Modern Buddhism in

Japan

edited by

Hayashi Makoto Ōtani Eiichi

Paul L. Swanson

nanzan

Contents

i Editors’ Introduction: Studies on Modern Buddhism in Contemporary Japan

– Hayashi Makoto, Ōtani Eiichi, and Paul L. Swanson

17 Shin Buddhist Contributions to the Japanese Enlightenment Movement of the Early 1870s

– Mick Deneckere

52 The Movement Called “New Buddhism” in Meiji Japan

– Ōtani Eiichi

85 The Age of Teaching: Buddhism, the Proselytization of Citizens, the Cultivation of Monks, and the Education of Laypeople during the Formative Period of Modern Japan

– Tanigawa Yutaka

112 Suzuki Daisetsu and Swedenborg: A Historical Background– Yoshinaga Shin’ichi

144 Takagi Kenmyō and Buddhist Socialism: A Meiji Misfit and Martyr

– Paul L. Swanson

163 Religious Studies and Religiously Affiliated Universities– Hayashi Makoto

194 The Insect in the Lion’s Body: Kaneko Daiei and the Question of Authority in Modern Buddhism

– Jeff Schroeder

1

Editors’ Introduction

Studies on Modern Buddhism in Contemporary Japan

Hayashi Makoto, Ōtani Eiichi, and Paul L. Swanson

The study of modern Buddhism has certainly not been a bright shining light in the academy, but it has plodded along with some effort. (Hayashi Makoto, 2006, 206 [modified])

It has been less than ten years since Hayashi expressed his regret in this way at the undeveloped state of research on modern Buddhism in Japan. In the meantime, the study of modern Buddhism, at least among scholars of religion in Japan, has come into its own and can even make claim to moving into the spotlight. New studies have appeared one after the other, and there are many young specialists in this field in their twenties and thir-ties. There is much give-and-take with scholars outside Japan as well, and the study of modern Buddhism has made great strides. What has happened in the last ten years to bring about these results?

The Study of Modern Buddhism in Japan

What is “Modern Buddhism” in Japan?

“Modern Buddhism” is a translation of the Japanese term kindai Bukkyō 近代仏教, which refers to Buddhism during the so-called “modern” (kindai)

2 | Modern Buddhism in Japan

period in Japan (1868–1945). Specifically, it begins with the Meiji Restora-tion at the end of the Tokugawa shogunate that ushers in the Meiji period (1868–1912), and continues through the Taishō period (1912–1926) and the early Shōwa period until the end of wwii (1926–1945). Here “modern” does not mean “contemporary,” but rather the intervening period when Japan struggled with the influx of Western influence and adjusted to “modernity” and “modernization.” Politically, the Edo bakufu collapsed and was replaced by the Meiji government. During this time there took place the formation of the Japanese state and society that began in the 1860s and finished with the end of war in 1945. Thus “modern Buddhism” refers to the developments during this almost-one-hundred-year period within traditional Buddhism, the thought and activities of Buddhist reformers, new religious Buddhist movements, and folk Buddhism.

Before World War ii: A Focus on“Meiji Buddhism”

Let us look again at a point made by Hayashi almost ten years ago:

Research on modern Buddhism has its beginning after World War ii. The research topic known as “Meiji Buddhism” before the war was reformulated as “Modern Buddhism.” This was not just a change of wording. For the Japa-nese who conceived of the period from the Meiji Restoration to the end of the war as one era, the experience of losing the war could not be avoided.

(Hayashi 2006, 204)

As Hayashi points out, full-fledged research on the history of modern Bud-dhism in Japan began after the end of World War ii. Before the war, the focus of research was on “Meiji Buddhism.” This tendency to focus on the Meiji period is also found in postwar research. In other words, there has been a working assumption, both before and after the war, that the history of modern Buddhism = the history of Meiji Buddhism.

Studies on the history of Meiji Buddhism begins with an article by Shimaji Daitō (1921) on “The history of Meiji religion (Christianity and Buddhism).” This was followed by a compilation of historical documents on the “separa-tion of Buddhism and Shinto” during the Meiji Restoration by Tsuji Zenno-suke, Murakami Senshō, and Washio Junkyō (1926–1929), and studies on religion and politics in the Meiji period by Tokushige Asakichi (1935),

introduction | 3

and the persecution of Buddhism in the Meiji period by Tamamuro Taijō (1939).1

These studies relied on a definite historical perspective, and did not take the style of reporting on “Meiji Buddhism.” Rather they presented the facts concerning Buddhism at the end of the Tokugawa period and through the Meiji period on the basis of their political and social background.

After World War ii: From“Meiji Buddhism” to “Modern Buddhism”

One could say that the true beginning of the study of the history of “mod-ern Buddhism” began with the publication of Yoshida Kyūichi’s studies on modern Buddhism in 1959. Since then, “modern Buddhism” has become a common term.

The 1960s and 1970s saw the publication by Hōzōkan of a six-volume collection of essays on the history of early-modern and modern Buddhism (1961–1963), as well as further tomes by Yoshida on the “social history” of modern Buddhism (1964), Kashiwahara Yūsen’s studies on early-modern and modern Buddhism (1969), and Ikeda Eishun’s work on new Buddhist movements in Meiji (1976). Yoshida also edited anthologies on Buddhism for a series on contemporary Japanese intellectual history (1965) and on “Meiji religious literature” (1969).

The decades of the 1960s and 1970s saw the first “peak” work by Japanese scholars in the study of modern Buddhism in Japan. The focus of these studies, as in prewar times, was “Meiji Buddhism,” since Buddhism in the Meiji period was seen to be the central content of “modern Buddhism.” The description, however, changed. The prewar style of describing the history of Buddhism in terms of historical periods changed to a perspective that emphasized “modernism.” Behind this change was the experience of defeat in the war. One of the results of this defeat was a tendency to seek the mod-ernization of Japanese society, and this trend also took hold in academia and was reflected in studies on modern Buddhism (which nevertheless still focussed on “Meiji Buddhism”).

1. It should be pointed out that there were also studies focussing on the Buddhism of the Taishō period, such as Tsuchiya Senkyō’s study of the history of Taishō Buddhism (1940) and Masutani Fumio’s book on the intellectual history of modern Buddhism (1941), the first study to use the term kindai Bukkyō.

4 | Modern Buddhism in Japan

This “modernistic” approach can also be seen in Yoshida’s studies. Yoshida takes the “spiritualism” (seishinshugi 精神主義) of Kiyozawa Manshi and the “new Buddhism” movement of Sakaino Kōyō and Takashima Beihō, as the central indicators for the rise of modern Buddhism, and the standard for the modernization of Japanese Buddhism.

The studies of Yoshida, Kashiwahara, and Ikeda were accepted as the stan-dard work for the study of the history of modern Buddhism in Japan, and this situation continued well past the 1980s. During the 1980s and 1990s, however, one can see that the area covered by studies of modern Bud-dhism expanded to include the Taishō and early Shōwa periods. The works by Kashiwahara and Yoshida were re-edited and expanded in the 1990s to include this broader historical span (Kashiwahara 1990, Yoshida 1998). Again, as seen in the collection on “Mission and education in Asia” edited by Kojima Masaru and Kiba Akeshi (1992), the scope has widened to include pan-Asian topics.2 Furthermore, as seen (for example) in the work of Seri-kawa Hiromichi (1989) on the “modernization of Buddhist thought,” the modernization of Buddhism is taken up directly, revealing the increasing depth of studies on modern Buddhism.

After 2000: The Multiplicity of Modern Buddhism

During and after the 2000s, we have experienced what may be called the second “peak” of studies on modern Buddhism in Japan. One of the cata-lysts for this new approach was the work of Sueki Fumihiko, who started out as a specialist in ancient and medieval Buddhism but is currently rec-ognized as an expert on the history of Japanese Buddhism in general. In 2002 he edited a special topical issue of the journal Shisō on “Buddhism, the Modern Era, and Asia” which examined the multifaceted role that Buddhist thought played in the modernization of Japan and attempted to rethink the history of modern thought in Japan (see Sueki 2002). He also emphasized the wider and transnational context of Asia. This perspective and attempt to rethink the issues and the role of Buddhist thought in a wider context also informed his collection of essays on modern Buddhist thinkers (Sueki 2004a and 2004b). In these essays Sueki sought to rethink the characteristics of Meiji (Buddhist) thought from the perspective of “that which transcends

2. For details on these developments see Ōtani 2012.

introduction | 5

the particular” 個と個を越えるもの (Sueki 2004b, 7). This kind of “dualistic” perspective of Sueki relativizes the modernist perspective taken by Yoshida, Kashiwahara, and Ikeda.

Research on modern Buddhism in Japan has also made great strides out-side Japan. James E. Ketelaar’s study of the persecution of Buddhism in Meiji Japan appeared in 1989, and was recently translated into Japanese (Okada 2006). This work clarified, through the method of discourse analy-sis, how “Buddhism” was [re-]defined in modern Japan. Robert Sharf ’s essays on “the Zen of Japanese nationalism” caused a stir and was also translated into Japanese (see Sharf 1993, 1994, 1995). Studies by Richard Jaffe (2001), Brian Victoria (1997), Judith Snodgrass (2003), and Christopher Ives (2009) were noted among Japanese scholars for providing new perspectives.

Another striking characteristic of studies on modern Buddhism after entering the twenty-first century was the publication of many doctoral dis-sertations by young scholars. Among these were Ōtani Eiichi on Nichiren movements in modern Japan (2001), Moriya Tomoe on the birth of Amer-ican Buddhism (2001), Chen Jidong on Buddhism in the late Qing period (2003), Fukushima Eiju on the history of thought of “spiritualism” (2003), Ogawara Masamichi on religion and the state in early Meiji (2004), Tani-gawa Yutaka on Buddhism and education in early Meiji (2008), Kawase Takaya on religion and intellectual thought in colonial Korea (2009), Yama-moto Nobuhiro on “spiritualism” (2011), Orion Klautau on Buddhist his-toriography in modern Japan (2012), and Kondō Shuntarō on the Imperial state and “spiritualism” (2013). There were also important publications by established scholars such as Satō Tetsurō on Buddhism in Asia in the mod-ern period (2008), and Okada Masahiko on Buddhist astronomy in the nineteenth century (2010).

We have briefly outlined the major publications in the last ten years or so concerning the history of modern Buddhism in Japan. Let us now return to our original question and consider why such changes have occurred in the past decade.

The first peak in the study of modern Buddhism, in the 1960s and 1970s, was characterized by a descriptive style that focussed mainly on develop-ments within Japan during the Meiji period. With the turn to the twenty-first century, however, the limits of such an approach became more and more apparent. Many new perspectives were offered, and new topics explored (see

6 | Modern Buddhism in Japan

Ōtani 2012). Yoshinaga Shin’ichi has commented as follows on the height-ened interest in the study of modern Buddhism in the last ten years:

We have the participation of a new generation, along with a wider perspec-tive that is international and interdisciplinary. In the past ten years these fac-tors have come together as a “new wave” of research on the history of modern Buddhism.3

The “international perspective” that Yoshinaga posits refers in part to the increased participation by Japanese scholars in various symposia and work-shops outside Japan, which provide an opportunity to take a global perspec-tive and to reconsider the characteristics of modern Buddhism in Japan in a comparative way. Again, taking an interdisciplinary approach under-scores the fact that there is no “area of speciality” called “studies on mod-ern Buddhism” (unless one applies it to a small number of scholars such as Yoshida, Kashiwahara, and Ikeda). Rather, specialists in various fields (Bud-dhist studies, religious studies, history, sociology, intellectual history, and so forth) are researching modern Buddhism from the perspective of their own field. This can be both a weakness and a strength.

Thus we can see that changes have occurred over the last ten years in the study of modern Buddhism for a variety of reasons. Rather than limited to a single focus, based on “spiritualism” or the “new Buddhism” movement, there is a plurality of research on modern Buddhism, with various topics from a number of international and interdisciplinary perspectives. The chal-lenge facing us today is how to proceed with these multiplicities of research on modern Buddhism.

Organizations that Support Collaborative Research

Since the turn of the century, new studies on modern Buddhism were published one after the other, becoming the center of attention as a new field of research, as outlined above. This trend was not, however, limited to Japan. Collaborative research on an international level has increased dra-matically, with more and more international and interdisciplinary connec-

3. See Yoshinaga's essay on “The prospects of research on the history of modern Buddhism” (近代仏教史研究の展望) in Chūgai nippō, 30 June 2012.

introduction | 7

tions. This trend, of course, has relied on the gradual buildup of individual research activities, but it is also important to recognize various organiza-tions that have supported this research.

First, the Society for the Study of Modern Japanese Buddhist History (Nihon kindai Bukkyō kenkyūkai 日本近代仏教研究会) was founded in 1992, with Ikeda Eishun at the helm. As a result, scholars doing research on mod-ern Buddhism in various fields were able to meet together and share their work and discuss various issues. This led to the publication of a new journal, Kindai Bukkyō 近代仏教, where various members could share their research. As of 2013, Kindai Bukkyō had already published twenty volumes. The sec-tion on “new publications” (新刊紹介) is a valuable source of information on recent publications; the steady increase in the number of publications intro-duced herein (vol. 17: 4; vol. 18: 8; vol. 19: 9; vol. 20: 11) reflects the growth in the study of modern Buddhism.

Second is the collaborative research on this topic sponsored by the Inter-national Research Center for Japanese Studies (Nichibunken 国際日本文化研究センター). Sueki Fumihiko led a research project on “The pre-modern and modern from the perspective of Buddhism” (仏教からみた前近代と近代; 2008–2010) which involved scholars from around the world to study mod-ern Buddhism and sponsored a continuing series of presentations. The final cumulative meeting was held in October 2011 with the participation of a stellar international cast. This was an epochal meeting where the discussion on modern Buddhism reached heretofore unattained levels of sophistica-tion.4 As a result, the international connections among scholars in this field reached a new level of collaboration and interaction.

Third, we would like to acknowledge the role of the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture and their Japanese Journal of Religious Studies. The JJRS is a general religious studies journal but has included many articles on modern Buddhism. In particular we should mention the special issue on “Religion and the Japanese Empire” (37/1, 2010) edited by Richard Jaffe. Again, the Nanzan Institute sponsored a graduate seminar in June 2013 for international graduate students to present papers and have discussions in

4. The English versions of the papers from this symposium were published in a special issue of The Eastern Buddhist (vol. 43, 2012; see Hayashi 2012). The proceedings of this meeting were collected in Sueki 1012, and publication of the papers in Japanese is forthcoming (Sueki et al., 2014)

8 | Modern Buddhism in Japan

Japanese with Japanese scholars. One of the surprising results of the seminar was the preponderance of presentations on the modern period. Two of the authors in our collection—Mick Deneckere and Jeff Schroeder—were par-ticipants in this international seminar.

We have mentioned three specific organizations, but there are of course several other study groups and academic networks that are involved in and support the study of modern Buddhism. Many presentations and discussions are being carried out with this strong base for collaborative research, allow-ing for a steady increase in scholarly activity and further gains in research on modern Buddhism. The volume you hold in your hands (or are reading in digital form) is one result of the collaborative activity of many researchers, as well as part of a research project at the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture supported by a Japanese government “Kakenhi” research grant, and an extension of the Nanzan graduate seminar held in June 2013.

Summary of Essays

Let us now take a quick look at the essays included in this volume, their contribution to the study of modern Buddhism, and their common themes.

The first essay, by Mick Deneckere on “Shin Buddhist Contributions to the Japanese Enlightenment Movement of the Early 1870s” takes a look at Shimaji Mokurai and Ishikawa Shuntai, two leaders of the Shin Buddhist organization, and their contribution to the “enlightenment” movement of early Meiji Japan. Previous research on this topic has focussed on the contributions of the secular intellectuals of the Meirokusha group such as Fukuzawa Yukichi. Deneckere, however, focusses on Mokurai and Shuntai, both of whom had travelled to the West and returned to contribute to the “enlightenment” in Japan. Again, they attempted to bring about an enlight-ened civilization for Japanese through religion (in this case, Shin Bud-dhism). From a Western perspective, “enlightenment” was a secular affair, but the author challenges this view. In the case of Mokurai and Shuntai, reli-gion and “enlightenment” (keimō-shugi 啓蒙主義) were not considered to be in conflict. Deneckere also advances a new approach to the so-called duality of the “religious” and the “secular.” According to her analysis, the idea of religion as limited to the sphere of the individual, and the idea of the “secu-

introduction | 9

lar,” arose at the same time, and she attributes this to the influence of Moku-rai and Shuntai. If so, this means that the concept of “religion” in Japan (a much-debated topic these days) was established earlier than proposed by Isomae’s theory (see Isomae 2003), and is worthy of careful consideration.

Ōtani Eiichi’s essay on the “New Buddhism” movement in Meiji Japan proposes a distinction between modern Buddhism in a “broad sense” and in a “narrow sense.” He aims to correct confusions that were present in previ-ous studies of modern Buddhism, and seeks to define the content of modern Buddhism in a “narrow sense” by examining the works of Nakanishi Ushirō, and the “new Buddhism” movement of Sakaino Kōyō and Takashima Beihō. He clarifies that the social base that supported this new Buddhism move-ment consisted of members of Buddhist youth, members of the urban middle class, and intellectual readers of their publications. He shows that the new Buddhism movement appeared in the early 1900s (Meiji 30s) due to various overlapping factors such as the emergence of Buddhist media, developments in intellectual movements and religious organizations, and changes in cultural reading habits. Ōtani also discusses the opposing cat-egories of “old Buddhism” and “new Buddhism” which Nakanishi uses to criticize “old Buddhism” in favor of promoting new Buddhism, defining “new Buddhism” in terms of the activities of figures such as Sakaino and Takashima, as well as the influence of the youth culture of young Buddhists. This essay, which provides a concrete example of “modern Buddhism in the narrow sense,” challenges researchers in this field to collaborate in the future to create new studies on “modern Buddhism in the broad sense.” We may also point out that it is a chapter in the author’s recent publication in Japa-nese (Ōtani 2012)

Tanigawa Yutaka’s essay on “the age of teaching” examines the role of Buddhist monks in public education during the early years of Meiji and is a summary of his much longer publication on this subject (Tanigawa 2008). Tanigawa’s aim is to overturn the general opinion among those who study the history of education in Japan that “education in modern Japan was a secular matter and not religious.” On the contrary, he argues, the educa-tion system developed gradually to become “non-religious” after intricate and complicated connections with Buddhism. The author’s approach is to handle the complicated situation by presenting concrete details, but there is always the “larger picture” lurking in the background, namely, that temples

10 | Modern Buddhism in Japan

and the role of Buddhist priests in teaching lay people provided the stepping stone from which public education in modern Japan developed. Tanigawa shows that it was this educational role of Buddhism that made it possible for non-religious education to become the core for uniting the populace in modern Japan. This contribution should encourage others to prepare com-parative studies on the relation of “education and religion” in the modern period in other countries of Asia and Europe.

Yoshinaga Shin’ichi’s study of “Suzuki Daisetsu and Swedenborg” starts with the fact that Suzuki Daisetsu contributed to the introduction of Swedenborg to Japan through his essays and translations, but wonders whether or not Daisetsu himself introduced an original interpretation of Swe-denborg’s thought. He reflects on the history of Swedenborg in Japan, and introduces many fascinating details on the circumstances of Daisetsu’s meet-ing with the Swedenborg society. Yoshinaga presents a picture of Daisetsu as an intellectual who stood against the currents of the times. In response to the morality and worldview being forced on Japanese society by the state in late Meiji, Daisetsu pointed out the necessity for introducing “a free market of religions that could respond to the religious inclinations of everyone.” In response to a popular rationalism that denied the existence of other worlds or an afterlife, he used Swedenborg as an example of the affirmation of an afterlife and created the concept of kyōgai 境涯 (the realm of our experience) that includes both this world and the next. In this essay Yoshinaga attempts to understand Daisetsu within his historical context and to clarify that he was a rebellious intellectual who challenged the popular currents of his times.

Paul Swanson’s essay on “Takagi Kenmyō and Buddhist Socialism” takes a look at a Shinshū Ōtani priest who was caught up in the High Treason affair of 1910–1911 and unjustly imprisoned for supposedly plotting to assassinate the Emperor. It was not until 1996 that the Ōtani organization nullified his excommunication and restored his honor, but now Takagi is highly regarded as a priest who was steadfast in his opposition to war. His life and work have been carefully researched in Japan but has not yet received much attention in English. Swanson examines Takagi’s essay on “My Socialism” and shows that a sense of equality based on the universal grace of Amida was the foun-dation for Takagi’s “socialism.” Takagi’s views were influenced by his con-tact with local Christians, as his participation in a poetry club in Shingū (Wakayama) gradually developed into a locus for social activism. This essay

introduction | 11

may also serve as material for a wider study of the impact of the High Trea-son affair by comparing Takagi with the Sōtō Zen monk Uchiyama Gudō, who was also arrested (and executed) in this “affair.” We might add that the author’s experience as a child of Christian missionaries while growing up in the Shingū area inspired a personal interest in Takagi Kenmyō’s life.

Hayashi Makoto’s study of “religious studies and religiously affiliated uni-versities” examines the claim of scholars of religion that “Religious Stud-ies, unlike Buddhist sectarian studies and Christian theology, is an objective science,” despite the fact that most of these religious studies scholars are employed at religiously affiliated universities. By examining the history of religiously affiliated universities, Hayashi seeks to clarify the contradictions in this claim. Before the war, the government Ministry of Education—in the process of approving the establishment of private universities—banned the teaching of sectarian studies and theology from the public square of the universities. Thus, religiously affiliated universities were forced to establish departments and courses in “Religious Studies,” resulting in a close connec-tion between religious studies and private religiously affiliated universities. Ironically, the postwar policy of separation of church and state (seikyō bunri 政教分離) freed religiously affiliated universities from these prewar restric-tions, allowing them to establish new departments and courses of sectarian studies and theology. This has resulted in an increasing breakdown in the relationship between religious studies and religiously affiliated universities, and has contributed greatly to a decline in religious studies as a field.

Finally, the essay by Jeff Schroeder on Kaneko Daiei and the question of authority in modern Buddhism takes a look at the case of a scholar of Shin Buddhist Studies who was attacked as a heretic by some in the Shinshū organization. Kaneko’s forced retirement was a shocking and sensational event for Ōtani University. Schroeder examines this event not as a debate over orthodoxy and heresy, but rather as an issue of who has the final authority in matters of doctrine. The attitude of the central figures of the Shinshū organization in this matter was vague and ambiguous. They could not directly punish Kaneko, but were able to convince Kaneko to resign “voluntarily.” As a professor of Shin Buddhist Studies at Ōtani University, Kaneko used Western philosophy to try to establish Shin Buddhist Stud-ies as a rational and systematic academic field. He attempted to define the Buddha Amida as transcending human experience, but also as immanent

12 | Modern Buddhism in Japan

in human beings. This interpretation, however, was seen by some as a threat to traditional sectarian authority, and it was for this reason that Kaneko was perceived as unorthodox. However, as the university system developed and emphasis was put on objective and scientific studies, Schroeder argues that the authority for deciding doctrine irreversibly turned away from the priest-hood and instead to Shin Buddhist Studies scholars such as Kaneko.

The essays in this collection thus cover a variety of topics with a variety of styles. But what are the connections, if any, between the essays? It is not that there was a deliberate editorial policy in choosing the topics, and the authors were not familiar with the other essays as they prepared their own. As we edited the essays, however, a number of themes and issues emerged. Let us consider three of these.

First, one criticism often made with regard to the study of modern Bud-dhism is that Shinshū Buddhism is more likely to be studied. This tendency can also be seen in this collection. The essays by Deneckere, Swanson, and Schroeder all focus on Shinshū figures and issues. We hasten to add, how-ever, that these essays do not necessarily reflect former studies. Ishikawa Shuntai, Takagi Kenmyō, and Kaneko Daiei are figures that have not been fully researched in the past, and each of these essays show that the authors have compiled their own sources of primary materials. If we were to look for commonalities between these essays, we could point to the fact that Shinshū priests and intellectuals encountered enlightenment ideas, socialism, and scientific academic studies, proceeded to struggle with these ideas, and attempted to reform their Shinshū faith. This process is certainly not unique to Japan but can be seen in societies around the world in the modern era.

Second, we can borrow Ōtani’s concept of “new Buddhism” to point out that it was not only Nakanishi Ushirō and the “new Buddhism movement,” but also people studied here such as Ishikawa Shuntai, Shimaji Mokurai, Takagi Kenmyō, Suzuki Daisetsu, and Kaneko Daiei who attempted to seek a faith that was relevant to the new era in which they found themselves. In the broad sense, they all belonged to a “new Buddhism.” Ishikawa and Shimaji were at the center of their religious organization, but Takagi and Kaneko were stripped of their priestly rank, and Daisetsu had no official affiliation with any specific religious organization. It can be said that “new Buddhism” developed in the space between what lay inside and outside of the traditional Buddhist organizations, or at their borders. When Buddhist

introduction | 13

affiliated universities were established, these universities served to fulfill the role of connecting the inside and outside of the organizations, as seen for example in the hiring of Suzuki Daisetsu as a professor at Ōtani University. In this sense the connections between intellectuals of “new Buddhism” and the establishment of religiously affiliated universities, as outlined in Hayashi’s essay, requires further examination.

Third, if we take a close look at the titles of the essays, there is a frequent use of the connector “and,” as in the titles of Tanigawa (Buddhism and edu-cation), Yoshinaga (Suzuki and Swedenborg), Swanson (Takagi Kenmyō and socialism), and Hayashi (Religious Studies and religiously affiliated uni-versities). This may reflect an attempt to grasp modern Buddhism in terms of its negotiation with the (rapidly-changing) outside world. The attempt to perceive the history of Buddhism in this way, rather than just from inside the Buddhist organizations, will certainly broaden the potential for research on modern Buddhism. By approaching the study of modern Buddhism in terms of education, Western thought, socialism, or the establishment of uni-versities, we have a broader social context for understanding it.

We have raised three points with regard to this collection of essays, but we may add that as we are looking at “Buddhism and modernity” in the Japa-nese context, similar studies should be possible with regard to other geo-graphical or cultural areas. Themes such as enlightenment ideas, socialism, education, universities, and research on religion should be important every-where. In this sense, the present volume is a collection with studies focussed on Japan, but it is not farfetched to say that it aims to make a broader con-tribution to the meaning of modern Buddhism beyond Japan. It is our hope that this collection will lead to further discussions and provide an incentive for further studies in the future.

Acknowledgments: We would like to recognize Shōtokuji 正徳寺 (Osaka) for permission to use the photo on the cover, and Claudio Bado for the cover design. A special thanks for the combined efforts of Galen Amstutz, Jon Morris, Erik Schicketanz, and Jessica Starling for the English transla-tions. Finally, we would like to point out that, in line with the Nanzan Insti-tute’s policy of open access, the contents of this book are freely available on the Nanzan website, and copies of this book can be downloaded from the Internet, distributed in electronic form, and printed out and distributed to

14 | Modern Buddhism in Japan

others for non-commercial purposes as long as full credit is given to the Nanzan Institute and the text is not altered.

References

Chen Jidong 陳 継東, Shinmatsu Bukkyō no kenkyū: Yo Bunkai o chūshin to shite 清末仏教の研究─楊文会を中心として. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 2003.

Fukushima Eiju 福島栄寿, Shisōshi to shite no “seishin shugi” 思想史しての「精神主義」. Nihon Bukkyō-shi Kenkyū Sōsho, Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2003.

Hayashi Makoto 林淳, “Religion in the Modern Period.” In Nanzan Guide to Japanese Religions, Clark Chilson and Paul L. Swanson, eds. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2006.

_____, ed. “Modernity and Buddhism.” Special issue of The Eastern Buddhist 43 (2012).

Hayashi Makoto and Ōtani Eiichi 大谷栄一, ed. Special issue on modern Bud-dhism, Kikan Nihon Shisōshi 季刊日本思想史　特集近代仏教 75 (2009).

Hōzōkan Henshūbu 法蔵館編集部, ed. Kōza kindai Bukkyō 講座近代仏教. 6 vols. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1961–1963.

Ikeda Eishun 池田英俊, Meiji no shinbukkyō undō 明治の新仏教運動. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1976.

Isomae Jun’ichi 磯前順一, Kindai nihon no shūkyō gensetsu to sono keifu: Shūkyō, kokka, shintō 近代日本の宗教言説とその系譜—宗教・国家・神道. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2003.

Ives, Christopher, Imperial-Way Zen: Ichikawa Hakugen’s Critique and Lingering Questions for Buddhist Ethics. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2009.

Jaffe, Richard M., Neither Monk nor Layman: Clerical Marriage in Modern Japa-nese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001.

Kashiwahara Yūsen 柏原祐泉, Nihon kinsei kindai Bukkyōshi no kenkyū 日本近世近代仏教史の研究. Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 1969.

_____, Nihon Bukkyōshi Kindai 日本仏教史 近代. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1990.

Kawase Takaya 川瀬貴也, Shokuminchi Chōsen no shūkyō to gakuchi: Teikoku Nihon no manazashi no kōchiku 植民地朝鮮の宗教と学知─帝国日本の眼差しの構築. Tokyo: Seikyūsha, 2009.

Ketelaar, James Edward, Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Klautau, Orion オリオン・クラウタウ, Kindai Nihon shisō to shite no Bukkyō shigaku 近代日本思想としての仏教史学. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2012.

introduction | 15

Kondō Shuntarō 近藤俊太郎, Tenno sei kokka to “Seishinshugi”: Kiyozawa Manshi to sono monka 天皇制国家と「精神主義」─清沢満之とその門下. Nihon Bukkyō-shi Kenkyū Sōsho, Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013.

Kojima Masaru 小島 勝 and Kiba Akeshi 木場明志, Ajia no kaikyō to kyōiku アジアの開教と教育. Kyoto: Ryūkoku Daigaku Bukkyō Bunka Kenkyūjo, 1992.

Masutani Fumio 増谷文雄, Kindai Bukkyō shisōshi 近代佛教思想史. Tokyo: Sanseidō, 1941.

Moriya Tomoe 守屋友江, America Bukkyō no tanjō: Nijū-seiki shotō ni okeru nik-kei shūkyō no bunka henyō アメリカ仏教の誕生―二〇世紀初頭における日系宗教の文化変容. Tokyo: Gendai Shiryō Shuppan, 2001.

Ogawara Masamichi 小川原正道, Daikyōin no kenkyū: Meiji shoki shūkyō gyōsei no tenkai to zasetsu 大教院の研究―明治初期宗教行政の展開と挫折. Tokyo: Keiō Gijuku Daigaku Shuppankai, 2004.

Okada Masahiko 岡田正彦, Jakyō/Junkyō no Meiji: Haibutsu kishaku to kindai Bukkyō 邪教/殉教の明治―廃仏毀釈と近代仏教. Tokyo: Perikansha, 2006. (translation of Ketelaar 1989)

_____, Wasurerareta Bukkyō tenmongaku: Jūkyūseiki no Nihon ni okeru Bukkyō sekaizō 忘れられた仏教天文学―十九世紀の日本における仏教世界像 . Nagoya: V-2 Solution Books, 2010.

Ōtani Eiichi 大谷栄一, Kindai Nihon no Nichiren-shugi undō 近代日本の日蓮主義運動. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2001.

_____, Kindai Bukkyō to iu shiza: Sensō, Ajia, shakaishugi. 近代仏教という視座─戦争・アジア・社会主義. Tokyo: Perikansha, 2012.

Satō Tetsurō 佐藤哲朗, Dai-ajia shisō katsugeki: Bukkyō ga musunda, mō hitotsu no kindaishi 大アジア思想活劇―仏教が結んだ、もうひとつの近代史. Tokyo: Samgha, 2008.

Serikawa Hiromichi 芹川博通, Kindaika no Bukkyō shisō 近代化の仏教思想. Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha, 1989.

Sharf, Robert, “The Zen of Japanese Nationalism.” History of Religions 33/1 (1993): 1–43. (Japanese translation: Zen to Nihon no nashonarizumu 禅と日本のナショナリズム, Nihon no Bukkyō 日本の仏教 4 (1995): 81–108.)

_____, “Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited.” In Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School, and the Question of Nationalism, James W. Heisig and John C. Maraldo, eds., 40–51. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1994.

_____, “The Zen of Japanese Nationalism.” In Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Buddhism under Colonialism, ed. Donald S. Lopez, Jr. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press, 1995.

Shimaji Daitō 島地大等, Meiji shūkyō shi (Kirisutokyō oyobi Bukkyō) 明治宗教史 (基督教及佛教）. Kaihō 解放 10 (1921).

Snodgrass, Judith, Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism, Occi-

16 | Modern Buddhism in Japan

dentalism, and the Columbian Exposition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003

Sueki Fumihiko 末木文美士, Meiji shisōka ron: Kindai Nihon no shisō/saikō 1 明治思想家論――近代日本の思想・再考 I. Tokyo: Transview, 2004a.

_____, Kindai Nihon no Bukkyō: Kindai Nihon no shisō saikō 2 近代日本の仏教―近代日本の思想・再考 II. Tokyo: Transview, 2004b.

_____, Kindai to Bukkyō: Kokusai kenkyū shūkai dai 41 shū 近代と仏教―国際研究集会第41集―. Kyoto: Kokusai Nihon Bunka Kenkyū Sentā, 2012.

_____, ed., Tokushū: Bukkyō, kindai, Ajia 特集　仏教／近代／アジア. Shisō 思想 943 (2002).

_____, ed., Shin-Ajia Bukkyōshi 14, Nihon 4, Kindai kokka to Bukkyō 新アジア仏教史14　日本ＩＶ　近代国家と仏教. Tokyo: Kōsei Shuppan, 2011.

_____, et al., ed., Henbō suru Buddha 変貌するブッダ. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2014.Tamamuro Taijō 圭室諦成, Meiji ishin haibutsu-kishaku 明治維新廃仏毀釈.

Tokyo: Hakuyōsha, 1939.Tanigawa Yutaka 谷川 穣, Meiji zenki no kyōiku, kyōka, Bukkyō 明治前期の教育・

教化・仏教. Kyoto: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 2008.Tokushige Senkichi 徳重浅吉, Ishin seiji shūkyō-shi kenkyū 維新政治宗教史研究.

Tokyo: Meguro Shoten, 1935.Tsuchiya Zenkyō 土屋詮教, Taishō Bukkyō shi 大正仏教史. Tokyo: Sanseidō, 1940.Tsuji Zennosuke 辻善之助, Murakami Senshō 村上専精, and Washio Junkyō 鷲

尾順敬, ed., Meiji ishin shin-butsu bunri shirō 明治維新神仏分離史料. 5 vols. Tokyo: Tōhō Shoten, 1926–1929.

Victoria, Brian (Daizen) A., Zen at War. New York: Weatherhill, 1997. (Japanese translation by Aimee Louise Tsujimoto: Zen to sensō 禅と戦争, Tokyo: Kōjinsha, 2001)

Yamamoto Nobuhiro 山本伸裕, “Seishin shugi” wa dare no shisō ka 「精神主義」は誰の思想か. Nihon Bukkyō-shi Kenkyū Sōsho, Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2011.

Yoshida Kyūichi 吉田久一, Nihon kindai bukkyōshi kenkyū 日本近代仏教史研究. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1959.

_____, Nihon kindai Bukkyō shakaishi kenkyū 日本近代仏教社会史研究. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1964.

_____, ed., Gendai Nihon shisō taikei 7, Bukkyō 現代日本思想大系７ 仏教. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1965.

_____, ed., Meiji bungaku zenshū 87, Meiji shūkyō bungakushū (ichi) 明治文学全集87 明治宗教文学集（一）. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1969.

_____, Kin-gendai Bukkyō no rekishi 近現代仏教の歴史. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1998.

Yoshinaga Shin’ichi 吉永進一, Kindai Bukkyōshi no tenbō 近代仏教史研究の展望. Chūgai nippō 中外日報 (30 June 2012).