In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Conversations from the Shin Buddhist-Muslim-Christian Workshops, 2016–2019:IntroductionDennis HirotaIn 2016, members of the Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures at Ryukoku University initiated a project that came to be titled "Conversations in Comparative Theology: Shin Buddhism, Christianity, Islam." The basic plan called for a small number of scholars of the three traditions to meet to present papers on shared themes and discuss vital topics in their own traditions. The (...) hope was that participants would, through the presentations, reflect critically on issues within their own tradition in the light of the theological thinking of other traditions.The first meeting was held at Ryukoku University in 2016. The planning for the project was joined, at various stages, by Perry Schmidt-Leukel of Münster University, Peter Phan of Georgetown University, and David Matsumoto of the Institute of Buddhist Studies, all of whom hosted a meeting at their home institution. In all, four meetings were held in four consecutive years in Kyoto, Münster, Washington, D.C., and Berkeley.For the first three meetings, panels were organized around set themes, with one panelist presenting for each tradition. The themes for all the panels were largely determined at the outset of the project. They were intended to be topics of major significance with broad resonance across the traditions. It was anticipated that each topic would be viewed as harboring issues requiring current deliberation. In this respect, some of the panel topics were more fruitful than others.The panel topics for the first meeting were: (i) Buddha's teaching, revelation, truth; (ii) universality and exclusivism; (iii) myth and history; and (iv) Amida, Allah, Trinity.The panel topics for the second meeting: (i) karmic evil, sin, suffering, and predestination; (ii) practice, prayer, and transformation; (iii) repentance and forgiveness, aspiration, and hope; and (iv) human existence.The topics for the third meeting: (i) wisdom-compassion, divine love/mercy, and transcendence; (ii) shinjin, nembutsu, surrender/faith, remembrance, and the prophetic voice; (iii) Amida's directing of virtue; grace, justice, and moral life; and (iv) naturalness (jinen), fitra, spirit. [End Page 239]At the final meeting, participants presented revised or augmented papers reflecting their experience during the entire project. The eight articles gathered here were originally written as part of the project at various points during the four-year course of its proceedings.Readers will be able to determine the success of the project itself by the merits or limitations of the contributions. It may be useful, however, to offer a reflection on the meetings as a whole. Students of religion experienced in interreligious, intercultural, or comparative theological dialogue will recognize some of the difficulties surrounding the project. I will mention simply that a tension or polarity of concerns quickly emerged that might be characterized as the distance between "comparative" approaches, on the one hand, and more traditional "theological" practices, on the other hand. We learned that students of religion engage in comparison based on diverse hermeneutical presuppositions, and that theological reflection within religious communities of discourse can vary widely as well.Another challenge, at least initially, was limited knowledge of other traditions. This may have inclined presenters to focus on clarifying concepts in their own tradition or highlighting points of convergence with other traditions. This tendency seems heightened when three traditions are involved, although participants were not required to include all three in their research. The basic goal of the project was to foster work in constructive theological treatments of pressing issues in our respective traditions by means of critical engagement with another tradition. This goal may be ambitious, but we learned it is worth the effort. [End Page 240]Dennis HirotaRyukoku UniversityCopyright © 2022 University of Hawai'i Press... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Buddhist-Christian Studies 21.1 (2001) 113-114 [Access article in PDF] Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies Paul Swanson Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture The annual meeting of the Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies (Tözai Shukyö Köryu Gakkai) met on 24-26 July 2000 at the Palaceside Hotel in Kyoto. Major papers were given on the general theme "Spirituality, Nature, and the Self," in preparation for participation in the Sixth Conference (...) of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies on "Buddhism, Christianity and Global Healing" held at Pacific Lutheran University on 5-12 August 2000. Although the papers were repeated (in English) at the conference at PLU, the respondents were different.The first paper was given by Okumura Ichirö (a Carmelite priest) on "A Spiritual Pilgrimage: From Buddhism to Christianity." Father Okumura related the story of his spiritual journey, beginning with an interest in Zen and the works of Dögen; his first encounters with Christianity (which were negative); his struggle to understand the teachings of the Bible; his vision of a black-covered Bible with blank pages, and a scorched crucifix; the advice of his Zen Master Nakagawa to be baptized; and his encounter with St. John of the Cross and St. Therese, leading to his becoming a Carmelite priest. A response was given by Nishimura Eshin (Zen priest and Vice President, Hanazono University) who, in his usual feisty manner, noted an empathy for Fr. Okumura's spiritual journey while reaffirming the differences of his own Zen Buddhist faith.The second paper was by Hanaoka Eiko (Professor, Osaka Prefecture University) on "Problems of Spirituality: Facing the Twenty-first Century." Hanaoka approached the issue from her own background in Kyoto School philosophy, presenting five paradigms from which to consider spirituality--relative being, relative nothingness, nihil, absolute being, and absolute nothingness--promoting the paradigm of "absolute nothingness" as the most appropriate for the twenty-first century. The response by Onodera Isao (Professor, Seisen University) reaffirmed the significance of Nishida's philosophy while raising specific questions concerning Hanaoka's presentation, including the query as to how and where "Shinto" would fit in her proposed scheme.The third presentation, opening up the activities on the second day,wasa "research report" by Yagi Seiichi (Professor, Töin University of Yokohama) on "Developing a Theory of Practice for Dialogue Between Buddhism and Christianity." Yagi expressed [End Page 113] a desire to think about "religious practice" as the most important element in religion and couched his discussion in terms of jiga (ego) and jiko (self). He concluded that our contemporary civilization is built with an emphasis on the ego and that Buddhist-Christian dialogue should point to a way beyond egocentrism.The fourth paper was by Kobayashi Enshö (Professor, Hanazono University) on "Maya and Mary: Spirituality and Nature ofTwo Sacred Wombs." Kobayashi examined the respective developments concerning Maya, the mother of Siddhartha, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Buddhism and Christianity, pointing out various common elements as well as differences in the role and influence of "mother images" in the history of the two religious traditions. In response, Kawanami Akira (Professor, Töyö University) speculated that a reason for significant differences in the role of Maya and Mary could be due to the presence of Mary throughout Jesus' career, while Maya passed away one week after Siddhartha's birth.The fifth and final paper consisted of another "research report," this time by Takada Shinryö(Professor, Ryukoku University) on "Mappö and Eschatology: What Can Buddhism Learn from Christianity?"Takada, inspired by a symposium on the theme "What Can Christianity Learn from Buddhism"(sponsored by the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture in 1997), attempted to compare the meaning of eschatology in Christianity and that of mappö (the degenerate "latter" age) in Buddhism. Speaking from the perspective of Pure Land Buddhism, he emphasized the importance of the idea that "mappö is now" rather than a specific historical period.On the third day, a final summary and discussion was led by Ueda Shizuteru. As is the common practice for the meeting, all participants (about thirty) were invited to give a... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Buddhist-Christian Studies 21.1 (2001) 113-114 [Access article in PDF] Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies Paul Swanson Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture The annual meeting of the Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies (Tözai Shukyö Köryu Gakkai) met on 24-26 July 2000 at the Palaceside Hotel in Kyoto. Major papers were given on the general theme "Spirituality, Nature, and the Self," in preparation for participation in the Sixth Conference (...) of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies on "Buddhism, Christianity and Global Healing" held at Pacific Lutheran University on 5-12 August 2000. Although the papers were repeated (in English) at the conference at PLU, the respondents were different.The first paper was given by Okumura Ichirö (a Carmelite priest) on "A Spiritual Pilgrimage: From Buddhism to Christianity." Father Okumura related the story of his spiritual journey, beginning with an interest in Zen and the works of Dögen; his first encounters with Christianity (which were negative); his struggle to understand the teachings of the Bible; his vision of a black-covered Bible with blank pages, and a scorched crucifix; the advice of his Zen Master Nakagawa to be baptized; and his encounter with St. John of the Cross and St. Therese, leading to his becoming a Carmelite priest. A response was given by Nishimura Eshin (Zen priest and Vice President, Hanazono University) who, in his usual feisty manner, noted an empathy for Fr. Okumura's spiritual journey while reaffirming the differences of his own Zen Buddhist faith.The second paper was by Hanaoka Eiko (Professor, Osaka Prefecture University) on "Problems of Spirituality: Facing the Twenty-first Century." Hanaoka approached the issue from her own background in Kyoto School philosophy, presenting five paradigms from which to consider spirituality--relative being, relative nothingness, nihil, absolute being, and absolute nothingness--promoting the paradigm of "absolute nothingness" as the most appropriate for the twenty-first century. The response by Onodera Isao (Professor, Seisen University) reaffirmed the significance of Nishida's philosophy while raising specific questions concerning Hanaoka's presentation, including the query as to how and where "Shinto" would fit in her proposed scheme.The third presentation, opening up the activities on the second day,wasa "research report" by Yagi Seiichi (Professor, Töin University of Yokohama) on "Developing a Theory of Practice for Dialogue Between Buddhism and Christianity." Yagi expressed [End Page 113] a desire to think about "religious practice" as the most important element in religion and couched his discussion in terms of jiga (ego) and jiko (self). He concluded that our contemporary civilization is built with an emphasis on the ego and that Buddhist-Christian dialogue should point to a way beyond egocentrism.The fourth paper was by Kobayashi Enshö (Professor, Hanazono University) on "Maya and Mary: Spirituality and Nature ofTwo Sacred Wombs." Kobayashi examined the respective developments concerning Maya, the mother of Siddhartha, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Buddhism and Christianity, pointing out various common elements as well as differences in the role and influence of "mother images" in the history of the two religious traditions. In response, Kawanami Akira (Professor, Töyö University) speculated that a reason for significant differences in the role of Maya and Mary could be due to the presence of Mary throughout Jesus' career, while Maya passed away one week after Siddhartha's birth.The fifth and final paper consisted of another "research report," this time by Takada Shinryö(Professor, Ryukoku University) on "Mappö and Eschatology: What Can Buddhism Learn from Christianity?"Takada, inspired by a symposium on the theme "What Can Christianity Learn from Buddhism"(sponsored by the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture in 1997), attempted to compare the meaning of eschatology in Christianity and that of mappö (the degenerate "latter" age) in Buddhism. Speaking from the perspective of Pure Land Buddhism, he emphasized the importance of the idea that "mappö is now" rather than a specific historical period.On the third day, a final summary and discussion was led by Ueda Shizuteru. As is the common practice for the meeting, all participants (about thirty) were invited to give a... (shrink)

_An accessible discussion of the thought of key figures of the Kyoto School of Japanese philosophy._.

The famous debate between Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger of 1929 in Davos was set on a global stage and, yet, inherently Eurocentric. This volume explores how the hypothetical presence of the Kyoto school founder Nishida Kitarō would have overcome this limitation.

This book presents the thought of the Kyoto School in comparison with continental philosophers better known in the West and addresses the affiliation of some of its members with the militarism of the 1930s and 1940s.

This article focuses on Kyoto School philosophy’s “philosophy of world history,” during World War II, and its arguments for a multipolar world order in opposition to the older Eurocentric and colonialist world order. The idea was articulated by the second generation of the Kyoto School—Nishitani Keiji, Kōyama Iwao, Kōsaka Masaaki, and Suzuki Shigetaka—in a series of symposia held during 1941 to 1942 and titled the “The World-historical Standpoint and Japan.” While rejecting on the one hand the myopic patriotism (...) of the ultranationalists, they argued for a view to the world and its history, that in contrast to the Eurocentric view to world history, was polycentric. In terms of world politics they associated their view with the aim to construct a co-prosperity sphere in East Asia of autonomous nations to counter European colonialism as part of a new polycentric or multipolar world order. Metaphysically this notion of a co-prosperity sphere as well as of a multipolar world was grounded in the Kyoto School’s concept of “nothingness” as an open space for autonomous but corelated subjects. During the war, these discussions came under fire by critics from the Right, and then after the war, from the Left. I will examine the potential viability of these ideas today as a polycentric world may be on the horizon that ideally would give space to difference and diversity and avoid the violence of homogenization. A comparison of their notion of the nothing with Jean-luc Nancy’s concept of the same may provide some clues. (shrink)

reel 1-4. A. Okamatsu Yōkoku kankei -- reel 5-8. B. Shokan -- reel 9-28. C. Taiwan kankei -- reel 29-36. D. Minami Manshū Tetsudō kankei -- reel 37-40. E. Saiban kankei -- reel 41-45. F. Daigaku kankei -- reel 46-54. G. Rippoe kankei -- reel 55. H. Dokushō (shoehin katarogu-rui) -- reel 56. I. Takushoku kankei, J. Ōshū kikō kankei (1) -- reel 57. J. Ōshū kikō kankei (2) -- reel 58-72. K. Nōto rui -- reel 73-112. L. Genkō, (...) ronbun -- reel 113. M. Chōji kankei, N. Sonota (1) -- reel 114-122. N. Sonota. (shrink)

Nishida Kitarō, the cofounder and central figure of the Kyoto school, once stated that to be is to be implaced. Nishida’s second generation Kyoto School descendant and current representative of the Kyoto School, Ueda Shizuteru, furthered this concept to understand both place and implacement in terms of a twofold world or twofold horizon. Nishida initially understood the self in its unobjectifiability as a kind of place wherein subject and object correlate. But this placial self came to be (...) seen as itself implaced within a contextualizing place wherein it can interact with things in the world and with other subjects in an “I-thou” relationship, but which ultimately is further implaced in an abyssal place of absolute nothing. He developed this understanding of place in terms of the socio-historical world and ultimately in terms of the divinity that negates itself in kenōsis to make room for the world of many. Roughly speaking and in a variety of versions, Nishida takes the system of places to involve the following: the place of beings or objects, the place that is consciousness, the place that is the world of human interactivity, and finally the place of absolute nothing. Ueda on the other hand, focuses on the twofold structure of place itself as involving the twofold structure of the horizon of experience. We are implaced in the world that in turn is implaced in a boundless openness. Our place is twofold in that there is the world of significances on this side of its horizon and the a-meaning of the nothing beyond its horizon. While Nishida formulates the system of places in terms of place of being, place of relative nothing, and place of absolute nothing, Ueda uses the fraction symbol as world/open expanse to convey his idea of “world amidst the open expanse.” I will explore this legacy of place as Nishida first formulated it and then as developed more recently by Ueda. While doing so I will also discuss each of their relations to phenomenology. Nishida was developing his theory of place cotemporaneous to the careers of Husserl and Heidegger. While he was aware of their work, it was only to a limited extent and he was quite critical of both thinkers and phenomenology in general. On the other hand, Ueda is quite knowledgeable of the phenomenological movement of Europe, having studied under Nishida’s student, Nishitani Keiji, who had studied under Heidegger and, himself, having studied in Germany. He incorporates the insights of Husserl, Heidegger, Bollnow, Jaspers, Merleau-Ponty, Eliade, and others, in developing his own understanding of place. What both Nishida and Ueda offer vis-à-vis a phenomenology of place is a sophisticated analysis of that other to being that place as defined and limited must assume: what Nishida calls the absolute nothing (zettai mu) and what Ueda calls the open expanse (kokū). I will then end by looking at the implications these ideas have for our current situation of globalization in the contemporary world. (shrink)

Rather than a return to Bergson, the ‘Kyoto manifesto’ argues for a renewed, expanded Bergsonism: a philosophical inquiry that lives up to the methodological standards set by Bergson, even if this implies prolonging some of his intuitions in different directions—possibly against himself. Several aspects of this endeavour are examined in turn: the meaning of ‘intuition’ and the prospects of speculative empiricism, the ontological scope of scientific theories, emergentism and the virtual, the relevance of space-time for duration, the place of (...) metaphysical imagination and its capacity to probe the utopian potential of a truly open science. (shrink)

This introduction to Tanabe Hajime (1885-1962), the critical successor of the "father of contemporary Japanese philosophy" Nishida Kitaro (1870-1945), focuses on Hajime's central philosophical ideas and perspective on "self," "world," "knowledge," and the "purpose of philosophizing". Exploring his notable philosophical ideas including the logic of species, metanoetics, and philosophy of death, it addresses his life-long study of the history of Western philosophy. It sets out his belief that Western framework of thinking is incapable of giving sufficient answers to the philosophical (...) questions concerning the self and the world together and discusses the central ideas he developed while working in Eastern traditions such as Confucianism and Daoism. Featuring comprehensive further reading lists, discussion questions and teaching notes, this is an ideal introductory guide to Tanabe Hajime suitable for anyone interested in Japanese and World philosophy, as well as the development of the Kyoto School. (shrink)

Die Aktualität der Philosophie : Grundriss des Denkweges der Kyoto-Schule -- Was hat Zen mit Heidegger zu tun? : Das komparative Denkweg von Ost und West -- Zur Bedeutung der Erfahrung bei Heidegger und bei Nishida : eine philosophische Komparatistik zur globalen Welt.

Introduction -- Nishida -- Nishitani -- Tanabe -- The Danish parallel -- Conclusion.

The essays in this book take a new approach to the subject, engaging substantially with the philosophical texts of members of the Kyoto School, and ...

The Kyoto Protocol became law in February 2005—eight years after its conception as a framework for reducing emissions and a full four years after the United States abandoned it. But while President George W. Bush embarrassed much of the scientific community by challenging the veracity of the greenhouse effect, and thus the impetus for Kyoto, officials elsewhere expressed far different concerns. _Reading the Kyoto Protocol_ explores their qualms and objections to everything from Kyoto's controversial policies on (...) emissions trading to the question of a "post-Kyoto era." Contributors include internationally known philosophers, researchers, and environmentalists. (shrink)

The conference in a nutshell: philosophy in times of crises returned to a crisis in philosophy. The pandemic throws us back on our feet and makes us rethink the question raised at the Davos Disputation between Martin Heidegger and Ernst Cassirer in 1929: “What is a human being?” While both had agreed that the initial question was the crucial question to tackle, neither of them could put forth a solution to the question given that their own thought paths proved to (...) have led them into a dead end and to the necessity to turn in a new direction in order to overcome a philosophical crisis. So, in 2020, why not move beyond the scope of this German–German disputation in Davos, and even beyond the horizon of Europe to look for new pathways of thought? (shrink)