Cited by 7Academic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyIndian and Buddhist StudiesReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 108 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Techniques for nothingness: Debate over the comparability of hypnosis and Zen in early-twentieth-century Japan

Wu, Yu-chuan·2018·History of Science

Abstract

This paper explores a debate that took place in Japan in the early twentieth century over the comparability of hypnosis and Zen. The debate was among the first exchanges between psychology and Buddhism in Japan, and it cast doubt on previous assumptions that a clear boundary existed between the two fields. In the debate, we find that contemporaries readily incorporated ideas from psychology and Buddhism to reconstruct the experiences and concepts of hypnosis and Buddhist nothingness. The resulting new theories and techniques of nothingness were fruits of a fairly fluid boundary between the two fields. The debate, moreover, reveals that psychology tried to address the challenges and possibilities posed by religious introspective meditation and intuitive experiences in a positive way. In the end, however, psychology no longer regarded them as viable experimental or psychotherapeutic tools but merely as particular subjective experiences to be investigated and explained.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper examines an early-twentieth-century Japanese debate over whether hypnosis and Zen are comparable mental states, showing that psychologists and Buddhist figures drew fluidly on each other’s concepts before ultimately separating abnormal/pathological hypnosis from transcendental Zen. The debate reveals both attempts to integrate psychology and Buddhism and the boundary-work that later made religious experience an object of psychological study rather than a psychotherapeutic or experimental tool.

Key findings

  • Fukurai Tomokichi argued in a 1908 article that Zen was simply a state of hypnosis, comparing induction methods, illusions/hallucinations, and brain anemia; Ono Fukuhei promoted hypnosis as “experimental Zen” to replace sitting-Zen.
  • Opponents including Shaku Sōyen, Okada Gihō, Motora Yūjirō, and Iritani Tomosada distinguished hypnosis as passive, abnormal, or pathological from Zen as active, transcendental, or awakening; Sōyen divided Zen into five levels and said only gedō Zen might resemble hypnosis.
  • The debate subsided after 1912 without resolution; psychology came to treat religious experiences as particular subjective experiences to investigate and explain, not as viable experimental or psychotherapeutic tools, while hypnotism increasingly moved toward occult reijutsu.
  • The paper argues the boundary between psychology and Buddhism was fluid, with mutual borrowing, and that the Zen-hypnosis comparison anticipated later indigenous psychotherapies such as Morita therapy and Naikan therapy.

Methods

  • Historical and intellectual-history analysis of a debate in early-twentieth-century Japan, based on published writings, articles, books, and speeches by psychologists, hypnotists, and Zen figures.
  • Sources include Fukurai’s *Saimin Shinrigaku* and 1908 article, Ono’s *Ono Saimingaku*, Murakami’s lectures, Sōyen’s “What Is Enlightenment?” and *Seiza no Susume*, Okada’s *Zengaku Kōyō*, Motora’s writings, and Iritani’s *Zen no Shirimato Kenkyū*.
  • Analysis is qualitative and contextual, tracing arguments, concepts such as nothingness, attention, brain anemia, and suggestion, and boundary-work; no quantitative data or formal sampling are reported.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the long and rich history of Zen Buddhism in Japan is beyond its scope.
  • No formal limitations section is provided; the study is based on published contemporary texts and does not report systematic sampling or quantitative measures (evident from the text).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0073275317743120

Cites

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

104 Sources not found · 69 Own interpretation · 60 Own result · 18 No basis given · 12 Not checked yet

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 148
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 101
195 of 195
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Buddhist concepts such as nothingness and samadhi had become part of everyday language and integral to people's self-understanding in Japan.

    “where Buddhist concepts, such as nothingness and samadhi, had become part of everyday language and integral to people's self-understanding.”
1 of 1

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 7

Metadata

Authors
Wu, Y.-C.
Affiliations
Academia Sinica (TW)
Corresponding author
Wu, Yu-chuan
Venue
History of Science
Published
2017-12-08
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
470-496
ISSN
  • 0073-2753 (ISSN-L)
  • 1753-8564
OpenAlex
W2773914621
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • History of Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (104-2410-H-001-001-MY2)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
hypnosis, Zen Buddhism, nothingness, history of psychology, early 20th century Japan, intuitive experience, psychotherapy, experimental psychology
MeSH terms
Buddhism, Humans, Hypnosis, Japan, Psychology, Religion and Psychology, Meditation, Dissent and Disputes, History, 19th Century, History, 20th Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-21, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-21 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review