This paper examines the profound influence of Chinese philosophy on Japan across multiple centuries, analyzing how major Japanese philosophers either embraced or resisted Chinese traditions. Through close study of Dogen Zenji's acceptance of Buddhist teachings in the 13th century, and later philosophers Motoori Norinaga and Kamo no Mabuchi's nativist revival of Shinto during the Edo period, the paper demonstrates that Chinese influence permeated Japanese intellectual life regardless of explicit philosophical stance. Even those who sought to reject Chinese dominance ultimately adopted Confucian structural concepts in their work, revealing a complex cultural dynamic where resistance itself remained shaped by the very traditions being opposed.
When a culture encounters new ideas, it can either accept or oppose them. Japan provides an excellent example of how societies navigate such transformations. Japanese tradition demonstrates a remarkable capacity for assimilating foreign ideas while maintaining cultural identity. Confucianism, Buddhism, and neo-Confucianism entered Japan and became foundational to Japanese philosophy and political structure. Over centuries, Japanese philosophers engaged with Chinese philosophical traditions in markedly different ways. Some, like Dogen Zenji, embraced and built upon Chinese Buddhist teachings. Others, such as Motoori Norinaga and Kamo no Mabuchi, explicitly rejected Chinese philosophical dominance to revive classical Japanese traditions. Yet despite their opposing stances, all three philosophers remained fundamentally shaped by Chinese intellectual influence. Each philosopher's perspective left an indelible mark on Japanese culture and political structure, revealing a complex dynamic where resistance to foreign influence often paradoxically reinforces that same influence.
Dogen Zenji was a Zen master and founder of the Soto Zen school in Japan during the 13th century. He began studying Buddhism at age thirteen after ascending Mount Hiei in search of the "true" Buddhist teaching and the Four Noble Truths of Dharma. Dogen believed that any form of Buddhism failing to follow the Four Noble Truths was not legitimate. Despite his teachers' efforts, Dogen remained dissatisfied with the answers he received about the true meaning of the Way. In his own words, Dogen reflected on his transformation: "I was unable to meet a true teacher or any good friends of the Way and consequently confused and evil thoughts arose. However, when I learned of eminent monks of the past, I realized that the thoughts I had been thinking were despised and hated by such people. So, I changed my way of thinking, realizing that I should think of my eminent predecessors, the great priests of China and India, rather than the monks in Japan" (global.sotozen.net, par. 3). Recognizing that the answers he sought lay beyond Japan's borders, Dogen traveled to China at age 24 to study with renowned Buddhist teachers.
Even in China, Dogen's initial search proved fruitless. However, the journey proved transformative when he encountered the monk Ruijing, whose teachings crystallized Dogen's central philosophical insight. Dogen discovered that Zazen—the practice of seated meditation incorporating Nonthinking—formed the foundation of true Buddhism. Zazen practice and the concept of Nonthinking can be understood as a method for performing good deeds and refraining from evil (Heisig, Kasulis, Maraldo 157). This teaching directly reflects the Buddhist principle that states, "Not doing evils, devoutly practicing every good, purifying one's own mind: this is the teaching of all buddhas" (Heisig, Kasulis, Maraldo 156). Upon returning to Japan, Dogen established the Soto Zen school of Buddhism, which emphasizes zazen and seated meditation based on the Buddha's own practice. The Soto Zen school became one of the most influential Buddhist movements in Japan.
Dogen's relationship to Chinese philosophical tradition is unambiguous: he traveled across the sea specifically seeking answers from Chinese teachers and explicitly rejected Japanese Buddhist interpretations in favor of Chinese and Indian sources. His embrace of Chinese Buddhist structure—particularly the emphasis on zazen and the moral framework of avoiding evil and practicing good—demonstrates profound indebtedness to Chinese philosophical and religious traditions. Dogen did not attempt to hide or deny this influence; rather, he celebrated it as the source of authentic Buddhist practice. In this way, Dogen represents wholesale acceptance of Chinese influence as a path to philosophical truth.
After the 15th and 16th centuries, new philosophical currents emerged in Japan. Shinto philosophy experienced a revival explicitly designed to counter the dominant Chinese intellectual influence spreading throughout the country. Philosophers including Motoori Norinaga and Kamo no Mabuchi championed a deliberate rejection of Chinese traditions in order to restore classical Japanese culture predating the arrival of Buddhism and Confucianism. Motoori Norinaga stands as one of the Edo period's most influential philosophers, renowned for his scholarly work on the Kojiki. The Kojiki is an ancient collection of myths detailing the origins of Japan's four main islands and the Kami, or spirits (Reader 66). Norinaga believed that Confucian influence corrupted the authentic Japanese oral tradition of myth and song that had flourished before foreign philosophical systems arrived.
Prior to Buddhism and Confucianism's introduction to Japan, traditional practices centered on Shinto philosophy, a spiritual system involving rituals designed to connect contemporary Japan with its ancient past. Working with the Kojiki as his primary text, Norinaga and his collaborator Kamo no Mabuchi established the Kokugaku, or national learning movement. This new intellectual program aimed to refocus Japanese scholarship on Shinto traditions and deliberately distance Japan from Chinese philosophical hegemony. Paradoxically, although the Kokugaku explicitly opposed Confucianism, its fundamental structure borrowed heavily from Confucian methodology. Classical Chinese Confucianism rejected the notion of historical progress, instead positing an image of idealized antiquity as the model society. The Japanese nativist scholars adopted this same Confucian concept of an idealized past, adapted it to Japanese history, and constructed a vision of an improved Japanese future based on restoration of ancient ways (Antoni 14). This borrowing reveals an ironic dependence on the very philosophical system these scholars sought to escape.
Kamo no Mabuchi, the other founding figure of the Kokugaku, expressed his opposition to Chinese influence through extensive work on the Manyoshu, a classical collection of Japanese poetry. The Manyoshu contains poems with evident Confucian and Taoist thematic elements. Mabuchi produced detailed commentaries on major Japanese literary works, emphasizing the themes present in ancient texts. According to scholar Klaus Antoni, "He expected these poems to express the archaic Japanese mind purely, free of Chinese influence, and therefore to reflect the spirit of the Golden Age at the beginning of Japanese history" (14). Through the analytical work of Mabuchi and Norinaga on Japanese classical literature, the Shinto revival gained intellectual momentum and scholarly credibility. Yet this revival, ostensibly anti-Chinese, employed analytical frameworks and historical reasoning directly inherited from the Chinese intellectual tradition.
Despite their explicit opposition to Chinese philosophical traditions, Dogen, Norinaga, and Mabuchi were all fundamentally influenced by China. Dogen openly embraced Chinese Buddhism and explicitly chose Chinese teachers over Japanese ones. Norinaga and Mabuchi pursued a more complicated relationship: they rejected what they saw as the corrupting force of Chinese philosophy, yet they adopted Confucian structural concepts—particularly the idealization of an ancient golden age—as the foundation for their alternative vision.
The three philosophers represent different points on a spectrum of Chinese influence rather than a simple binary of acceptance versus rejection. Dogen enthusiastically incorporated Chinese Buddhist philosophy into his new school, making his debt to China transparent and intentional. Mabuchi and Norinaga sought liberation from Chinese dominance, but their very methods of argumentation and historical reasoning remained rooted in Confucian thought. The establishment of the Kokugaku claimed to redirect Japanese scholarship away from Chinese philosophy, yet the foundational idea of recovering an idealized past to improve the present was itself borrowed from Confucian categories. Therefore, while Mabuchi and Norinaga experienced less direct Chinese influence than Dogen, they remained philosophically indebted to China despite their resistance. The Edo period during which they worked became a battleground where rejection of Chinese dominance paradoxically proved impossible without employing Chinese philosophical tools.
In spite of their divergent stances toward Chinese philosophical traditions, Dogen, Norinaga, and Mabuchi were each profoundly influenced by China. Whether that influence was welcomed, as with Dogen's enthusiastic adoption of Zen Buddhism, or resisted, as with the nativists' attempt to revive pure Shinto, the mark of Chinese intellectual traditions remained visible in all three philosophers' work. This reality demonstrates that cultural influence operates at depths that conscious resistance cannot fully escape. Japan's encounter with Chinese philosophy produced not simple acceptance or rejection, but rather a complex negotiation where even those who fought most vigorously against foreign dominance found themselves working within conceptual frameworks inherited from the culture they opposed. The history of these three philosophers reveals that profound cultural change emerges not from pure acceptance or pure resistance, but from the tension between the two.
You’re 97% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.