Spiritual Exercises in the Rinzai Zen Tradition: Imminence and Disruption in Ikkyū Sōjun and Hakuin Ekaku

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The relationship between ancient Greek philosophy as a way of life and Buddhism, specifically spiritual exercise, is intriguing. Although some scholars have examined this relationship, there is still potential for further exploration. However, this particular paper falls short of fulfilling this potential. Here are some of the main reasons why:

1. The primary argument of the paper is that koans are spiritual exercises, but it fails to explain what kind of spiritual exercise they are, except for being "disruptive." The paper relies on a popular (romantic) image of Japanese koan practice and does not engage seriously with koan literature and research. Furthermore, the paper doesn't seriously engage with Hadut's understanding of spiritual exercise.

2. The author's selection of two case studies, Hakuin and Ikkyu, is unjustified. It doesn't explain why koan and poetry are considered equivalent, and the author focuses on these master biographies instead of engaging with their teachings. Additionally, the notion of the Rinzai tradition used to group these two masters is not well-defined.

3. The paper doesn't provide new insights into spiritual exercises like Rinzai, Zen, koan, Hadut, Hakuin, or Ikkyu. It relies entirely on reviewing secondary sources, most outdated or not considered academic scholarship. These sources provide a romanticized interpretation of koans, similar to D.T. Suzuki's, rather than academic scholarly.

Author Response

Reviewer 1, Following comments, we have made revisions to our manuscript. Below are brief replies to comments. We look forward to uploading the revisions as part of the next step.

• “The primary argument of the paper is that koans are spiritual exercises, but it fails to explain what kind of spiritual exercise they are, except for being "disruptive." The paper relies on a popular (romantic) image of Japanese koan practice and does not engage seriously with koan literature and research. Furthermore, the paper doesn't seriously engage with Hadut's understanding of spiritual exercise.”
  • Revisions include a substantial increase of methodological content on Philosophy as a Way of Life and Spiritual Exercises.
  • This paper does not present romantic images of Japanese koan practice and does engage with koan literature and research. This was true of the original draft and has been strengthened in the revised draft. We encourage the editors to consult the citations as well as noting the substantial sections on koan research throughout the article with numerous citations.
• “The author's selection of two case studies, Hakuin and Ikkyu, is unjustified. It doesn't explain why koan and poetry are considered equivalent, and the author focuses on these master biographies instead of engaging with their teachings. Additionally, the notion of the Rinzai tradition used to group these two masters is not well-defined.”
  • Noting this error, we included a clear justification in the introduction with emphasis on koans, poetry and spiritual biographies. Emphasis on Ikkyu and Hakuin is meant to focus on their specific approaches to spiritual exercise with the Rinzai tradition (not necessarily the tradition itself).
• The paper doesn't provide new insights into spiritual exercises like Rinzai, Zen, koan, Hadut, Hakuin, or Ikkyu. It relies entirely on reviewing secondary sources, most outdated or not considered academic scholarship. These sources provide a romanticized interpretation of koans, similar to D.T. Suzuki's, rather than academic scholarly.

Again, Reviewer 2 fails to note the citations of both primary and secondary sources which have been improved in this revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

I very much enjoyed reading this paper and hope to see it in print.

The authors propose a 10^th kind of spiritual exercise to add to the list Sharpe and Ure have provided. They call this ‘practices of disruptive reorientation’ that seek to ‘break us away from our reified and isolated ways of perceiving reality, about its impermanence and relationality’ (124-26). The examples used, from Rinzai Zen, are mainly koans, poetry and meditation in the midst of everyday activity.

This leads to three comments and suggestions for revision, all of which are somewhat linked:

1. The list of spiritual exercises are fluid and can overlap. So how do ‘practices of disruptive reorientation’ relate to the others? Do they share any similarities to attention to the present moment? (i.e., given that koans should ‘jar the practitioner from everyday habits of thinking to return to attending to the flow of the present’, 633-34). They also involve spiritual guidance and direction, it seems? Do they have anything to do with taming the passions? The authors may feel that practices of disruptive reorientation are a different sort of spiritual exercise and don’t relate to other kinds at all – but it would help if they clarified this since they return to this point in the conclusion and seem to use it as a running thread.

2. In line with above comment, how radically different are the exercises being described here? Or to put it another way, can more be done to help readers grasp how Rinzai relates to other traditions and practices? There are hints in the conclusion with reference to the Cynics and to Epictetus. The Stoics also remind themselves of the impermanence of things. Skill and contextual awareness are required in most spiritual exercises so how unique are poetry and koans as examples of ‘atopic disruption’? How would they compare to Stoic maxims? (not the same obviously but how are they different?) In other words, given that the paper is set up to contribute to the broader literature on philosophy as a way of life, some more attention to these comparisons would not be amiss. It would also help move the paper away from description to a deeper analysis of how Rinzai sits in relation. (Of course, the authors may wish to jettison classical antiquity and relate Rinzai to other forms of Asian self-cultivation and spiritual exercise).

3. I appreciated and enjoyed the biographical parts of the paper but felt, at first reading, that the thread of disruption and immanence was getting lost in the narrative. This is true of immanence somewhat more than disruption. I must add that I felt less so after a second reading so I only mention it here as a reminder that, given their centrality to the paper, it may help if the authors did a bit more to explain how disruption and immanence operate in their examples.

Two minor comments:

Section 5.1 on the sound of one hand is a bit repetitive of earlier passages.  

There are two typos in line 690.

Author Response

Reviewer 2, Following comments, we have made revisions to our manuscript. Below are brief replies to comments. We look forward to uploading the revisions as part of the next step. 

• “The list of spiritual exercises are fluid and can overlap. So how do ‘practices of disruptive reorientation’ relate to the others? Do they share any similarities to attention to the present moment? (i.e., given that koans should ‘jar the practitioner from everyday habits of thinking to return to attending to the flow of the present’, 633-34). They also involve spiritual guidance and direction, it seems? Do they have anything to do with taming the passions? The authors may feel that practices of disruptive reorientation are a different sort of spiritual exercise and don’t relate to other kinds at all – but it would help if they clarified this since they return to this point in the conclusion and seem to use it as a running thread.”
  • This was a wonderful observation and we have tried to note this by adding to the end of section 2 and again in section 6.
• In line with above comment, how radically different are the exercises being described here? Or to put it another way, can more be done to help readers grasp how Rinzai relates to other traditions and practices? There are hints in the conclusion with reference to the Cynics and to Epictetus. The Stoics also remind themselves of the impermanence of things. Skill and contextual awareness are required in most spiritual exercises so how unique are poetry and koans as examples of ‘atopic disruption’? How would they compare to Stoic maxims? (not the same obviously but how are they different?) In other words, given that the paper is set up to contribute to the broader literature on philosophy as a way of life, some more attention to these comparisons would not be amiss. It would also help move the paper away from description to a deeper analysis of how Rinzai sits in relation. (Of course, the authors may wish to jettison classical antiquity and relate Rinzai to other forms of Asian self-cultivation and spiritual exercise).
  • Similar to the above comment, we have attempted to address this in sections 2 and 6. We hope the reviewer agrees this helps to clarify and we appreciate these keen insights.
• I appreciated and enjoyed the biographical parts of the paper but felt, at first reading, that the thread of disruption and immanence was getting lost in the narrative. This is true of immanence somewhat more than disruption. I must add that I felt less so after a second reading so I only mention it here as a reminder that, given their centrality to the paper, it may help if the authors did a bit more to explain how disruption and immanence operate in their examples.

Agreed. While sections 4 and 5 did not undergo significant revisions, we hope that our attention to methodology in the other sections helps situate these two sections better within the project as a whole.

Reviewer 3 Report

I strongly recommend this article for publication. PWL discourse has tended to be very Eurocentric. What references to Buddhism there are tend to focus, so far, on South Asian schools. So, this is a timely and very engaging discussion of Zen contributions to current PWL scholarship. I enjoyed the essay! I have only two suggestions for the authors:

Firstly: Early on, the authors name nine types of spiritual exercises enumerated by Sharpe and Ure and then propose that Rinzai Zen Buddhism offers a tenth type, which they name “Practices of Disruptive Reorientation.” These “seek to break us away from our reified and isolated ways of perceiving reality, about its impermanence and relationality, and exhort us to spontaneity given such a situation, without getting attached to formulaic answers and habits.” However, I think we if dig deeper into Sharpe/Ure’s or Hadot’s descriptions of various Greek practices, many of them could be described as such “Practices of Disruptive Reorientation.” That is, the Neoplatonists, for example, want to turn our attention away from the vicissitudes of ordinary life and toward persisting metaphysical truths. Or, the Stoics want us to train ourselves via certain meditations so as to be able to act fluidly and spontaneously with the proper reaction to life’s ups and downs. In other words, it seems like most if not all spiritual exercises are disruptive in some way—if there were no need to disrupt our usual habits, then we wouldn’t need the exercises in the first place.

So, perhaps what the authors really want to say is something more like this: All spiritual exercises are disruptive of our usual habits and ways of perceiving to some extent, although we may not always appreciate the radicalness of that disruption. Rinzai Zen, in contrast, brings the disruptive dimension to the fore very explicitly.

Then, in the conclusion, when the authors say “What we have outlined above adds a tenth kind of spiritual exercise to Sharpe and Ure’s list: practices of disruptive reorientation,” perhaps this could be instead something like “What we have outlined helps us see the extent to which spiritual exercises, such as those on Sharpe and Ure’s list, can be understood as practices of disruptive reorientation.” 

If the authors go this way, then, when they introduce Sharpe/Ure’s list at the start, they may want to include a little more discussion of specific Greek practices. This would not only flesh out the PWL part of the paper, but also help readers see more of the contrast between Greek practices and the Buddhist ones discussed later, so that readers can appreciate better what Rinzai adds to the current PWL discourse.

Secondly: On page 4, the authors state that “a rigid monastic exterior conceals a disruptive spiritual journey within.” It might be useful to note that this is, at least, the ideal. Later in the article, the authors discuss Ikkyū’s dissatisfaction with temple system that “he saw as formalistic and empty of significant practice.” I think it’s fair to say that some priests-in-training today, going through their ordination process, are in a sense “career Buddhists” preparing for a profession in local temple management. This isn’t even to criticize the current system but just to note that inner turmoil may not be part of the process for everyone.

I hope the above suggestions are useful for the authors.

Author Response

Reviewer 3, we have made substantial revisions to our manuscript addressing methodological concerns. Below, I have briefly addressed your helpful comments and we look forward to uploading our revisions in the next phase of the process.

• “Firstly: Early on, the authors name nine types of spiritual exercises enumerated by Sharpe and Ure and then propose that Rinzai Zen Buddhism offers a tenth type, which they name “Practices of Disruptive Reorientation.” These “seek to break us away from our reified and isolated ways of perceiving reality, about its impermanence and relationality, and exhort us to spontaneity given such a situation, without getting attached to formulaic answers and habits.” However, I think we if dig deeper into Sharpe/Ure’s or Hadot’s descriptions of various Greek practices, many of them could be described as such “Practices of Disruptive Reorientation.” That is, the Neoplatonists, for example, want to turn our attention away from the vicissitudes of ordinary life and toward persisting metaphysical truths. Or, the Stoics want us to train ourselves via certain meditations so as to be able to act fluidly and spontaneously with the proper reaction to life’s ups and downs. In other words, it seems like most if not all spiritual exercises are disruptive in some way—if there were no need to disrupt our usual habits, then we wouldn’t need the exercises in the first place.
  So, perhaps what the authors really want to say is something more like this: All spiritual exercises are disruptive of our usual habits and ways of perceiving to some extent, although we may not always appreciate the radicalness of that disruption. Rinzai Zen, in contrast, brings the disruptive dimension to the fore very explicitly.
  Then, in the conclusion, when the authors say “What we have outlined above adds a tenth kind of spiritual exercise to Sharpe and Ure’s list: practices of disruptive reorientation,” perhaps this could be instead something like “What we have outlined helps us see the extent to which spiritual exercises, such as those on Sharpe and Ure’s list, can be understood as practices of disruptive reorientation.”
  If the authors go this way, then, when they introduce Sharpe/Ure’s list at the start, they may want to include a little more discussion of specific Greek practices. This would not only flesh out the PWL part of the paper, but also help readers see more of the contrast between Greek practices and the Buddhist ones discussed later, so that readers can appreciate better what Rinzai adds to the current PWL discourse.”
  • Reviewer 3 provided some excellent recommendations and we took them at their suggestion adding almost verbatim the suggestions to the intro and conclusion. They were excellent and many thanks for the nicely articulated sentences!
    We further added more on the ancient Greek examples, including the Platonist noted above!
• Secondly: On page 4, the authors state that “a rigid monastic exterior conceals a disruptive spiritual journey within.” It might be useful to note that this is, at least, the ideal. Later in the article, the authors discuss Ikkyū’s dissatisfaction with temple system that “he saw as formalistic and empty of significant practice.” I think it’s fair to say that some priests-in-training today, going through their ordination process, are in a sense “career Buddhists” preparing for a profession in local temple management. This isn’t even to criticize the current system but just to note that inner turmoil may not be part of the process for everyone.
  • Updated line 240 as noted. The reviewer is correct in observing the outward facing image of Buddhist monastic life since many temple practices of precepts may surprise most readers.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The adjustments in the introduction have helped explain the article's logical sequence and its arguments. The added engagement with Hadut's writing is also welcomed. However, the main weakness of the article was and still is that it fails to engage with primary sources in Chinese or Japanese. This makes the Rinzai tradition an imagined entity. Furthermore, the author's selectivity in choosing Ikkyu's poetry and Hakuin's koan is no more than a reflection of the available English sources. Also, there is no justification for considering poetry a spiritual exercise. Ikkyu was a Zen monk who, like many other Buddhist monks before him, wrote Chinese poetry. There is nothing spiritual about it. 

non

Author Response

In response to the Review Report from Reviewer 1:

Reviewer 1 states:

"However, the main weakness of the article was and still is that it fails to engage with primary sources in Chinese or Japanese. This makes the Rinzai tradition an imagined entity. Furthermore, the author's selectivity in choosing Ikkyu's poetry and Hakuin's koan is no more than a reflection of the available English sources. Also, there is no justification for considering poetry a spiritual exercise. Ikkyu was a Zen monk who, like many other Buddhist monks before him, wrote Chinese poetry. There is nothing spiritual about it."

What follows is a response based on Reviewer 1's report synthesized with the editorial suggestions that followed.

1 Engagement with primary Chinese or Japanese sources.

Summary: Sources used are translations by respected scholars of Japanese Buddhism.

Further elaboration: With regard to this suggestion, the manuscript does already utilize translations of primary of sources. To draw your attention to the sources for Hakuin Ekaku, my sources are primarily translations by Norman Waddell with one source from Philip Yampolsky. The leading academic scholar on Hakuin Ekaku is Katsuhiro Yoshizawa of Hanazono University in Kyoto, Japan. Norman Waddell translated Yoshizawa’s book The Religious Art of Zen Master Hakuin (2010), and he belongs to an academic group called Writers in Kyoto.

In the manuscript, my citations draw primarily from

• Norman Waddell (cited 15 times in text from six different translations).
• Philip Yampolsky (cited 7 times from one of his translations).
• Stephen Addiss and Audrey Yoshiko Seo (cited 5 times from their book on Hakuins art which includes their translations).
• Secondary sources tend to be from scholars in Japanese religion and philosophy who themselves are fluent in Japanese (Kasulis, Heine, Dumoulin, Hori, etc.)
• Kabanoff, Messer, Kidder, Whitehead, Berg and Besserman are similarly considered to be using accepted translations of Ikkyu.

2. Justify the Selection of Sources:

With regard to the rationale for Hakuin’s koan, I genuinely believe that this is already in the manuscript. Hakuin famously created the sound of one hand clapping and I cite Hakuin stating that he found it more effective than the “mu” koan that it replaced. Given that the Rinzai tradition uses Hakuin’s koan curriculum (which I also state) it seems to be clear that the justification for Hakuin’s koan has been stated.

With regard to Ikkyu’s poetry, I note not only that poetry is within the tradition of Zen monks but I further state the precedence with Zen master Saigyo in William LaFleur’s translation of his poetry, that Saigyo’s views on nature were soteriological and his poetry were spiritual. Similar cases can be made for Ryokan but were stated in the manuscript with Saigyo and Basho.

In summary, I believe that the current version of the manuscript has the justifications requested by the editor.

3. Clarify the Definition of Spiritual Exercises

Summary: Reviewer 1 states: "Ikkyu was a Zen monk who, like many other Buddhist monks before him, wrote Chinese poetry. There is nothing spiritual about it." Much of this literature is established in the works of William LaFleur (cited in the manuscript) and Bernard Faure (not cited in the manuscript).

A restatement of #2: I note not only that poetry is within the tradition of Zen monks (making specific references to Zen practices of poetry is possible but specific to the Rinzai tradition is problematic as sectarian distinctions occurred after 1886 and were not established for the Buddhist monks mentioned) but I further state the precedence with Zen master Saigyo in William LaFleur’s translation of his poetry, that Saigyo’s views on nature were soteriological and his poetry were spiritual. Similar cases can be made for Ryokan but were stated in the manuscript with Saigyo and Basho.

------------------

There were further editorial comments made by the editor that Reviewer 1 does not appear to have made here. I will respond to those however for the sake of Reviewer 1.

Reviewer 1 need not feel compelled to respond to the following as it was not part of their report.

The editor suggested two points:

1) Expand the Scope of the Study:

Editor: If feasible, broaden the inquiry to include more diverse examples of spiritual exercises from the Rinzai tradition beyond the selected poetry and koan.
This expansion might involve looking at additional practices, texts, and historical figures within the Rinzai Zen tradition to offer a more comprehensive view.  

Response: This was specifically singled out in Section 3: Disruptive Rinzai Spiritual exercises. Lines 220-229 list several. The point of the article however is to narrow the focus on two such exercises: koans and poetry. Adding further references to, for example, shouting or striking practices would risk making an already large manuscript even bigger and less focused.

2) Methodological Transparency:

Editor: Be transparent about the methodology used for selecting sources and the scope of the research.
Discuss the limitations and potential biases introduced by relying primarily on English-language sources and how they might affect the study's conclusions.

Response: Please suggest how we can make this more clear. Given that this manuscript is on Hadot’s “Philosophy as a Way of Life” and it is written by two philosophers, the article is a philosophical work uses sources from philosophy, but also Buddhist studies, Koan Studies, Japanese Religions, and Hadot studies. The sources for Hakuin tranlsations for instance are limited almost entirely to Norman Waddell who is the predominant Hakuin scholar in English language and translates the work of Katsuhiro Yoshizawa (the leading scholar of Hakuin studies in Japanese language). This all seems clear so please recommend suggestions for strengthening this transparency.

Regarding point two: the English language sources are translations of primary sources.

--------------

Please be aware that the authors are happy to make further revisions at the request of the editor. The suggestions and our replies are intended only to draw attention to issues we feel are currently addressed in the manuscript and we believe merit a closer scrutiny following the recommendations of Reviewer 1 and the editor.