meanings: "the Buddhism that existed during the Kamakura era"
and "the new Buddhisms that developed during the Kamakura era."
Buddhism of the Kamakura era includes a great deal more than the
new Buddhisms. Specifically, all of the previously established forms
and institutions of Buddhism in Japan continued to exist and play
important roles in the era. ³ Indeed, the new Buddhisms of the era,
such as Jōdo Shinshū, were "embryonic" during the Kamakura period,
coming to "ascendance" only in subsequent periods. ⁴ The older Bud-
dhisms were not merely decadent, conservative, and oppressive forces
opposing change, as they have often been characterized. Rather,
they themselves were also involved in the new developments of the
era. The "received tradition" tells a (hi)story that, when the historio-
graphic context is taken into account, makes it seem that European
religious history as viewed from the Protestant perspective was being
projected onto the Japanese religious history: an originally pure and
noble doctrine that had fallen into moral decay and ritualistic obscu-
rantism under the influence of venal priests necessitated the emer-
gence of a few bold and clear-sighted reformers to work toward
reclaiming the original teachings. ⁵

In his essay in this volume, James Dobbins suggests that Japanese
scholarship on the Kamakura era has tended to emphasize one of
two aspects -- either the doctrinal aspects or the social, political, and
economic aspects. The doctrinal studies are the source of the "re-
ceived tradition" concerning Kamakura-era Buddhism. Dobbins iden-
tifies Joseph Kitagawa as one who has adopted the viewpoint of the
doctrinally focused studies. Such a typification is to be found in Kita-
gawa's "Japanese Religion: An Overview" in the Encyclopedia of Reli-
gion. Although any number of instances could be critiqued, examina-
tion of this one example -- which stands out because of the authority
deriving from the Encyclopedia -- displays the problematics of the "re-
ceived tradition." Kitagawa characterizes monastic life during the
Kamakura era (specifically Hieizan) as "empty ceremonialism, schol-
asticism and moral corruption." An implicit, and questionable, value
judgment is built into the phrase "empty ceremonialism," which,
with its Protestant overtones, begs the question of the efficacy and
significance of the religious practices of Shingon and Tendaimikkyō.
Similarly, scholasticism has always been a very important element
within the Buddhist tradition and has long been held by important
parts of the tradition to be soteriologically efficacious. ⁶ To describe
all of the earlier monastic traditions as morally corrupt ignores both
the efforts to revive adherence to the precepts that grew up within
the older traditions and the legitimate concerns about the moral
integrity of the new Buddhisms, which could be (and were) inter-
preted in an antinomian manner as giving license for relaxing the

-2-