{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041653212786567646, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010332579916047788, 'mean_word_length': 4.834274952919021, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Jeffrey L. Richey (ed): Daoism in Japan: Chinese Traditions and Their Influence on Japanese Religious Culture . (Routledge Studies in Daoism.) xiii, 267 pp. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. £90. ISBN 978 1 138 78649 3.

than focusing on details of doctrine. Yet it is in this latter respect that the book would have benefited from more careful editing. For example, the authors explain the doctrinal position of the Jōjitsu tradition as follows: “[Jōjitsu] denies the existence of both mind and matter. [. . .T]his means that neither the self nor anything else has a permanent existence or reality” (p. 57). As stated, this is at least misleading. While it is true that the Jōjitsu tradition did deny the permanent existence of self and dharma, it did not deny their existence outright. Rather, it held that all phenomena are empty (kū) and abide only provisionally (ke) on the level of worldly truth. It consequently understood itself as taking the “middle path” (chūdō) between eternalism and nihilism. In a similar vein, the authors write that the Hossō school “teaches that reality is nothing but mental ideations” (p. 56). Hossō taught the exact opposite: that being caught in “mere ideation” (yuishiki) we are unable to perceive reality (shinyo). The above are minor details. However, there are also some fundamental misunderstandings to be found in this book. The authors describe the precepts Ganjin introduced to Japan as follows: “The Mahayana precepts that Ganjin brought to Japan, though originally based in Theravada practice, became the template for the Vinaya embraced in the Mahayana lineages of East Asian Buddhism. [. . .] These monastic regulations, known as the Bodhisattva precepts [. . .] required adherence to vows based on Mahayana doctrine” (p. 65). First, the East Asian vinaya lineages are based on the Dharmaguptika vinaya, not the Theravada one; and second, the Bodhisattva precepts are separate from the monastic regulations of the vinaya and are open to lay believers as well. Better editing could easily have prevented this glitch as only a few pages later, in their discussion of the Tendai precepts, the authors provide a correct explanation (p. 74). There is also some confusion regarding basic schemes of doctrinal classification. Concerning the distinction of exoteric and esoteric teachings, the authors write: “Exoteric Buddhism focused on doctrinal systems that provided an explanation and rationale for the significance of secretly transmitted esoteric practices” (p. 71). By this definition, the doctrinal oeuvre of Kūkai, the founder of esoteric Buddhism in Japan, which presents a “doctrinal system[. . .] that provide[s] an explanation and rationale for the significance of secretly transmitted esoteric practices” would count as exoteric! Yet, in conclusion, these are minor squabbles. The authors have succeeded in synthesizing an enormous amount of scholarship into a readable, thorough and comprehensive overview of Japanese Buddhist history. When used with an awareness of its limitations, this volume will be an invaluable teaching resource.