Kimura Kiyotaka 木村清孝, Shōbōgenzō zenbon kaidoku 『正法眼蔵』全巻解読

[Deciphering the Shōbōgenzō Fascicles]. Tokyo: Kōsei Shuppan, 2015.

568 pp. ISBN: 978-4-333-02719-4, 3800 ¥.

Reviewed by Eitan Bolokan

Kimura Kiyotaka 木 村 清 孝 (b. 1940), abbot of the Sōtō temple

Ryūhōji 龍 寳 寺 in Kanagawa prefecture, Professor Emeritus at Tokyo
University and former President of the Sōtō-affiliated Tsurumi University, is
one of Japan’s leading scholars of “The Flower Ornament School” of
Mahāyāna Buddhism (Jp. 華 厳 宗 Kegonshū) and a specialist in the
Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Jp. Kegonkyō) that represents its core teaching.
Kimura’s numerous publications provide us with an ongoing
consideration of the philosophy of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra and its place in the
formation of Chinese Buddhism. His early work, “A Study of Avataṃsaka
Philosophy in Early China” (Shoki Chūgoku Kegon shisō no kenkyū, 初期中
国華厳思想の研究, Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1977), paved the path to pivotal later
publications such as “A History of Chinese Buddhist Philosophy” (Chūgoku
bukkyō shisōshi, 中国仏教思想史, Tokyo: Sekai seiten kankō kyōkai, 1979), “A
History of Chinese Avataṃsaka Philosophy” (Chūgoku Kegon shisōshi, 中国
華厳思想史, Heirakuji-shoten, 1992), “The Basic Framework of East-Asian
Buddhist Philosophy” (Higashi ajia bukkyō shisō no kisōkōzō, 東アジア仏教思
想の基礎構造, Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2001), and “A Path to Awakening: Studying
the Avataṃsaka Sutra” (Satori he no michi: Kegonkyō ni manabu, さとりへの
道：華厳経に学ぶ, NHK, 2014).
A Sōtō priest himself, Kimura has written extensively on the
thought of the founder of the Japanese Sōtō School, Zen Master Eihei Dōgen
永平道元 (1200–53), and its affinity to the philosophy of the Avataṃsaka.
Kimura’s latest publication, the voluminous study titled Shōbōgenzō zenbon
kaidoku 『正法眼蔵』全巻解読 [Deciphering the Shōbōgenzō Fascicles], presents
us with his lifelong consideration of Dōgen’s philosophy. This is a massive
collection with careful reflections providing many meaningful observations
of Dōgen’s Zen.
In the introduction to Shōbōgenzō zenbon kaidoku, Kimura provides
a detailed presentation of the various editions of the Shōbōgenzō and their
editorial process throughout the centuries. Kimura maintains that by focusing
2 EITAN BOLOKAN

on the 75-fascicle edition (nanajūgo kanbon 七十五巻本) and Dōgen’s late

writings in the 12-fascicle edition of the Shōbōgenzō (jūni kanbon 十二巻本),
one can attain a holistic understanding of Dōgen’s philosophy. To these
Kimura adds what he considers as “Dōgen’s preliminary exposition of the
Dharma” (Dōgen no saisho no honkaku tekina seppō 道元の本格的な説法, 20),
the Bendōwa essay from 1231 (“A Talk on the Wholehearted Way”, 弁道話),
and the two fascicles “Bodaisatta shishōbō” (“Bodhisattva’s Four Methods
of Guidance”, 菩提薩埵四摂法) and “Hokke-ten-hokke” (“Dharma Blossoms
Turn Dharma Blossoms”, 法華転法華 ). Kimura maintains that these latter
fascicles are crucial as they reflect Dōgen’s appreciation of the Lotus Sūtra
and the Mahāyāna path as a whole (hokkekyō-kan to daijō-kan wo tanteki-ni
arawasu 法華経観と大乗観を端的に表す , 20). Kimura’s primary source for his
analysis is the Shōbōgenzō collection edited and annotated by Mizuno Yaoko
(Tokyo: Iwanami Bunkō, 1990–1993, 4 vols.).
Here it should be noted that Kimura’s editorial orientation seems to
follow traditionalist Sōtō hermeneutics (dentō shūgaku 伝 統 宗 学 ), which
focus on the 75 and 12-fascicles editions of the Shōbōgenzō as the
fundamental and authoritative scripture for engaging Dōgen’s thought.
Nevertheless, Kimura acknowledges the indispensability of a close reading
of the sermons contained in the Eihei-Kōroku (Eihei [Dōgen’s] Extensive
Record 永平広録), as a complimentary source that is vital for appreciating
Dōgen’s Zen.
Additionally, in the introduction, Kimura explains his decision not
to include a discussion of the “Shōji” fascicle (“Birth and Death”, 生死), as
he finds it to be straightforward in both articulation and meaning (taihen
wakariyasuku shitashimiyasui koto 大変分かりやすく親しみやすいこと, 20). This is
an intriguing declaration, as the fascicle is known to be a cardinal source for
Dōgen’s presentation of complex themes of birth and death, impermanence,
and their relevance to actual practice. Of course, these themes are discussed
in other fascicles, but excluding “Shōj”i is somewhat bewildering, especially
since pioneering traditionalist commentators such as Nishiari Bokusan 西有
穆山 (1821–1910), Kishizawa Ian 岸沢惟安 (1865–1955), and Okada Gihō 岡
田宜法 (1882–1961) have stressed its significance.
This brings us to a consideration of Kimura’s hermeneutical stance,
which he defines in terms of a “personal interpretation” (shige 私解). This, he
maintains, enables the reader access to a definite and concise explanation
BOOK REVIEW 3

(ittei no hairyo 一 定 の 配 慮 , 20) to each of the various fascicles of the

Shōbōgenzō. Kimura’s methodology brings to mind the classical
commentary, A Personal Account of the Shōbōgenzō (Shōbōgenzō shiki 正法
眼蔵私記 ), compiled by the eighteenth-century Sōtō scholar monk Zakke
Zōkai 雑華蔵海 (1730–1788). Zōkai’s work was one of the first to introduce
what we think of today as a “participatory inquiry” (sankyū 参 究 ) into
Dōgen’s writings or a personal account of one’s reading of the theological
treasury of the tradition based on the wisdom acquired by ongoing practice.
Nonetheless, while most of the sankyū literature was confined to the
scholastics within the Sōtō establishment, Kimura’s commentary aims at
informing and enriching anyone who wishes to deepen his understanding of
Dōgen. In this regard, Shōbōgenzō zenbon kaidoku exemplifies the manner
in which traditionalist literature found its path to the non-specialist reader,
who views Dōgen as a towering figure of thought and creativity, and not only
as the founder of a religious school (kaiso 開祖).
Kimura’s presentation and analysis of the various fascicle is indeed
useful and concise. Kimura clarifies the historical context and significance of
each fascicle, and goes on to discuss the vital aspects that characterize it.
Reading through Kimura’s explanation to such pivotal fascicles as
“Genjōkōan” (“Actualizing the Fundamental Point” 現 成 公 案 ), “Busshō”
(“Buddha Nature” 仏性), “Uji” (“Being-Time” 有時), and many more, I felt
that he succeeded in creating a rich and useful collection of illuminating
commentaries regarding the various fascicles. Nevertheless, I found little in
the actual informative content that is not known to anyone who is acquainted
with the vast literature on Dōgen within Japanese and Western academia.
I then turned to examining the ways in which Kimura’s authority as
a leading specialist of the Avataṃsaka is reflected in his analysis of those
fascicles that have a close affinity to the philosophy of the Kegon School. In
his study of the “Kai’in Zanmai” fascicle (“Ocean Mudra Samādhi” 海印三
昧), Kimura offers a detailed explanation of the philological opening to the
essay by showing how Dōgen’s quotes are taken from the record of the Chan
Master Mǎzǔ Dàoyī 馬 祖 道 一 (709–788), who himself quotes from the
Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra. Hence, Kimura maintains that Dōgen’s unique
understanding of the very concept of the “Ocean Mudra Samādhi” is derived
from the specific Chan literature of the Tang dynasty (88–89).
4 EITAN BOLOKAN

Not only does Kimura’s analysis clarify these various philological

issues, it also focuses on the Avataṃsaka philosophical significance for the
formation of Dōgen’s Zen. For example, Kimura proposes that according to
Dōgen, the meaning of the very concept “Ocean Mudra Samādhi” is the
totality of samādhi achieved by all the Buddhas and Patriarchs (subete no
busso no zanmai すべての仏祖の三昧). This is samādhi which is no other than
the awakened activity and comportment of all Buddhas and Patriarchs (busso
tachi no arayuru katsudō 仏祖たちのあらゆる活動, 90).
Another intriguing observation by Kimura regarding the
significance of this samādhi, is that Dōgen did not confine it to the categories
of meditative states. Quite to the contrary, Dōgen understood this samādhi as
a cosmological designation that points to the dynamic manifestation of all of
reality (shuhō no araware 衆法の現れ, 91). In this way, Kimura shows that the
“Ocean Mudra Samādhi” is a designation of actual practice, but also a
cosmological designation of the workings of all of reality. It is both the
inconceivable dynamics of all phenomena and the particular practice of the
ancestors. In fact, Kimura claims that these dialectics show the affinity
between the Zen Schoo’sl cardinal concept of the “Mind Seal” (shinnin 心印)
and the Kegon “Ocean Mudra Samādhi” (91–92).
Kimura presents similar philological inspections of the “Sangai
Yuishin” (“The Three Realms are Nothing but Mind” 三界唯心 ) fascicle,
which is also deeply connected to the Avataṃsaka philosophy. Here, Kimura
focuses on the famous opening statements of the fascicle attributed to
Shakyamuni Buddha, and discusses the difficulty in locating their textual
sources. Interestingly, Kimura claims that Dōgen’s familiarity with the
various scriptures associated with the Avataṃsaka can be traced to the
writings of the Sòng dynasty Sōtō Master Tóuzǐ Yìqīng 投子義靑 (Jp. Tosu
Gisei, 1032–1083), who was a great scholar of the sūtra. These remarks are
eye-opening as they serve as further examples of the scale in which Dōgen’s
Zen not only bears close affinity to the Tendai and Chan Schools, but also to
other pivotal Mahāyāna traditions that need to be taken into account when
considering its teachings.
This said, while the Shōbōgenzō zenbon kaidoku does provide many
such intriguing and relevant insights, I do find it falling short of reaching its
full potential. Considering the fact that Kimura is both a leading scholar in
the field of Avataṃsaka studies and in the field of Dōgen’s studies, the
current work could have served as a milestone achievement in both fields by
BOOK REVIEW 5

providing us with a study that only few can present within both Japanese and
Western academia. What is the philosophical affinity between the
Avataṃsaka and the Shōbōgenzō? What are the ideas and terminologies so
pivotal to the Kegon Shcool that are reflected in Dōgen’s own vocabulary
and poetic imagery? In the current work, these and many more long-awaited
questions are left, for the most part, untouched. It is true that Kimura notes
that his work is the fruit of a lifelong study of Dōgen’s Zen, and does not
propose a study of the Kegon influences on Dōgen, yet I still cannot but feel
that the current work did not attain its full potential.
The subject of the Avataṃsaka and its influence on Dōgen’s Zen has
long been discussed within Japanese academia and Sōtō scholarship.
Important works, such as Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄 and Ueyama Shunpei’s 上
山春平 “Unlimited World-View: Kegon” (Mugen no sekaikan: Kegon 無限の
世界観：華厳, Tokyo: Kadokawa, 1969) and Yoshizu Yoshihide’s 吉津宜英 “A
Historical Study of the Philosophy of Kegon-Zen” (Kegon Zen no
shisōshiteki kenkyū 華厳禅の思想史的研究, Tokyo: Daitō, 1985), have presented
a careful analysis of this complex theme. Kimura himself, in an article from
2003 titled “Kegon and Zen” (Kegon to Zen 華厳と禅, The Bulletin of the
Research Institute of Zen of Aichigakuin University, vol. 31, 1–12), has
discussed the ways in which the Kegon’s cardinal paradigm of the “Four
Dharma Realms” (shihōkai 四法界) are reflected in Zen literature and Dōgen’s
thought. The absence of such a discussion in most of the current work is
indeed apparent.
In conclusion, Shōbōgenzō zenbon kaidoku is an impeccable
presentation of the various fascicles of the Shōbōgenzō that will serve as an
illuminating and useful commentary for anyone looking for a concise, well
thought, and carefully analyzed investigation of Dōgen’s philosophy.