A Reflection on the Question of a Philosophy of Assimilation in Buddhism Author(s): Kazumitsu Kato Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of the American

Oriental Society, Vol. 93, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1973), pp. 328334 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/599465 . Accessed: 02/10/2012 02:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

A REFLECTION

ON THE QUESTION OF A PHILOSOPHY BUDDHISM*

KAZUMITSUKATO
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Los ANGELES

OF ASSIMILATION

IN

Honji suijaku is the name for the process by which the native Japanese gods came to be regarded as manifestations (suijaku) of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (honji). By the Heian period, honji suijaku theories had been developed in the Tendai and Shingonschools. These theories had a wide influence on Japanese religious practices from that time on. Japanese scholars today generally agree that the prevailing motive behind honji suijaku was socio-political. However, Mrs. Alicia Matsunaga attempts to prove in her ambitious
work, the Buddhist Philosophy of Assimilation: the Historical Development of the Honji

Suijaku Theory,that a systematic philosophy of assimilation was involved. Mrs. Matsunaga has attempted an encyclopedic approach, dwelling on multi-cultural activities in India, Chinaand Japan. Her premise is that the honji suijaku theory of Japan was merely an expression of a Buddhist philosophy of assimilation which commenced with the first dawning of Buddhist thought. THE TERM honji-suijaku refers to a fusion of Japan's native Shinto gods with the buddhas and bodhisattvas of Buddhism. In the fusion, the Shinto gods became manifestations of buddhas or There have been a few books and bodhisattvas. articles on this process' and a few articles on specific schools or persons in connection with it.2 However, as far as I know, no one up to this time has expounded a theory of honji-suijaku. For this reason, the title of Mrs. Matsunaga's book attracted me strongly. However, the book is disappointing for several reasons despite its attractive appearance and interesting illustrations. The book contains nine chapters. Briefly, the contents are as follows: In Chapter I, "Early Buddhist Philosophy of Assimilation," the author discusses Indian deities and concludes that in Buddhism acceptance of these gods could only be based on ignorance. Nevertheless, as she mentions, Vedic gods do appear in Buddhist teachings in such well-known instances as Worship of the Six Directions. Although this phenomenon is not new to students of Buddhism, the author might have made a contribution by explaining more clearly than has been done just how the absorption process took place in India. This she did not choose to * This article is a review of Alicia Matsunaga: The do. Perhaps it is just as well, since her sense of Buddhist Philosophy of Assimilation: The Historical Detiming appears to be faulty. She says, "At the time of the rise of Buddhism, the anthropomorphvelopment of the Honji Suijaku Theory. A Monumenta (p. 20). Nipponica Monograph. Tokyo: Sophia University with izing of the Vedic gods had begun..." the of the time the C. Tuttle, 1969, pp. 310. Buddha, preActually, by 1 Some examples of this are: Oyama, Kijun, Shin- vailing tendency was already in the opposite dibutsuKosho-shi (Koyasan, K6yasan DaigakuShuppanbu, rection, i.e., the character of the Vedic gods was 1943); Murayama, Shiichi, Shinbutsu Shugo Shicho (Kyoto, becoming more abstract. In the last section of this chapter, the triloka Heiraku-ji Shoten, 1957); a chapter in Tsuji, Zennosuke, Vol. 1, Iwanami is discussed. According to the author, Shoten, doctrine 1944), (Tokyo, Nippon Bukkyoshi pp. 436-489; and a discussion in Ienaga, Sabur6, Jodai One of the most complex systematizations of BuddhBukkyo-shi Kenkyi (Kyoto, H6zo-kan, 1966), pp. 129-181. ist divinities can be found in the theory of the Three 2 To mention a few examples: Ishizu, Shoji, "Tendai Worlds (Triloka, Pa. Tiloka), a concept that has been Jiss6-ron to Honji-Suijaku," Tetsugaku Zasshi, February, representedin vivid literal and iconographicsymboliza1923; Ogura, Hobun, "Sh6toku Taishi to Honji-Suijaku tion (p. 40). no
Shis6," Ikaruga, July, 1936; Osuka, Shfud, "Shinshui Honji-Suijaku ni tsuite," Shugaku Kenkyi, June, 1943.

Mrs. Matsunaga also states:

328

KATO: Philosophy of Assimilation For those Vedic deities that still remained natural forces, there was also simple identification, as in the case of Agni (fire) and Vayu (wind), so it was quite simple for Buddhism to transmit these divinities. (p. 58). However, she goes on to say that the transmission of these deities was merely for the purpose of teaching "the basic philosophical negation of Early Buddhism and Abhidharma in relation to the concept of divinity." (p. 59) So, after all, adoption of Indian deities was not the same as honji-suijaka since it stressed the negation of deities rather than equating them with buddhas and bodhisattvas. In Chapter II the author reviews the familiar doctrines of Sunyata (voidness), pratityasamutpdda (relativity), upaya (skillful means), and trikaya (three symbolic bodies of the Buddha). She sees in the updya and trikdya concepts a direct lineal relationship to honji-suijaku. In Chapter III, "Buddhist Assimilation in China," she covers two pertinent areas. One is the link between Taoism and Buddhism which, according to her, had natural affinity. Mrs. Matsunaga sees in this relationship a Chinese precedent for a honji-suijaku theory. However, all she mentions in support of this is one story from a "forged" sitra, no longer extant. (p. 101) Other sections in this chapter are devoted to the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Pundarlka Sitra), its interpretation, and its influence, especially in the worship of Kuan-yin. She stresses prajid and updya as bases of pen-chi, or honji-suijaku, making no distinction between pen-chi and honjisuijaku. The evidence presented on pen-chi as applied to Chinese religious practice is very sketchy. The only important example discussed at length is the set of thirty-three devas or manifestations of Avalokitesvara mentioned in the Lotus Sutra. It is questionable whether the set of thirty-three Kuan-yin (pp. 129-135) popular in Japan, which is different from this one, ever existed in China. Chapter IV, "The First Japanese Encounter with the Buddhist Philosophy of Assimilation," is a description of pre-Buddhist Shintoism ending with a brief reference to the introduction of Buddhism to Japan. Chapter V, "Shimbutsu-Shiig5 (Unification of Gods and Buddhas)," begins with the statement, The first actual historical appearance of the phenomena commonly termed shimbutsu-shigocan be found

in Buddhism

329

in the Zoku-nihongi[She uses this title throughout; it should be Shoku-Nihongi.]listed under the second
year in the reign of Emperor Mommu (A.D. 698) when the Taki-daijingiji ... was moved. (p. 151)

However, in his recent book, Jodai Bukkyo-shisoshi Kenkyii, Sabur6 Ienaga proved that this was incorrectly recorded.3 Mrs. Matsunaga goes on to give information about Japanese Buddhist activities, imported or peculiar to Japan, and also examples of the fusions of Shinto gods with buddhas and bodhisattvas. Chapter VI begins with a brief historical introduction to the early Heian period. This is followed by sections on Saich6 and Kukai and their supposed relation to Buddhist assimilation practices. Then we find a long description of mandalas (mandaras) with diagrams of two typical ones. The chapter ends with a brief mention of En no Gy6ja, believed to be the first Japanese mystic, a man who performed magical Dharma. In Chapter VII, "Development of honji-suijaku the author begins again with Theory-Heian," the Lotus Siutra and mentions Chih-i, a Chinese commentator on the sitra.4 Chih-i'sworks were first brought to Japan by Ganjin in 754 and later the doctrines of the Chinese T'ien
T'ai sect were officially transmitted to Japan by Saich6 in 805. Thus we can say that as early as the mid-eighth century the Japanese were introduced to the honjaku interpretation of the Lotis Suetra. (pp. 211212)

The practical usage of honji-suijaku (which Mrs. Matsunaga uses as a synonym or direct translation of pen-chi into Japanese) developed in two ways, "the application of the thought to Japanese Buddhist saints and the change in the Buddhist view of the indigenous gods." (p. 214) Here the author mentions the "elevation of Japanese Buddhist Saints" (pp. 214-216) and points out Prince Sh6toku as a manifestation of honji. A section titled, "The Elevation of the Indigenous Gods," follows this. However, at the end of the section she tells us: During the early Heian there was not yet any sign of the honji-suijaku theory applied to the indigenous deities and it was not until the late Heian or early 3 Ienaga, Sabur6, op. cit., pp. 132-133.

4 Chih-i may have been the first to apply the pen-chi theory. He is discussed on pages 115-120.

330

Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.3 (1973) We also must remember that the Taoists were first to initiate the idea of assimilation by attempting to make Buddha a reincarnation of Lao-tzu, so the Buddhist reaction was not original. (p. 103) Also, "The foregoing manifestations of Kuan-yin clearly demonstrate the Chinese assimilation of the boddhisattva into indigenous beliefs." (pp. 134135) Mrs. Matsunaga would have us believe that alien borrowing made substantial changes in Buddhism itself. "Inundated" is the word she uses. However, she confines herself to recording the transportation of deities from country to country and their transformations in new homes. Buddhists all over the world would insist that "deities" are nothing more than expedients. At times Mrs. Matsunaga seems to be aware of this. She says in one place: Man was consideredsuperiorto the gods . .. Nevertheless, the gods were to play an important role in Buddhism as a means to instruct non-Buddhists and laymen in Buddhist doctrine. (p. 16)

Fujiwara that the first occurrence... appeared in a historical record. This statement is confusing because one has been led to believe all the discussion in this chapter was about forms of honji-suijaku. Also confusing are Mrs. Matsunaga's chronological terms. The reader cannot tell what years are involved in the late Heian or early Fujiwara since the Heian period is from 794-1185 (or to 1192) A.D. and the Fujiwara period (in art history) is from 8971185. Historians of Japanese Buddhism use the "Heian" designation and not "Fujiwara." In Chapter VIII the author mentions some bodhisattvas and historical personages as well as Indian devas as honji. This is puzzling, because many of these did not originate in Japanese Buddhism; they appeared in China as part of Chinese Buddhism. Chapter IX, "Kamakura Developments and the honji-suijaku Theory," is filled with examples of the fusion of gods and buddhas, particularly in the Nichiren and Pure Land Schools. This chapter also includes over-simplified evidence of anti-honjisuijaku. Earlier, I mentioned my disappointment in this work. One reason for disappointment is absence

Indeed, the gods did have their uses as a teaching device, but not as an essential part of the Dharma. The Buddhist way of life not only does not depend upon them but, if thoroughly underwhich of the promised theory of honji-suijaku could be called a Buddhist philosophy of assimistood, makes them unnecessary.5 By ignoring most of the philosophical schools of Buddhism lation. The author's main assertions are: (1) There is and barely mentioning the fundamental teachings a systematic philosophy of assimilation of alien of the Buddha, the author has managed to convince herself that she has dealt with an important religious elements to be found in Buddhism. It is our purpose here to demonstrate how the aspect of a complex religion. This is not the Japanese theory of honji-suijakuis merely an expres- case. Her ideas about the historical background of sion of the ancient Buddhist philosophy of assimilation that commenced with the first dawning of Buddhist honji-suijaku are equally shaky. Had she been as one example thought to serve as an essential handmaidenof Buddh- content to discuss honji-suijaku of borrowing among others in the history of ist doctrine in every land the religion entered. (p. 3) Buddhism, there would be no need for concern. (2) The extent of alien borrowing made substanIt is a fact that Buddhism absorbed elements of tial changes in Buddhism. "Streaming forth from native religions in the countries where it became its Indian sources, the Buddhist philosophy of established. But to suggest that these separate assimilation has inundated Buddhist thought in processes of absorption were connected by a unievery land the Dharma entered." (p. 285) And, fying principle, or that the several periods of (3) this kind of assimilation was unique to Budassimilation were the result of a systematic philodhism. "This willingness to accept non-Buddhist sophy, is a serious error. practices and incorporate them into Buddhism is When we have finished sifting through the aua unique phenomenon that has become charac- thor's evidence, what we find instead of philoteristic of Buddhism." (p. 14) The error of this last assertion is so apparent 5 Nakamura, Hajime, Ways of Thinking of Eastern to anyone familiar with the history of religion Peoples: India, China, Tibet, Japan. (Honolulu, Eastthat we need not dwell on it. The author even West Center Press, 1964) pp. 165-166. refutes her own statement:

KATO:

Philosophy of Assimilation

in Buddhism

331

sophy is an extremely simplified interpretation of the Lotus Sutra along with simplified versions of trikaya and triloka and many examples taken from miscellaneous sources.6 There is no theory to serve as a connecting link for all her fragments of information. A theory to account for events taking place throughout the centuries from the earliest period of Buddhism in the sixth century B.C. in India to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries of the Kamakura period in Japan cannot be established in the way she has chosen. The author ignores differences between assimilation practices in India, China and Japandifferences which would be expected when one knows the differing nature of each nation's social, political, economic, and religious environments. Also, she seems to be unaware of the fact that the Buddhist practice (not philosophy) of assimilation was not the only element in the development of honji-suijaku. In the past, there have been, generally speaking, two approaches in explaining the development of honji-suijaku. One has been to enlarge on concepts mentioned in Buddhism itself,7 especially ekayana (one vehicle) and upaya (skillful means) in the Lotus Sutra,8 and to take into account the fact that wherever Mahayana Buddhism has become established, native religions have been absorbed to a degree. The other approach to honji-suijaku virtually ignores Indian and Chinese Buddhism, although some traces are acknowledged in a few siutras.9
6 Kojun Oyama, Shuiichi Murayama, and other recent Japanese scholars of folk religion have more precise documentation on the unification of Japanese gods and buddhas in their works. 7 Mainly in such works as the Saddharma Pundarika, the Vimalakirti, and Vairocana Satras, which are part of the Mahayana Buddhist canon. See Wm. Theodore de Bary (ed.), Sources of Japanese Tradition (New York, Columbia University Press, 1958), p. 268. 8 Nakamura, Hajime, op. cit., p. 391. 9 Tsuji, Zennosuke, op. cit., pp. 436-489. He discussed Japan exclusively. Tsuda, S6kichi, Tsuda S6kichi Zenshu (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1964), Vol. 9, pp. 53-55. He mentioned several texts as sources for the fusion and sources of the term 'my6jin', such as Fuki Kenjaku Shinpen, Shingon-kyo, Ichiji Butch6 Rinno-kyo, and Hige-gyo. Tsuda believed, however, that the Japanese honji-suijaku was a mixture of Indian and Japanese ideas. Murayama, Oyama, and Ienaga discuss honjisuijaku as a Japanese cultural product only.

Because they focus exclusively on the relationship of Shinto gods to buddhas and bodhisattvas, those who belong to this school of thought are not required to distinguish between non-Buddhist deities and bodhisattvas-they all came to Japan in one package labeled "Buddha's Teachings." Among writers who have suggested that honji-suijaku was not entirely a Japanese concept was the late historian S6kichi Tsuda. Tsuda traced contributing factors to some Mahsayna texts and considered honji-suijaku a crystallization of narratives about the Indian pantheon. Shiiichi Murayama, commenting on this in his Shinbutsu Shugo Shicho (Kyoto, Sara S6sho, 1957, p. 42), adds that in China Buddhism tried to show its superiority over Confucianism and Taoism but that this was not necessary in Japan, since Shintoism was not well enough developed to stimulate In his opinion, honji-suijaku was competition. merely a re-interpretation of indigenous gods. Neither writer went so far as to find more than a loose relationship between honji-suijaku and prior developments on the continent. It would be inappropriate to do so when one recalls the differing purposes for adaptation in the various countries. In India, a devotee of one or more gods was given answers to his questions about life in terms familiar to him. If, on the other hand, a questioner asked for instruction in the Buddhist way of life, that was what he was given. There was no confusion in the minds of Buddhist monks as to what constituted the Dharma and what was general ethical instruction or preparatory teaching. In China, the reason for assimilation of alien religious elements was radically different. The highly cultivated Chinese regarded all things foreign with disdain. To gain respectability, Buddhist monks relied heavily upon borrowed Taoist, and sometimes Confucian, terms in translating their sutras,lo and also modified Buddhist prac10 An example of growing uneasiness among Buddhist translators can be found in the increasing numbers of Sanskrit terms left untranslated as the monks gained skill in the transmission of ideas. Early translators, satisfied with approximate meanings, left almost nothing untouched. An Shih-kao (fl. 148 A.D.) translated the Ssuti-ching (Shi-tai Kyo, Taisho, Vol. 1, No. 32), a work of about 3,620 Chinese characters using only five transliterated Sanskrit words-all proper nouns. Altogether, these five words appear only enough times to provide 83 characters, or a total percentage of 2.29 of the entire

332

Journal

of the American

Oriental

Society

93.3 (1973)

tices to conform to Chinese custom. When their position in China was secure, the monks did all they could to purge Buddhism of outside influences. They did not suceed entirely, but this does not change their intention. In Japan, it is generally agreed that the prevailing motive behind mingling the Buddhist and Shinto pantheons was political. Mrs. Matsunaga recognizes this fact in such statements as: Perhaps we might call his [Shotoku's]effort to bring
the native faith into harmony with Buddhism a political expedient in a nation that still was little more

In spite of all this, the author tells us (on pp. 211-214) that honji-suijaku is to be found before its emergence in Japan in the Hokekyo (Saddharma Pundarika Sutra) and Dainichi-ky6 (Mahdvairocana Sutra). It had a Chinese namepen-chi. She says the term was first used by
Seng-chao (374-414
A.D.).

Yet if this theory

was

than a federation of rivalling clans ....

(p. 147)

Prince Shotoku's primary interest was, indeed, the unification of Japan, not religion. Finding in Chinese culture the vehicle he needed to promote unity, he selected those aspects of it most useful to him. These included both Confucianism and Buddhism. He might legitimately be called a stimulator of interest in Buddhism and Confucianism, but not a harmonizer of religions."
text. When he translated the Fu-shou i-cheieh liu-she shou-yin ching (Bussetsu Issai Rush6 Shu'in Ky6, Taisho, Vol. 1, No. 31), a work of about 1,870 characters, he managed to get along with only two transliterated Sanskrit words, also proper names, and although these were repeated, they make up only 70 Chinese characters or a total of 3.74 percent of the text. By the time of Kumarajiva (fl. 401 A.D.), translators were uneasy about this practice of substituting approximate terms for the Sanskrit. In Kumarajiva's translation of the Samantamukha Pairivarta, the 25th fascicle of the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra, which consists of 2,067 characters, there are 230 Sanskrit words, or 11.1 percent of the total number. A translation problem is not solved, however, by leaving words untranslated. In the fourth century Taoan (312-385) and Hui-yuan (334-417) were still depending heavily on Taoist concepts and terms. And even as late as the seventh century Hsuan-tsang (c. 596-664) was concerned with the problem. He said, in the Ta-ftang Hsi-yii-chi (Taisho, Vol. 55, No. 2087): "Sanskrit words should be translated. One must make an effort to keep the original form. Take the pattern of the orthodox textbooks, infer, and then discourse about them. I fear to pervert the truth." 11 Professor Toshiaki Harada tells us that speaking of Prince Shotoku (572-622) and the monk Gyogi (677-740) as innovators of shinbutsu shugo was a custom of writers who lived long after these two men. There is not even any evidence to support the frequently made assertion

clearly and distinctively formulated in mainland Asia, as she suggests, one would expect it to appear in Japan soon after the introduction of Buddhism, about 542 A.D., rather than three hundred years later. An early appearance is debatable because the term pen-chi, according to the Sources of Japanese Tradition, first appeared in China shortly before
or during the T'ang Dynasty (618-907
A.D.).'2

As she admits: During the early Heian there was not yet any sign
of the honji suijaku theory applied to the indigenous deities, and it was not until the later Heian or early Fujiwara that the first occurance of suijaku related to Japanese divinities .... (p. 227)

The confusion is further compounded by her handling of the relationships between shinbutsu shlgo (unification of gods and Buddhism) and honji-suijaku. On page 151 she says:
We can trace the rise of shimbutsu shiug back to almost immediately after the inception of Buddhism, when the first efforts were made to assimilate the new religion in accordance with the native thought ...

The author recognizes this as an effort on the part of the Japanese people to absorb Buddhism, rather than the reverse. She says on page 2:
[Shimbutsu shigo] . . . is a broad term encompassing all efforts to unite the indigenous faith with Buddhism, a process beginning with the inception of Buddhism in Japan and generally dealing with exterior phenomena brought together without systematization.

This statement ever, by:

is followed

immediately,

how-

On the other hand, the honji suijaku theory is the culminating philosophy arising out of this initial exterior unification and although it can also be classified the general category of shimbutsu shiigo, it rethat Dengyo Daishi (Saicho, 767-822) or Kobo Daishi (Kikai, 774-835) had any connection with shinbutsu shigo. See pp. 312-313 of his "Kodai ShukyB-ron" in Nippon Rekishi, Vol. 2 (Tokyo, Iwanami Shoten, 1962). 12 Wm. Theodore de Bary, op. cit., p. 268.

KATO: Philosophy of Assimilation presents a systematic Buddhist philosophy of assimilation. (Italics added) Where are we? Since there is no convincing evidence to support the second half of the author's statement, we are left with the first half, which represents honji-suijaku as a direct outgrowth of shinbutsu shugo. Why didn't she keep the position of this statement and the one on page 102 ?
It reads, ". . . we can clearly see a Chinese pre-

in Buddhism

333

cedent for the Japanese honji-suijaku concept, however, there is as yet no proper philosophical foundation for such a theory." Sometimes the existence of a book which does not convince a reader of its major premise can still be justified on the ground that it provides useful information. It would be dangerous, however, to recommend the use of The Buddhist Philosophy of Assimilation. There are too many errors and contradictions. One example of the author's confusion is found on page 78: The actual historical existence of Gotama (Skt. Gautama) Buddha has never had a tremendoussignificance in the Buddhist faith, as he has been primarily considered to be an archetype, and secondly a historical personage. In Early Buddhism, the personality of the founder still cast its strong shadow over the Sangha, and he was assigned a special place of reverence that no one else was allowed to usurp. For the first few hundred years after his death his memory was still so sacred and so vital that no image was allowed to be made of him for fear of distortion and bringing the sacred down to a mundanelevel. Here, we are given no clues to help us reconcile two conflicting statements presented one after the other. There is an extensive discussion on pages 120138 of the thirty-three kinds of appearance which Avalokitesvara may assume in which a section, from page 123 to the middle of page 125, may be reliable, since it resembles closely or is a direct translation, without acknowledgement of the source, of pages in Daiyu Goto's Kanzeon Bosatsu no Kenkyu (Tokyo, Sanki-bo, 1958). Got6's interpretation of Arya Avalokitesvara (Sheng Kuanyin) is found on his pages 111-112, the Elevenfaced Avalokitesvara is on pp. 133-135, and the Thousand-armed Avalokitesvara on pp. 124-125. The names and functions of the popular thirtythree Kuan-yin, pp. 130-134 in the Matsunaga book, are listed without any indication of a source

of information, yet these are not so common that the author could have memorized them. Neither are they important enough to appear in general works on Buddhism so that one could argue they are in the public domain. However, all these descriptions, complete with Sanskrit names, can be found in Daiyui Goto's previously mentioned book on pages 170-182. Mrs. Matsunaga has forgotten to acknowledge this source. A further instance of an unacknowledged source of information is to be found in connection with a mandala (mandara) explanation on pages 200205. We are not told how Mrs. Matsunaga happens to know the details of this explanation. From the middle of page 135, under the caption, "Kuan Yin and Taoism," to the middle of page 138, with the exception of one paragraph, is a section borrowed with an acknowledgement (footnote 103) that suggests she has borrowed, at most, one paragraph. The nine paragraphs in question are a more or less accurate translation of Ry6shui Michibata's article, "Chi-goku ni okeru Minkan shink6 to kannon," in Indogaku Bidkkyogaku Kenkyiu (Vol. III, No. 1, 1954), pp. 338-340. In footnote 59 on page 169, Shuichi Murayama is given credit for one name, 'Amida,' but actually eighteen lines from his Shinbutsu Shtugo Shicho (p. 25) have been used on her pages 168-169. She borrows from him again-twenty-five lines in pages 273-274-with no indication at all that this paragraph can be found in Murayama on page 96. Her dependence on Murayama can also be seen in places where she does not use word-forword translations but does repeat ideas from his Shinbutsu Shiiug Shicho. Thus: Matsunaga Murayama p. 268 pp. 166-167 p. 167 p. 268, footnote 142 She has also appropriated, without acknowledgement, from Zennosuke Tsuji's Nippon Bukky6-shi. Lines 9 to 12 and footnote 24 on her page 218 can be found on page 438 of Tsuji's work, except for one mistake she has made. On page 454 of Tsuji can also be found Mrs. Matsunaga's two paragraphs beginning on page 227 with, "During the early Heian there was not yet any sign of
the..." and ending

help of the divinities." Errors are so numerous it would be impractical to list them all. Typical examples are these:
On page 129 we are told that

on her page 228 with

"...

concept of the thirty-three Kuan-yin developed during the Sui and Teang dynasties into a popular

". .. the general

334

Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.3 (1973) is an English translation of a portion of the Digha Nikdya for which the Pali is supplied in footnote 22. That is, all but the first stanza. Why the first stanza was not included is unknown. Some footnotes contain inaccuracies that make it difficult or impossible to follow up. Some of these are footnotes 74 on page 125 and 102 on page 40. The information in the former is nowhere to be found. The information in the latter contradicts line 2 of page 149. In her effort to use as much already published material on honji-suijaku as possible, Mrs. Matsunaga has not been able to tell the difference between what is accurate and what is not. For instance, her information on the Saicho visit to Kimpusen (p. 189), taken from the Dengyo Daishiden, is highly doubtful. Also, according to the author, Moroe Tachibana was the compiler of the Man'y6shu. This theory is no longer accepted. It appears that she has used old sources of information. Many of the errors she has made would have been corrected had she consulted works which have been produced in the last few years. So pressing is the need for adequate works on Buddhism, that this reviewer found himself searching for some redeeming features in the Matsunaga opus. There were none. This book is a superficial patchwork of materials carelessly put together.

cult." This is not correct; the thirty-three KuanIt first yin, as a set, is a Japanese innovation. appeared during the Edo period in a book called the Butsuz6 Zui. Two of the thirty-three have Kannon and Iwaonly Japanese names-Takimi to Kannon. It would be linguistically impossible to find equivalents for these in Chinese. On page 99 this statement appears: "The figure
of the founder Lao-tzu was ... a mythological

rather than historical personage." This notion was popularized by Liang Ch'i-ch'ao (1873-1929) during the height of his generation's attempt to get away from tradition but has lost favor with the latest generation of scholars. The debate now is not did he live (most scholars accept the evidence that he did) but when, in the Spring and Autumn period or in the Warring States period? There is a thorough discussion of Lao-tzu's historicity in Wing-tsit Chan's The Way of Lao Tzu13 which Mrs. Matsunaga could have consulted. Footnote 3 on page 2, consists of Chinese characters without explanation or romanization. What the author does here is equate two terms-shinbutsu shugo and shinbutsu konko. Since there is negative meaning and use in shinbutsu konko, the two terms are not equivalents. On page 13 there
13 Chan, Wing-tsit,

The Way of Lao-tzu (New York,

Bobbs-Merrill,1963), pp. 35-53.