Views of/apanese Selfhood: Japanese and \X/estem Perspectives 161

Tokupwa; Relzgion: The Valwes of Pre-fndrastrial J ~ p a n(Glencot, 111.: I:ree Press,

1957; Boston: Beacon Press, 1970).
22. f3avid Kalupahana, Nagarjtdnla: The Phzl~scyhyof the Middle Way (Aibany:
State Uxlivcrsity of New York Press, 1986),
23. For an analysis of the jErikz/tarikz debate, a good introduction is Ilaigan and
Aticia Matsunaga? Fo~ndd~ion. ofJapanese Bttdd)?ism,espcciatly the chapter in Vc31-
urne 2 entitled "Pure Land Sects" (Los AngeleslTc3kyo: Buddliist Books Xmernational,
1976).
24, X won't even begin to go into the "nothingncss" &debate tiere. Tile reader can,
however, consult Keiji Nishitani, Religion and dVothkgness, trans. Jan van Bragl:
(BerkeleylLos Angeles: University of Cdifc~uniaPress, 1982).
25. John Perry, ed., Personar!Identity (BerketeylLos Angeles: University of Catifas-
nia Press, 1975), p, 5,
26- Matsunaga and Matsunaga, fiund~tionqf Japanese Bwddhkm, p. 205.
27.0f course, this appxlcnt paradox ought not to bc eakcn at facc vatue, It indi-
cates, perhaps among other things, that language itself is being used differently here
than in normal discourse. Tiicsugh rnasked in descriptive or narrative syntax, such pro-
nc>uncementsare actually closer to speech acts.
28.. The selection of a tree as an analog for the Confucian self is not arbitrary>for
this use of trees has a tong history in Confucianism.
29. Wililiam james, The Pr&c--plesof Psychology (New Y&rfc: H e n v Hoit and Go,,
1890; Carnbridgc, Mass,: Harvard tlnivcrsitry Press, 1983), p, 294.
30, But in Gonfgcian Thought Tu Wei-ming interprets this relationship to include
htber-dauglitcr and rnoelicr-child retationships as wdI.
31. lia Wei-ming, Conf~cidrz'P"hought,chapter 7: "Selhood and Otherness: The Fa-
ther-Son Relationship in Ccsnfucian Thought,"
32. T P. Kasulis, Zen Actton, Zen Penon (Honc>l.,)ulu:University. of Hawaii Press,
1481).
33. p~etsuro Watsuji, "T1ie Significance of Ettirics as the Sntdy of Man," trans. David
A. Ililworch, in Monument& Nippanica, kTof.26, pp. 3-4; see also chapter 1 of Rizri-
g d k ~( E t h b ) ,Vc31, 1, rev. ed. (Tokyo: 1wanami Shoten, 1965; originally pubtished in
1"1)37), pp. 11-31.
34, This piccc has been attributed variously to the Han (206 B.C,E.-220 C.E.) and
Nonhern Wei (386-535 C.E.) dynasties.
35. Thc sarcopliaps, but not this episode, is illustraecd in Shermltn Lcc's Histor)) ~f
Far Eastern Art, 4th ed. fig. 342; and it1 the Handbook ofthe Collec-tions in the WiIItdm
Rockhill Nelson Callefry of Art. and Mary Atkins Muset$m of Fine Arts, Kansas City,
iiilissstgr-t,Vol. I f : Art of the Orc'mt (Kansas City, 1973), p. 44.
36. Another wonderful example can be found in Tu's analysis of the story of Sage-
King S1iun in Gonfidndn Thozaght,
37. "Letter of the Priest Mongaku to Shogun Yoriie 1200," in Sources ofjqanese
Tradition, Vol. 1, compiled by Ryusaku Tsunoda, Wiliam Theodore de Baq, md
X3unafd Keene (New York: Coluxnbia University Press, 1964), pp. 165-1 71.
38, Kctbert Smith, JLlpnese S0bet.y: Tr~dition,Se& and the Sochl Order (Carn-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
3% Nonetheless, both copying in the sense of forgery (for illegal purposes) and
copying in order to gain as dose as possible a reproduction of a much-loved work did
exist.