Martial Arts Of The World - Webs

Although Suzuki frequently quoted from Zen hagiographies, he argued
that Zen is not the exclusive property of the Zen school, Zen temples,
or Zen monks. Rather, Zen is to be found in the Japanese spirit as expressed
in secular arts and in bushidô. Suzuki’s very first essay on Zen in
1906 asserted: “The Lebensanschauung [outlook on life] of Bushido is no
more nor less than that of Zen” (quoted in Sharf 1995, 121). In 1938
Suzuki wrote an entire book on Zen, bushidô, and Japanese culture based
on lectures given in the United States and England during 1936. During the
intervening year, 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army invaded China and
committed the atrocities known as the Rape of Nanking. Reflecting the
zeitgeist of those years, Suzuki portrayed Zen in antinomian terms, as “a
religion of will power” that advocates action unencumbered by ethics
(Suzuki 1938, 37, 64; see also Suzuki 1959, 63, 84; Victoria 1997,
106–112). This book, revised as Zen and Japanese Culture in 1959 and in
print ever since, has become the classic argument for the identity of Zen
and martial arts. Although Suzuki had no firsthand knowledge of martial
arts, he freely interpreted passages from Tokugawa-period martial art treatises
as expressions of Zen mysticism. His translations are full of fanciful
embellishments. For example, he explains shuriken [55, a.k.a. 56], a term
that simply means “to perceive the enemy’s technique” (tenouchi wo miru
[57]), as “the secret sword” that appears when “the Unconscious dormant
at the root of all existence is awakened” (Suzuki 1959, 163). This kind of
mistranslation, in which a physical skill becomes a psychological experience,
rendered the notion of Zen and the martial arts at once exotic and
tantalizingly familiar to Western audiences.
Suzuki’s interpretations were repeated by Eugen Herrigel (1884–
1955), a German professor who taught philosophy in Japan from 1923 to
1929. While in Japan he studied archery under the guidance of an eccentric
mystic named Awa Kenzô [58] (1880–1939). Herrigel continued to
practice archery after returning to Germany, and in 1936 he wrote an essay
to explain its principles in which he acknowledges that he took up
archery because of his interest in Zen and mysticism. Significantly, though,
this first account did not equate archery with Zen. Herrigel’s views changed
once he read Suzuki’s 1938 account of Zen and bushidô. In 1948 Herrigel
wrote a new book (translated into English as Zen in the Art of Archery,
1953) in which, in addition to extensive quotations from Suzuki, Herrigel
described Awa’s teachings as a Zen practice that has remained the same for
centuries. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 1920 Awa had
founded a new religion called Daishakyôdô [59] (literally, “way of the
great doctrine of shooting”). In his book Herrigel refers to Awa’s religion
as the “Great Doctrine” and identifies it with Zen. Awa did not. Awa had
no training in Zen and did not approve of Zen practice. Neither Awa nor
Religion and Spiritual Development: Japan 483