Talk:Zen at War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV Issue[edit]

Hello Friends,

Under the heading "Reception," this review contained the following paragraph, which I have deleted.

"Most scholars of Buddhism appear to have accepted Victoria's broad account of Japanese Buddhist militarism during the period from the Meiji Restoration up to the end of Second World War. However with regards to some of the specific individuals he has criticized, such as Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and D.T. Suzuki, he has been accused of bolstering his case by quoting out of context, failing to acknowledge changes in the stances of those he criticizes over the whole course of their lives, and, in his translations, of selecting provocative English equivalent terms over more commonly used neutral ones (see critiques referenced below)."

Victoria's sole reference in Zen and War to Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (the founder of the Nichiren-related Sokka Gakkai) is in a footnote on page 201, which Victora adds to explain why he has not included Makiguchi's group among those the author cites as opposing the Japanese militaristic government. There is absolutely no other mention, criticism or otherwise, of Makiguchi in the book. Furthermore, Victoria's totally separate article "Engaged Buddhism: A Skeleton in the Closet?" focuses on an entirely different issue, namely the question of whether Buddhism has been and can be a 'liberating' philosophy, and has little to do with the subject covered by Zen and War. The issue of whether Victoria has quoted Makiguchi "out of context" arises out of that article, not Zen and War. Moreover, it takes place in the context of whether Makiguchi truly fought and died for the causes presented by the present Sokka Gakkai. As his reason for excluding Makiguchi's group from anti-war Buddhist groups, Victoria states: "the conflict between [the Nichiren-related] gropus and the government was characterized by mutual religious intolerance, not these groups' opposition to either Japanese colonialism or militarism" (p. 201). The implication of the above paragraph is that Victoria misquotes Makiguchi (or some other unknown person) out of context to falsely characterize Makiguchi as a supporter of militarism is therefore completely false.

If the above writer knows of any other supposed misquotations of which Victoria is guilty, he should do his homework and make concrete references to these in the body of the article and not make sweeping statements with dubious and unfair intimations. Meanwhile, the reviews cited here are, interestingly enough, almost universally agreed in praising Victoria's book. This is certainly not to say that Victoria's flaws should go unmentioned. It is only to say that those flaws which are mentioned should be ones of which he is genuinely guilty, and they should be presented in a balanced way.

Contrary to the claim in the above paragraph that Victoria 'failed to acknowledge changes in the stances of those he criticizes,' the Metraux article itself notes that Victoria does just that on page 150, where the author recognizes that Suzuki later expressed some contrition after the war for his previous views.

As for the claim that Victoria effectively cherry picks his translations, I can, as a translator of Japanese, testify to the fact that the choice of a translation is often a highly subjective one and the same word must often be translated differently in different contexts in order to be faithful to the original. If the writer of the above paragraph reads Japanese and wishes to include concrete examples in this article, by all means do so. In any event, in the absence of any concrete examples of dishonesty in this regard by Victoria, this statement has no place here.

Finally, I have changed the heading "Critiques" to "Articles on Related Topics" because none of the 'critiques' cited pertain to the book in question but to Victoria's other writings or other related issues.


--Gunnermanz (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean anything? even some war criminals changed their view after Japan was defeated. 69.165.136.163 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You make a fair point in so far as I wrongly conflated critiques of 'Zen at War' and 'Engaged Buddhism: A Skeleton in the Closet?') and I agree that the article itself was unbalanced, dwelling too much on criticisms of Victoria rather than praise for his work. Mea culpa.
Having said that there are certainly accusations of mistranslation and quoting out of context out there with regards to 'Zen at War'. See for example: http://www.cuke.com/victoria/victoria%20page.html
"A very important paper is in the spring '09 issue of The Eastern Buddhist by SATO Taira Kemmyo. "D.T. Suzuki and the Question of War [states that] Victoria's attack, based on mis-translation and other errors, should be revoked."
The link in the article to emails from Muho Noelke to Brian Victoria also contains sugestions of mistranslation with regards to the the life and words of Kodo Sawaki.
--Nio-guardian (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A Point of Reference regarding Alleged Translation Errors[edit]

Hello my good friends. Warmest New Year greetings! Regarding the issue of alleged mistranslation, may I offer the following anecdote? When I was working as an in-house translator at the largest law firm in Japan during the asset bubble of the late 1980s, I translated the will (last testament) of an American art teacher who had owned a large plot of land in central Tokyo since the Occupation. Appreciation of land prices had made him a multi-millionaire, but he was now dying of cancer from smoking. The dying man, who I visited at the hospital with the lawyer and paralegal, had wanted to change the executor, who he'd discovered had connections with the yakuza. He was right, for after he died, the will was probated by this executor, who was indeed connected with the yakuza. As translator, my name and address appeared on the document. A mobster came to my home and threatened me with violence. A man from Teikoku Data Bank (the Japanese equivalent of Dunn & Bradstreet) also ominously came to my home asking very personal questions. In the trial, the VERY FIRST issue raised by these proven criminals was my alleged 'mistranslation' of the dead man's will. This was of course hopeless because our very excellent Japanese lawyer (a Tokyo University graduate and former prosecutor) had gone through the translation with a fine-tooth comb, and the governing translation was the Japanese version anyway. So you may be able to see by now what my feelings might be when I read about alleged mistranslations in Professor Victoria's books by people who apparently not only do not understand Japanese but seem to have a predisposition to favor one side in this debate. Although the other side had no chance in their specious allegations about mistranslation in the case of this will, those who detract Professor Victoria's works know that the vast majority of his readers do not understand Japanese and will therefore not be able to confirm the facts one way or the other. And of course, these detractors know that in debates regarding politics and religion, there is no impartial judge and no penalty for making false allegations. I can not help but recall the Dover Trial regarding Creationism, in this regard. Yes, I do believe Professor Victoria was a bit harsh at times. I also think most of the people in this 'Zen debate,' including professor Victoria himself, are missing the more fundamental point of how any supposed 'enlightened person' can support a war outside his own homeland under any circumstances. I believe, in the revised edition of his Zen and War, the good professor was more cognizant of this 'elephant in the room.' I am a former member of Sanbo Kyodan and during the 1970s found and read many old books by well known Zen Roshi. Since most of these old writings by 'Zen masters' supported what can only be described as an aggressive (not defensive) war against China and other Asians, that glorified Emperor worship, anti-Semitism and other forms of what Erich Fromm described as 'social narcissism,' which is nothing more than a collectivistic form of egoism (the very opposite of muga 無我), I was, as a young spiritual seeker in those days, appalled and devastated. For me, Victoria's book lanced a painful, festering wound, and I rejoiced. But while I admire the professor, it by no means I believe he should be exempted from the requirements of rigorous academic standards. But neither should his detractors be exempt. I have NEVER seen any concrete proof of any alleged mistranslations on Victoria's part that impugns the basic thesis of his works - or, for that matter, even proving the specific mistakes he's alleged to have made. The very fact that his detractors snipe around the periphery of his works itself raises suspicions in my own mind about their own agenda. The facts remain: Envious of Western Imperialist powers, Japanese militarists and their passive and cowardly supporters attempted to create their own empire in Asia through acts which not only equalled but surpassed the brutality of Western imperialism. Enlightened Zen 'masters' supported this with FULL knowledge of everything that was going on. I don't believe that any mistranslation on Victoria's part will be revealed that will ever change this basic historical fact, even though it may be disturbing to the followers of the Zen sect. --Gunnermanz (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking[edit]

It's not clear to me why these links were removed. It seems to me that they provided insightfull further information. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

Quotes[edit]

This article overuses quotations - see WP:QUOTEFARM. Many of these quotes should be paraphrased in our own writing. Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Briana victoria, Kemmyō Taira Sato, are they notable? Remember we avoid all red links when its about criticism, as well as appraisal. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Victoria is definitely notable! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And other author? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the English Wikipedia, he is notable at this article, since he commented on Brian Victoria. but Brian Victoria himself also is notable because of this book of him; I don't think that a separate article is warranted. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Victoria[edit]

In spite of the last comment by Joshua Jonathan, I did create an article on Brian Victoria. This was prompted by a discussion on the Talk page at Soka Gakkai, regarding Victoria's view of Makiguchi. For now the Victoria article is mainly a list of his other books and journal articles from one site, with a link back to this article. Hopefully in the future it can serve as a home for more links and place for general discussion of his contributions and criticism. (I also updated this article with his current affiliation.) --Margin1522 (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zen at War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responses[edit]

Moved from main article Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabor Niels Fabricius:

It is evident that Victoria could not escape the long shadow of Western-Christian-monotheistic guilt searching in the ranks of Japanese Zen insinuating some moral war-crime. Fighting life and death, for ones national survival and culture is not a Christian or Islamic monopoly and I believe that Zen monks and teachers just did their duty in the war. Just as before Meiji in the Teragoya’s, teaching reading and writing so that 50% of the Japanese were literate by 1900, when literacy in Russia was 0.03 % — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor Niels Fabricius (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Victoria did a very good book as an academic. You may ascribe some guilt in it, but ad hominem attacks in no way diminishes the argument of the book. Contrary to your assertion, fighting for one's nation is in fact a European creation that derives from the nation-state ideal, alien to Zen's practice (that's the whole point of the book) and even to traditional Japan. Finally, the naturalization of obeying a fascist government imperial war is beyond belief; "just did their duty in the war", Why on earth would you say that their duty wasn't to oppose killing fellow sentient beings? OR at the very least to remain silent. 190.122.53.184 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Federico[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zen_at_War&oldid=1211047974"