EDIT: this review has little to do with the book. FYI. :-)
I've read a number books on religion and religious commentaries and from religious authors. I feel most of what I've read have been social or cultural studies, I'm not sure I've read anything that would fall under Comparative Religious Study department. The Series 'Dimensions of Asian spirituality' is supposed to bring comparative analysis to us lay readers.
So, playing a little (a lot) of catchup in this field it was good to learn some of the language and method of discourse. In this book Kasulis used Shinto as his vessel to talk about Essentialism versus Existenialism in religion. It hits on a dichotomy of religious thought that I myself have stumbled upon and I've kind of had my eyes opened a little bit. I'm not going to do the description justice, but the simplistic explanation of the conflict being between Religious Essentialism, which is you ARE religious, thus you live accordingly and Religious Existentionalism which is you live accordingly, thus you are religious. I say simplistic because those two sentences don't get to the root of the conflict and how it blooms, not just in Shinto, but clearly in all religion.
Now, having read a number of books on atheism, which are, ultimately, books for atheists and not much more - which ring a bit like some religious books, written for religious people - both being basically masturbatory in tone, and neither seeing an inherit flaw in their own antithetical relationship. Mainly that, and it's almost obvious to me now, the majority of people, en masse, are religiously existential, the majority of religious advocates, writers, commentators, and defenders in general are religious essentialist - but see, they set the terminology of the discussion, as Kasulis says, 'They gloss the words, set the meaning AND the context.' So, when aethiests attack, they're often using the hegemonic devices of a minority of high profile writers and defenders and sticking it over an entire population.
Hold with me here, muck like Jack London used animals to make moral statements about humankind in 'call of the wild' Kasulis as kind of shown me a more complex religious, but, now, also political landscape all by using comparative religious study on a extremely localized religion.
After reading this I oddly unsettled. I have a better understanding and vocabulary for the world at large. I've had this unease which, random or not, started back with 'Occupy Wallstreet' and, I need to understand some more, but all of us, no matter your side, are railing against the wrong people. Flailing, really. Failing, ultimately.
So, anyways, the book made me rethink the pollity of the entire world order. Not even intending it, I'm sure. For that, a clear 5 stars for firing off all 8 cylinders of the brain.