Obaku Zen: The Rise of the Third Zen Sect in Tokugawa Japan | History of Japanese Buddhism | Perfect for Zen Practitioners & History Enthusiasts

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, Zen on the inside.' There may be conscious irony in the fact that Hakuin had called Ming-style Ch'an -'Zen on the outside, Pure-land on the inside' - without explicitly naming the Obaku-shu.Alas, Baroni didn't explore enough of the historical background to place these 'doctrinal' questions in their broader context. Had she noted the influence of the 'Sugyoroku' upon the 'Gozan' system in Kamakura Japan, it would have been less tempting to draw sharp distinctions between an allegedly 'pure' Sung Zen, and the syncretistic tendencies of 'Ming' Zen. As such, Baroni's account tends to bolster the caricature found in latter day Rinzai Zen literature. Some anecdotes in Mujaku Dochu's 'Obaku-geki' - reflecting inter-action between Ingen and the Japanese monks at the Fumonji in Settsu-Tonda - seem unbelievably petty. He notes the complaints of monk called Gentei, who had objected to Ingen's jest about the 'bottom of the barrel dropping out' (a well known Zen idiom for enlightenment), on the occasion of a rice bucket falling apart. It is surprising that Mujaku Dochu expressed resentment toward such humour among the Chinese monks, for he was well versed in the Ch'an classics, which are full of such humour and - alas, such criticism looks like ill-will, unbecoming of this otherwise excellent character. At the worst, the Obaku-shu's Japanese critics even averred that the 'Ming' Chinese were all 'Mongols' - who no longer spoke Chinese! In this respect, the story of Ingen's arrival and the establishment of the Obaku-shu is a mixed bag. It was to be overshadowed by the appearance of Hakuin, anyway, but it is probably true to say that the arrival of Ingen and its impact roused the spirit of the Japanese Buddhists, making them reassess their position, strike fresh initiatives. We might note that Tao-che, active in Nagasaki, an eminent Chinese master and collateral heir in Ingen's transmission line, exerted direct influence upon Bankei Yotaku (1622-1693).As an institution, it has admittedly remained smaller than the Soto-shu or Rinzai-shu, but along with Bankei's influence, the Obaku-shu probably helped clear the way for a revival of Rinzai Zen - under Hakuin. The Obaku-shu does have its merits. It is nice to be able to look at Zen, without 'thinking' in terms of the Rinzai-Soto divide (which is by no means absolute, anyway). The whole temple complex at Mampukuji is basically a 'Ming dynasty' style temple, in perfect condition. It has long cultivated its own forms of calligraphy etc. Tetsugen Zenji's Buddhist Press (just next door)is still in operation, making the hand carved boards or plates for reprinting copies of the Tripitaka. With various revisions, the Tetsugen/Obaka-shu edition of the Tripitaka provided the impetus for the Taisho Shinshu Daizokyo - the standard edition of the Sino-Japanese Tripitaka in use today. Another feature of the Obaku-shu, not without importance, is that it encouraged reading the Zen 'Goroku' (Yu-lu). When Ingen arrived in Japan, he was surprised to find that Japanese Rinzai monks had not read the 'Rinzai-roku' - more or less devoting their attention to the Mumonkan, Hekiganroku etc. Owing to Ingen's infuence, Japanese Rinzai monks once again began reading the Zen 'goroku.' Without that, it is unlikely that we would have Hakuin's excellent comments on classical Ch'an sources. Baroni doesn't say much about the Mampukuji - as a place to visit, but I recommend it - if you happen to be in the Kyoto area. The temple is magnifiscent. Most of the Buddhist statues (including the famous 'arhats'), ritual objects etc., are from Ming China. Visitors are welcome to look at the Tetsugen Buddhist Press, where you can buy beautiful samples of Buddhist iconography. Uji is famous for its Green-tea' and cha-no-yu at the Mampukuji has its own style. Ingen is also said to have introduced the 'Ingen Mame' bean to Japan. Chinese vegetarian food (fu-cha ryori) is still served at a nearby temple restaurant. There is a Za-zen kai on Thursdays - which lay visitors can attend. You will need to phone first, for that. The staff are very helpful.