The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 11 | Issue 43 | Number 4 | Article ID 4019 | Oct 21, 2013

1

D.T. Suzuki, Zen and the Nazis 鈴木大拙　禅　ナチス　（上）

Brian Victoria

Part One

Introduction

The always contentious, sometimes highlyemotional, debate over D.T. Suzuki’srelationship to Japanese fascism continuesunabated. Among other things this is shown byreader reactions to a recent article in JapanFocus entitled “Zen as a Cult of Death in theW a r t i m e W r i t i n g s o f D . T . S u z u k i(https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/3973)". Thisdebate can only intensify by the furtherassertion of a wartime relationship betweenD.T. Suzuki and the Nazis or, more precisely, apositive or sympathetic relationship betweenSuzuki and the Nazis. This article, in two parts,will explore that possibility though conclusiveproof of such a relationship will not be includeduntil the second part.

Fig. 1 - D.T. Suzuki

Satō Gemmyō Taira, a Buddhist priest in theShin (True Pure Land) sect, who identifieshimself as a disciple of Suzuki in the postwaryears, adamantly rejects the possibility of apositive relationship between Suzuki and theNazis. On the contrary, he insists that at leastas far back as the fall of 1936 Suzuki clearlyand publicly expressed his opposition to bothHitler and Nazi policies. Satō writes:

Although Suzuki recognized that the Nazis had,in 1936, brought stability to Germany andalthough he was impressed by their youthactivities (though not by the militaristic tone of

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

2

these activities), he clearly had little regard forthe Nazi leader, disapproved of their violentattitudes, and opposed the policies espoused bythe party. His distaste for totalitarianism of anykind is unmistakable1

In truth, I myself had long wondered about thepossibility of some kind of relationship betweenSuzuki and the Nazis. After all, for much of theAsia-Pacific War the two countries were alliedmilitarily. At the time I published the firstedition of Zen at War in 1997, I was puzzledand intrigued by the following cryptic commentin The Essence of Bushidō (Bushidō noShinzui), a book strongly backed by theJapanese military and published in November1941, i.e., only one month before Pearl Harbor.Suzuki’s contribution consisted of a chapterentitled “Zen and Bushidō” (Zen to Bushidō). Inhis introduction, Suzuki’s editor, Handa Shin,wrote: “Dr. Suzuki’s writings are said to havestrongly influenced the military spirit of NaziGermany.”2

On the one hand it can be said that any Naziuse of Suzuki’s writings, if such existed, wouldbe a separate issue from Suzuki’s personalattitude toward the Nazis. Nevertheless, Icouldn’t help but wonder if Handa’s assertionwere true, especially as he offered no proof forhis claim. Yet, where could one turn to prove ordisprove Handa’s claim? Were the Nazi’s evenaware of Suzuki’s writings, let alone influencedby them?

As I pondered these questions, I recalled arelevant passage in Kenneth Kraft’s book, ZenTeaching, Zen Practice. Kraft points out thatthe first American to make direct contact withD.T. Suzuki in postwar, occupied Japan wasAlbert Stunkard. Stunkard described hisencounter as follows:

I was working in Tokyo as an army medicalofficer at Sugamo Prison, providing medicalcare for the men who were being tried for warcrimes by the International Military Tribunalfor the Far East. . . . One of the prisoners, later

to become recognized as a religious thinker,was [Karlfried] Graf Dürckheim, a German. Heused to talk to me about Zen. One day hementioned Dr. Suzuki, with whom he hadstudied, suggesting that I visit Dr. Suzuki at hishome in a small town not far from Tokyo.

I took up the suggestion and not longafterwards met Dr. Suzuki in his house on thegrounds of Engakuji monastery in KitaKamakura. . . . Dr. Suzuki welcomed me, tookthe letter of introduction from Graf Dürckheim,and led me inside his house, where he adjustedhis spectacles and read the letter. He wasslender and a bit frail, with a face dominated byhuge eyebrows that curved upwards andoutwards. When he had finished the letter, Dr.Suzuki asked me about Dürckheim and theother prisoners at Sugamo.”3 (Italics mine)

While I hadn’t paid much attention to thispassage when I first read it, now it brought aflood of questions to mind, first and foremostwho was Graf [Count] Dürckheim (1896-1988)?And why was Dürckheim imprisoned as asuspected war criminal? Further, why had asuspected German war criminal been studyingwith D.T. Suzuki during the war years?

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

3

Fig. 2 - Graf Dürckheim

More important, why had Suzuki accepted asuspected German war criminal, almostcertainly a Nazi, as his student if, as Satōclaims, Suzuki “clearly had little regard for theNazi leader, disapproved of their violentattitudes, and opposed the policies espoused bythe party.” Something didn’t add up. And as ifall of these questions were not enough, I wasparticularly struck by the following commentsposted on Wikipedia’s entry for Dürckheim:

Stunkard later became Suzuki's physician. Thatvisit started a chain reaction of visitors to theSuzuki residence, one of whom was PhilipKapleau, author of The Three Pillars of Zen andfounder of the Rochester Zen Center.Dürckheim thus was directly responsible forlaunching Zen into the American mainstream.4

(Italics mine)

Is it possible, I remember thinking, that a Nazi,imprisoned as a suspected war criminal, was“directly responsible for launching Zen into theAmerican mainstream”? Perhaps this was justanother of Wikipedia’s many inaccuracies or at

least a rhetorical overstatement. Or was it?These were just a few of the questions thatdrove me to examine the record more carefully.

Suzuki’s Newspaper Articles in October1936

In pondering where to begin my quest for moredetailed information, it appeared that achronological approach made the most sense,especially as it might reveal any changes inSuzuki’s thinking that occurred along the way.Thus, a close examination of his fall 1936 seriesof newspaper articles, describing a visit toGermany, seemed a good place to begininasmuch as this series contained what appearto be Suzuki’s first public comments on theNazis. Suzuki’s views of the Nazis appeared inthe Japanese Buddhist newspaper, ChūgaiNippō, on 10, 11, 13 October 1936.

Although the Nazis had set up large and brutalconcentration camps like Dachau for politicalprisoners as early as 1933, the policy aimedspecifically at Jews, known as the “finalsolution” i.e., their extermination, had yet to beimplemented. Nevertheless, various forms ofJewish persecution, as Suzuki himself notes,were already underway, most especially withthe passing of the so-called Nuremberg Laws inSeptember 1935. These laws included a ban onsexual intercourse between people defined asJews and non-Jewish Germans and had theoverall effect of preventing Jews fromparticipating in German civic life, even visitingpublic parks or beaches.

While Suzuki defenders claim Suzuki could nothave known in 1936 of the subsequent horrorsof Hitler and the Nazis, it is noteworthy thatthere was at least one Buddhist organization inJapan that understood as early as 1933 justhow dangerous and anti-Buddhist the Nazimovement was and strongly condemned it. Thisgroup was the "Youth League for RevitalizingBuddhism" (Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei).

In May 1933 the All Japan Federation of

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

4

Buddhist Youth Organizations (Zen NipponBukkyō Seinen-kai Renmei) held its thirdnational conference. The federation wascomposed of more than four hundred and fiftyseparate Buddhist groups, one of which wasthe Youth League. League representativesproposed, among other things, that theFederation go on record opposing "anti-foreign,militarist and nationalist ideologies," includingmovements that promoted the same.

As one expression of such an ideology, YouthLeague representatives put forward a motioncondemning the Nazi Party and its leaderAdolph Hitler:

Hit ler is a person who is thoroughlysuppressing the Jewish people by force andcasually burning cultural treasures without asecond thought. Furthermore, Hitler crusheswithout exception all liberals and advocates ofpeace who are incompatible with the Nazispirit. Outrages of these kinds are bothinhumane and anti-Buddhist, and we mustresolutely protest them.5

The response of the conference host, ŌtaniUniversity, to this and similar League proposalswas, in an unprecedented move, to force theentire conference off-campus to find a newmeeting site. Not only that, the All JapanFederation expelled the Youth League from itsmidst. Given that Hitler had only beenappointed Chancellor of Germany in January1933 it can be said that the League’srepresentatives were very insightful in theirunderstanding of the Nazis and what theirexistence portended for Europe, let aloneJapan. While there is no proof that Suzuki knewof the events surrounding the Youth League, hewas a professor of Buddhism at ŌtaniUniversity, and it is difficult to believe that hewas unaware of the Youth League’s oppositionto the Nazis or the price they paid for it.

Be that as it may, Suzuki went to England in1936 where he delivered a set of lectures thathe would publish as his famous Zen Buddhism

and Its Influence on Japanese Culture in 1938(republished in the postwar era as Zen andJapanese Culture). Following the conclusion ofhis lecture tour in England, he went to Paris toconduct bibliographical research, and then onto visit some distant relatives living at the timein Rüdesheim am Rhein, a small village on theRhine River west of Wiesbaden.

Fig. 3 - Rüdesheim am Rhein

In connection with his visit to Rüdesheim,Suzuki published a series of articles in theBuddhist newspaper Chūgai Nippō under thetitle “From a Spot on the Banks of the Rhine”(Rain kahan no ichigū kara). The initial sectionsof his article consisted of a fairly ordinarytravelogue in which Suzuki described suchthings as visits to local churches and reflectionson the cultural implications of the stone-basedarchitecture of Germany versus the wood-basedarchitecture of Japan. He then went on todescribe the political events he observed whilein Germany, including the following descriptionof the Nazis and his thoughts about them.

I would like to express my appreciation to thelate Kyoko Selden, Senior Lecturer in Japaneseat Cornell University, and James Mark Shields,Associate Professor at Bucknell University, fortheir helpful suggestions and advice throughoutthe translation process. That said, the finalresponsibil ity for the accuracy of thetranslation, not to mention the accompanying

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

5

commentary, is mine alone.

Translation

My relative has been living in this city [i.e.,Rüdesheim am Rhein] for a long time and hasmany acquaintances. When he meets hisacquaintances they exchange greetings bygiving the Nazi salute and saying, “Heil Hitler!”When I asked my relative the reason for hiscelebration of Hitler, what he told me is brieflyas follows:

Before Hitler arrived on the scene there weremany political parties in Germany. As aconsequence, political affairs were unable tofind a direction and citizens became more andmore depressed as time went on. They were attheir wit’s end, wondering what was to becomeof them. Hitler, however, was able to unite thepeople and lead us with a definite goal in mind.Thus we have never experienced a greatersense of relief than we have today. While wedon’t know much about politics, we have neverenjoyed greater peace of mind than we havenow. Isn’t that reason enough to praise Hitler?

This is what my relative told me, and I agreethis is quite reasonable.

Changing the topic to Hitler’s expulsion of theJews, it appears there are considerable groundsfor this, too. While it is a very cruel policy,when looked at from the point of view of thecurrent and future happiness of the entireGerman people, it may be that, for a time, somesort of extreme action is necessary in order topreserve the nation. From the point of view ofthe German people, the situation facing theircountry is that critical.

On occasion, in England, too, I haveencountered Jews. I recently met a young self-professed wealthy poet who had beenpersecuted and expelled from Germany. Afterlistening to his story, I felt sorry for himbecause he suddenly found himself living inpoverty in a foreign land. As regards

individuals, this is truly a regrettable situation.

Fig. 4 - 1936 Nazi Rally in Nuremburg

Recently the Nazis held a major rally inNuremburg. At that time Hitler announcedwhat may be considered to be the principlesunderlying the expulsion of the Jews. Theseprinciples are as follows:

The Jews are a parasitic people who are notindigenous, i.e., who develop no connection tothe land. They are neither farmers norindustrial workers. Instead, they are merchantssituated between producers and consumers. Assuch they are the class that extracts profitsfrom both groups. In this respect, i.e., inintellectual terms, it can be said that they arefar more developed than the indigenousGerman people. After the Great War [WW I]they rushed like a flood into Germany. Takingadvantage of the German people’s exhaustion,they monopolized profits in the commercialsector while utilizing their power in thepolitical arena solely to advance their owninterests. As a result, the German peoplebecame increasingly fearful with the result thatsomeone like Hitler appeared on the scene.That is to say, the expulsion of the Jews is anaction taken in self-defense. It is the resistanceof indigenous people to immigrants fromoutside.

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

6

The fact that they have no country is karmicretribution (J. gōhō) on the Jews. Because theyhave no attachment to the land and arewanderers, it is their fate to intrude into statestructures created by others. As a result theyare primarily involved in intellectual activities,an area in which they have shown great ability.Intellectual activities broadly interpretedmeans that they are members of the rulingclass. In the case of today’s German peoplethey find it extremely difficult to accept theircountry being disturbed by a foreign race.

This appears to be the feelings and assertion ofHitler and others.

It is for this reason that the Nazis fiercelyattack Soviet Russia. They claim that the coreof the Communist Party, beginning with Stalinhimself, is composed of either Jews themselvesor their relatives who have some connection tothem and that, since people like these are up tono good, one of the great missions of theGerman people is to crush Soviet Russia. Thespeeches given by the leaders at the recentNazi rally in Nuremburg, among others, werevery extreme. They directly attacked the SovietUnion as their great enemy of the moment.They said as much as could be said in words,completely ignoring diplomatic niceties andattacking them viciously. From looking at thenewspapers, you can get a good sense of theirtruly fierce determination. People are sayingthat if, in the past, the leaders of one countryhad done something like this it is inevitablethat within twenty-four hours the other countrywould have declared war. In any event, theNazis’ determination is deadly serious!

Fig. 5 - Hitlerjugend

The Nazis have focused their attention on youthmovements, including engagement in volunteerlabor and marching with spades on theirshoulders with the goal of communing withnature. I believe this is something that is trulyfine no matter in what country it takes place. Iwill, however, not immediately judge the rightsand wrongs o f a s i tua t i on in wh ichtotalitarianism (J. zentaishugi) is overlyemphasized and everyone has to wear militaryuniforms. That said, placing a spade on one’sshoulder and harvesting the bounty of the earthwithout payment as a form of mutual assistanceis something I would most definitely like tohave Japanese youth do.

Setting aside the question of Communism’sideology, the people at its core are intellectualswho have never been intimately connected withthe land. Furthermore, their ideology issomething that has been directly imported fromabroad and has no roots in the history of thatcountry. Taking their claims to be absolute,they butcher those who oppose them withouthesitation. This is something that others and Ican in no way approve. While it is true thatN a z i s a n d F a s c i s t s a l s o i n s i s t o ntotalitarianism, in one sense it can be said thattheirs is a form of resistance to Communistactions. Or it can also be understood as turningthe Communists’ methods to their ownadvantage.

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

7

Fig. 6 - Stahleck Castle

About an hour and a half boat ride south fromthe city of Rüdesheim is an old city on the othershore known as Bacharach. On the mountainbehind this city is an old castle called StahleckCastle. This has been restored in recent yearsas a lodging for male and female youth groups.The outside of the castle has been maintainedas it was with stones piled one on top ofanother in what is clearly a solid structure. Theinterior, though plain, has been modernizedand made into a well-appointed facility.

During the summer, youth groups areaccommodated here where they lead adisciplined life and visit nearby historical sites.Nazi lecturers are invited to speak on suchthings as Nazi views and institutions as well asengage in discussions. The room wheremedieval knights once met is now used as alecture hall, and in it is a bust of Hitler. Theyouth in the hall explained that this is the onlybust that Hitler had made for youth groups.Although only half of the castle tower remains,I was informed there are plans to completelyrestore it in the near future. If I had morehistorical and architectural knowledge of oldcastles I would be able to share moreinteresting impressions but, unfortunately, I amunlearned in these matters so I cannot do anybetter than this.

In any event, in Japan there should be a betterunderstanding of the purpose of the lifestylefollowed in a Zen temple. I would like to haveyouth experience this. Further, inasmuch asyouth in the True Pure Land sect [of Buddhism]and others have aspects that appear to beoverly aristocratic I would like to see them, too,practice the lifestyle of Zen training monks (J.unsui), communing with the earth anddeveloping the habit of unstintingly devotingthemselves to labor. This is, of course, what theGerman youth movement is doing, but we havehad a method of character building in Japanfrom ancient times.

At this point Suzuki ends his discussion of theNazis and concludes his article with some finalcomments on differences he noted betweenBuddhism and Christianity based on what hehad seen in Germany.

Comments

The first thing to be noted about the above isthat it is one of two competing translations ofthe same material. Satō Kemmyō Taira, incollaboration with Thomas Kirchner, made asecond translation that is available here: [Satō,Kemmyō Taira. “Brian Victoria and theQ u e s t i o n o f S c h o l a r s h i p(http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Question_of_Scholarship.pdf).” TheEastern Buddhist 41/2, pp. 147-150].

Some readers may want to read Satō’stranslation first before reading the followingcomments, although that is not necessary.What is remarkable about these twotranslations is how starkly they differ in theirportrayal of Suzuki’s comments on the Nazis.Given Satō’s earlier comments it will notsurprise the reader to learn that his translationserves not only to exonerate Suzuki from anypossible Nazi sympathies, but also portrays himas a critic and a brave opponent of Nazipolicies, especially their oppressive treatmentof Jews.

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

8

By comparison, the translation that I providehere, presents Suzuki’s views in a morenuanced manner, suggesting at least somedegree of sympathy or at least understandingof the Nazis and their policies. Readers familiarwith Japanese are invited to read the article inthe original as attached in Appendix II.

At any rate, these two translations, one thatcompletely exonerates Suzuki and the otherthat implicates him, vividly demonstrate thecrucial role played by the translator who, atleast to some degree, ends up being an“interpreter” of the text’s meaning, especiallyin light of the often ambiguous nature of theJapanese original. It is also a vivid reminder ofjust how dependent the reader is on thecompetence of translators, including theirpolitical and religious affiliations as well astheir personal agendas. In short, in the world oftranslations is definitely a case of readerbeware!

Preliminary Background Remarks

So how then does one go about deciding whichof two significantly different translations iscorrect? The traditional way, of course, is toundertake a lexical analysis, i.e., a carefulword-by-word, phrase-by-phrase comparison ofthe original text with each of the translations.That is to say, to question which translationmore accurately conveys the meaning of theoriginal?

Those inclined to traditional textual exegesisare invited to read Appendix I of this article.There readers will find an introduction to thekey differences between the two translationstogether with an analysis of the Japanese termsleading to these differences. The majordifficulty with this approach, however, is that,at least for the non-specialist reader, thesediscussions can easily be viewed as semanticquibbling. Is there no better method than this?

The author’s view is that when faced withtranslations of political, not to mention

religious, texts, it is helpful, even crucial, toexamine the Zeitgeist or “spirit of the times” inwhich they were written. Further, examinationof the prevailing Zeitgeist should be matchedby a similar exploration of the inner world-viewof the writer. While such studies may not inthemselves be definitive in determining themeaning of a text, they can at least serve as ahelpful guide to the probable or likely meaningof a text.

In short, the societal context within which apiece is written, coupled with the writer’spersonal background, are important and oftenneglected methods for determining themeaning of a text. In Suzuki’s case, thequestion is not only the meaning he himselfmeant to convey, but also, what the editors of amajor Buddhist newspaper would have allowedhim to say in October 1936. As Sueki Fumihiko,one of Japan’s leading historians of modernJapanese Buddhism, points out: “When wefrankly accept Suzuki’s words at face value, wemust also consider how, in the midst of thesituation as it was then, his words would havebeen understood.”6 In other words, what wouldSuzuki’s readers have thought he meant?

Fig. 7 - Signing of Anti-Comintern Pact

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

9

Societal Background

In examining the larger societal context, firstand foremost is the fact that October 1936, thetime these articles were written, was just onemonth before the signing of the first overtlymilitary pact between Japan and Germany.Known as the Anti-Comintern Pact, it wassigned in Berlin on November 25, 1936.7

Ostensibly it was directly against theCommunist International (aka Comintern) butin reality it was directed against both theSoviet Union and Communism in general. ThePact read in part:

"recognizing that the aim of the CommunistInternational, known as the Comintern, is todisintegrate and subdue existing States by allthe means at its command; convinced that thetoleration of interference by the CommunistInternational in the internal affairs of thenations not only endangers their internal peaceand social well-being, but is also a menace tothe peace of the world desirous of co-operatingin the defense against Communist subversiveactivities."8 (Italics mine)

The key element of this pact was the absoluterejection of Communism on the part of both theGerman and Japanese governments. This wasnot simply an expression of foreign policy butrepresented key domestic policy for bothnations. In Japan’s case, the JapaneseCommunist Party had been immediately bannedfollowing its creation in July 1922. Further,between 1928 and 1937 some 60,000 peoplewere arrested for harboring “dangerousthoughts” whether they were procommunists,radical socialists, anarchists, pacifists or simplylabor organizers.9

Needless to say, Suzuki was not among those60,000 arrested nor was he even questioned.This is despite the fact that, according to Satō,Suzuki’s newspaper article was “anotherexample of Suzuki taking a public stance atodds with the ideology of the Japanese

militarist government.”10 (Italics mine) Asimplied by the word “another,” Satō claims thatthroughout the war years Suzuki continued hisopposition, however muted, to the militaristgovernment, again without ever beingquestioned, let alone detained or censored,concerning anything that he wrote or said. Iftrue this would be almost an unprecedentedfeat for that period.

Nevertheless, in light of the precedingbackground information, there is one area ofbroad agreement between the two translations,i.e., Suzuki was clearly opposed to the Soviet-style Communism. Among other things, this isbecause he c lear ly regarded i t as a“totalitarian” form of government. Needless tosay, his condemnation of Soviet-styleCommunism would have been widely welcomedin official Japan, as well as Germany, at a timewhen these two countries were about to signthe Anti-Comintern Pact.

Yet, it is significant that even in the course ofcondemning Communism in Russia Suzukiwrote: “Setting aside the question ofCommunism’s ideology, the people at its coreare intellectuals who have never beenintimately connected with the land.” (Italicsmine) Is it possible that Suzuki was notopposed to Communism per se but, instead, tothe Soviet version of that ideology? This is atleast one possible interpretation of why Suzukisuggested Communism’s “ideology” should beexempted from discussion.

Personal Background

To further understand the plausibility of thisinterpretation, we need to have a basicunderstanding of Suzuki’s political orientation,at least at one period in his life. This topic hasbeen but l i t t le s tud ied yet i s key tounderstanding not only Suzuki’s opposition toSoviet-style Communism, but even moreimportantly, his possible resultant sympathy forthe Nazi movement. How is this possible?

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

10

First, we need to understand that in his youthSuzuki had been attracted to socialism. He firstdescribed his interest in a series of letterswritten to his close friend Yamamoto Ryōkichi(1871–1942). On January 6, 1901 Suzuki wrote:

Recently I have had a desire to study socialism,for I am sympathetic to its views on socialjustice and equality of opportunity. Present-daysociety (including Japan, of course) must bereformed from the ground up. I’ll share more ofmy thoughts in future letters.11 (Italics mine)

On January 14, 1901 Suzuki wrote Yamamoto:

In recent days I have become a socialistsympathizer to an extreme degree. However,my socialism is not based on economics butreligion. This said, I am unable to publiclyadvocate this doctrine to the common peoplebecause they are so universally querulous andilliterate and therefore unprepared to listen towhat I have to say. However, basing myself onsocialism, I intend to gradually incline peopleto my way of thinking though I also believe Ineed to study some sociology.12 (Italics mine)

In a February 27, 1902 letter to Yamamoto,then head teacher at the No. 2 Middle Schoolin Kyoto, Suzuki urged the latter to teachsocialist principles to his students:

Although from its inception opposition to self-seeking has been a principle of socialism, ifthat is something that cannot be put intopractice all at once, at least you could teach theprinciple of justice and clarify the greatresponsibility (or duty) the wealthy andaristocrats have for [the condition of] today’ssociety. If you feel it is too dangerous to opposethe present [social] structure, then how aboutsimply hinting at these truths?13

Aside from indicating Suzuki’s strong interestin socialism, these passages also make it clearthat even as early as 1902 Suzuki was aware ofthe danger facing those who taught socialistprinciples in a Japan that even then had begun

to crack down on “dangerous thoughts”imported from the West. This awareness is, Isuggest, critically important in explaining whySuzuki never openly advocated socialismfollowing his return to Japan in 1909 followingmore than a decade long residence in the U.S.(1897-1908). Nevertheless he did once expresshis socialist sympathies, yet only to an English-speaking audience in his 1907 book, Outlines ofMahayana Buddhism:

As long as we live under the present state ofthings, it is impossible to escape the curse ofsocial injustice and economic inequality. Somepeople must be born rich and noble andenjoying a superabundance of material wealth,while others must be groaning under theunbearable burden imposed upon them bycruel society. Unless we make a radical changein our present social organization, we cannotexpect every one of us to enjoy an equalopportunity and a fair chance. Unless we havea certain form of socialism installed which isliberal and rational and systematic, there mustbe some who are economically more favoredthan others.14 (Italics mine)

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

11

Fig. 8 – Cover of Outlines of MahayanaBuddhism

Needless to say, it is surprising to find apolitical statement of this nature in a bookclaiming to be an introduction to the Mahāyānaschool of Buddhism, not least of all becauseSuzuki calls for a “radical change in ourpresent social organization.” Yet, when placedin context, this passage is no more than apublic expression of his January 1901 letter toYamamoto in which Suzuki called for society tobe “reformed from the ground up” inaccordance with socialist values.

Further, Suzuki’s socialist sympathies could nothelp but impact on his understanding of onekey Buddhist teaching—the doctrine of karma.For centuries karma had been invoked,particularly in East Asia, to explain, if not

justify, why some people were born “rich andnoble” and others unbearably poor. Simplystated, the claim was made that the rich wererich due to the good karma they had acquiredthrough their meritorious deeds in this andpast lives. On the other hand, the poor( inc luding those born with phys ica limpairments) were being punished for the evildeeds of their past.

In Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism, Suzukimade a radical break with this traditional view,dismissing its advocates as no more than“pseudo-Buddhists.” Instead, Suzuki claimed:

No, the doctrine of karma certainly must not beunderstood to explain the cause of our socialand economic imperfections. The region wherethe law of karma is made to work supreme isour moral world, and cannot be made to extendalso over our economic field. Poverty is notnecessarily the consequence of evil deeds, noris plenitude that of good acts. Whether aperson is aff luent or needy is mostlydetermined by the principle of economy as faras our present social system is concerned.15

Once the cause of poverty was assigned to “ourpresent social system” (i.e., a class-based,capitalist society) it was but a short step, atleast in that era, to view socialism as the meansto eliminate what Suzuki called “the curse ofsocial injustice and economic inequality.”

Possible Interest in Nazi Socialism

As we have seen, Suzuki was clearly opposed toRussian-style, or Soviet Communism. Yet, thereis no compelling evidence to suggest heabandoned his socialist sympathies followinghis return to Japan in 1909. One sign that hemaintained them was his support foreducational reform while teaching English atGakushūin, the ultra-conservative “peersschool” for the children of Japan’s aristocraticfamilies. Lacking evidence to the contrary,Suzuki might best be described as a “closetsocialist” following his return to Japan. Yet,

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

12

even if this were true, how might it help toexplain a possible sympathy for the Nazis?

Fig. 9 – Entrance to Gakushūin

In terms of understanding Nazi ideology,perhaps the biggest stumbling block incontemporary thinking is the failure to fullyappreciate the meaning of the acronym “Nazi.”That is to say, this acronym has all but lost itsoriginal meaning, instead, having become asymbol for “evil” pure and simple. Originally,however, “Nazi” was an acronym formed fromthe f irst two syl lables of the Germanpronunciation of the word "national." The fulltitle of Hitler’s party was the National SocialistG e r m a n W o r k e r s ' P a r t y ( G .Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei).In 1927, i.e., before coming to power in 1933,Hitler described his ideology as follows:

We are socialists, we are enemies of today'scapital ist ic economic system for theexploitation of the economically weak, with itsunfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation ofa human being according to wealth andproperty instead of responsibility andperformance, and we are determined to destroythis system under all conditions.16 (Italics mine)

Today, of course, we have seen the horrorsresulting from Hitler’s alleged socialism.However, in 1936 it was still possible to see ina revived and increasingly prosperous Germany(albeit based on regimentation, armaments

production, etc.) the results of an economic andpolitical system creating a stable, relativelyegalitarian society, especially when comparedwith the previous state of economic chaos atthe end of the Weimar Republic. Given this, it isnot surprising that Suzuki would endorse hisrelative’s assertion that “Hitler…was able tounite the people and lead us with a definitegoal in mind. Thus we have never experienceda greater sense of relief than we have today.”

In addition, it is readily understandable that theappellation “national” would have had a specialresonance for Suzuki. That is to say, the Nazivariety of socialism, unlike its Sovietcounterpart, claimed to be rooted in thenational character, history and values of theGerman people. For a scholar like Suzuki, thisemphasis on a culturally rooted socialism couldnot fail to have been attractive, for he wasconsumed by the uniqueness of Japanese Zenand the culture he claimed it had produced.

This does not mean, however, that Suzuki wasoblivious to certain defects in Nazism, mostespecially its oppressive treatment of GermanJews. But it is in Suzuki’s discussion of the Jewsthat we first see a pattern emerging that willcharacterize Suzuki’s entire discussion of theNazis. The pattern is this: at first glance Suzukiappears to oppose this or that aspect of theNazi’s actions or policies, but then, just at thepoint where one might expect him to condemnthose same policies, he offers an excuse orapology for them.

In the case of Jews, Suzuki forthrightlyrecognizes that the Nazis have enacted “a verycruel policy.” Further, he clearly empathizeswith the plight of the formerly wealthy, nowimpoverished Jewish poet-refugee he met inLondon. “I felt sorry for him. . . .This is truly aregrettable situation,” Suzuki laments. Yet, onthe other hand, Suzuki also states: “. . .whenlooked at from the point of view of the currentand future happiness of the entire Germanpeople, it may be that, for a time, some sort of

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

13

extreme action is necessary in order topreserve the nation. From the point of view ofthe German people, the situation facing theircountry is that critical.” (Italics mine)

In effect, Suzuki employs a very traditionalJapanese psycho-cultural apologia here andthroughout this article, i.e., yes, the Nazis aretaking some harsh, disagreeable actions but,unfortunately, given the extreme situation theGermans are in, shikatta ga nai, that is to say,“it can’t be helped” even if “as regardsindividuals” it leads to some regrettableresults.

Let me s tress that I am not the f i rs tinvestigator to note Suzuki’s attitude in thisrespect. Sueki Fumihiko, introduced above,wrote the following in a 2008 Japaneselanguage article entitled: “Japanese Buddhismand War—principally D.T. Suzuki” (NihonBukkyō to Sensō--Suzuki Daisetsu o chūshintoshite): “While in Germany Suzuki expressedapproval of the Nazis. As for the persecution ofthe Jews, [Suzuki wrote]: ‘It appears there areconsiderable grounds for this, too.’ ”17 (Italicsmine)

I stress Sueki’s comments because all too oftenin the emotional debate over Suzuki’s wartimerecord, charges of “mistranslation,” “sentencestaken out of context” have been bandied aboutin an attempt to discredit any suggestion ofSuzuki’s wartime culpability. In this case,however, the conclusions reached by a highlyrespected Japanese scholar of Buddhism havesimply been rendered into English. That said, itis at least theoretically possible that both thisscholar and the author are wrong. Hopefully,this possibility will be recognized as highlyunlikely by the end of this article.

A further example of the aforementionedpattern can be seen with regard to Suzuki’streatment of the “totalitarian” nature of theNazis. Are Nazis totalitarians? Yes, they areSuzuki says, but then he adds: “While it is truethat Nazis and Fascists also insist on

totalitarianism, in one sense it can be said thattheirs is a form of resistance to Communistactions. Or it can also be understood as turningthe Communists’ methods to their ownadvantage. (Italics mine)

So, according to Suzuki, both the RussianCommunists and the Nazis are totalitarians butthere is one major difference – the Nazis havebeen forced to adopt this strategy in order tocounter the Soviet menace, i.e., it is not aninherent feature of Nazi ideology. In fact, to thecontrary, it is actually a method of turning theCommunists’ violent strategy back onthemselves. These words are directed towardthe people of a country in which one of its chiefmartial arts, i.e., judo, is based on exactly thesame premise – turning the size and strength ofone’s opponent to one’s own advantage.

Suzuki defenders might wish to point out thatin much of his commentary Suzuki is merelyserving in the role of an amanuensis, i.e.,faithfully recording the Nazis’ rationale fortheir actions without interjecting his ownopinion. Yet, as we have seen, there were anumber of times in his commentary whenSuzuki did clearly express support for certainof the Nazis’ actions, e.g., bringing order andstability to Germany or creating youth serviceorganizations.

More importantly, Suzuki also demonstratedthat he was equally capable of registering hisopposition to some policies, i.e., at least thoseof Soviet Communists. “Taking their claims tobe absolute, they butcher those who opposethem without hesitation. This is something thatothers and I can in no way approve of.” (Italicsmine) Yet, by comparison, never once doesSuzuki unequivocally voice his opposition toany Nazi action or policy.

On the contrary, in one fashion or another,Suzuki always provides either a rationale, orextenuating circumstances, that justify Naziactions or claims. In the case of Nazi youthorganizations, for example, Suzuki states: “I

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

14

will, however, not immediately judge the rightsand wrongs o f a s i tua t i on i n wh ichtotalitarianism is overly emphasized andeveryone has to wear military uniforms.”(Italics mine) One senses Suzuki’s discomfortwith this rigid uniformity, but he nonethelessstates that he will not immediately judgewhether it is right or wrong thing to do. Onceagain, one comes away with the feeling that “itcan’t be helped” in light of the situationprevailing in Germany.

When the Zeitgeist is taken into account, it isclear that Suzuki’s comments condemningSoviet Communism mesh perfectly with an erawhen Japan was about to join Germany in ananti-Communist, anti-Russian pact. The factthat “the Nazis fiercely attack Soviet Russia,”and “directly attacked the Soviet Union as theirgreat enemy of the moment,” all the whiledisplaying “a truly fierce determination,” wouldhave been warmly welcomed in that era. Inshort, what better ally could Japan hope for inwhat was not simply an international treaty butthe morphing of an anti-Communist domesticpolicy into an international crusade?

When read in the context of the times, Suzuki’sarticles are actually a cleverly worded apologiafor the Nazis. Suzuki addresses all of thecriticisms leveled at the Nazis, i.e., theiroppression of the Jews, their totalitarianism,their regimentation of youth, their fanaticalhatred of Soviet Communism and ultimatelysupplies a convincing rationale for all of theirextremist stances within the context of thetimes. And it must not be forgotten that had hedone otherwise, the Chūgai Nippō, given theprevailing atmosphere of the day, would nothave dared to publish Suzuki’s articles let alonepay him for his services.

If this latter claim seems dubious, let me sharethe following interview with Bandō Shinji,former chief editor of the Chūgai Nippō, heldon September 30, 2013 in this newspaper’sKyoto office. Asked whether his newspaper

would have published articles critical of theNazis in October 1936, Bandō replied: “Theeditors of this newspaper would not havecriticized the Nazis in light of the Japanesegovernment’s clear intention to create an anti-Communist treaty with Germany. Had Suzukiwritten such critical articles the editors wouldhave required him to change the contents.”

Bandō continued: “In fact, the editors had noneed to ask Suzuki to change his articles sincethe contents reflected the pro-Nazi thinking ofmany Japanese at that time.” But wasn’t Suzukiopposed to the Nazi’s oppression of the Jews?Bandō replied, “Yes, Suzuki was concernedabout the plight of individual Jews butrecognized that Germany was in such aprecarious position that their anti-Jewishpolicies couldn’t be helped.” But didn’t Suzukitry warn the Japanese by using the word erai（えらい),which can mean “frightening,” todescribe the Nazi ’s hatred of SovietCommunism? Bandō explained, “In the contextin which Suzuki used that word, erai meansthat the Nazis possessed an ‘extraordinarydetermination’ (naminami naranu ketsui なみなみならぬ決意) to oppose Russian Communism.Their determination would have beenwelcomed in 1936 Japan.” Needless to say,Bandō is perfectly capable of reading Suzuki’sarticle in Japanese. Thus, in light of this andeverything we have seen, the thrust of Suzuki’sarticle is inescapable.

Conclusion

If Satō and other Suzuki supporters are to bebelieved, Suzuki was so successful in disguisinghis persistent, if subdued, antiwar efforts thathe was never questioned, censored, let alonearrested, for anything he said or wrote duringthe entire wartime period. This is especiallysignificant given that Suzuki continued to writeunabated, even prolifically, throughout thewartime period.

Additionally, as noted in the introduction,Suzuki maintained a personal relationship with

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

15

Count Karlfried Dürckheim, perhaps the Nazi’sleading propagandist in Japan throughout thewar. Proof of their relationship is to be found inhis diaries from this period. Interestinglyenough, Suzuki wrote his diaries in English sothere can be no doubt about their meaning. Forexample, we learn that Suzuki met Dürckheimon numerous occasions from at least thebeginning of 1939 through the end of the war,e.g., on January 16, 1939 Suzuki wrote:“Special delivery to Durkheim (sic), at GermanEmbassy.”

18 The following day, on January 17, 1939:“Telegram from Dürkheim.”19 On July 14, 1942:“Telegram to Graf [Count] Dürckheim re hisinvitation to lunch tomorrow,”20 and onFebruary 15, 1943: “Went to Tokyo to takelunch with Graf von Dürkheim and stayed sometime with him.”21

Fig. 10 - Ambassador Eugen Ott

Further, Suzuki’s contact with leading Naziswas by no means limited to Dürkheim alone. OnJanuary 18, 1939 Suzuki wrote: “Went to Tokyosoon after breakfast. Called on Graf. [Graf]Durkhe im a t German Embassy , metAmbassador [Eugen] Otto [Ott], and Dr. [spaceleft blank] of German-Japanese Institute. Lunchwith them at New Grand.”22 On February 4,1943 Suzuki took part in a dinner party tohonor the ambassador: “Went to Imperial Hotelto attend dinner party given to Amb. Ott andhis staff,”23 and on February 16, 1943 Suzukireceived “a box of fruits in recognition of mypresence at a dinner party in honor of Amb. Ottof Germany.”24

Suzuki’s diaries also contain frequentreferences to his lectures at German-relatedvenues starting as early as May 28, 1938:“Lecture at German research institute forK.B.S. in the evening.” Additionally, Suzukilectured at the German Society on September13, 1943; German residents in Tokyo onOctober 4, 1943; the German Club onDecember 10, 1943; and the German Society,once again, on December 15, 1943.25

In light of these activities it must be said that ifin October 1936, as Satō claims, Suzuki“clearly had little regard for the Nazi leader,disapproved of their violent attitudes, andopposed the policies espoused by the party” hehad a decidedly strange way of expressing hisopposition. So strange, in fact, it defiescredibility.

Nevertheless, if there is a “smoking gun” to befound in terms of a close or sympatheticrelationship between Suzuki and the Nazis it isnot to be found in the preceding translationgiven both its brevity and a certain studiedambiguity. Rather, it will be found in the detailsof Suzuki’s multiple contacts with leading Nazisin wartime Japan, most especially Nazipropagandist, Count Karlfried Dürkheim. But

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

16

who, exactly, was Karlfried Dürkheim? Andwhat was the nature of his relationship withSuzuki? A detailed study of these questions,however, will have to wait until the second partof this article.

Suffice it to say at this point that, ultimately,Dürkheim was not indicted as a war criminaland subsequently freed from Sugamo prison in1947. He was then repatriated to Germanywhere, hiding his Nazi past, Dürkheim becamek n o w n a s a d e e p l y Z e n - i n f l u e n c e dpsychotherapist. Some disciples even regardedhim as a Zen master, thanks to the Zen traininghe had allegedly undergone while in Japan.Suzuki, for his part, continued his relationshipwith Dürkheim well into the postwar era. Onceagain, this rich and complicated story mustwait to be told until the second part of thisarticle, entitled: “A Zen Nazi in Wartime Japan:Count Karlfried Dürkheim, plus D.T. Suzuki,Yasutani Haku’un and Eugen Herrigel.”

Appendices for Suzuki and Nazis (PartOne)

Appendix I

A Brief Examination of the CompetingTranslations

Needless to say, the comments in this article,with the notable exception of those made bySueki Fumihiko, depend to a large extent onthe accuracy of the translation containedherein. Yet, as has been noted, there is analternate translation by Satō Gemmyō Tairathat not only exonerates Suzuki but also turnshim into an anti-Nazi hero who dared topublicly speak his mind. Given this, bothtranslations cannot be accurate.

Given space limitations, not to mention thereader’s patience, it is not possible to identifyand discuss every discrepancy between the twotranslations. But, as in Suzuki’s own writings,there is a pattern to be found, in this case apattern of key mistranslations that, when

understood, demonstrate how it is possible topresent Suzuki as a critic of the Nazis if notclearly opposed to them.

First, let us examine Satō’s translation of thematerial concerning the Nazi’s oppression ofJews. As the reader may recall, the author’stranslation of Suzuki’s initial comments on theNazi’s oppression of Jews concluded with thewords: “As far as individuals are concerned,this is truly a regrettable situation.” Bycontrast, Satō’s translation ended with: “Thesituation of each and every one of these peopleis sad beyond words.”26

In analyzing these two sentences it can bereasonably claimed that “this is truly aregrettable situation” is an alternatephraseology of “The situation . . . is sad beyondwords” although the latter translation is clearlymore emotive. However, the real differencebetween the two sentences lies in the words“As far as individuals are concerned” versus“The situation of each and every one of thesepeople.”

The key to unlocking the difference betweenthese two translations is the original Japaneseexpression kojin-kojin（個人個人). In this case,the word kojin 個人simply means one individualand the repetition of the second kojin 個人 is agrammatical device to change the singularform of a noun into its plural form, i.e.,individual into individuals. Thus, the words“each and every” are not to be found in theoriginal Japanese and are linguisticallyunjustified. The insertion of these extraneouswords changes the tenor, if not the meaning, ofthe translation by making it appear that Suzukiwas opposed to each and every instance of theNazis’ persecution of the Jews, i.e., a blanketcondemnation.

In fact, what Suzuki was expressing wasessentially the opposite, That is to say, whileSuzuki recognized, and no doubt genuinelyregretted, the suffering of individual Jews atthe hands of the Nazis, “. . . when looked at

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

17

from the point of view of the current and futurehappiness of the entire German people, it maybe that, for a time, some sort of extreme actionis necessary in order to preserve the nation.”(Italics mine) In short, even while admitting thecruelty of the Nazi’s repression of the Jews,Suzuki nevertheless offered Japanese readers adefense of that policy as something required bythe extreme situation the German people foundthemselves in despite the suffering it entailedfor individual Jews.

A second significant mistranslation occurs inconnection with Suzuki’s description of theNazis ’ resolute opposit ion to SovietCommunism. Suzuki writes:

From looking at the newspapers, you can get agood sense of their truly fierce determination.People are saying that if, in the past, theleaders of one country had done something likethis it is inevitable that within twenty-fourhours the other country would have declaredwar. In any event, the Nazis’ determination isdeadly serious! (Italics mine)

By comparison, Satō’s translation reads:

Reading the newspaper reports, one couldsense a terrifying determination. People saidthat in the past, if a nation’s leaders had doneanything like this, within twenty-four hours theother country would have declared war. In anyevent, the determination of the Nazis isfrightening.27 (Italics mine)

The reader can easily recognize that by usingthe words like terrifying and especially,frightening, Suzuki would seem to be giving aclear warning to the Japanese people – stayaway from the Nazis because they will get usinvolved in a war with Russia!

On the other hand, if the author’s translation iscorrect, one comes to exactly the oppositeconclusion, i .e. , the Nazis’ hatred ofCommunism is fierce and extremely resolute.Therefore, as Bandō Shinji, former chief editor

of the Chūgai Nippō, indicated, "Theirdetermination would have been welcomed in1936 Japan.”

What a difference the translation of only twoadjectives can make! But which is correct?

In the case of the first adjective sugoi（凄い)the truth is that it does indeed have a widevariety of meanings, everything from terrifyingas Satō asserts to superb, wonderful andamazing at the other end of the spectrum.Thus, at least linguistically speaking, it is notpossible to assert that Satō’s translation iserroneous. That said, the translation of thesecond adjective at the end of the paragraph,i.e., erai （えらい),is far more problematic.

To his credit, Satō recognizes this and, in afootnote, provides the following explanation:

The original reads “tonikaku, Nachisu no ketsuiha erai mono de aru” とに角、ナチスの決意はえらいものである (SDZ, vol. 32, p. 217). Thefinal word, erai, can actually be one of twoseparate terms, each with its own entry in thedictionary. One, written 偉い, means “great,grand, wonderful, admirable.” The other,written えらい (as in the present case), means“serious, violent, awful, menacing, serious(consequences).” Suzuki here is stronglycriticizing the attitude of the Nazi leadership,and hence the latter meaning is clearlyindicated.28

In determining which translation is correct, thefirst point that should be made is that the worderai （えらい）as used here is primarily aconversational expression, definitely not aliterary or academic term. This is one reasonwhy there is such a wide variety of possibletranslations. Thus the meaning very muchdepends on the speaker’s intent though thecontext in which it is said is also important. Itwas for this reason that the author chose theconversational expression “deadly serious” forthe translation. The addition of the word“deadly” is simply a means to show just how

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

18

serious or determined the Nazis were. Satōhimself notes that it is possible to translate thisadjective as “serious,” but then goes on toclaim that Suzuki “is strongly criticizing theattitude of the Nazi leadership,” an assertionthat is his interpretation and lacks anunambiguous textual basis.

As previously noted, an equally importantfactor in determining a correct translation iscontext. Was Suzuki, as Satō maintains,“strongly criticizing the attitude of the Nazileadership” or, on the contrary, was heattempting to convey, as the author maintains,the Nazis’ resolute, even fierce, determinationto oppose Russian Communism?

In truth, when this paragraph is viewed inisolation, i.e., outside of the context of theentire section concerning the Nazis, it isimpossible, at least linguistically speaking, tomake a definitive judgment. Yet, as we havealready seen in our previous discussion ofJewish oppression, Suzuki actually offered anapology for Nazi oppression rather thancondemning it. If this is correct, why would hesuddenly change his attitude here? And, asnoted above, in the atmosphere prevailing inJapan of October 1936 he would not have beenpublished if he had criticized the Nazis.

The author recently discussed this very issuedirectly with Sueki Fumihiko, i.e., how was itpossible for Satō to so consistently distort themeaning of Suzuki’s words? Sueki responded,“Satō is unable to understand the nuance of theJapanese.”29 Surprised by his response, Ireplied, “But Satō is a native speaker ofJapanese, how could he fail to understandSuzuki’s intent?” Sueki was silent, and in theabsence of any further response on his part Iadded, “When my book, Zen at War was firstpublished, Rinzai Zen scholar-priest TogaMasatake, then director of the Institute for ZenStudies at Hanazono University, said, “InJapanese Zen, loyalty is most important.Loyalty to one's teacher and the tradition is

more important than the Buddha and theDharma.”30

I continued, “In light of Toga’s words, isn’t thereal reason Satō, who describes himself asSuzuki’s disciple, acted as he did was becauseof his intense sense of loyalty to Suzuki?” Suekidid not reply, and I must therefore leave thequestion of Satō’s motivation for the reader todecide. I can, however, say with confidencethat this is a very serious issue, one that goesto the very heart of the Zen belief that theBuddha Dharma is transmitted from theenlightened mind of the master to theenlightened mind of the disciple.

Thus, this is a question that concerns not onlySuzuki but also all wartime Zen leaders. That isto say, the question must be asked even if itcannot be answered here: “If Suzuki, or anywartime Zen leader, were shown to have been asupporter of Japanese fascism, let alone a Nazisympathizer, would they be qualified to teachor transfer the Buddha Dharma (teachings) totheir disciples?” Further, if their support offascism disqualifies them as transmitters of theBuddha Dharma, then what does this say aboutthe teaching authority of their disciples (akaDharma descendants), many of whom todayidentify themselves as “Zen masters” in theirown right?

Needless to say, this discussion lies far beyondthe scope of this article and must await futureexamination. In the meantime, there is oneadditional error to pursue, the most egregiousof them all. It concerns Suzuki’s statement ofhis opposition to what he claimed was themanner in which Soviet Communist leaders“butcher those who oppose them withouthesitation.” About this, Suzuki unequivocallywrote: “This is something that others and I canin no way approve of.” In Japanese the word for“others and I” is simply jibunra（自分等）inwhich jibun （自分）means oneself and ra（等）is a suffix that refers to oneself plusothers.

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

19

In contrast, Satō translates these words as:“This fact is something they are unable torecognize themselves.”3 1 Clearly bothtranslations cannot be accurate. First of all,when read in context, Satō’s translationconveys little meaning in that mass murderersseldom ever recognize themselves as such.Secondly, from a linguistic standpoint, themajor problem is the use of “they” (i.e., thegenocidal Soviet Communists) in place of“others and I.” This, despite the fact that thereis a perfectly good word in Japanese, i.e.,karera（彼ら）, that does mean “they.”

Thirdly , the word Satō translates as“recognize” is shukō suru（首肯する）, a verbmeaning “agree with/support/approve of.” Thisis coupled with the suffix –gataki （難き）thatmeans “difficult to,” thus the phrase at thispoint literally means “difficult to agreewith/support/approve of.” However, thesewords are preced ing by the adverb“dōshitemo”（どうしても）that means, innegative constructions, “ in no way,”“impossible,” or simply “never,” and serves tofurther strengthen the following words,“difficult to agree with/support/approve of.”Putting all of this together leads to: “This issomething that others and I can in no wayapprove of.”

Even granting the accuracy of my translation,the question becomes, so what? That is to say,what makes Satō’s essentially fabricatedtranslation so important? The answer lies in thefact that it denies Suzuki agency, i.e., a voiceand a personal opinion. It is here, for the firsttime in the article, that Suzuki makes crystalclear his personal opposition to certain policiesand actions, albeit those of the despised SovietCommunists. In so doing, this sentence revealsthat Suzuki was perfectly capable and willing toexpress his opposition to those actions hedisagreed with. By contrast, and as previouslynoted, there is not a single instance in whichSuzuki clearly expressed his opposition to anypolicy or action related to the Nazis. Instead, as

we have seen, he always provided one oranother rationale for those Nazi policies heidentified as questionable or, alternatively,suspended judgment of the “rights and wrongs”of the ir act ions in the case o f youthregimentation.

Note that the three preceding mistranslationsare merely representative of many additionalexamples that could be given. However, I willnot impose further on the reader’s patience.Those readers competent in Japanese willreadily identify additional examples. Let meonce again note that the original Japanese textis available in Appendix II. In any event, it isclear that, collectively, these mistranslations,including fabrications, represent a concertedeffort to change black into white, i.e., what wasoriginally written as an apologia for the Nazisinto a seeming rejection of them.

Appendix II

View text of original Japanese article here(https://apjjf.org/data/SuzukiNazi1.pdf).The translated portion of the text begins on p.216, third line from the right, and ends on p.219, fifth line from the right.

Brian Victoria, Visiting Research Fellow,International Research Center for JapaneseStudies, Kyoto. Brian Daizen Victoria holds anM.A. in Buddhist Studies from Sōtō Zen sect-affiliated Komazawa University in Tokyo, and aPh.D. from the Department of Religious Studiesat Temple University. In addition to a 2nd,e n l a r g e d e d i t i o n o f Z e n A t W a r(http://amzn.com/0742539261/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20) (Rowman & Littlefield), major writingsi n c l u d e Z e n W a r S t o r i e s(http://amzn.com/0700715819/?tag=theasipacjo 0 b - 2 0 ) ( R o u t l e d g e C u r z o n ) ; a nautobiographical work in Japanese entitledGaijin de ari, Zen bozu de ari (As a Foreigner,As a Zen Pr ies t ) ; Zen Master Dōgen(http://amzn.com/0834801167/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20), coauthored with Prof. Yokoi Yūhō ofAichi-gakuin University (Weatherhill); and a

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

20

t r a n s l a t i o n o f T h e Z e n L i f e(http://amzn.com/0834815176/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20) by Sato Koji (Weatherhill). He iscurrently a Visiting Research Fellow at theInternational Research Center for JapaneseStudies (aka Nichibunken) in Kyoto.

Recommended citation: Brian Victoria, "D.T.Suzuki, Zen and the Nazis," The Asia-PacificJournal, Vol. 11, Issue 43, No. 4, October 28,2013.

Sources

Batchelor, Stephan. Buddhism without Beliefs,London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1998.

Baran, Josh. “Zen Holy War?” (a book review).Tricycle, May 1998.

Benesch, Oleg. “Bushido: The Creation of aMartial Ethic in Late Meiji Japan.” Ph.D.dissertation, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, 2011, pp. 1-358. Available on theweb as a PDF: Bushido: The Creation of aM a r t i a l E t h i c i n L a t e M e i j i J a p a n(https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/31136/ubc_2011_spring_benesch_oleg.pdf?sequence=1)

Cleary, Thomas. Code of the Samurai. Boston:Tuttle Publishing, 1999.

Kraft, Kenneth, ed., Zen Teaching, ZenPractice: Philip Kapleau And The Three PillarsOf Zen, Tokyo: Weatherhill 2000.

Marty, Martin E. “An Exuberant Adventure:The Academic Study and Teaching of Religion,”Academe, 82, no. 6, 1996, pp. 14-17.

Roberts, John G. Mitsui: Three Centuries ofJapanese Business, Tokyo: Weatherhill, 1973.

Rosenkranz, Gerhard. Fernost - wohin?Begegnungen mit den Religionen Japans undChinas im Umbruch der Gegenwart. HeilbronnVerlag Eugen Salzer, 1940. Available on thew e b i n G e r m a n a t : P a y e r . d e

(http://www.payer.de/neobuddhismus/neobud0305.htm).

Satō, Kemmyō Taira. “Brian Victoria and theQ u e s t i o n o f S c h o l a r s h i p(http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Question_of_Scholarship.pdf).” TheEastern Buddhist 41/2: 139–166. Available onthe web here: Brian Victoria and the Questiono f S c h o l a r s h i p(http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Question_of_Scholarship.pdf)

-----. “Online document: D. T. Suzuki and theQ u e s t i o n o f W a r(http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Suzuki_and-Quest ion_of -War.pdf) .”Translated in collaboration with ThomasKirchner. The Eastern Buddhist 39/1: 61–120.

Shaku, Soyen [Sōen]. Sermons of a BuddhistAbbot. In Zen for Americans. Translated byDaisetz Teitaro Suzuki. LaSalle, IL: OpenCourt, 1974. The entire book is available on thew e b a t S a c r e d T e x t s(http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/index.htm).

Sharf, Robert H. “The Zen of JapaneseN a t i o n a l i s m .(http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/HistoricalZen/Zen_of_Japanese_Nationalism.html)”History of Religions, Vol. 33, No. 1. (Aug.,1993), pp. 1-43.

-----. “Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited(http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/whose%20zen_sharf.pdf)” in RudeAwakenings: Zen the Kyoto School, and theQuestion of Nationalism, James W. Heisig andJohn C. Maraldo, eds., pp. 40–51. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press.

Snyder, Gary and Nelson Foster, “The Fog ofW o r l d W a r I I(http://www.tricycle.com/feature/fog-world-war-ii)” in tricycle (Summer 2010).

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

21

Sueki Fumihiko, “Daisetsu hihan saikō.”Kamakura, Japan: Matsugaoka Bunko KenkyūNenpō, No. 24, 2010, pp. 19-36.

-----. “Nihon Bukkyō to Sensō--Suzuki Daisetsu ochūshin toshite (Japanese Buddhism andWar—principally D.T. Suzuki).” Paperpresented at the Kankoku Nihon Shisō-shiGakkai on November 29, 2008.

Suzuki, Daisetsu (also Daisetz, D.T., Teitaro).“English Diaries,” Kamakura, Japan:Matsugaoka Bunko Kenkyū Nenpō, No. 21(2007); No. 23 (2009); No. 25 (2011); No. 26(2012).

-----. Shin Shūkyō Ron (A Treatise on the NewMeaning of Religion), 1896. In vol. 23, SuzukiDaisetsu Zenshū. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten,1969, pp. 1-147.

-----. “Makujiki Kōzen” (Rush Forward withoutHesitation), June 1941. In vol. 16, SuzukiDaisetsu Zenshū. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten,2001, pp. 121-135. Originally published inKaikō-sha kiji, June 1941, pp. 17-26.

-----. “A Buddhist View of War.” Light of Dharma4, 1904.

-----. “The Zen Sect of Buddhism,” Journal of thePali Text Society, 1906.

-----. Zen Buddhism and Its Influence onJapanese Culture. Kyoto: The Eastern BuddhistSociety, Otani Buddhist College, 1938. Laterreprinted in the postwar period in multiple,expanded editions by Princeton UniversityPress as Zen and Japanese Culture.

Toland, John . Adolf Hitler, New York:Doubleday, 1976.

Victoria, Brian. “The ‘Negative Side’ of D. T.S u z u k i ' s R e l a t i o n s h i p t o W a r(http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/DTSuzukiandWar.pdf).” The EasternBuddhist 41/2: 97–138.

-----. Zen at War, 2nd ed., Rowman & Littlefield,Boulder, Colorado, 2006.

-----. Zen War Stories, RoutledgeCurzon,London and New York, 2003.

Notes

i Satō, “Brian Victoria and the Question ofScholarship,” p. 147.

2 Quoted in Victoria, Zen at War, p. 111.

3 Quoted in Kraft, Zen Teaching, Zen Practice:Philip Kapleau And The Three Pillars Of Zen,pp. 21-22.

4 A v a i l a b l e o n t h e w e b a t :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlfried_Graf_D%C3%BCrckheim#cite_ref-28 (accessed August25, 2013)

5 Quoted in Victoria, Zen at War, p. 71.

6 Sueki, “Daisetsu hihan saikō,” p. 8.

7 The Communist International, abbreviated asComintern and also known as the ThirdInternational (1919–1943), was an internationalcommunist organization initiated in Moscowduring March 1919. The International intendedto fight "by all available means, includingarmed force, for the overthrow of theinternational bourgeoisie and for the creationof an international Soviet republic as atransition stage to the complete abolition of theState."

8 Quoted in the Wikipedia entry, “Anti-Comintern Pact.” Available on the web at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Comintern_Pact

9 Roberts, Mitsui: Three Centuries of JapaneseBusiness, p. 307.

10 Satō, “Brian Victoria and the Question ofScholarship,” p. 150.

APJ | JF 11 | 43 | 4

22

11 Suzuki, Shokan, in Suzuki Daisetsu Zenshū(hereafter abbreviated as SDZ), vol. 36, p. 204.

12 Ibid., p. 206.

13 Ibid., p. 220.

14 Suzuki, Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism, p.191.

15 Ibid., p. 189.

16 Toland, Adolf Hitler, pp. 224–225.

17 Sueki, “Nihon Bukkyō to Sensō--SuzukiDaisetsu o chūshin toshite,” p. 4.

18 Suzuki, “English Diaries,” No. 26, 2012, p. 3.

19 Ibid., p. 3.

20 Suzuki, “English Diaries,” No. 21, 2007, p.114.

21 Suzuki, “English Diaries,” No. 23, 2009, p. 6.

22 Suzuki, “English Diaries,” No. 26, 2012, p. 3.

23 Suzuki, “English Diaries,” No. 23, 2009, p. 4.

24 Suzuki, “English Diaries,” No. 23, 2009, p. 6.

25 Suzuki, “English Diaries,” No. 25, 2011, p.60; No. 23, 2009, pp. 30-40 inclusive.

26 Satō, “Brian Victoria and the Question ofScholarship,” p. 148.

27 Ibid., p. 149.

28 Ibid., p. 149.

29 This conversation took place on September 4,2013 in the lobby of the International ResearchCenter for Japanese Studies (Nichibunken) inKyoto, Japan.

30 Quoted in Baran, “Zen Holy War?” Tricycle,May 1998.31 Satō, “Brian Victoria and the Question ofScholarship,” p. 150.