1859).43 For his part,Kumazawa Banzan criticized the Pure Land,Nichiren, Shingon, and Tendai sects, and statedthat Zen was the worst of them all in the extentto which it deluded its followers.44 Criticism ofZen by samurai writers continued to the veryend of the Tokugawa period, with theprominent reformer Yokoi Shōnan (1809-1869)deriding it as an “empty” teaching.45 YamamotoTsunetomo (1659-1719)—the source of thefamous ly dea th - focused Hagakuretext—claimed to have retired to a Zen temple

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

8

as a symbolic death after being prevented fromcommitting ritual suicide upon his lord’spassing. This choice seems to have been madefor practical rather than religious reasons,however, and Hagakure cites a Zen priest asstating that Buddhism is for old men ratherthan samurai.46 Hagakure contains little thatcould be regarded as specifically Zen in origin.Instead, in keeping with similar tracts at thetime, it most frequently mentions the “gods andBuddhas” and “family gods (ujigami)” of a moregeneral folk religion.47 Yamamoto’s stateddesire was not to attain enlightenment, but tobe reincarnated as a retainer as often aspossible in order to better serve his lord’sdescendants.48

Buddhism, samurai, and the origins ofbushido in Meiji

The establishment of State Shinto in the earlyMeiji period presented a serious challenge toall schools of Buddhism. This new institutionwas intended to formalize and universalizeemperor-worship in the new Japanese state,while simultaneously acting as a tool for thesuppression of foreign religions. AlthoughChristianity seems the most obvious target inthis regard, Buddhism was also fiercelyattacked as a “foreign religion” by state-supported Shinto nationalists. Buddhismarguably suffered the greatest shock in thisperiod, as temples suddenly went from beingthe official registries of all Japanese householdsduring the Tokugawa period to beingpersecuted, disowned of property, and evendisbanded. Government policies restrictingBuddhism met with widespread protest, andthe military was required to quell uprisings insome parts of Japan. The state soon realizedthat the harshest policies were not tenable, andattempted l imited reconcil iation andincorporation of Buddhism into the State Shintostructure, thereby preventing major additionaloutbreaks of violence. Buddhism remaineddistinctly second-class relative to Shinto in theofficial state ideology until 1945, but it

continued to dominate popular religious life inmany areas.

Following the protests of early Meiji, Buddhistsmet the challenges in different ways. JamesKetelaar has examined the movements tocreate a “modern Buddhism” through thereform of sectarian academies into moderninstitutions of broader instruction, and todevelop Japanese Buddhism into somethingthat would be recognized internationally as auniversal religion.49 Another response,especially from the 1890s onward, was one ofalmost aggressive attempts to conform to thenew order. This included proving to thegovernment that Buddhism could play apractical role within the emperor-focusedorder. Important activities included the UnitedMovement for Revering the Emperor andRevering the Buddha (Sonnō hōbutsudaidōdan), formed in 1889 in order to“preserve the prosperity of the imperialhousehold and increase the power ofBuddhism,” and to help Buddhists to securegovernment positions.50 To regain nationalacceptance, Buddhists focused on the longhistory of their religion in Japan and thesupposedly inseparable roots of Buddhism andthe Japanese character. The first discussion ofBuddhism’s links with bushido in the 1890swere part of the response to nationalisticchallenges that accompanied modernity.

The first decades of Meiji posed greatchallenges to Japanese Buddhism, and theywere no less tumultuous for the samurai.Sonoda Hidehiro has described the period from1840-1880 as one of “decline of the warriorclass,” including the last decades of theT o k u g a w a p e r i o d i n h i sexamination.5 1 Arguments concerningintangible changes such as a loss of spirit orgeneral degeneration of the samurai werenostalgic for an ideal that never existed in thatform, but they are one of the most commonthemes in late Tokugawa writings. The feelingof decline and nostalgia is clear in personal

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

9

accounts by nineteenth century samurai, suchas Katsu Kokichi (1802-1850) and Buyō Inshi(dates unknown).52 Influential figures such asYoshida Shōin and Yokoi Shōnan lamentedwhat they saw as the poor state of the samuraiin the 1850s and 1860s. In the early 1870s,William Elliot Griffis wrote that “…the majority[of samurai] spent their life in eating, smoking,and lounging in brothels and teahouses, or leda wild life of crime in one of the great cities.When too deeply in debt, or having committeda crime, they left their homes and the service oftheir masters, and roamed at large.”53 Griffis’description of the recent past may haveexaggerated the extent of samurai delinquency,but it reflected popular contemporary views.

The samurai, who had been made effectivelyredundant by the formation of a newconscripted imperial army based on Europeanmodels, gradually had their hereditary stipendsand privileges stripped away by a series ofdecrees in the years after 1868. Having lostboth the ideological and practical support fortheir traditional exalted position in society,many struggled to adapt to the new order,resulting in a number of violent uprisings.These culminated with the 1877 SatsumaRebellion in Southwestern Japan, whichinvolved tens of thousands of disgruntledformer samurai, and was only suppressed bythe government with great loss of life on bothsides. The conflict has been portrayed as ashowdown between the Imperial JapaneseArmy, consisting mainly of conscriptedcommoners, and their “traditional oppressors,the samurai.”54 While the sides were notnecessarily so clearly delineated, this portrayalreflects popular views at the time. MostJapanese had a negative opinion of the samuraithroughout the 1870s and 1880s, combiningresentment of the ruling clique of formersamurai from the domains of Satsuma andChōshū with disdain for those who had fallenon hard times following the loss of theirtraditional privileges. There were popular talesof samurai incompetence, as well as many

satirical poems about their decline, portrayingthem doing manual labor and unable to pursuetheir former leisure activities.55 There was alsoa smattering of appeals for compassion for thedowntrodden former samurai due to their “pastaccomplishments.”56 This poor image of thesamurai contributed to the negative popularimage of the recent past. As Carol Gluck hasargued, although nostalgia towards theTokugawa period began to increase in the1890s, it “began its Meiji career as the bygoneold order, which excited little favorablecomment or nostalgia except perhaps amongformer shogunal retainers and otherchronological exiles…” 5 7

Ozaki Yukio

The notion that a samurai-based ethic couldbenefit the new Japan would have seemed aliento most Japanese until the 1890s. The firstmajor step towards a positive reevaluation of

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

10

the samurai came through the work of thejournalist Ozaki Yukio (1858-1954). Ozaki wasbanned from Tokyo for three years due to hispolitical activism in 1888, and he used thisopportunity to travel to the United States andEurope. Ozaki was most impressed withEngland, and was especially taken by theidealized Victorian discourse on chivalry andgentlemanship that he recognized from readingEnglish books in his youth. He was convincedthat English conceptions of the gentlemanprovided the moral foundation of the BritishEmpire, as this seemingly noble ethic meantthat Englishmen enjoyed great trust andrespect abroad. In a dispatch sent to a majorJapanese newspaper in 1888, Ozaki explainedhis views of English gentlemen, whilelamenting the supposed moral failings of theirJapanese counterparts. According to Ozaki,Japan was doomed to failure if it did not adopta n e t h i c c o m p a r a b l e t o E n g l i s hgentlemanship.58 In a subsequent article in1891, having returned to Japan, Ozaki cited thepopular Victorian argument that Englishgentlemanship was rooted in medieval chivalry.According to Ozaki, Japan did not necessarilyneed to import a foreign ethic, as the countryhad its own “feudal knighthood” that couldserve as a model. Ozaki proposed reviving theethical ideals of the former samurai, which hadlong been in decline. Here, he proposed a newcode that he called the “way of the samurai,” or“bushidō,” which would make Japanesemerchants become “strictly faithful, strictlyhonor agreements, and avoid coarse and vulgarspeech.” If such an ethic were not adopted,Ozaki warned, Japan was certain to fail.59

Ozaki’s ideas resonated with many Japanese ina period of disillusionment with both thehistorical cultural model of China and the newmodels of the West. The former was due to theprecarious state of Chinese rulership andincreasingly hostile relations with Japan, whilethe process of negotiating the unequal treatieswith the Western powers negatively impactedpublic opinion. The 1890s saw many new and

repurposed concepts popularized as ancient“native” ethics, and bushido was ideally suitedto this purpose. At the same time, Ozaki’sexaminat ion of Engl ish chivalry andgentlemanship legitimized the use of thesamurai as a source for a new morality. Thepopularity of an ethic based on knighthood inthe world’s most powerful country emboldenedJapanese thinkers to look towards the formersamurai, even if they generally agreed that thesamurai spirit had degenerated almostirreparably over the preceding decades. Anumber of other writings on bushido appearedin the early 1890s, generally referring to Ozakior responding to his arguments.60 Bushido wasgiven a tremendous boost with the euphoria ofvictory in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95,setting off a “bushido boom” that peakedaround the time of the Russo-Japanese War of1904-1905. Although bushido discourse wasinspired by Ozaki’s articles, he did not agreewith the chauvinism that marked many laterinterpretations, and contributed his lastsignificant article on the subject in 1898.Instead, the militaristic and extremelynationalistic bushido promoted by InoueTetsujirō became established as the “imperialbushido” interpretation around the time of theRusso-Japanese War, and dominated bushidodiscourse in Japan until 1945.

Linking Zen, bushido, and the martial arts

The firm establishment of bushido as acommonly accepted and even fashionableconcept during and after the Russo-JapaneseWar led to its adoption by a broad spectrum ofinstitutions and social groups during thedecade 1905-1914. By claiming a link tobushido, individuals and organizationspromoted sports, religious orders, and othercauses in a patriotic manner, providingrelatively recent innovations with historicallegitimacy apparently stretching back centuriesor even millennia. Promoters of the martial artswere among the most active participants in thenationalistic bushido discourse that emerged

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

11

after 1895. The first dedicated periodical onthe subject, titled Bushidō,was published by theGreat Japan Martial Arts Lecture Society in1898.61 While historians have traditionally seenthe early Meiji period as a nadir of the martialarts, Denis Gainty has recently demonstratedthat martial arts competitions continued to bepopular throughout the period.62 As Gaintyfurther shows, however, there was great scopefor the organizat ion and systemat icpopularization of the martial arts, manifestedby the Great Japan Martial Virtue Association,which was founded in 1895 and reached onemillion members by the end of its firstdecade.63 The martial arts rode the wave ofnationalistic fervor following victory over Chinato help overcome considerable challenges frombaseball and other sports, as well as intensecompetition among schools and styles. As aresult, promoters of martial arts includingkendo, judo, jujutsu, and sumo, to name but afew, were highly active in the fabrication ofsupposed historical links to bushido and anidealized Japanese martial tradition.64

Like martial artists, Buddhists came to usebushido to establish a connection withpatriotically sound “native” traditions. MeijiBuddhists often had their patriotism anddevotion to the national cause called intoquestion, and many came to rely on bushido toprove their “Japaneseness.” Vague referencesto Buddhism were part of bushido discoursefrom the Sino-Japanese War onward, aspromoters of bushido turned away fromWestern models and looked to Japanese culturefor points of reference. In 1894, UemuraMasahisa (1858-1925), a prominent Protestantand early bushido theorist, argued for aconnection between bushido and Buddhism,writing: “[t]o understand chivalry, you mustknow Christianity. To understand bushido, youmust know Buddhism and Confucianism.” Thisview was echoed in 1899 by Mikami Reiji (datesunknown). In Japan’s Bushido, the first bookdedicated to bushido, Mikami highlightedBuddhism as a source of bushido, along with

Confucianism, Shinto, and the Heart-and-MindSchool (shingaku).65 The following year, theWestern-educated Quaker Nitobe Inazō listedZen as one of the primary “sources of bushido”in his international bestseller Bushido: TheSoul of Japan . 6 6 Even Inoue Tetsujirōacknowledged Buddhism in his first text on thesubject in 1901, following Uemura, Mikami,and Nitobe in contending that “bushido in itsfully finished form is the product of a balancedfusion of the three teachings of Shinto,Confucianism, and Buddhism.”67

While these generic mentions of Buddhism inmore general texts on bushido were common,promoters of Buddhism who sought to usebushido for their own purposes could nots imp ly use the “ imper i a l ” bush idointerpretation put forth by Inoue Tetsujirō andother Shinto nationalists. Instead, writersfocusing on the connections between Buddhismand bushido were compelled to put forth newinterpretations that downplayed Shinto,Confucianism, and other elements commonlylinked with bushido. Furthermore, the earlybushido promoted by Ozaki Yukio, which reliedon Western models, was similarly unsuited toBuddhist aims. Through careful selection andappropriation of elements of bushido discourse,however, Japanese Buddhists were able toconstruct their own bushido theories and tobenefit from the broad popular appeal of theideology.

By the early 1900s, Buddhism had establisheditself in the popular mind as one of the thoughtsystems that broadly contributed to bushido. Inthe second decade of the Meiji bushidoboom—from 1905 to 1914—Buddhistengagement with bushido discourse increaseddramatically along with popular interest.Promoters of the Zen schools expended by farthe greatest efforts to link their teachings tobushido, and current popular perceptionslinking Zen with the samurai are the result ofthis activity. In spite of a dearth of historicalevidence, the supposedly close relationship

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

12

between Zen and bushido became accepted dueto the support it had among some of the mostinfluential figures in broader bushidodiscourse. This can be seen in one of the mostextensive early treatments of the subject, the1907 book Zen and Bushido. The author of thiswork, Akiyama Goan, had worked closely withInoue Tetsujirō in compiling the 1905Collection of Bushido Theories by ProminentModern Thinkers (Gendai taika bushidō sōron),which provided an extensive selection of recentcommentaries on bushido.68

Akiyama opened his Zen and Bushido with therevealing observation that although therelationship between Zen and bushido was avery close one, few people were aware of thebackground of this connection.69 Akiyama’sarguments were based on the historicalcircumstance that the introduction and spreadof Zen Buddhism in Japan in the Kamakuraperiod coincided with the establishment andgrowth of warrior power. During this period,Akiyama argued, warriors developed a strongconnection with Zen Buddhism. This becameeven more pronounced during the turmoil andconstant mortal danger in the age of warringstates, when the “affinity between Zen andbushido became ever closer.”70 Akiyamacountered the accepted historical view thatwarriors were interested in Zen institutions forpractical secular reasons, instead insisting thatZen teachings were at the heart of warriorinterest. Akiyama also dismissed the idea thatother, much larger Buddhist schools such asthe Pure Land or Tendai schools could havehad a significant influence on bushido duringthe Kamakura period. According to Akiyama,these schools were nothing more than mere“superstition” and “reasoning,” respectively,and “absolutely did not have the power tocultivate and nurture Japan’s unique ethic, i.e.the bushido spirit.”71 Instead, he wrote, Zenwas fundamental to the effectiveness ofbushido, and “just as Kamakura Zen workedwith Kamakura bushido, we need to strive tocombine Meiji Zen with Meiji bushido.”72 The

importance and historical legitimacy of bushidowere largely unquestioned in Japan followingthe Russo-Japanese War, and the ideologyprovided an ideal vehicle for Akiyama andothers to appeal for Zen Buddhism’snationalistic credentials.

General Nogi Maresuke

The effectiveness of these endeavors wasincreased by General Nogi Maresuke’s(1849-1912) connection with Zen Buddhism.Nogi was introduced to the Rinzai Zen masterNakahara Nantembō (1839-1925) in 1887, andstudied his teachings with such dedication thatNakahara attested to Nogi’s enlightenment andnamed him as a successor.73 Nogi was one ofthe most prominent military figures of the Meijiperiod. He led the capture of Port Arthur in theSino-Japanese War, and lost both of his sons inbattle for the same city against Russia in 1904.By the time of the Russo-Japanese War, Nogi

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

13

was popularly known as the “flower ofbushido.”74 Nogi’s combined interest in Zen andbushido reflect the revisionism of many bushidotheorists at the time. He was a keen student ofInoue Tetsujirō’s bushido theories, andaccordingly described the seventeenth-centurystrategist Yamaga Sokō as the “sage ofbushido” and single most important exponentof the warrior ethic. Like Inoue, Nogi placedYamaga’s later interpreter Yoshida Shōin aclose second. In line with the selective use ofearlier texts practiced by many of hiscontemporaries, Nogi tended to overlookYamaga and Yoshida’s harsh criticism of Zen.

Another promoter of Zen who frequentlyinvoked bushido was Suzuki Daisetsu. Suzuki’swritings on bushido and Zen around the turn ofthe century are not extensive, but aresignificant in light of his later activities. Suzukibecame by far the most significant promoter of“samurai Zen,” especially for its disseminationoutside of Japan. In this regard, his writingsfrom as early as 1895 are revealing for thelater development of his bushido thought. Onthe occasion of the Sino-Japanese War, Suzukiwrote that in the face of the challenge fromChina, “In the name of religion, our countryrefuses to submit itself to this. For this reason,unavoidably we have taken up arms. … This is areligious action.”75 Responding to the Russo-Japanese War in 1906, Suzuki wrote in theJournal of the Pali Text Society:

The Lebensanschauung of Bushidois no more nor less than that ofZen. The calmness and evenjoyfulness of heart at the momentof death which is conspicuouslyobservable in the Japanese, theintrepidity which is generallyshown by the Japanese soldiers inthe face of an overwhelmingenemy; and the fairness of play toan opponent, so strongly taught byBushido—all these come from the

spirit of Zen training…”76

In this passage, Suzuki echoed the imperialbushido v iew of death that had beenestablished through a series of public debatesconcerning the responsibilities of soldiers inhopeless situations during the Russo-JapaneseWar.77 Earlier Japanese attitudes towardsurrender and becoming a prisoner of war werelargely in line with international norms, butInoue Tetsujirō and other nationalistichardliners carried the day on this issue.Following the Russo-Japanese War, surrendercame to be widely accepted as “un-Japanese”and in violation of supposedly ancient samuraitraditions. This ahistorical bushido-basedinterpretation led to countless tragedies in the1930s and 1940s.78

The idea that soldiers should dismiss fear ofdeath became one of the primary argumentsput forward by promoters of Zen, who claimedthat this was a contribution of Zen to thesamurai and bushido. The Rinzai master ShakuSōen (1860-1919) elaborated on this issue in a1909 book, while other texts arguing for theZen-bushido connection included ArimaSukemasa’s (1873-1931) 1905 “AboutBushido,” Katō Totsudo’s (1870-1939) 1905Zen Observations, and Yamagata Kōhō’s(1868-1922) 1908 New Bushido.79 The Zeninfluence on the alleged indifference to deathfelt by Japanese soldiers was expanded in the1930s by Zen figures such as the Sōtō masterIshihara Shummyō (1888-1973).80 Zen masterIida Tōin (1863-1937) even saw death as “a wayto repay one’s debt to the emperor,” while hiscol league Seki Seisetsu (1877-1945)emphasized the “sacred” nature of the war.81

In contrast to Suzuki’s nativist focus on death,his discussion of “fair play” reflects the stronginfluence of Western—especially British—ideasof chivalry and gentlemanship on certainstrands of modern bushido discourse. It isimportant to note that Suzuki published this

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

14

article in English, making it useful to includeconcepts readily recognizable to a foreignaudience. Many of Suzuki’s readers wouldalready have been primed through theirfamiliarity with Nitobe Inazō’s Bushido: TheSoul of Japan, much of which is Victorianmoralism with an attractive Orientalveneer.82 Although foreign observers generallyapproved of Japan’s conduct during the Russo-Japanese War, it was precisely the perceivedlack of a “fair play,” towards both enemies andJapanese troops in subsequent conflicts thatbecame one of the greatest criticisms of theImperial Japanese Army and the Zen-bushidoconnection in the 1930s and 1940s.

Suzuki was one of the main promoters of theZen-bushido connection both within Japan andoverseas, but he was far from alone. NukariyaKaiten (1867-1934) was another influentialproponent of samurai Zen to foreign audiences,especially through his popular 1913 book,Religion of the Samurai. Nukariya reaffirmedthe close relationship between Zen and thes a m u r a i c l a i m e d b y m a n y o f h i scontemporaries, but his text was also highlyrevealing in other ways:

“After the Restoration of the Meiji(1867) the popularity of Zen beganto wane, and for some thirty yearsremained in inactivity; but sincethe Russo-Japanese War its revivalhas taken place. And now it islooked upon as an ideal faith, bothfor a nation full of hope andenergy, and for a person who hasto fight his own way in the strife ofl ife. Bushido, or the code ofchivalry, should be observed notonly by the soldier in the battle-field, but by every citizen in thestruggle for existence.”83

Here, Nukariya concedes that Zen had beenunpopular and “inactive” from the 1860s until

the early twentieth century. Although heimplies that Zen had been popular before this,there is no evidence to support this contention,i n d e e d Z e n h a d b e e n r e l a t i v e l yunimportant—especially to samurai—forseveral centuries by this point. Nukariya’sargument concerning Zen’s trajectory echoes acommon trope concerning bushido in late Meiji:that it had declined in popularity since the1860s but had now been “revived” by the warswith China and Russia. In the case of both Zenand bushido, an essentially new developmentwas given an idealized past from which it hadsupposedly suffered a temporary decline.Nukariya further drew the connectionsbetween Zen and the samurai by highlightingGeneral Nogi as the most recent “incarnationof bushido.” Nogi and his wife, Shizuko, hadcommitted ritual suicide the previous year onthe day of the Meiji emperor’s funeral, an actthat Nukariya believed would “surely inspirethe rising generation with the spirit of theSamurai to give birth to hundreds of Nogis.”84

During and after the Russo-Japanese War,when bushido had become firmly established inthe popular consciousness, Buddhists relied onbushido to promote their own faith and causes.Promoters of Zen most openly and effectivelyembraced the militarism inherent in thewarrior ethic, but interest in bushido reachedacross denominations. This can be seen in a1905 article by the Buddhist scholar andmember of the True Pure Land school, NanjōBun’yū (1849-1927), titled “Concerning theRelationship between Bushido and Buddhism.”Nanjō argued that “people commonly say thatthe basis of Buddhism is mercy, and thereforeit not only provides no benefit to bushido, butthere is even a danger that it will weaken thewarrior spirit.” However, continued Nanjō, thiswas only a very superficial understanding ofBuddhism, and he proceeded to discuss PrinceShōtoku (6 th century), imperial loyalistKusunoki Masashige (1294-1336), and the lateRusso-Japanese War hero and “military god”Commander Hirose Takeo (1868-1904) as

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

15

examples of brave men who derived strengthfrom Buddhism. “Our bushido has received theBuddhism of causality spanning the past,present, and future (sanze’inga), and even ifthe body dies the spirit continues, so that onewill be born as a human for seven lives” inorder to reach one’s long-cherished goals ofrepaying the kindness of the nation (kokuon)and supporting the imperial house.85

The patriotic propaganda and activities on thepart of Buddhists paid dividends by the end ofMeiji, although the costs were considerable. Inaddition to aiding in the colonization ofHokkaido and the other northern territories,Buddhist sects sent missionaries and medicalworkers to the wars with China and Russia. Atthe same time, they spread morale-boostinginformation and collected donations andsupplies on the home front.86 While thesepractical activities contributed to Buddhism’srehabilitation in the eye of the imperial state,the skilled and consistent engagement withbushido practiced by promoters of Zen hadarguably the greatest and most lasting effect.Their extensive attempts to tie Zen teachings tothe burgeoning bushido discourse around thetime of the Russo-Japanese War created a beliefthat the two had always been linked. Throughtheir efforts, Zen became the “religion of thesamurai.” The effectiveness of this approachcould be seen in the writings of the literaryscholar Tsuda Sōkichi (1873-1961). In a harsh1901 review of Nitobe Inazō’s Bushido: TheSoul of Japan, Tsuda dismissed any meaningfulconnection between bushido and Buddhism,especially Zen. Tsuda argued that even after itsarrival in the Kamakura period, Zen did littlemore than accentuate existing warrior thoughtand practice.87 In contrast, in 1917 Tsudamaintained that both samurai and Buddhistsrejected the notion that samurai should beinvolved with Buddhism, but amended this bystating that Zen’s close connection withbushido was an exception to this rule.88 Tsuda’sreconsideration over the period between thesetwo texts reflects the convincing work by

promoters of Zen and bushido in the earlytwentieth century. By the 1920s, many peoplewere convinced of the intricate and ancientrelationship between Zen, samurai, bushido,and the martial arts, and this ideological mixbecame a core element of nationalist thought,as can be seen in the writings of YasuokaMasahiro and others.89

Conclusions

The notion that Zen had a powerful influenceon bushido and the samurai is a construct ofthe Meiji period, but has shown remarkableresilience. Even after 1945, Zen figures such asSuzuki Daisetsu and Sugawara Gidō(1915-1978) continued to argue for thehistoricity of the Zen-bushido connection, andthis interpretation has remained influential inpopular literature and culture in both Japanand abroad up to the present day.90 Suzuki hasbeen subjected to criticism by scholars inrecent years, but his influence on popularconceptions of Zen Buddhism remains strong,especially outside of Japan. His works arewidely read, and continue to contribute to thenotion that Zen formed a sort of spiritualfoundation for the samurai in general andbushido in part icular. In spite of thewidespread rejection of bushido in Japan andabroad immediately after World War II,Suzuki’s works continued to emphasize theimportance of the al leged historicalconnections between bushido and Zen. Partlyas a result of his efforts, Zen came to be evenmore closely identified with the samurai. At thesame time, Zen and bushido were detachedfrom problematic associations with the earlytwentieth century, in spite of the fact that theconnection between the two was a product ofthis very period.

These same dynamics also tied into thedevelopment of popular views of Zen’srelationship to the martial arts. The Zen-samurai relationship was the result ofconscious efforts on the part of Zen promoters

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

16

to gain patriotic legitimacy by engaging closelywith the burgeoning bushido discourse. Incontrast, the relationship between Zen and themartial arts was less straightforward, anddeveloped from a confluence of several factors.One of these was that, aside from Shintonationalists and state-sponsored proponents ofthe “imperial” bushido ideology, promoters ofZen and promoters of the martial arts were twoof the most active and effective groups tyingtheir interests to bushido. As a result, both Zenand the martial arts were widely seen as closelyrelated to bushido, an impression that wasstrengthened when direct links between thetwo were drawn explicitly in popular works bypromoters of both, such as Eugen Herrigel.This became especially important following thediscrediting of “imperial” bushido in 1945,when the more fantastical elements werestripped from the ideology, leaving behind avague association between Zen, the samurai,and the martial arts to help revive bushido inthe postwar period and carry it on into thetwenty-first century.

Notes:

I would like to thank Denis Gainty and BrianVictoria for reading and providing invaluablesuggestions on a draft of this article. Theresponsibility for any shortcomings that remainis, of course, entirely my own.

This article also draws on arguments made inChapter Four of my book, Inventing the Way ofthe Samurai: Nationalism, Internationalism,a n d B u s h i d o i n M o d e r n J a p a n(https://global.oup.com/academic/product/inventing-the-way-of-the-samurai-9780198706625)(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Ithank Oxford University Press for permission toreproduce excerpts from the section “Bushidōand Buddhism” (pp. 135-140) here.

Bibliography:

Akamatsu, Toshihide. “Muromachi Zen and theGozan System,” in John W. Hall and Toyoda

Takeshi eds. Japan in the Muromachi Age.Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.

Akiyama Goan, ed. Gendai taika bushidō sōron.Tokyo: Hakubunkan, 1905.

Akiyama Goan. Zen to bushidō . Tokyo:Kōyūkan, 1907.

Anesaki, Masaharu. History of JapaneseReligion: With Special Reference to the Socialand Moral Life of the Nation. London: KeganPaul, 1930.

Arima Sukemasa “Bushidō ni tsuite” Gendaitaika bushidō sōron. Hakubunkan: 1905, pp.273-284.

Bein, Steve trans and commentary. PurifyingZen: Watsuji Tetsurō’s Shamon Dōgen.Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2011.

Benesch, Oleg. Inventing the Way of theSamurai: Nationalism, Internationalism, andBushido in Modern Japan. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2014.

Bennett, Alexander. Kendo: Culture of theSword. University of California Press, 2015.

Besserman, Perle and Steger, Manfred. ZenRadicals, Rebels, and Reformers. WisdomPublications, 2011.

Bodiford, William. “Takuan Sōhō” in William deBary et al. eds. Sources of Japanese TraditionVolume 2. New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 2005, pp. 527-528.

Brink, Dean Anthony. “At Wit’s End: SatiricalVerse Contra Formative Ideologies inBakumatsu and Meiji Japan,” Early ModernJapan Spring 2001, pp. 19-46.

Brown, Roger. “Yasuoka Masahiro’s ‘NewDiscourse on Bushidō Philosophy’: CultivatingSamurai Spirit and Men of Character forImperial Japan,” Social Science Japan Journal16:1 (2013), pp. 107-129.

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

17

Buyō Inshi, Mark Teeuwen, Kate WildmanNakai, Fumiko Miyazaki, Anne Walthall, JohnBreen. Lust, Commerce, and Corruption: AnAccount of what I have Seen and Heard, by anEdo Samurai. New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 2014.

Calman, Donald. The Nature and Origins ofJapanese Imperialism: A Reinterpretation of theGreat Crisis of 1873. London: Routledge, 1992.

Cleary, Thomas. Training the Samurai Mind: ABushido Sourcebook. Shambhala, 2009.

Colcutt, Martin. Five Mountains: The RinzaiZen Monastic Institution in Medieval Japan.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Collcutt, Martin. “Religion in the Life ofMinamoto Yoritomo and the Early KamakuraBakufu,” in P.F. Kornicki and I.J. McMullen eds.Religion in Japan: Arrows to Heaven and Earth.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.pp. 90-120

Dumoulin, Heinrich; James W. Heisig and PaulKnitter trans. Zen Buddhism: A History. NewYork: Macmillan Publishing, 1990.

Friday, Karl F. “Bushidō or Bull? A MedievalHistorian's Perspective on the Imperial Armyand the Japanese Warrior Tradition” TheHistory Teacher Vol. 27, No. 3 (May, 1994), pp.339-349

Friday, Karl F. and Seki Humitake. Legacies ofthe Sword: The Kashima-Shinryu and SamuraiMartial Culture. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress, 1997.

Fukuhara Kenshichi. Nihon keizai risshihen.Osaka: 1881.

Fukuzawa Yukichi. Meiji jūnen teichū kōron,Yasegaman no setsu. Tokyo: KōdanshaGakujutsu Bunko, 2004.

Gainty, Denis. Martial Arts and the Body Politicin Meiji Japan. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Gluck, Carol. “The Invention of Edo,” inStephen Vlastos ed. Mirror of Modernity:Invented Traditions in Modern Japan. Berkeley:University of California Press, 1998, pp. 262--284.

Goble, Andrew Edmund. Kenmu: Go-Daigo’sRevolution. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1996.

Griffis, William Elliot. The Mikado’s Empire.New York: Harper, 1876.

Grossberg, Kenneth Alan. Japan’s Renaissance:The Politics of the Muromachi Age. Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 2001.

Haskel, Peter. Sword of Zen: Master Takuanand His Writings on Immovable Wisdom andthe Sword Taie. Honolulu: University of Hawai’iPress, 2013.

Heine, Steven. “A Critical Survey of Works onZen since Yampolsky,” Philosophy East andWest, 57:4 (Oct. 2007), pp. 577-592.

Heine, Steven. Zen Skin, Zen Marrow: Will theReal Zen Buddhism Please Stand Up? Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2008.

Hurst, G. Cameron III. Armed Martial Arts ofJapan: Swordsmanship and Archery. YaleUniversity Press, 1998.

Hurst, G. Cameron III. “Death, Honor, andLoyality: The Bushidō Ideal” Philosophy Eastand West Vol. 40, No. 4, UnderstandingJapanese Values (Oct., 1990), pp. 511-527.

Hurst, G. Cameron. Samurai on Wall Street:Miyamoto Musashi and the Search for Success.Hanover, NH: Universities Field StaffInternational, 1982.

Ikushima Hajime. Seidan tōron hyakudai.Tokyo: Matsui Chūbei. 1882.

Inoue Tetsujirō. Bushidō. Tokyo: Heiji zasshisha, 1901.

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

18

Inoue Tetsujirō, ed. Bushidō sōsho. Tokyo:Hakubunkan, 1905.

Ives, Christopher. “Ethical Pitfalls in ImperialZen and Nishida Philosophy: IchikawaHakugen’s Critique” in James Heisig and JohnMaraldo eds. Rude Awakenings: Zen, the KyotoSchool, & the Question of Nationalism.Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1994,pp. 16-39.

Ives, Christopher. Imperial-Way Zen: IchikawaHakugen’s critique and lingering questions forBuddhist ethics. Honolulu, University of HawaiiPress, 2009.

Katō Totsudō. Zen kanroku. Tokyo: Ireido,1905.

Katsu Kokichi, Teruko Craig trans. Musui’sStory: The Autobiography of a TokugawaSamurai. Tucson: University of Arizona Press,1991.

Keenan, John P. “Spontaneity in WesternMartial Arts: A Yogācāra Critique of Mushin(No-Mind),” Japanese Journal of ReligiousStudies, 16:4 (1989), pp. 285-298.

Ketelaar, James Edward. Of Heretics andMartyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and itsPersecution. New Jersey: Princeton UniversityPress, 1993.

King, Winston L. Zen and the Way of theSword: Arming the Samurai Psyche, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, 1993.

Kumazawa Banzan; McMullen, Ian J. trans.“Buddhism” Sources of Japanese Tradition.New York: Columbia University Press, 2005,pp. 129-130.

McFarlane, Stewart. “Mushin, Morals, andMartial Arts: A Discussion of Keegan’sYogācāra Critique,” Japanese Journal ofReligious Studies, 17:4 (1990), pp. 397-420.

Mikami, Reij i . Nihon bushidō. Tokyo:

Kokubunsha, 1899.

Nakamura Yoko. Bushidō – Diskurs. DieAnalyse der Diskrepanz zwischen Ideal undRealität im Bushidō-Diskurs aus dem Jahr 1904.Ph.D. Thesis at the University of Vienna, 2008.

Nanjō, Bun’yū. “Bushidō to bukkyō no kankei nitsuite,” in Akiyama, Goan ed. Gendai taikabushidō sōron. Tokyo: Hakubunkan, 1905, pp.416-419

Nitobe, Inazo. Bushido: The Soul of Japan.Tokyo: The Student Company, 1905.

Nukariya Kaiten. The Religion of the Samurai:A Study of Zen Philosophy And Discipline inChina And Japan. London: Luzac & Co., 1913.

Ozaki, Yukio. “Ōbei man’yū ki,” Ozaki Gakudōzenshū Vol. 3. Tokyo: Kōronsha, 1955, pp.743-748.

Ozaki, Yukio. Naichi gaikō. Tokyo: Hakubundō,1893.

Saiki Kazuma, et al. eds. Mikawa monogatari,Hagakure (Nihon shisō taikei Vol. 26). IwanamiShoten, 1974.

Shaku Sōen. Sentei roku. Tokyo: Kōdōkan,1909.

Snodgrass, Judith. Presenting JapaneseBuddhism to the West : Or ienta l ism,Occidentalism, and the Columbian Exposition.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,2003.

Sonoda Hidehiro. “The Decline of the JapaneseWarrior Class, 1840-1880” Japan Review 1(1990), pp. 73-111

Stone, Jacqueline L. “Chanting the Lotus SutraTitle,” in Richard K. Payne ed. Re-VisioningKamakura Buddhism. Honolulu: University ofHawai’i Press, 1998, pp. 116-166.

Stone, Jacqueline I. Original Enlightenment and

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

19

the Transformation of Medieval JapaneseBuddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai’iPress, 1999.

Suzuki Chikara. Kokumin no shin seishin.Tokyo: Hakubundō, 1893.

Suzuki Daisetz T. Zen and Japanese Culture.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.

Takagi Yutaka. “The Nichiren Sect,” inKasahara Kazuo ed. A History of JapaneseReligion. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing, 2001, pp.255-283.

Tanabe Jr. , George J. “Kōyasan in theCountryside,” in Richard K. Payne ed. Re-Visioning Kamakura Buddhism. Honolulu:University of Hawai’i Press, 1998, pp. 43-54.

Tsuda, Sōkichi. “Bushidō no engen ni tsuite“Matsushima Eiichi ed. Meiji shi roshū 2. Tokyo:Chikuma Shobō, 1976, p. 317.

Tsuda Sōkichi. Inquiry into the Japanese Mindas Mirrored in Literature. Tokyo: JSPS, 1970.

Tucker, Mary Evelyn. Moral and SpiritualCultivation in Japanese Neo-Confucianism: TheL i fe and Thought o f Ka ibara Ekken(1630-1714). New York: State University ofNew York Press, 1989.

Tyler, Royall trans. “Suzuki Shōsan.” in JamesHeisig et al. ed.,Japanese Philosophy: ASourcebook. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress, 2011, pp. 109-115.

Tyler, Royall. “Suzuki Shōsan.” In Sources ofJapanese Tradition Volume 2, William de Baryet al. ed. New York: Columbia University Press,2005, pp. 522-523.

Varley, Paul and Elison, George. “The Cultureof Tea,” in George Elison and Bardell Smitheds. Warlords, Artists, & Commoners: Japan inthe Sixteenth Century. The University Press ofHawaii, Honolulu, 1981.

Victoria, Brian Daizen. “A BuddhologicalCritique of “Soldier-Zen” in Wartime Japan,” inMark Jurgensmeyer and Michael Jerryson eds.Buddhist Warfare. Oxford University Press,2010, pp. 119-120.

Victoria, Brian Daizen. “A Zen Nazi in WartimeJapan: Count Dürckheim and his Sources—D.T.Suzuki, Yasutani Haku’un and Eugen Herrigel,”Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, 12:3:2 (Jan.13, 2014).

Victoria, Brian Daizen. “When God(s) andBuddhas Go to War,” in Mark Selden and AlvinY. So eds. War and State Terrorism: The UnitedStates, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the LongTwentieth Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman &Littlefield, 2004. pp. 91-118.

Uemura, Masahisa. Uemura Masahisachosakushū Volume 1. Shinkyō Shuppansha,1966.

Victoria, Brian Daizen. Zen at War. Oxford:Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.

Welter, Albert. “Eisai’s Promotion of Zen forthe Protection of the Country,” in George J.Tanabe Jr. ed. Religions of Japan in Practice.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,1999, pp. 63-70.

Yamada Shōji. “The Myth of Zen in the Art ofArchery,” Japanese Journal of ReligiousStudies, 28:1/2 (2001), pp. 1-30.

Yamada Shōji, Earl Hartman trans. Shots in theDark: Japan, Zen and the West. Chicago:Chicago University Press, 2009.

Yamaga, Sokō. Yamaga Sokō (Nihon shisōtaikei Vol. 32). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1970.

Yamagata Kōhō. Shin bushidō. Tokyo: Jitsugyōno Nihonsha, 1908. pp. 167-223.

Yampolsky, Philip B. trans. The Zen MasterHakuin: Selected Writings. Columbia UniversityPress, 1971.

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

20

Yokoi Shōnan. “Kokuze sanron” WatanabeKazan, Takano Chōei, Sakuma Shōzan, YokoiShōnan, Hashimoto Sanai (Nihon shisō taikeiVolume 55). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971, pp.438-465.

Yoshida, Shōin. Yoshida Shōin zenshū Volume

4. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1940.

Yu, Jimmy. “Contextualizing the Deconstructionand Reconstruction of Chan/Zen Narratives:Steven Heine’s Academic Contributions to theField,” Religious Studies Review, 37:3 (Sept.2011), pp. 165-176.

Oleg Benesch is a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in East Asian History at the University ofYork in the UK. He holds a Ph.D. in Asian Studies from the University of British Columbia. Heis the author of Inventing the Way of the Samurai: Nationalism, Internationalism, and Bushidoin Modern Japan (2014), and a co-author of Civilizing Emotions: Concepts in Nineteenth-Century Asia and Europe (2015), both from Oxford University Press. More information on hispast and current research can be found on his website: www.olegbenesch.com(http://www.olegbenesch.com) (http://www.olegbenesch.com/)

https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Way-Samurai-Nationalism-Internationalism-ebook/dp/B00N306Y1I

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

21

Notes1

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/world-affairs/2012/05/breivik-remains-unmoved-his-trial2 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/20/anders-behring-breivik-massacre-court3 Benesch, Oleg, Inventing the Way of the Samurai; Friday, Karl F., “Bushidō or Bull?”; HurstIII, G. Cameron, “Death, Honor, and Loyality.”4 http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1920753,00.html5 Victoria, Brian Daizen, “When God(s) and Buddhas Go to War,” p. 101.6 King, Winston L., Zen and the Way of the Sword, pp. 29-30.7 Suzuki, Daisetz T., Zen and Japanese Culture, p. 61.8 For a critical examination of Herrigel, see Yamada Shōji, Shots in the Dark. Also: Victoria,Brian, “A Zen Nazi in Wartime Japan.”9 Yamada Shōji has examined Herrigel’s interactions with Awa to show that Herrigel read hisown “Zen” interpretations into key situations where communication failed due to thelanguage gap. Awa’s accounts of these events differed considerably, and he himself had noparticular connection with Zen. Yamada Shōji, “The Myth of Zen in the Art of Archery,” p. 11.10 Colcutt, Martin, Five Mountains, p. 61.11 Colcutt, Five Mountains, p. 80.12 Stone, Jacqueline L., “Chanting the Lotus Sutra Title,” p. 147. This assertion is also made inTakagi Yutaka, “The Nichiren Sect,”; Tanabe Jr., George J., “Kōyasan in the Countryside,” p.49.13 Goble, Andrew Edmund, Kenmu: Go-Daigo’s Revolution, p. 74; Colcutt, Martin, FiveMountains, pp. 94-95.14 Grossberg, Kenneth Alan, Japan’s Renaissance, pp. 82-86.15 Varley, Paul and George Elison, “The Culture of Tea,” p. 205; Colcutt, Martin, FiveMountains, pp. 99-100.16 Colcutt, Five Mountains, p. 72.17 Akamatsu Toshihide, “Muromachi Zen and the Gozan System,” p. 317.18 Akamatsu, “Muromachi Zen and the Gozan System,” p. 318-9.19 Keenan, John P., “Spontaneity in Western Martial Arts,” pp. 286, 288.20 Dumoulin, Heinrich, Zen Buddhism: A History, p. 283.21 Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism: A History, p. 283; Yamada Shōji, “The Myth of Zen in the Art ofArchery,” p. 11.22 Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism: A History, p. 28323 McFarlane, Stewart, “Mushin, Morals, and Martial Arts,” p. 404.24 Hurst III, G. Cameron, Armed Martial Arts of Japan. p. 212.25 Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism: A History, p. 28326 Hurst III, G. Cameron, “Samurai on Wall Street.”27 Brown, Roger H., “Yasuoka Masahiro’s ‘New Discourse on Bushidō Philosophy.’”28 Haskel, Peter, Sword of Zen, pp. 31-32.29 McFarlane, “Mushin, Morals, and Martial Arts,” p. 412.30 Victoria, Brian Daizen, Zen at War, pp. 216-217.31 Bodiford, William, “Takuan Sōhō,” p. 528.

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

22

32 Tyler, Royall trans., “Suzuki Shōsan,” in Japanese Philosophy: A Sourcebook.33 Tyler, Royall, “Suzuki Shōsan,” in Sources of Japanese Tradition Volume 2, pp. 522-523.34 Recent examples of this connection include: Cleary, Thomas, Training the Samurai Mind,pp. 127-132; Besserman, Perle and Steger, Manfred, Zen Radicals, Rebels, and Reformers,pp. 152-153.35 Yampolsky, Philip B. trans., The Zen Master Hakuin, p. 69.36 Yampolsky, The Zen Master Hakuin, pp. 183-187.37 Hurst III, Armed Martial Arts of Japan, p. 194.38 Hurst III, Armed Martial Arts of Japan, pp. 70-71; Bennett, Alexander, Kendo: Culture of theSword, p. 46.39 Friday, Karl F. and Seki Humitake, Legacies of the Sword, p. 59.40 Bennett, Alexander, Kendo: Culture of the Sword, p. 66.41 Inoue Tetsujirō ed. Bushidō sōsho.42 Mary Evelyn Tucker has written of this group of scholars that “for each of them thereligious dimensions of Confucian thought were an important bridge to Shinto.” Tucker, MaryEvelyn, Moral and Spiritual Cultivation in Japanese Neo-Confucianism, p. 28.43 Yamaga Sokō, Yamaga Sokō (Nihon shisō taikei 32), p. 334; Yoshida Shōin, Yoshida Shōinzenshū (Volume 4), p. 240.44 Kumazawa Banzan, Ian J. McMullen trans., “Buddhism,” pp. 129-130.45 Yokoi Shōnan, “Kokuze sanron,” p. 459.46 Victoria, Zen at War, pp. 228-229.47 Saiki Kazuma et al. eds., Mikawa monogatari, Hagakure (Nihon shisō taikei Vol. 26), p. 399(Book 6-21).48 Saiki et al. eds., Mikawa monogatari, Hagakure (Nihon shisō taikei Vol. 26), p. 218.49 Ketelaar, James Edward, Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan, Chapter Five.50 Victoria, Zen at War, p. 18; Snodgrass, Judith, Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,p. 132.51 Sonoda Hidehiro, “The Decline of the Japanese Warrior Class, 1840-1880,” pp. 73-11152 Katsu Kokichi, Teruko Craig trans., Musui’s Story; Buyō Inshi, Mark Teeuwen, KateWildman Nakai, et al. Lust, Commerce, and Corruption.53 Griffis, William Elliot, The Mikado’s Empire, p. 278.54 Calman, Donald, The Nature and Origins of Japanese Imperialism, pp. 141-143.55 Brink, Dean Anthony, “At Wit’s End,” pp. 19-46.56 For example: Ikushima Hajime, Seidan tōron hyakudai, pp. 88-89; Fukuhara Kenshichi,Nihon keizai risshihen, pp. 17-20.57 Gluck, Carol, “The Invention of Edo,” pp. 267-269.58 Ozaki Yukio, “Ōbei man’yū ki,” pp. 743-748.59 Ozaki Yukio, Naichi gaikō, pp. 25-28.60 These texts include Fukuzawa Yukichi’s 1893 “Yasegaman no setsu,” Suzuki Chikara’s 1894“Kokumin no shin seishin,” and Uemura Masahisa’s 1894 “Bushidō to Kirisutokyō.” For adiscussion of the development of bushidō discourse, see Benesch, Inventing the Way of theSamurai, Chapter 2.61 For an overview of this journal, see Benesch, Inventing the Way of the Samurai, pp. 85-91.62 Gainty, Denis, Martial Arts and the Body Politic in Meiji Japan, pp. 30-31.

APJ | JF 14 | 17 | 7

23

63 Gainty, Martial Arts and the Body Politic in Meiji Japan, p. 35.64 For a discussion of these efforts, see: Benesch, Oleg, Inventing the Way of the Samurai, pp.85-87, 132-134, 164-167.65 Mikami Reiji, Nihon bushidō, p. 11.66 Nitobe, Inazo, Bushido: The Soul of Japan, pp. 9-10.67 Inoue Tetsujirō, Bushidō.68 Akiyama Goan ed., Gendai taika bushidō sōron.69 Akiyama Goan, Zen to bushidō, p. 1.70 Akiyama, Zen to bushidō, pp. 77-85.71 Akiyama, Zen to bushidō, p. 292.72 Akiyama, Zen to bushidō, p. 293.73 Victoria, Zen at War, pp. 36-37.74 For a discussion of Nogi’s relationship with bushido, see Benesch, Inventing the Way of theSamurai, pp. 150-156.75 Translation by Christopher Ives. Found in: Ives, Christopher, “Ethical Pitfalls in ImperialZen and Nishida Philosophy,” p. 17.76 Victoria, Zen at War, p. 105.77 For an overview of these debates, see: Nakamura Yoko, Bushidō – Diskurs..78 Benesch, Inventing the Way of the Samurai, pp. 207-210.79 Shaku Sōen, Sentei roku, pp. 154-186; Arima Sukemasa, “Bushidō ni tsuite,” pp. 273-284;Yamagata Kōhō, Shin bushidō, pp. 167-223; Katō Totsudō, Zen kanroku, pp. 22-60.80 Victoria, Brian Daizen, “A Buddhological Critique of “Soldier-Zen” in Wartime Japan,” pp.119-120.81 Ives, Christopher, Imperial-Way Zen, pp. 32, 42.82 For a discussion of Nitobe’s role in the development of bushido, see Benesch, Inventing theWay of the Samurai, pp. 90-97.83 Nukariya Kaiten, The Religion of the Samurai, Chapter 13.84 Nukariya, The Religion of the Samurai, Chapter 13.85 Nanjō Bun’yū, “Bushidō to bukkyō no kankei ni tsuite,” pp. 416-419.86 Ketelaar, Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan, p. 133.87 Tsuda Sōkichi, “Bushidō no engen ni tsuite“ p. 317.88 Tsuda Sōkichi, Inquiry into the Japanese Mind as Mirrored in Literature.89 Brown, Roger H., “Yasuoka Masahiro’s ‘New Discourse on Bushidō Philosophy.’”90 Victoria, Zen at War, pp. 149, 187.