close

Вход

Log in using OpenID

S t Zen in Meiji Japan: The Life and Times of Nishiari

embedDownload
StZeninMeijiJapan:
TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
athesisinBuddhistStudiesforUCBerkeley,
withaprefacefortheAmericanSangha
by
JiryuMarkRutschmanByler
December,2014
WƌĞĨĂĐĞĨŽƌƚŚĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶĞŶ^ĂŶŐŚĂ
Howdiditcometothis?HowdidtheBuddhismofShakyamuni’sdisciplesbecomethe
ChanofHuinengandtheZenofDgen–andhowdidWesternersthentransformDgen’sZen
intothenovelwaysofpracticeandteachingfoundataplacelikeSanFranciscoZenCenter?
I’vebeenlongpuzzledbythisquestion–especiallythelastpart,ofhowweendedupwiththis
–and,likemany,I’veassumedthattheanswerliessomewhereintheWest.Wemodernized
Zeninthemanywaysthatwehave,andweWesternizedZeninthemanywaysthatwehave.
IngeneralthebooksonWesternBuddhismgivethatimpression,andthereiscertainlysome
truthtoit.
ButasIbegantostudytheJapaneseZenofthelastcenturyandahalf,IrealizedthatI’d
beenaskingthewrongquestion.ShunrySuzuki,forexample,didnotbringtheZenofDgen
toSanFrancisco,hebroughttheZenofearlytwentiethcenturyJapan.Inparticular,hebrought
theZenofascholarmonknamedKishizawaIan,whomhecalledhis“master”andwithwhom
hestudiedfortwentyfiveyears.SotherightwaytounderstandtheWestern“transformation”
ofBuddhismisnottomeasureitagainstDgen’smonasticismbutinsteadtoask:howhavewe
turnedearlytwentiethcenturyJapaneseZenintoourcontemporaryWesternpractice?
IsaythisbecausewhatIdiscoveredinmystudyisobviousbutimportant:theworldof
SuzukiRoshi’sZentraininghadverylittletodowiththeworldofDgenZenji’sZenandChan
training.TheZenworldthatSuzukiRoshitrainedin–aworldhesharedgenerallywithpeople
likeKishizawaIanandKdSawakiandHakuunYasutaniandTaizanMaezumiandJshSasaki
–wasnotonlycenturiesremovedfromDgen’smonasticismbutwasinfactaworldthathad
alreadybeeninfluencedbytheWest,hadalreadybeenmodernizedandtosomedegree
adaptedtoWesternsensibilitiesandepistemologies.
Inotherwords,muchofthetransformationofZenthatIhaveassumedtookplaceinthe
WestinthemidtolatetwentiethcenturyinfacttookplaceinJapansomewhatearlier.
Specifically,ittookplaceoverthecourseoftheMeijiPeriod(18681912),atimeofintense
turmoilandchangeinJapanasthenationscrambledtodealwiththeinfluxofWestern
“modern”values,thought,technologies,andinstitutions,andrushedtocarveoutaplacefor
itselfwithinthat.IpictureWesternmodernityasanenormoustrainhurtlingdownthetrack
towardsJapanintheperiod;thecountrycouldeitherhoponandoutfitasuitable(ifsecond
class)carforitself,oritcouldbecrushedlikeatwigonthetracks.Muchofthedebateand
transformationacrossallaspectsofJapanesesocietyatthetime–fromeducationand
governmenttocultureandreligion–canIthinkbeunderstoodthroughthisimage.Thesame
imagecanalsoilluminateJapan’sturntowardsincreasingmilitarizationandimperialisminthe
earlytomidtwentiethcentury:themoodthen,too,was“hoponorbecrushed,”colonizeor
becolonized.
TheBuddhistleadersoftheMeijiPeriodhadtorespondnotonlytogovernment
pressure–likeorderstoclarifytheboundariesanddoctrinesoftheirrespectivesects,orthe
decriminalizationofpriests’marrying–buttheywerealsochallengedbythevigorousandvital
laycentered“NewBuddhist”movementthatwasspringingupwithinandaroundthe
institutions,pushingtheminavariouswaystomodernizeandbecomemoreWesternfriendly.
IseenowthatthedebatesandstrugglesbornofthesetensionswithinJapanese
BuddhismintheMeijiPeriodhaveatleastasmuchtodowithgettinguswherewearetodayin
AmericanZenasdoanyoftheinsights,adaptations,anddeparturesfromtraditionenactedby
thefoundersandshapersofAmericanZen.Thisisthebasicinsightthathasexcitedmeabout
theperiodandthathasdrivenmetostudyit.
____
ThisprojectbeganwithasuggestionfromCharliePokorny,myfriendandelderbrother
inDharma,thatIconsiderstudyingKishizawaIan,thegreatscholarmonkoftheearly
twentiethcenturyandlongtimeteachertoSuzukiRoshi.SuzukiRoshihadafewteachers,
includinghistransmissionmasterGyokujunSoon,butitbecomesclearinhisrecordedlectures
andinDavidChadwick’saccountofhislifethathisgreatestinfluenceisverylikelyKishizawa
Ian.AsIbegantopokearoundsomeJapanesesourcesforinformationonKishizawa,Iwas
amazedtodiscoverthathewasinfactaninfluentialfigureinmodernStZen,amonkand
scholarofsomeprestigeandtheauthorofawellknownandmassivetwentyfourvolume
commentaryonShbgenzcalledtheCompleteLecturesonShbgenz(Shbgenzzenk
↓⌅⵬㭥‫ޘ‬䅋).Iwasstunnedthatateacherthisprodigiousandinfluentialwouldbevirtually
unknownandlargelyunacknowledgedbymostofusinthelineageofSuzukiRoshi.
AsIbegantostudymore,however,IrealizedthatKishizawa,asimportantafigureashe
is,workedlargelyintheshadowofhisteacher,ascholarmonknamedNishiariBokusan.
Nishiariissometimescalledthe“fatherofmodernSt”andhisown(muchshorter)
Shbgenzcommentaryisthefirstandwithoutquestionthemostinfluentialofthemodern
sectarianworksonDgen.TounderstandSuzukiRoshiandcontemporaryAmericanZen,Ihad
feltthatIneededtounderstandKishizawa;tounderstandKishizawa,though,itseemedIhadto
looktoNishiariBokusan.Thisdoesnotregressinfinitely(although,asthecircularlineage
documentsshow,itkindofdoes)–Nishiariwasadevoteddiscipleofeventuallyprominent
teachers,buthisworkwasbynomeanssimplyderivativefromtheirs.
AsmyeyesopenedtotheimportanceofNishiari,Inoticedthatthoughhetooremains
largelyunacknowledgedinAmericanZencircles,heisabitbetterknownthanKishizawa.I
noticed,forinstance,thatMelWeitsmanandKazTanahashihadrecentlycompleteda
translationofhiscommentsonGenjkan,publishedinMichaelWenger’sbookDogen’s
Genjokoan:ThreeCommentaries(2011).Ialsobegantofindafewoddreferencestohislife
andworkinbookslikeRichardJaffe’sgroundbreakingNeitherMonknorLayman,Kim’sEihei
Dgen:MysticalRealist,Heine’scollectionDgen:TextualandHistoricalStudies,andPaul
Jaffe’stranslationofYasutani’sGenjokoancommentary,FlowersFall.Still,Icouldfindvery
littleinEnglishaboutNishiari’slifeandevenlessabouthisinfluenceonourcontemporary
understandingofDgen’smeaning.
WhileIstillhopedtoexploretheworkofKishizawa,aswellasthatofOkaStan,
anotherstudentofNishiari’sandamentortoKishizawa,itseemedclearthatIneededtostart
withNishiariBokusan.IhadhopedinthisprojecttoincludesometranslationsfromNishiari’s
work,andhadnarroweditdownparticularlytohislecturesonaprecepttext(theBussoshden
zenkaish֋⾆↓ۣ⾵ᡂ䡄)bytheeighteenthcenturyscholarmonkBanjinDtan(another
majorStfigurelargelyunacknowledgedinAmericanZen!).Ifirstwantedtotellthestoryof
Nishairi’slife,however,andasIworkedonthebackgroundofMeijiBuddhism,andofMeiji
St,thatIfeltwouldbenecessarytocontextualizeit,IrealizedthatIhadbittenofmuchmore
thanIcouldchew.Includingatranslationwiththispaperprovedtoomuchtomanage,asdida
studyofNishiari’sapproachtoDgen.
Whatisleftthen,islessastudythanastory:astoryofthetumultofMeijiBuddhism,
thebirthofthemodernStsect,andthelifeofamannamedNishiariBokusan.It’sastoryI
hadtowriteinacademicese,butIhopethatyoucanreadthroughtoapictureofthetime,and
thatyoumaycometosharemysenseofappreciationanddebttothemanyMeijiPeriodvoices
thatshapedmodernStZen.
______
Thisproject,aswellasthetwoyearsofgraduatestudyatUCBerkeleythatitrepresents,
wouldhavebeenimpossiblewithoutthesupportofbeingstoonumeroustoname.Iwill
nonethelessnameafew.
Asnotedabove,IamindebtedtoCharliePokornyforhisinitialpushintothisareaof
study.MyownZenteacherSojunMelWeitsmanencouragedmeinthisregard,andIam
gratefulforhisworkonNishiariandespeciallyforhisongoingteachingandsupport.Hehas
beenvitalinkeepingmeconnectedwiththebasicsourceofmyenergyforDharmastudy.
IwouldnothavebegunthisprojectorbeenabletopursueacademicBuddhistStudiesat
allwithoutthedeepandunwarrantedsupportofProf.RobertSharf,sometimeschairofthe
GroupinBuddhistStudiesatUCBerkeley.Hiswillingnesstosponsormeasastudentunderthe
umbrellaoftheGroup,andtoworkwithmeonmyfledglingAsianlanguageskillsandmy“Zen
modernist”assumptionsaboutBuddhism,hasbeenoftremendousbenefit.Hisinfluencehas
definedthisphaseofmylife.ManyknowProf.SharfinZencirclesforhissharplycritical(and
veryuseful)workonthenotionof“religiousexperience”asthehallmarkofZen,butthosewho
knowhimonlythroughhiswritingmaynotknowhispersonalwarmthandgenuinesympathy
(inallsensesoftheword)forthoseofuswhopracticetheformsofZenandworktodevelop
themodernAmericanZeninstitutions.Ishouldacknowledgetoothatwithouttheexampleand
adviceofmylongtimeDharmafriendEricGreene,alsoastudentofProf.Sharf’s,itnever
wouldhaveoccurredtomethatUCBerkeleycouldbeanoptionformeorthatProf.Sharf
wouldevergivemethetimeofday.
Prof.Sharfmentoredmeoverthecourseofmydegreeandofthisproject,butasI
beganworkinearnestonthewritingIwasalsoabletoenlistthesupportofProf.MarkBlum,
chairofJapaneseBuddhistStudiesatUCBerkeley,andProf.RichardJaffeofDukeUniversity.
Prof.BlumspecializesinthePureLandtraditionsandisascholarofenormousrange–hehas
writtenonmodernandpremodernJapaneseBuddhismandisthetranslatoroftheNirvana
SutrafromtheChinese.Iamverygratefulforhissupport,andespeciallyforhisgenerosityin
designingagraduateseminaronMeijiBuddhismlargelytosupportmeinmyresearch.Prof.
Jaffe,whohashimselflivedandpracticedattheSanFranciscoZenCenter,hasdonethemost
workofanyscholarinEnglishonStZenintheMeijiPeriod,andhisbookNeitherMonkNor
Laymanwasnotonlyveryusefulformepersonallyinmypaststruggleswiththeidealofclerical
celibacy,butalsoopenedmyeyestoimportanceoftheMeijiPeriod.Iamenormouslygrateful
forhistime,insights,andencouragementinthisproject,andhiswillingnesstositonmythesis
committeedespitehisfullschedule.
Byanamazingcoincidence,twoofthepostdoctoralfellowsinJapaneseBuddhismatUC
BerkeleyovermytimetherehavebeenexpertsinthemodernhistoryofStZen,andwhile
mytimewithbothofthemwastoolimited,Ibenefittedenormouslyfromconversationswith
DominickScarangelloandMichaelaMross.
DespitealloftheacademicsupportIhavereceived,Iamcertainthatthisprojectis
wrackedbymistakes,oversights,gaps,andoutrightmisinformation,allofwhichisentirelymy
owndoing.
ThatIhavebeenabletoundertakethisperiodofacademicstudywhileremainingin
residenceatGreenGulchFarmZenCenterhasbeenanincrediblegift,andIamgratefultoallof
theSanFranciscoZenCentercommunityforsupportingmyabsencefromtheworkandpractice
lifeduringthistime.IamparticularlygratefultothesupportofAbbessEijunCuttsandRobert
Thomas,inhisroleasPresidentofSanFranciscoZenCenter,whowentoutonalimbin
allowingmetocontinueresidencywhileIstudiedfulltime.
Finally,IneedtoexpressmygratitudetomyboysFrankandDustyforthejoyand
sustainingenergytheybringintomylife,andespeciallytomywifeSaraforherunflagging
supportofme,spiritually,emotionally,andquitepracticallyasmystudiesleftmeattimesan
absentfather,spouse,andhousemate.
Thisproject,flawedasitis,isdedicatedtothememoryofAbbotMygenSteveStücky.
Hispresenceandfaithinmehasbeenagreatblessinginmylife,andhisencouragementofmy
studiespavedthewayforthiswork.Maymyliferevealhiscompassion.
Whateverscantmeritthisstudymaygenerateisturnedoverandofferedforthebenefit
oflivingbeings.
JiryuMarkRutschmanByler
GreenDragonTemple
December2014
StZeninMeijiJapan:
TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
by
MarkRicardoRutschmanByler
Athesissubmittedinpartialsatisfactionofthe
requirementsforthedegreeof
MasterofArts
in
AsianStudies
inthe
GraduateDivision
ofthe
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley
Committeeincharge:
ProfessorRobertSharf,UCBerkeley
ProfessorRichardJaffe,DukeUniversity
ProfessorMarkBlum,UCBerkeley
Fall2014
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
ŝŶŵĞŵŽƌLJŽĨ
SteveStücky
DaitsMygen኱㏻᫂║
19462013
pg.i
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
CONTENTS
Introduction
SectionI:BuddhisminMeijiJapan
PartI:TheMeijiPersecutionofBuddhism
TokugawaPeriodRoots
SeparationandEradication:ShinbutsuBunriandHaibutsuKishaku
TheDecriminalizationofClericalMarriage
TheGreatTeachingAcademy
PartII:TheMeijiReinventionofBuddhism
NewBuddhism
TheChristianInfluence:BuddhistSocialWorkandLayBuddhism
SectarianismandTranssectarianism
WesternAcademics,SectarianStudies,andtheBuddhistUniversities
BuddhismandNationalismintheMeiji
SectionII:StZeninMeijiJapan
TwoTemples,OneSect:EiheijiandSjiji
StandardizingStandards:TheTjGyjiKihan(1889)
StandardizingDoctrine:TheStKykaiShushgi(1890)
DgenfortheMeiji:TheGenze(1905)
pg.ii
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
SectionIII:TheLifeofNishiariBokusan
PartI:EarlyLifeandZenTraining
ChildhoodandOrdinationunderKinry(18211839)
TrainingwithEtsuon(18391841)
TrainingintheCapitalandAscendingthroughtheRanks(18411849)
TrainingwiththeGenzkaGettanZenry(18491862)
SsanjiAbbacy(18621871)
TrainingandEnlightenmentwithMorotakeEkid(18521855)
PartII:NishiariandtheMeijiBuddhistPersecutionandReinvention
EvangelizingfortheState(18721874)
ReformingtheSangha
NishiarionClericalMarriageandBuddhistCosmology
NishiarionClericalDress
NishiariandAlcohol(“PrajñWater”)
NishiariandtheRenewalofStDoctrinalStudy
PartIII:LaterLife
Relics,Deities,Icons:Hkji(18741877)andKasuisai(18771892)
BetweenElections:Denshinji(18921901)
AtthePinnacleoftheSect(19011905)
FinalYears(19051910)
Appendix:ThePublishedWorksofNishiariBokusan
WorksCited
pg.iii
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.1
INTRODUCTION
ThoughwellknowninJapaneseZencirclesasafatherofthemodernStSect(Stsh
᭪Ὕ᐀),littlehasbeenwritteninEnglishabouttheeminentclericNishiariBokusanす᭷✕ᒣ
(18211910).NishiarirosetoprominenceinthesectduringtheMeiji᫂἞period(18681912),
atimeofgreatupheavalinJapaneseBuddhismandtheperiodoftheinstitutionalbirthofthe
StSect.Atthepeakofhiscareer,NishiariservedasabbotoftheStheadtempleSjiji⥲
ᣢᑎand,foratime,aschiefabbotofthesect(Stshkanch᭪Ὕ᐀⟶㛗),andhemadea
lastingmarkonStdoctrinalstudies,especiallythroughhisstudiesoftheShbgenz(ṇἲ
║ⶶ,“TreasuryoftheTrueDharmaEye”)ofJapaneseStpatriarchEiheiDgen(Ọᖹ㐨ඖ,
12001253).
IaiminthethreesectionsofthispapertopresentthelifeandcareerofNishiari
BokusaninitscontextofMeijiBuddhismand,specifically,MeijiSt.InSectionOneIpresent
anaccountofthegeneralsituationofBuddhismintheMeiji,drawingfromarangeofexcellent
Englishlanguagescholarshiponthetopic.InSectionTwoIrelyonamorescatteredsetof
secondarysources,largelyinEnglishbutwherenecessaryinJapanese,topiecetogetheran
accountofthemajorelementsofStZenintheMeiji,anaccountthat—despiteafew
importantcontributions—hasyettobecoherentlyorcomprehensivelypresentedinEnglish.In
SectionThreeIturntothelifeofNishiariBokusan.Limitingmyselftoabiographicaltreatment
andleavingadoctrinalanalysisofhisinfluentialworksliketheShbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║ⶶၨ
㏔foranothertimeortoabetterqualifiedscholar,inthissectionIdrawespeciallyfrom
JapanesebiographicalsourcestointroducethelifeandcareerofthismajorStfigure.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.2
SECTIONI
BuddhisminMeijiJapan
WhileMeijiBuddhismwasslowtobecomeestablishedasalegitimatetopicforBuddhist
scholars,inrecentdecadesithasreceivedconsiderableattention.AccordingtoJaffeandMohr,
themostimportantscholarinthedevelopmentofthefieldwasIkedaEishunụ⏣ⱥಇ,whose
groundbreaking1976work,Meijinoshinbukkyund᫂἞ࡢ᪂௖ᩃ㐠ື,wasbuiltuponby
scholarslikeKashiwaharaYsen᯽ཎ♸Ἠ,TamamuroFumioᆂᐊᩥ㞝,andYoshidaKyichiྜྷ
⏣ஂ୍(JaffeandMohr1998,1–2).ToJaffeandMohr’s1998listmustcertainlybeaddeda
numberofmorerecentworksintheburgeoningfield,likethatofSuekiFumihikoᮎᮌᩥ⨾ኈ.
ThoughthefoundationalstudiesofMeijiBuddhismhavenaturallybeeninJapanese,significant
Englishlanguagescholarshiponthetopichasalsobeentricklingoutsincethe1980s.Whileitis
farfromexhaustive,theEnglishlanguagescholarshipismatureenoughtoprovidethebasisfor
asolidoverviewofthetopic,especiallywhenconsideredinconjunctionwiththearrayof
generalhistoricalstudiesoftheperiod,amongwhichJansen(2000)andGluck(1985)standout.
InthisoverviewIwillleanheavilyontheworksofStaggs(1979),Grapard(1984),Thelle(1987),
Hardacre(1989),Ikeda(1998),Mohr(1998),Jaffe(2001),Snodgrass(2003),andBlum(2011).
Thetwoworksthatmostneatlyservemypurpose,andwhicharecitedextensivelyinthepages
tofollow,areCollcutt(1986)and,byfarthemostcitedsourceinalloftheEnglishlanguage
treatments,Ketelaar(1990).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.3
PartI:TheMeijiPersecutionofBuddhism
dŽŬƵŐĂǁĂWĞƌŝŽĚZŽŽƚƐ
TounderstandthebasisoftheantiBuddhistpoliciesthatcharacterizetheearlyMeiji
government’sattitudetowardsBuddhism,itisusefultolookbacktothesituationofBuddhism
intheTokugawaᚨᕝperiod(16001868).Therehasinthescholarshipofthelastdecades
beenabacklashagainstthetendencyofearlierhistoriansandBuddhologiststouncritically
accepttheMeijiaccountofTokugawaBuddhism,anaccountwhichtakestheantiBuddhist
measuresoftheMeijiasanecessaryandpurificatoryresponsetothecorruptionand
degradationoftheTokugawaBuddhistclergyandinstitutions.1An1871promulgationbythe
MinistryofthePeople(MimbushẸ㒊┬)isemblematicofthisrhetoric,whichwasnotlimited
tothegovernmentorantiBuddhistintellectualsbutwasreproducedevenbytheBuddhist
institutionsthemselves:“Priestswhohavelongbeenbastionsofdecadence…arethemselves
responsibleforthedestructionofBuddhism”(Ketelaar1990,43).Atypicalexampleofthe
widespread,uncriticalreproductionofthisdiscourseinthescholarshipisKishimoto’sJapanese
ReligionintheMeijiEra,atextwhichiscoloredthroughoutbythenarrativeoftheregenerative
benefitoftheMeijipersecution;onesection,inthechapteron“ReligionintheTokugawa,”is
tellinglytitled“BuddhistSpiritualStagnation”(Kishimoto1956,10–13).
ButtojoinrecentscholarsinwithholdingjudgmentonthemoralcharacterofTokugawa
periodclergyisbynomeanstodenythatthedeepinterpenetrationoftheTokugawa
1
Ketelaarishighlycritical,forexample,ofthe“disappointingregularity”withwhicharemadesuch
“decidedlymoralisticconclusions”basedon“anidealizedconceptionofBuddhism.”Hecitesas
emblematictheessaysofTsujiZennosuke㎷ၿஅຓontheearlymoderndeclineofBuddhismandhis
assessmentsofthepersecutionas“purifying”(Ketelaar1990,11–13).Collcuttisabitmoremoderatein
hisassessment,admittingthatitis“impossibletodenythatinstitutionalBuddhismintheTokugawa
periodhadlostmuchofitsearliervitality,”butarguingthatthewidespreadpopularityofBuddhist
festivals,pilgrimages,etc.,andthevigoroffigureslikeHakuinⓑ㞃(16861768),Bankei┙⌛(1622
1693),andJiunSonjaឿ㞼ᑛ⪅(17181804),provideacriticalcounterpointtothesimplisticdecline
narratives(Collcutt1986,146n).AmongtherecentEnglishlanguageworks,Victoria’sstandsoutasleast
criticaloftheseclaims,sympatheticallycitingharshassessmentsofTokugawaBuddhismbyAnesaki
Masaharuጜᓮṇ἞(18731949),RobertBellah,andJosephKitagawa(Victoria2006,4).Mohr,onthe
otherhand,inausefultreatmentofZenintheTokugawaperiod,finds,“surprisinglyforareputedly
moribundtradition,”considerabledynamismanddiversitywithinandbetweenBuddhistsects(Mohr
1994,363).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.4
governmentandBuddhistinstitutionscreatedanexceedinglycomfortableclimatefor
Buddhism.Whetherornotthatcomfortbredwidespreaddecadenceandcorruption,it
certainlydidfostersignificantantiBuddhistsentiment,particularlyamongthesamuraiclass.
TheclearestandstrongestaspectofthisproblematicinterpenetrationofChurchandStatewas
thedankaseido᷄ᐙไᗘ,asysteminwhichthegovernment,largelyasameanstoresist
Christianity,mandatedthateachhouseholdinthecountryregisterwith(andfinancially
support)aBuddhisttemple.2Flushwiththefundsextractedfromthesemandatory
relationships,theBuddhistinstitutionscouldinturnprovidesignificantfinancialservicestothe
government.3WhileBuddhismwasdominantpolitically,servingineffectas“areligiousarmof
thesystemofpoliticalcontrols,”andthoughitretainedsignificantpopularsupportthroughout
theperiod,intellectuallyBuddhismwas“onthedefensivethroughouttheTokugawaperiod”in
thefaceofattacksfromincreasinglypowerfulantiBuddhiststreamsofConfucian,Shint,and
NationalLearning(kokugakuᅜᏛ)thought,aswellasWesternstudies(Collcutt1986,144–
145).Furthermore,whiletheTokugawagovernmentneverlostitsdependenceontheBuddhist
establishment,itwassensitivetotheincreasinglyantiBuddhistclimateandbeganinthelater
partoftheeratocallforrestrictionsonBuddhistexpansionandauthority.Heedingthesecalls,
respondingtolocalsentiment,andservingtheirownConfucian,Shint,orNativistinclinations,
administratorsinvariousregionsbeganasearlyasthemidseventeenthcenturytoenactlocal
antiBuddhistpurgesofvaryingintensityandefficacy.Thesepersecutionsprovidedthebasis,
andinsomecaseseventhepersonnel,forthenationalantiBuddhistprojectthatwouldfollow
inthefirstdaysoftheMeijiRestorationof1868.4
ThesedeeprootsintheTokugawaperiodoftheMeijiantiBuddhistprogram,andthe
commonTokugawaandMeijigovernmentobjectivesofcentralizationandcontroloftheclergy,
leadMohrtoarguefora“shroudedcontinuity”betweentheTokugawaandMeijiregimes.He
arguesthat“theselfproclaimed‘new’Meijigovernmenthadthesamegoalasthedeposed
Bakufu”and“merelywentontoenforc[e]moreradicallypoliciesthathadbeenpursuedfor
twohundredandfiftyyears.”HeseesthemostextremeantiBuddhistmeasuresoftheearly
MeijinotasmarkingaturningpointinthedynamicsbetweenthegovernmentandtheBuddhist
institutions,butsimplyasshortsightedandpoliticallyimmatureattemptsbytheMeiji
2
Forahistoricaloverviewofthedankaseido,seeHur2007andMarcure1985.
3
ThefinancialsupportoftheTokugawagovernmentbyBuddhisttempleswasevidenttotheperiod’s
verylastdays,aswiththecaseoftheHigashiHonganjiᮾᮏ㢪ᑎgivingmoneyandmanpowertothe
bakufuarmiesaslateas1867.Thissortoffinancialassistancefromtemplestothegovernment
continuedintotheMeiji.SeeKetelaar1990,71–72.
4
ThemostimportantoftheTokugawaperiodBuddhistpurgeswereinthedomainsofMito Ỉᡞ and
Satsuma ⸃ᦶ,butthecrackdownsinthedomainsofChsh 㛗ᕞ,Okayama ᒸᒣ,Aizu ఍ὠ,and
Tsuwano ὠ࿴㔝werealsosignificantbothforlocalBuddhistsandinthedevelopmentofnationalanti
Buddhistpolicies.CollcuttandKetelaardiscusstheseprecursorpurgesindetail(Collcutt1986,146–151;
Ketelaar1990,43–86).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.5
governmenttofollowTokugawaeraprecedent,albeitnewlycouchedintermsof“nation”and
nationalidentity(Mohr1998,167–168).
WhileKetelaarisoverallmuchmorecommittedthanMohrtoassertingthe
discontinuityandnoveltyoftheMeijiperiod,hetooseessomecontinuitiesinantiBuddhist
strategies.HeoutlinesafourpartprocessbywhichthelocaleradicationofBuddhismwas
attemptedintheMitoDomaininthemidseventeenththroughmidnineteenthcenturies,and
arguesthatitsstructurewasparadigmatic,soontobereplicatednotonlybyotherdomainsbut
alsointhenationalproject.HisanalysisbelowthusservesnotjusttodescribetheMito
persecutionbutalsothenationalstrategy:
TheinstitutionalizationofantiBuddhistpolicyduringtheMeijiera
involvesafourfoldprocess:(1)theestablishmentofagovernment
officevestedwithcomprehensiveauthorityover“religious
affairs”;(2)theconductingofaprecisesurveytodeterminethe
imminentpoliticalandeconomiccontoursoftheinstitutionsin
question;(3)thedecimationofBuddhisttemples,rites,and
priestlypracticesandevenoftheBuddhistpriesthooditself;and
(4)theconstructionofasystemtosuppressBuddhism’s
differences,particularlythoseofitsformsevocativeofthe
carnivalesque.5(Ketelaar1990,54)
^ĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ShinbutsuBunriĂŶĚHaibutsuKishaku
Theterm“eradication”aptlydescribesMeijiantiBuddhistpolicy;itispreciselythe
senseoftheMeijieraslogan“abolishBuddhismanddestroyShakyamuni”(haibutsukishakuᗫ
௖ẋ㔘),anddoeslikelyexpresstheexperienceofthoseonbothsidesofthe“eradication”of
5
Inusingtheterm“carnivalesque,”ashedoesthroughouthisstudy,Ketelaarisexplicitlydrawingonthe
workofMikhailBakhtintoexpressthevolatile,uncontrolled,liberativepotentialitythatstandsin
oppositiontoattemptsto,inBakhtin’swords,“absolutizethegivenconditionsofexistenceandthe
socialorder.”DemonstratingthatnotonlyShugendಟ㦂㐨,divination,exorcism,etc.,butalsopublic
nudity,eroticliterature,dramaticlampoons,standupcomedy,andothernonreligiouscustomsand
entertainmentswerebannedbytheMeijiregime,Ketelaararguesconvincinglythatitisthe
carnivalesquequalityitself,ratherthanBuddhistinstitutionalpowerorBuddhismperse,thatwasthe
realthreatthattheMeijiregimewasintenttoeradicate.By“theconstructionofasystemtosuppress
Buddhism’sdifference,”Ketelaarisreferringtothefabricationoftraditions,festivals,observances,
spaces,etc.toreplacetheirBuddhistcounterpartswhileservingmoreneatlytheneedsoftheState
ideology,afabricationculminatedinthesocalledStateShint.SeeKetelaar1990,50–54.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.6
anygiventemple.Theinitial,officialgovernmentpolicy,though,wasostensiblynotof
eradicationbutofseparation,namelythe“separationofShintandBuddhism”(shinbutsu
bunri⚄௖ศ㞳).6Separationisalogicalinitialstepinanyprocessoferadication,however,and
itisnosurprisethattheedictsoutliningthepolicyofshinbutsubunri,issuedinthefirstmonth
ofthenewMeijigovernmentin1868,werewidelyperceivedasaharbingerofandlicensefor
eradication.ItwasabundantlyclearthatBuddhismwastobecategorizedamongthe“ancient
evils”(kyrainorshᪧ᮶ࣀ㝄⩦)whichthefoundingdocumentoftheMeijiwasintenton
eradicating(Ketelaar1990,86).7Itisalsolikelythattheofficialsresponsiblefortheseparation
edicts,thestaffofthenewlyformedOfficeofRites(jingijimukyoku⚄♲஦ົᒁ,later,Ministry
ofRitesjingikan⚄♲ᐁ),were,asreformShintistsandhardlineNativistsexperiencedinthe
localantiBuddhistcampaignsoftheTokugawaperiod,didintendandhopeto“eradicate”the
“ancientevil”ofBuddhism.AsCollcuttsuggests,though,thenewregimewassensitivetothe
possibilitythatanovertpolicyoferadication“mighthaveprovokedfurtherlocaloppositionand
contributedtoincreasedpoliticalinstability”(Collcutt1986,151).Theostensiblyneutral
languageof“separation,”then,shouldnotbeunderstoodasexpressinganauthentically
moderateagenda.Maskingthemorebasiceffortto“eradicate,”therhetoricof“separation”is
aninstanceofthekindofdiscourseanalyzedbyKetelaarinhisdescriptionoftheparadigmatic
Mitopersecution,inwhichtemplesarenot“destroyed”but“managed”(shobunฎศ)or
“amalgamated”(gappeiྜే),andinwhichtheforcedlaicizationofpriestsisnotaviolencebut
a“returntofarming”(kinᖐ㎰)ora“returntothesecular”(genzoku㑏಑)(Ketelaar1990,
49).
Furthermore,this“separation”ofShintandBuddhism(oreventhe“eradication”of
Buddhism)requiredwhatprovedtobeanevenmoreradicalproject,theirrespectivedefinition.
ShintandBuddhismhadbeenintertwiningforwelloverathousandyears,iftheyhadever
reallybeendistinctatall,andtopullthemaparttheyhadtobedefined.Grapard’s
groundbreaking1984article,centeredaroundastudyofthetypical“syncreticcultcenter”of
TnomineከṊᓠ,islargelydevotedtodemonstratingtheprofoundextentofBuddhistShint
syncretism(anditscollectivesyncretismwithDaoismandConfucianism),suggestingthatitgoes
asdeepasdoes“theSinoJapaneseinteractionsoneseesoccurringattheleveloftheJapanese
language,”andaccordinglyarguingthattheMeijiera“disruptionoftheShintBuddhist
6
Grapardprefersthemoreviolentconnotationsof“dissociation”to“separation”forbunri;hefurther
arguesforthemoreliteralEnglishrenderingofshinbutsuas“ShintandBuddhistdivinities”ratherthan
themorecommon“ShintandBuddhism,”insistingonacrucialdistinctionbetweenShintdivinities
andtheShintreligioussystem(Grapard1984,241).
7
Thefullpassage,Article4oftheMeijiCharterOath,isᪧ᮶ࣀ㝄⩦ࣤ◚ࣜኳᆅࣀබ㐨ࢽᇶࢡ࣊ࢩ.
Jansentranslatesit,“Evilcustomsofthepastshallbebrokenoffandeverythingbaseduponthejust
lawsofNature”(Jansen2000,338).Victoriarendersit“Allabsurdusagesoftheoldregimeshallbe
abolishedandallmeasuresconductedinconformitywiththerighteouswayofheavenandearth”
(Victoria2006,4–5).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.7
discoursewasinfactadenialofculturalhistory”andthesubstitutionofthathistorywith
“culturallies”(Grapard1984,242–245).Ketelaardescribesthedifficultiesofthesurveyorsin
theSatsumadomainpurge,whoreliedonthe“formofviolence”of“arbitrarylinguistic
discriminations”—like“temple”(teraᑎ)versus“shrine”(jinja⚄♫)—todetermineagiven
site’sstatusasShintorBuddhist,andheshowshowevensuchemblematic“Shint”symbols
likethetorii㫽ᒃgatewayandtheshimenawaᶆ⦖ropewere,priortotheseparation,partsof
a“commonreligiouslexicon”(Ketelaar1990,57–59).Anotherexampleofthedeepproblemof
“separation,”andthesuperficialfixesappliedtoitbygovernmentagents,isintherenamingof
syncreticdivinitiesfromthe“Buddhistsounding”tothe“Shintsounding.”InwhatKetelaar
calls“enunciatorygymnastics,”forinstance,thepopularguardiandeity(ofBuddhistorigin)
Fudson୙ືᑛwas,atNaritaᡂ⏣,transformedintoa“Japanesekami”simplybyimposinga
rereadingofthesamecharactersasUgokazunomikoto(Ketelaar1990,75).
Tonotetheconceptualincoherenceoftheseparationedicts,though,andevento
suggest(asdoesKetelaar),8thattheirgreatestlegacywasnotintheirdamagetopersonsand
propertiessomuchasintheradicalredefinitionstheycatalyzed,isbynomeanstosuggestthat
theseparationedictsweremererhetoric:theviolenceagainstBuddhistsandBuddhist
institutionscameswiftandsevere.ThecentralinstitutionsoftheMeijigovernmentwerestill
relativelyweak,andlocalautonomyensuredsignificantgeographicvariationinthe
enforcementoftheseparationprogram,butneverthelessavastnumberoftemples,statues,
texts,andartifactsweredestroyed,andhugenumbersofclericswereforciblylaicized.Grapard
istypicalofmanycommentatorsinfacingthelackofquantitativedataonthedamagewith
recoursetolocutionslike“innumerable”and“beyondimagination”:“innumerablestatues,
paintings,scriptures,ritualimplements,andbuildingsweredestroyed,sold,stolen,burnt,or
coveredwithexcrement”;“thedestructionofsyncreticartandtreatisesisbeyondimagination”
(Grapard1984,245).Collcuttisexceptionalintherigorwithwhichhepursuesquantitative
data,butinhiswellinformedassertionthata“fullaccounting…willprobablyneverbemade”
wefallbackagainonthevaguely“innumerable.”Hefinds“dramatic”butonlypiecemeal
regionaldataonthephysicaldamageoftheseparationedicts,citinglocalstatisticslikethe
completeabsenceoftemplesinSatsumaby1872,theToyamaᐩᒣreductiontoeighttemples
fromaprepersecutionnumberofover1,600,andtheTosaᅵబeradicationof439of615
temples(whichincludedthelaicizationoftheirmonks).Collcuttthuslacksconfidenceinanyof
thepre1872nationalstatisticsthatarecitedinthescholarship,buthedoesfindreliable
numbersforthe18721876timeframe,andshowsthatthedrasticreductionoftemplesand
8
“Theenduringlegacyofthepersecutionyearsisnottobefoundinthetensofthousandsofdestroyed
andconfiscatedtemples,inthetonsofbellsmelteddownforcannon,orintheuncountednumbersof
headlessstatuesthatcanstillbefounddiscardedalongtheroadsidesofruralJapan.Rather,itisinthe
newlycreatedsystemsofreligiouseducation,theconstructionofBuddhistandShinthistories,andthe
postpersecutionlegislationofpreciselegalandpoliticalcontoursofallsectarianinstitutionsthatthe
antiBuddhistmovementleftitsdeepesttraces.”(Ketelaar1990,76)
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.8
clericscontinuedthroughthatperiod:“Accordingtocensusdata,nearly18,000templeswere
closedbetween1872and1876alone.Morethan56,000monksand5,000nuns,togetherwith
theirfamiliesandmanyoftheirdisciples,werereturnedtolaylife.”Thesestatisticsdisprove
thenotionthattheeradicationeffortwas“asissometimessuggested,asporadicorshortlived
phenomenon”(Collcutt1986,156–163).
dŚĞĞĐƌŝŵŝŶĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨůĞƌŝĐĂůDĂƌƌŝĂŐĞ
CloselyassociatedwiththephysicalviolenceagainstBuddhistpropertieswasthe
disestablishmentofBuddhistinstitutions,thenewgovernment’sefforttodivestthemofthe
socialstatusandlegalprivilegestheyhadlongenjoyed.ThisdisestablishmentofBuddhism
fromitsprivilegedpositionwasasignificantreorderingofnationalhierarchies.Forexample,
wherepriorto1869nolaypersonofanyrankcouldbeonhorsebackorinacarriageon
Buddhisttemplegrounds,after1869thissortofinsubordinationtoBuddhismwaslegally
permissible(Ketelaar1990,68).Broadermeasureslikeuniversalconscriptionandcompulsory
educationalsohadasignificantimpactinreducingthestatusandprivilegeofBuddhist
institutions.Inshort,earlyintheMeijiperiodthegovernment“eliminat[ed]allstatusprivileges
fortheclergy”and“dissolv[ed]manyoftheinstitutionalarrangementsthathadgoverned
relationsbetweenreligiousinstitutionsandthestate”duringtheTokugawaperiod(Jaffe1998,
45).Thesedisestablishmenteffortswentsofarastolimitnotonlyinstitutionalpowerbutalso
popularBuddhistpractices,andsweepingrestrictionsoroutrightbanswereinstitutedon
Buddhistceremonies,ordinations,festivals,andpilgrimage.
Perhapsthemostsignificantandlastingmeasuretowardsthedisestablishmentof
BuddhismwerethemeasuresthatremovedtheStatefromitsinvolvementinandenforcement
ofBuddhistclericaldiscipline.Jaffehasgiventhistopicconsiderableattentionandremainsthe
authorityonit:9
Onecruciallaw,promulgatedin1872,decriminalizedavarietyof
clericalpracticesthathadbeenillegalaccordingtoBakufu
regulationsformuchoftheEdoperiod.Theregulation,commonly
referredtoduringtheMeijiperiodasthenikujikisaitai⫗㣗ጔᖏ
law,endedallpenaltiesforclericswhoviolatedstateandclerical
standardsofdeportmentbyeatingmeat,marrying,lettingtheir
hairgrow,orabandoningclericaldress.Althoughmany
governmentofficialsviewedtheregulationasanimportant
componentofanoverallpolicytomodernizeJapanesesocietyby
9
SeeJaffe1998;Jaffe2001.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.9
abolishingtheoldEdostatussystem(mibunseido㌟ศไᗘ),the
headsofalmosteveryBuddhistdenominationconstruedthe
measureasanotherattempttodestroyBuddhismbyundermining
theireffortstoendtheclericalcorruptionandlaxitythathad
invitedtherecentviolentpersecutionofBuddhism.Thechanges
ingovernmentpoliciestowardpreceptenforcementsparkeda
vitriolicdebateamongclerics,concernedlaypeople,government
officials,andthelaityoverthepracticeofnikujikisaitaiandthe
rolethatthestateshouldplayinguaranteeingcompliancewith
theBuddhistprecepts.FortherestoftheMeijieratheheadsof
establishedBuddhistdenominationsgropedforsomewayto
respondtothelegalchangesinstitutedbyMeijigovernment
leadersandtomaintainorderwithintheirdenominations.(Jaffe
1998,46)
Itshouldbeemphasizedthatwhiletherewerecertainlyinstancesofforcedlaicization
overthecourseoftheMeijipersecutionofBuddhism,thenikujikisaitailawdidnotconstitutea
forced,masslaicizationbythegovernment,butwasonitsfacemerelyanassertionofthewell
knownWesternprincipleoftheseparationofChurchandState.TechnicallytheStatewasnot
mandatinganything,butwassimplysteppingbackfromitspreviousandproblematicroleasan
authorizedenforcerofclericaldiscipline.Decriminalizinganactisnottomandateit,andthere
isnothingaboutthenikujikisaitailawthatpreventedclergyfrommaintainingtheformally
establishedanddisseminatedcelibacyrequirementoftheirrespectivesects.Asthesectarian
leadershipsthemselvesargueddesperatelyforanumberofyearsafterthe1872
decriminalizationorder,clericswereinfactstillaccountabletotheirsects’regulations.Given
thelackofpoweronthepartofthesectarianleaders,however,coupledwiththelonghistory
ofclericalrulebendingandmarriage,rankandfileclergyhadlittlemotivationtoheedtheir
pleas.Thesetwofactorswillbeexploredbelow.
Firstly,thecodificationofsectarianboundariesintheMeiji,whilegivinganappearance
ofhomogeneityandunitywithintheStateapproved“sects,”maskedintensediversityand
factionalismwithinthesects.Asdiscussedelsewhereinthispaper,ineverysectjustbelowthe
surfaceofsectarianunitywerecompetinglineagesandbranchesandcompetingresponsesto
thechangesoftheMeiji.Thisdiversityandtensionwithineachsectcomplicatedthe
administrationofcentralizedcontroloverthesects’branchesandlineages.Hadthenominal
sectarianheadsheldgenuine,practicalauthorityovertherankandfileprovincialclergy,they
couldhavecompelledthemtoconformwiththeclericalrulesthat(inmostcases)already
clearlyforbademarriage.Eveninthefaceoflatergovernmentassertionsthatclericsdid
remainresponsibletoclericalrules,however,thesectarianleadershipsprovedsimplytooweak
tomaintainclericaldiscipline.Withnoeffectivecentraladministrationofthesects,andinthe
absenceofgovernmentenforcement,clericaldisciplinenaturallycollapsed.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.10
Whatthisaccountneglects,however,isasecondandperhapsmoreimportantpoint:at
thetimeofthenikujikisaitailaw,“marriage”amongtheclergy,albeitsecretoratleastnon
public,waslongestablishedandwidespread.Itisdifficulttoquantifythemarriedclergyand
templefamiliespriortothedecriminalization,butitisawellattestedphenomenonthroughout
JapaneseBuddhisthistory.10Jaffenotes,forexample,abundantevidenceofclericalfornication
asearlyastheNaraዉⰋperiod(710794),andshowsthatthepracticeoftempleinheritance
bythesonofacleric“wascommonenoughthatduringtheHeianperiod[ᖹᏳ,7941185]the
rightsofabloodchildtoadeceasedcleric’spropertywerelegallyrecognized”(Jaffe2001,11).
IntheTokugawaperiod,too,theinstitutionwaswidespread;JaffecitesTamamurotonotethat
“atleastasfarasmanyoftheKogiShingon[ྂ⩏┿ゝ]clergyareconcerned,duringtheEdo
periodtheirwayoflifedifferedlittlefromthatofthelaity,”andheconcurswithFaure’s
conclusionthat“marriageandfamilialinheritanceoftempleswerecommonplace,particularly
amongthoseclericswhostaffedclantemplesandshrinetemples”(Jaffe2001,34).Itshould
thereforenotbeassumedthatthenewgovernmentpolicycausedclericspreviouslycommitted
tocelibacytoreconsidertheirvows.Rather,theeffectwastopushthoseclericsalready
involvedinfamilylifetoexplorethebenefitsofdoingsoopenly,takingadvantageofthe
opportunity,forexample,toasserttherightsoftheirfamilies.Thedecriminalizationofclerical
marriagewasawatershedeventforBuddhismintheMeiji,then,notbecauseitestablisheda
newpracticebutinlargepartbecauseitforcedapublicdebateamongsectarianleaders,rank
andfileclerics,andparishioners.Jaffedescribesthisdebateinsomedetail,andshowsthatthe
issuesitraisedofsectarianandclericalidentityremaintothisdayunresolved.
dŚĞ'ƌĞĂƚdĞĂĐŚŝŶŐĐĂĚĞŵLJ
ShintwastosomeextentabeneficiaryoftheearlyMeijiantiBuddhistpolicies.Shint
clergy,forexample,longsecondtotheirBuddhistcounterparts,nowenjoyedahigherstatus
thanBuddhistsdid(Collcutt1986,152).AnothermajorinstitutionalbenefitforShintwasits
adoptionoffuneraryresponsibilities,bothinthecourtandamongthepopulace,whichhad
longbeenthedomainofBuddhism.Thesedutiesheldconsiderablesocialandeconomicvalue,
andShintistsprovedwillingtogotogreatlengthstoassumethem,aneffortthatrequired
nothingshortofafundamentalrevisionoftraditionalnormsandtaboos.Asaresult,inthe
courtandthroughoutthecountrymemorialtabletsweretransferredfromBuddhistsanctuaries
andtemplestoShintsites,givingShintclergytheaffiliationsandfinancialsupportofthose
successorsobligedtotheirancestors’care.11
10
ClericalfamiliesseemalsotohavebeenmuchmoreprevalantinIndianBuddhisthistorythanis
generallyassumed.SeeClarke2014.
11
SeeCollcutt1986,159;Ketelaar1990,44–45,60.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.11
TocharacterizetheactionsoftheearlyMeijigovernmentasthesimpleelevationof
ShintattheexpenseofBuddhism,however,ortosuggestthattheseparationofShintand
Buddhismwasunambivalently“goodforShint,”isincorrect.Forone,inlightofthethorough
interpenetrationofBuddhismandShinthistorically,asnotedabove,thenewlydefined
“Shint”towhichthebenefitsofStatesponsorshipwouldaccruewasaShintrestrictedbyits
forcedalienationfromBuddhism.Secondly,manyoftheedictsregulatingBuddhism,eventhe
mostextremeones,werenotinfactaimedatBuddhismbutratheratabroadrangeofcultural
practicesdeemedhazardoustotheState,andthusaffectedShintaswell.12
ThisinclusionofShintwithinbroadrestrictionsonreligiousor“carnivalesque”
practicesspeakstothefactthatthedominantNativistfactionintheMeijigovernment,despite
itswillingnesstouseShinttopushanationalistagenda,wasnotinterestedinbuildingthe
Stateonareligiousbasis,Shintorotherwise.13WhattheNativistssoughtwasnota
governmentintheserviceofestablishedreligionbutratheraunifying,nationalideologywhich
wascompletelyunderthecontroloftheStateandtotallysubordinatedtoitsagenda.Itis
obviousthatBuddhismwasdeemedinappropriatetothistask,butitmustalsobeemphasized
thatneithercould“religious”Shintprovideit.Indeed,thereligiousShintistsinthe
government,whohadenvisionedapurifiedShintreligionasthebasisofthenewState,were
soontodiscoverthisfactdirectly,findingthemselvespurgedfromtheleadership.14
Thispurgeculminatedinthe1872reorganizationoftheMinistryofRitesastheMinistry
ofDoctrine(Kybushoᩍ㒊┬).ThecentraltaskofthisnewMinistryofDoctrine,nowstaffed
exclusivelywithNativistsandlessconcernedwiththecreationof“rites”underaphilosophyof
“unityofritesandrule”(saiseiitchi⚍ᨻ୍⮴)asmuchaswith“doctrine”underarubricof
“unityofdoctrineandrule”(seikyitchiᨻᩍ୍⮴),wastocompletethecreationofthenew
Stateideology,thequasiShint“GreatTeaching”(daiky኱ᩍ)(Ketelaar1990,87–121).This
GreatTeachingwouldmakeuseofawidearrayofresources,includingShintandBuddhist
institutionsandpersonnel,intheefforttoresistChristianityandtounifythecitizenryaround
anemperorcenterednationalidentity.
WhiletheaimoftheGreatTeachingprogramwasclear,however,thedoctrinalcontent
oftheGreatTeachingwasratherlessso.TheMinistryofDoctrinefirstexplainedtheGreat
Teachingundertherubricofthe“ThreeStandardsofInstruction”(sanjkysoku୕᮲ᩍ๎):
12
SeeKetelaar1990,69.
13
Ketelaarelaborates:“FromtheperspectiveoftheenlightenmentthinkersoftheMeijiera,‘faith’
(shin)wasclearlyviewedasdisruptive,deceptive,anddevolutionary.Itwascrucialforthosewhowould
ruletopreventthestateideologicalsystemfrombeingdictatedsolelybyconcernsfortheconceptionof
‘divinity.’”SeeKetelaar1990,67.
14
Thesewerethe“RestorationShintists”(fukkoShintsha᚟ྂ⚄㐨⪅)(Ketelaar1990,66).The
detailsoftheShintStaterelationsintheMeijiislargelyoutofthescopeofthisoverview,butistreated
extensivelyinHardacre’sexcellentmonograph(Hardacre1989).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.12
“(1)complywiththecommandstoreverethekamiandlovethenation;(2)illuminatethe
principleofheavenandthewayofman;(3)servetheemperorandfaithfullymaintainthewill
ofthecourt”(Ketelaar1990,106).15Thesethreestandardsprovedsovagueandbroadthatthe
governmentstruggledtomaintaincontroloftheirinterpretation.Aproclamationwasdeemed
necessaryin1872,forinstance,toclarifythattheclergymustrefrainfrom“individualor
Buddhisticinterpretations”and“lectur[ing]withhiddenmeanings”(Ketelaar1990,123).In
furtherattemptstoclarifytheGreatTeaching,whichwerelikewisenotentirelysuccessful,the
Ministryin1873producedfirstelevenandthenseventeenadditional“themes”(kendaiව㢟)
forteaching,alongwithastreamofpronouncementsonthedetailsoftheStatedoctrine.
TodisseminatethisGreatTeaching,thegovernmentenlistedtheShintandBuddhist
clergyalike,aswellasotherfigureswithlocalreachandinfluence(likepublicentertainers)into
asystemofdoctrinalinstructors(kydshokuᩍᑟ⫋).Thesedoctrinalinstructors,inwhat
KetelaarcallsanattempttomakeadefactoStatepriesthood,weretobetrainedinanetwork
ofprefecturalandvillageacademiesoverseenbyanationalheadquarters(Ketelaar1990,99).
Buddhistswereinitiallyenthusiasticabouttheopportunityprovidedbythedoctrinalinstructor
system,seeinginittheopportunitytoreturntothegoodgracesoftheState.Thesectsactively
lobbiedthegovernmentfortherighttobeincludedinthesystem,andonceitwasestablished
theyeagerlyenrolledtheirclergyasdoctrinalinstructors.FourthousandShintpriestsand
threethousandBuddhistpriestswereinitiallylicensedundertheMinistry,andby1880there
weremorethan103,000certifieddoctrinalInstructors,over81,000ofwhomweremembersof
Buddhistssects.16
Itwassoonclear,however,thattheGreatTeachingAcademywasnottheopportunity
theBuddhistinstitutionshadhoped.InwhatKetelaarcallsa“trueideologicalcoupdegrace,”
theGreatAcademyinTkywasinstalledatZjji,theancestralBuddhisttempleofthe
Tokugawafamily(Ketelaar1990,122).AsCollcuttdescribesit:
Thefirstbatchof300Buddhistssoonfoundthattheywerebeing
subjectedtoShintindoctrinationandusedasShint
propagandists.TheywereobligedtowearthestiffcapsofShint
priestsontheirshavenheadsandtosayprayersandmake
offeringsbeforetheshrine.AlthoughBuddhistswerethus
involvedinthedisseminationofwhatwastobeanewnational
15
୍ࠊᩗ⚄ឡᅜࣀ᪨ࣤయࢫ࣊࢟஦
୍ࠊኳ⌮ே㐨ࣤ᫂ࢽࢫ࣊࢟஦
୍ࠊⓚୖࣤዊᡝࢩᮅ᪨ࣤ㑂Ᏺࢭࢩ࣒࣊࢟஦
Collcuttcallsthemthe“ThreeInjunctions”andrendersthem:“Reverethekamiandlovethecountry.
Clarifyheavenlyreasonandthewayofhumanity.Reveretheemperorandrespectcourtdirectives.”
SeeCollcutt1986,155.
16
SeeKetelaar1990,105;Collcutt1986,154.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.13
religion,thisstatecreedmadenoprovisionfortheteachingof
Buddhism.(Collcutt1986,155–156)
Notonlywasthere“noprovisionfortheteachingofBuddhism,”infacttheteachingof
Buddhismwasbythispointcompletelybannedinthecountry.17
TheincorporationofBuddhismintothedoctrinalinstructorsystemwasthusnotasign
ofcooperationwiththegovernmentsomuchasitrepresentedcooptationbythegovernment.
Itdidnotmarkareversaloftheshinbutsubunripolicyortheendofhaibutsukishaku,asshown
abovebyCollcutt’sfindingsthatthepersecutionofBuddhismcontinuedfullborethroughthe
periodof18721876,preciselytheyearsofBuddhistinvolvementintheGreatTeaching.Tobe
sure,someintheBuddhistestablishmentcontinuedtogoalongwiththeprogram;Mohr,for
example,discussesthecaseofTeizanSokuichi㰓୕༶୍(18051892)asevidenceof“the
willingnessofsomeoftheleadingStrepresentativestosupportthegovernment’s
indoctrinationpolicy,”atleastthrough1875,andasSectionThreewillshow,NishiariBokusanis
anotherexampleofanapparentlywillingadvocateoftheproject(Mohr1998,177–178).
Others,however,formedagrowingresistancetothedoctrinalinstructionsystem.Themost
prominentamongthesewastheJdoShinshpriestShimajiMokuraiᓥᆅ㯲㞾(18381911),
whopubliclycritiquedtheThreeStandards,arguedfortheseparationofChurchandState,and
ultimatelyconvincedtheShinsecttowithdrawfromtheGreatTeachingAcademy.Withoutthe
supportoftheBuddhistestablishment,theprojectcollapsed;fourmonthsaftertheShinsect
withdrewin1875theGreatTeachingAcademyclosed,andtwoyearslatertheMinistryof
Doctrinewasdissolved.
Thoughthepositionofdoctrinalinstructorlasteduntil1884,thedissolutionofthe
MinistryofDoctrinein1877marksasignificanttransitionpoint:Nativist“religion”hadfailedto
gaintractionassuch.BlumnotesthattheGreatTeachingwas“widelyseenasmorepolitical
thanreligious”andKetelaarsumsupthefailurebysayingthat“Nativismwastooreligiousto
rule,andBuddhismwastoointegratedintosocialfabrictobediscarded.”18Article28ofthe
1889MeijiConstitutiongranted“FreedomofReligion”(shinkynojiyಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤),andwhile
this“freedom”mayhavebeensocircumscribedastoberenderedfunctionallymeaningless,it
diddecisivelymarktheendofthemajorperiodofantiBuddhistpolicy.AsKetelaarsays,“by
thecloseofthe19thcenturytheearlierhistorical,nationalistic,andsocioeconomicattacks
uponBuddhismhadindeedbeenlargelyputtorest”(Ketelaar1990,171).
17
ThiscriminalizationofBuddhistteachingwasaresultofthepolicythatforbadeanypublicteaching
outsidetheumbrellaoftheGreatTeachingAcademy.Ketelaaracknowledgesthattherewaslittle
enforcementofthisprohibitiononBuddhistteaching(Ketelaar1990,122).
18
SeeBlum2011,15;Ketelaar1990,130.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.14
PartII:TheMeijiReinventionofBuddhism
ScholarsdifferintheirassessmentsoftheimportanceofMeijiBuddhistdevelopments,
withsome,likeMohr,arguingfora“shroudedcontinuity”betweenTokugawaandMeiji
Buddhismandothers,likeKetelaar,emphasizingthemarkeddiscontinuitybetweenthepre
andpostMeijiinstitutions.Thereisnoquestion,however,thatthetumultoftheMeijiinspired
arangeofBuddhistresponses,someofwhichhavecometocharacterizeJapaneseBuddhism
downtothepresent.ThechallengestowhichBuddhismwasforcedtorespondwerevarious.
Fromthegovernment,BuddhistsmetnotonlythepersecutionoftheearlyMeiji,thelossof
statusandpropertydiscussedintheprevioussection,butalsototransformativepolicies
regulatingtheorganizationandidentityofthesects.Outsideofthegovernment,too,Nativist,
reformShintist,andConfuciancriticschallengedtheBuddhistestablishment.Exposureto
Westernreligion,science,andtheWesternUniversityfollowingthesocalled“opening”of
JapantotheWestwasalsosignificant,andWesternacademicfieldslikephilosophyand
religiousstudiesinspiredandchallengedMeijiBuddhistthinkers.Specifically,positivisticand
textualcriticalmethodsofWesternOrientalismandBuddhologyimpactedthestudyof
Buddhismbothwithinandwithoutofthesectarianinstitutions,andtheWesternBuddhological
focuson“original”BuddhismledtotheJapanese“discovery”ofIndianBuddhismandforceda
reassessmentoftheprimacyoftheMahayana.Finally,asBlumemphasizes,pressurecame
fromreformmovementswithintheBuddhistinstitutionsthemselves,asdifferentindividuals
andfactionsstruggledtoassertconflictingresponsestothenewrealitiestheyfaced(Blum
2011,3).
EĞǁƵĚĚŚŝƐŵ
ThemostprogressivemovesofMeijiBuddhismareoftengroupedundertherubricof
“NewBuddhism”(shinbukky᪂௖ᩍ).SnodgrassdefinesNewBuddhismas:
aphilosophical,rationalized,andsociallycommitted
interpretationofBuddhismthatemergedfromtherestructuring
ofBuddhismanditsroleinJapanesesocietynecessitatedbythe
religiouspolicyofearlyMeijigovernment.Shinbukkywasthe
NewBuddhismofJapanesemodernity,formedinanintellectual
climateinwhichtheWestwasrecognizedasbothmodeland
measureofmodernity;shapedandpromotedinreferencetothe
West.(Snodgrass2003,115).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.15
Shefurtherwrites:
FollowingtheleadandmethodsofWesternOrientalist
scholarship,aBuddhistphilosophywasisolatedfromtheritual,
mythology,andfolkbeliefofactualpractice.ThisNewBuddhism
wasanoninstitutionallaypracticeaccessiblethroughthe
vernacularlanguage.Itwasnonsectarian,‘progressive,
democratic,spiritual,socialandrational,’anindigenous
alternativetotheWesternmaterialistphilosophyandProtestant
ChristianitytowhichmanyWesterneducatedJapaneseofthis
generationhadturned.(Snodgrass2003,129–130)
Victoriaemphasizesthat“NewBuddhism”doesnotdesignateaspecificschoolof
thoughtbutmorebroadlythemodernizingelementswithinBuddhismoftheMeiji,andnotes
that“becauseitwasamovement,notanorganization,therewereoftenconflicting,even
opposingviewsastowhatchangesshouldbemade”totheinstitutions(Victoria2006,198n).
AsitwasadeliberateresponsetotheWest,astrongnationaliststreamranthroughtheNew
Buddhistmovement,whichcametoholdnotonlythatBuddhismwasthequintessenceof
JapanbutalsothatonlyinJapanwasBuddhismtrulyfulfilled.ThisperfectedBuddhismof
JapanwasofferedbyNewBuddhistsastherightreligionfortheWest:itwouldbecompatible
withscienceandregenerativeforWesternphilosophy,andwouldbeabletosupportamoral
orderwhileavoidingtheproblemsofanincreasinglyuntenabletheism.
ManyNewBuddhistsvisitedtheWest,andevenattendedWesternuniversities,and
theytrieddiligentlytopresentJapanandJapaneseBuddhismintermstheWestwouldfind
relevantandcompelling.TheJapaneseBuddhistdelegationtotheWorldParliamentof
Religionsin1893inChicagoepitomizedtheWesternfacingcharacterofNewBuddhism,
branded“EasternBuddhism”forexport.19Snodgrassdescribestheoverlappingagendasofthe
parliamentarians:internationallytheyhopedtowinrespectforJapan,domesticallytheyhoped
toprovetheutilityofBuddhismtonationalinterests,andtotheBuddhistestablishmentthey
hopedtodemonstratethesuperiorityofthe“NewBuddhist”approach.Itcouldbearguedthat
theyweresuccessfulonallofthesepoints.AnumberofusefulEnglishlanguagetreatments
discusstheJapaneseBuddhistpresenceattheWorldParliamentofReligions;amongthem
Snodgrassisthemostcomprehensive.20
Therearesubstantial(thoughbynomeansoverwhelming)Englishlanguagetreatments
19
“EasternBuddhism”wascoinedasachallengetotheWesternacademictaxonomyofBuddhist
schoolsas“Southern”or“Northern,”andrepresentedanattempttoassertboththeunityofEastAsian
BuddhismanditslegitimacytoaWesternacademicculturewhichhaddefineditasmeredegeneration
fromPalitextualoriginsandnorms.SeeSnodgrass2003,198–199.Theparliamentariansincluded
ShakuSenandAshitsuJitsunen.
20
SeealsoKetelaar1990,136–173;Fader1982;Kitagawa1993.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.16
ofthelifeandworkofprominentNewBuddhistslikeSuzuki“D.T.”Daisetsu㕥ᮌ኱ᣋ(1870
1966),ShakuSen㔘᐀₇(18601919),KiyozawaManshiΎἑ‶அ(18631903),Inoue
Enry஭ୖ෇஢(18581919),uchiSeiran኱ෆ㟷ᕖ(18451918),andMurakamiSenshᮧୖ
ᑓ⢭(18511929).21WhilerevealinganimportantpieceofthepictureofMeijiBuddhism,
however,thefocusonthesefigurescanmasktheimportanceofconservativeelementsinthe
Buddhistinstitutions,the“OldBuddhism”(kybukkyᪧ௖ᩍ)impliedintheprojectof“New
Buddhism”andcomprisedofinstitutionalleadersandthetensofthousandsofordinaryclergy
whostaffedlocaltemples.Wecannotspeakof“MeijiBuddhism”withoutrecognizingawide
variationonacontinuumofprogressiveandconservative,andwecannotunderstandits
developmentwithoutstudyingthedynamicsbetweentheseelements.Sawada,whocriticizes
theWesternscholarshipinparticularforitsemphasisontheNewBuddhistsattheexclusionof
theconservativeinstitutions,alsotakesanuancedviewofthedistinctmodesofconservatism,
arguingthetendencytodesignateagivenMeijiBuddhistfigureortrend“conservative”without
consideringtheircomplexity(Sawada1998,142–143).AsDavis,Jaffe,Mohrandothershave
noted,institutionalBuddhismintheMeijiremainsunderstudied.22
ItisundeniablethattheMeijiperiodbroughtsignificantchangetoBuddhismandthe
Buddhistinstitutions;asKetelaarputsit,theBuddhismsof1871and1889are“inmanysenses,
twodifferententities,”inthat“Buddhismhadmanagedtotransformitselffrombeing
perceivedasoneoftheplethoraof‘ancientevils’intooneoftheessentialrepositoriesofthe
trueessenceof‘Japaneseculture’”(Ketelaar1990,86).Itispossible,however,toquestionthe
extentoftherealeffecttheBuddhistmodernizershadoninstitutionalBuddhism.Sharfand
othershavesuggestedthatdespitetheiradvocacyofarevolutioninBuddhistunderstanding,
theprogressiveBuddhistintellectualsinfactdidnotmakemuchofamarkontheBuddhist
institutions(Sharf1995a,141).Mohrlikewisearguesforthe“shroudedcontinuity”ofthe
contentofinstitutionalBuddhistteachingsandpracticesthroughtheupsetsofNewBuddhism
andthepoliticalandorganizationalchangesthatcharacterizetheperiod(Mohr1998).While
BlumdoesexploresomeaspectsoftheshiftingunderstandingofdoctrineledbyKiyozawa
Manshiandothers,andsuggeststhattheredeepinfluencedidinfactopenupnewconceptual
avenues,hisappreciationoftheimpactofthesethinkersisalsomoderatedbyhis
understandingthat“theofficialdoctrinesofsectarianBuddhismbecamecentraltoeachsect’s
identity,andintheMeiji,Taish,andearlyShwaperiodsthosedoctrineswerenot
substantiallychangedfromhowtheyhadbeendefinedintheGenrokuperiod(16881704)”
(Blum2011,21,30–31).Weshouldbecareful,thesescholarssuggest,nottooverstatethe
impactofNewBuddhismontheBuddhistestablishment.
21
See,forafewexamples,Fasan2012;Kiyozawa1984;Blum2011;BessermanandSteger1991;
Ketelaar1990;Staggs1979;Josephson2006;Snodgrass2009.
22
SeeDavis1992,170–171;JaffeandMohr1998,1–4.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.17
dŚĞŚƌŝƐƚŝĂŶ/ŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞ͗ƵĚĚŚŝƐƚ^ŽĐŝĂůtŽƌŬĂŶĚ>ĂLJƵĚĚŚŝƐŵ
ChristianityloomedlargeasafoilfortheMeijigovernment’snationalisticpolicies,and
neitherthepersecutionofBuddhism,thecreationofStateShint,northeBuddhistreformsof
theperiodcanbeunderstoodwithoutreferencetothespecterofChristianity.23Ingeneral
ChristianitywasperceivedbyBuddhistreformersasathreattoBuddhism,especiallytoa
BuddhismthathadbeenweakenedbycenturiesofTokugawaperiodcorruption.
Itis,however,alsopossibletodiscernanincreasingtendencyin
BuddhistcirclestoimitateChristianactivities.Christianity
becamenotonlyachallenge,butamodel.
ItseemedtobeacommonconclusioninBuddhistcirclesthat
BuddhismwassuperioronthedoctrinallevelbutthatChristianity
couldofferguidanceconcerningmethodsofpropagation,charity,
education,andorganization.InthewordsofShakuSen,they
shouldlearnfromChristians‘thenecessityofcomingintocontact
withthepeople.’(Thelle1987,197–198)
TheNewBuddhistsconsciouslyassociatedthemselveswiththeProtestantReformation,
amovementtheystudied“fervently”;thisassociationwentsofarastoleadtotheepithet
“JapaneseLuther”forMizutaniJinkai(Ỉ㇂ோᾏ,18361896),aprominentNewBuddhistand
founderoftheflagshipShinBukkyjournal(1888).Eventheterms“old”and“new”inky
bukkyandshinbukkyimpliedtheReformation:kykyᪧᩍwasapopularnameforRoman
Catholicismandshinky᪂ᩍforProtestantism:“itcanbeconcludedthattheveryconceptof
aNewBuddhismwasformedbythepopularimageoftheReformation,themodelforreligious
renewalthatinvolvedaradicalrejectionoftheold.”24Theyalsoobservedandimitatedother
aspectsandmodesofChristianteachingthattheyperceived,inHeine’swords,assuccessfulin
“allowingthelaycommunitygreateraccesstosalvifictruth.”Observingtheappealto
laypeopleoftheRomanCatholicemphasisontheredemptivepowerofconfession,for
example,uchiSeiranreproducedit.25AlsodulynotedandimitatedwastheProtestant
relianceonthesingle,authoritativetextoftheBible(ascontrastedwiththevastBuddhist
canon),andlearningthispowerofwhatKetelaarcalls“textualunity,”theycomposeddoctrinal
summariesandcatechisms.SnodgrassaddsthattheliberalProtestantexamplealsounderlay
the“scientific”NewBuddhistoppositiontofolkbeliefsandpracticesandtothesupernatural
(Snodgrass2003,149).
PerhapsthetwomostimportantareasinwhichMeijiBuddhistsimitatedChristianswere
23
ThefullextentoftheinfluenceofChristianityonMeijiBuddhismandBuddhistreformersisacomplex
issuetreatedindetailinThelle’sexcellentmonograph(Thelle1987).
24
SeeThelle1987,195–196,306n.
25
SeethediscussionbelowoftheShushgi ಟド⩏.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.18
intheirturntowardscharitableworksandtheirreevaluationoftheroleandpracticeofthe
laity.WhileitisarguablethatthereisanauthenticpremodernBuddhisttraditionofsocial
welfarework,themovementinMeijiBuddhismtoengageinsocialwelfarewasclearlya
responsetotheperceivedsuccessofChristianity.26Thissensewaswidespreadevenby
contemporaryobservers,astheBuddhistobserverwhonotedbluntly,“Whatispresentlybeing
doneofcharitableworkinsocietyisforthemostpartduetotheinfluenceofChristianity”
(Thelle1987,198).Indoingso,Buddhistssoughtinparttofendoffacentralcritiqueof
BuddhismthatisasoldastheEastAsiantraditionitself:thesocioeconomicuselessnessof
priestsandtemples.
KetelaaroutlinestherangeofBuddhistcharitableworksintheMeiji:
Eachofthesectsbecameengagedinlongtermprojectsforthe
aidofthedestituteaswellasinshorttermreliefintimesof
famine,disaster,oreconomichardship.Numeroushospitalsand
clinicswereconstructedalongwithcenterstotrain“Buddhist
doctorsandnurses”tostaffthem.Schoolsfortheblindand
physicallydisabledsoonfollowed,aswellashostelsfortheaged
andinfirm.Speciallectureswereconductedamongprisoners;
rehabilitationcenterswereestablishedtoaidthoserecently
released.Socialmovements,oradvertisingcampaigns,coveringa
widevarietyofissuesincludingpublichealth,temperance,anti
abortion,andanticapitalpunishment,andextendingeventothe
preventionofcrueltytoanimals.Initially,thesewerelargely
domesticactions;internationalprojects,however,werealso
launched.DuringmassivestarvationanddeathbycholerainIndia
in18961897,evenkumaShigenobu,thenForeignMinister,
followedtheBuddhisttranssectarianorganizations’leadin
sendinglargeamountsoffoodandmedicinetothestrickenareas.
(Ketelaar1990,132–133)
Theeffortto“contactthepeople”througharevivalandreimaginationoftheroleoflay
(zaikeᅾᐙorkojiᒃኈ)BuddhistsisastrongtrendintheMeijithatwithoutquestiontook
inspirationfromChristianmodels.Othermotivationsalsooperated,however.Ikeda,for
example,notesthattheincreasedpressureonBuddhistinstitutionstoengagecreativelywith
laypeoplewasrelatedtothesensethat“afterbeingreleasedfromthebondageoftheold
templeregistrationsystem,”theyhadgainedtheprivilegeof“independentlychoosingtheir
ownfaith”(Ikeda1998,33).Whatevertheirmotivations,theroleoflaypeopleinthis
movementisnotable;importantlayBuddhistactivistslikeuchiSeiranmadeanenormous
26
OnpremodernBuddhist“socialwelfare”work,see,forexample,JohnNelson(Nelson2013,70–86).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.19
impactontheBuddhistestablishment.27AnothergiantoflayBuddhismwasInoueEnry஭ୖ
෇஢(18581919),aJdoShinshclericwhofeltsonegativelyabouttheclergythathe
renouncedhisclericalstatusinordertobetterpromoteBuddhism,andtaughteventhat
Buddhismmightbebetterrealizedwiththeeliminationofthepriesthoodaltogether(Staggs
1979,177–178;Snodgrass2003,148).28
ItwasnotonlylaypeoplewhoadvocatedforalayorientedBuddhism;manyeminent
clerics,too,likeHaraTanzanཎᆠᒣ(18191892),FukudaGykai⚟⏣⾜ㄕ(18091888),Shaku
Unsh㔚㞼↷(18271909),ShimajiMokurai,andAshitsuJitsuzen⸼ὠᐿ඲(18501921),
activelypromotedthemovement,lendingitcriticalinstitutionalmomentum(Snodgrass2003,
126).Someactiveclerics,likeTanakaChigaku⏣୰ᬛᏥ(18611939)andKawaguchiEkaiἙཱྀ
្ᾏ(18661945),evenwentasfartojointhelaymanInoueinproposingtheabolitionofthe
priesthooditself.TheRinzaiZenmonkNakaharaTj୰ཎ㒭ᕞ(betterknownasNantenb༡
ኳᲬ,18391925)offeredanationalisticrationalfortheimportanceoftheconcertedeffortto
reachlaypeople:“Monks,too,areimportant,butifonedoesnotfirsttakecareoflaypeople
andstrengthenJapanwithZen,shouldtherebeacrisisleadingtowarwithforeigncountries,
Japanwillloseagainstthehairywhiteforeignersbecauseofthenumberofourcitizens,our
economicpower,andourphysicalsize”(Mohr1998,199).TheNewBuddhistclericandWorld
ParliamentarianShakuSen,dedicatedtocontinuing“histeacher’spracticeofwelcominglay
practitionersintothemonastery,”putoffassuminganabbacyformanyyearsafterhis1906
returnfrominternationaltravelssothathecouldinstead“devotehisfullenergiestoteaching
Zentolaymen”(Sharf1995a,113).
ThisturntowardthelaityintheMeijiperiodledtheproliferationofofficialand
unofficiallaysocieties(kessha⤖♫)andteachingassemblies(kykaiᩍ఍)dedicatedto
supportingandservingtheirneeds.Ikedahasworkedextensivelyontheseorganizationsand
arguesthat“teachingassembliesandlaysocietiesthatwereformedduring[theearlyMeiji]
playedaleadingroleinestablishingthestructureofthemodernBuddhistinstitutionalsystem.”
Theselayorganizationsemergedas“thesmallestorganizationalelementspreservingthe
popularfaiththatsupportedthefoundationsofthetwelvesectsandthirtysevenbranches”
andservedanimportantfunctioninthemanagementandpreservationofthesectsduringthis
27
SeeSectionTwo,forexample,onuchi’sformativeroleinthedraftingoftheShushgiಟド⩏,atext
thatwouldthereafterdefineStorthodoxyforclergyandpriestsalike.
28
IamindebtedtoRichardJaffeforadvisingmeoftheanticlericalstanceofTanakaandKawaguchi.
Ketelaar’sworkwouldsuggestthattheStclericTakadaDken㧗⏣㐨ぢ(18581923)shouldbe
includedinthislist;Sawada,however,takesissuewiththesuggestionthatTakadaadvocatedthe
eliminationofthepriesthood,acknowledgingthatTakadadidlionizelayBuddhismbutarguingthathe
was“farfromdoingawaywiththedistinctionbetweenlaypractitionersandclergy.”SeeSawada2004,
181–183;Ketelaar1990,184–185.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.20
periodofinstitutionalreorganizationandupset.29
^ĞĐƚĂƌŝĂŶŝƐŵĂŶĚdƌĂŶƐƐĞĐƚĂƌŝĂŶŝƐŵ
AnimportantcharacteristicofNewBuddhismwasitsassertionthatthemanyschools
andnationalitiesofBuddhisminfactconstitutedasinglereligion,transsectarianand
transnational,thatwasperfectlysuitedfortheage.ThisuniversalBuddhismwasnotlimitedto
anyparticularculturalexpressionandyetitwasexpressedquintessentiallyinJapanese
Buddhism.ThiswasSuzukiDaisetsu’s“EasternBuddhism,”definedexplicitlyforWestern
consumptionasacounterpointtothe“Northern”and“Southern”BuddhismsofWestern
Buddhology,anditwasthe“UnitedBuddhism”(tsbukky㏻௖ᩍ)oftheStclericTakada
Dken㧗⏣㐨ぢ(18581923),whichwouldreturnBuddhismtoitsessential,noninstitutional
simplicityafteritslongandunfortunatedevolutionintocomplexity.30Thesearchfor
precedentsforthistranssectarianBuddhismledmodernizerstotextsliketheAwakeningof
FaithintheMahayana(Daijkishinron኱஌㉳ಙㄽ),aboutwhichD.T.Suzuki’spatronPaul
Caruswrote,it“followsnoneofthesectariandoctrines,buttakesanidealpositionuponwhich
alltrueBuddhistsmaystanduponacommonground”(Ketelaar1990,186–187).Another
centraltextforthemovementwastheEssentialsoftheEightSects(Hasshkyඵ᐀⥘せ)of
Gynen(จ↛,12401321),atextthatorganizedBuddhistdoctrinesinthetraditionofthe
doctrinalclassificationsystemsofChineseBuddhism(Ch.panjiao;J.hankyุᩍ),butinaway
thatresistedthe“hierarchicaldetermination”inherentinthosesystemsandinstead“soughtto
maintaintheplurivocalnatureoftheBuddha’steaching,”thatis,toassert“theappropriateness
ofeachteachingandthesuperiorityofnone”(Ketelaar1990,177–184).Animportantfunction
ofthetranssectarianmovementwastoprovideavenueforBuddhiststomultiplytheir
influencebyengagingwiththegovernmentasaunitedfront;thisuseoftranssectarian
Buddhistorganizationslikethenationalist“AllianceofUnitedSectsforEthicalStandards”
(Shoshdtokukaimei,ㅖ᐀ྠᚨ఍┕)willbenotedbelow.
Themovementtowardsatranssectarian“UnitedBuddhism”isespeciallynoteworthyin
lightoftheparalleldevelopment,drivenbytheMeijigovernment,toformalizeeachsect’s
organizationalstructureandtocodifyitsdoctrinesandpractices.Therewerecertainly
sectarianboundariesinpreMeijiJapaneseBuddhism:Sharfmentionsthesectarian
standpointsofHnenἲ↛(11331212)andEk្ග(16661734),forexample,inthisregard,
andMohrdiscussesintensesectarianismintheTokugawaperiod(Mohr1994;Sharf2002b).
TherigidmodernJapanesesectariancategories,however,owemuchtothemandatory
codificationofsectarianboundariesintheMeijiperiod.AsKetelaarputsit,“Theonce
29
SeeIkeda1998,11.
30
SeeKetelaar1990,174–212;Snodgrass2003,198–221.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.21
amorphousdivisionbetweenspecific‘sects’(sh᐀)and‘schools’(haὴ)was,duringthis
periodandforthefirsttime,solidifiedandconstitutedasalegallybindinghierarchyof
difference”(Ketelaar1990,76).31
Thisclarificationofsectariandifferenceswasspurredbygovernmentattemptsinthe
1870sand1880stobringanorderedandmanageablestructuretothediversityofBuddhist
sectsandbranches.Thesepoliciesincludedthemandatesthateachsectestablishasinglehead
temple(honzanᮏᒣ),asingleheadabbot(kanch㤋㛗),andthesubmissionof“sectarian
prescriptions”(shsei᐀ไ)and“templeregulations”(jihᑎἲ)forgovernmentapproval.
Ikedashowsthatthechiefabbotpositionwasprimaryinenabling“thefomationand
appellationofthemodernBuddhistsects,”andthatthesectarianprescriptionsandtemple
regulationsthenfollowedtodefineanddistinguishthesectsandto“situatethegroupswithin
themodernlegalframework.”Attemptsearlyinthe1870stodivideBuddhismintoonlyseven
sectsproveduntenable,andbytheendofthedecadetherearrangement,separation,and
amalgamationoffactionshadresultedintwelverecognizedsectsandthirtysevenindependent
branches.32Whilethesectarianchiefabbotpositionhadbeeninitiallyconceivedasawayto
supporttheGreatTeachingAcademysystem,whichhadregistereda“chiefabbotofdoctrinal
instructors”(kydshokukanchᩍᑟ⫋㤋㛗)foreachsect,thepositionoutlivedthedoctrinal
instructionsystemitself.Evenafterthe1884abolitionoftheGreatTeachingsystem,thechief
abbotsretainedthestatusof“semigovernmentofficials,”empoweredwith“fullauthorityover
thesectorbranch”and,bygovernmentproclamation,consideredofequalstatustoother
imperiallyappointedofficials.Ineffect,by1884thegovernment,thoughithadmadealasting
markinthereorganizationofthesects,hadrealizeditsinabilitytomanagethesectsdirectly,
andhaddelegatedoversightoftheBuddhistinstitutionstothechiefabbots,whoenjoyed
broadandmoreorlessindependentauthorityovertheactivitiesoftheirsects.33
31
BuddhistscholarswhohavebeeninsensitivetotheessentiallymoderncharacteroftherigidJapanese
sectarianboundarieshavetendedtomisinterpretthehistoricalrecord.Sharf,forexample,has
demonstratedhowassumptionsofthehistoricityofJapanesesectariancategorieshascloudedthefield
ofChineseBuddhistStudies(Sharf2002a;Sharf2002b).Notonlyaretheserigidcategories
inappropriateinassessingChineseorIndianBuddhism,Mohrarguesthattheyobscureeventhenature
oftheJapanesesectsthemselves,tendingto“obliteratethedirectexchangeofideasbetween
individualsbelongingtodifferenttraditionsandtopassoverdiscrepanciesfoundwithinasingle
denomination”(Mohr1998,204).
32
TheinitialsevensectscombinedSt,Rinzai⮫῭,andbaku㯤᷑intoasingleZensect,which,as
notedbelowinSectionTwo,provedunworkable.Bytheendofthedecadethetwelverecognizedsects
were:Tendaiኳྎ,Shingon┿ゝ,Jdoίᅵ,Rinzai,St,baku,Shin┿,Nichiren᪥ⶈ,Ji᫬,Yz
Nembutsu⼥㏻ᛕ௖,Hossoἲ┦,andKegon⳹ཝ.
33
SeeIkeda1998,13–18.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.22
tĞƐƚĞƌŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐƐ͕^ĞĐƚĂƌŝĂŶ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƵĚĚŚŝƐƚhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚŝĞƐ
TheincreasingexposureofJapantoWesternscienceandacademicinstitutionsand
methodologiesalsoimpactedthedevelopmentofBuddhismovertheMeijiperiod.
First,itisfirstimportanttonotetheimpactofWesternscienceonBuddhists’
understandingofcosmology.LopezandSnodgrassremindusthatthenotionofthe
compatibilityofBuddhismandscienceisaproductoftheMeiji,aconsciousrejectionoflong
anddeeplyheldBuddhistcosmologicalviews.NewBuddhists,whohadtheireyesonan
increasinglysecular,rationalistWest,sawthediscourseofBuddhistscientificcompatibilityasa
powerfulwaytodistinguishBuddhismfromChristianityintheappealtoWesternintellectuals.
NotonlydidtheseNewBuddhistsseeBuddhistcosmologyasanobstacletobeingtaken
seriouslybytheWest,asSnodgrasspointsout,theirrationalityandincompatibilitywithscience
ofBuddhismhadbecomeafocalpointofdomesticantiBuddhistrhetoricaswell.Thus
reformerslikeShimajiMokuraiandInoueEnryarguedagainstpointsofBuddhistcosmological
orthodoxy,liketheliteralexistenceofMt.Sumeru,refutingtheworkofclericslikeFumonEnts
ᬑ㛛෇㏻(1755–1834)inwhatremainedanactivedebateintheMeiji(Lopez2008,46–51).34
Secondly,theexposureofJapaneseBuddhiststothespecificWesternacademicfieldsof
Orientalism,religiousstudies,andBuddhologyalsohaddeepramifications.Amongthemost
importantofthesewastheinfluxintoJapanofnonChineseBuddhisttexts,andalongwith
themthephilologicaltoolsthatwouldallowtheJapaneseforthefirsttimetointerpretthem.
InlightoftheseIndiantexts,andthenormativeforcewithwhichWesternBuddhologyhad
endowedthem,attheturnofthetwentiethcenturythelongstandingJapaneseBuddhistbias
againsttheHnaynabegantodropawayandscholarslikeAnesakiMasaharuጜᓮṇ἞(1873
1949)andMurakamiSenshbegantoarguethattheMahynahadnotbeentaughtbythe
historicalBuddha(Blum2011,28).Morebroadly,theverynotionof“religiousstudies”and
textualcriticalmethodologies—andeven,asJosephsonargues,thecategoryof“religion”itself
—wasaresultofthiscontactwithWesternacademics.35Inthisperiod,“religioningeneral,and
Buddhisminparticular,wasbeingconstitutedasadiscipline,asafieldforscientificinquiry,”
andanewpictureemergedofBuddhismas“somethingthatcanbeobjectifiedforpurposesof
analysisinthepublicsphere”(Blum2011,37;Ketelaar1990,172).
WhilethecontactwithWesternphilosophy,textualstudies,Orientalism,and
BuddhologyimpactedthewaythatJapaneseBuddhistslookedatandstudiedtheirtraditions,it
alsoshapedtheinstitutionsinwhichtheydidso.Withtheintent“totrainthepriestsnecessary
34
NishiariBokusan,too,wasalignedwiththeorthodoxSumerucenteredBuddhistcosmology;see
SectionThree.
35
Ontheemergenceofthecategoryof“religion”intheMeiji,seeJosephson2012.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.23
totheproductionofa‘modernBuddhism,’”theBuddhistinstitutionsexpandedexisting
TokugawaperiodseminariesandacademiesintothegreatuniversitiesoftheMeiji.These
includedthemanyuniversitiesoftheNishiHonganjiすᮏ㢪ᑎ,includingtheDaigakurin኱Ꮫᯘ
(1868);theDaigakury኱Ꮫᑅ(1882)oftheHigashiHonganjiᮾᮏ㢪ᑎ;theShingonsh
Daigaku┿ゝ᐀኱Ꮫ(1886);and,theStsect’sDaigakurinSenmonHonk኱Ꮫᯘᑓ㛛ᮏᰯ
(1882).36Sectariananddoctrinalhistoryinfluencedbythetranssectarianapproachconstituted
amajoraspectofthecurriculumintheBuddhistuniversities,buttherewasalsoinstructionin
history,religiousstudies,philosophy,andotherWesternacademicfields(Ketelaar1990,134,
179–181).
IshikawaaddsanimportantcaveattotheriseoftheBuddhistuniversities:
TheacademicstudyofBuddhisminpostTokugawaJapanquickly
incorporatedthetextualstudiesandmethodsofWestern
Buddhologyandmadegreatstridesindevelopingmodern
Buddhistresearch.Thedoctrinalandsectarianstudiesofthe
sectarianBuddhistorganizations,however,continuedtolanguish.
(Ishikawa1998,88)
Blumdefinesthissectarianstudies(shgaku᐀Ꮫ)as“theacademicstudyofscripturesbased
onestablishedsectarianinterpretationthatcontinued(andcontinues)asalegacyofEdoperiod
orthodoxdoctrine”(Blum2011,18).37Thisdistinctionbetweensectarianstudiesandacademic
research,therecontextualizingofBuddhisthistoryanddoctrineintheuniversitysetting,raised
acriticaldistinctionbetweenwhatAnesakidescribedas“studentsofreligionandreligionists,”
andledtoseriousquestionsaboutsectariancontrolofthestudyandinterpretationof
Buddhism(Ketelaar1990,172).ScholarclericslikeNishiariBokusanwereforcedtowork
creativelyinthistension,tryingtocatchupwiththeuniversitieswithoutcedinggroundto
them.BlumoffersKiyozawaManshi’sdistinctionbetweenshgakuandshgi᐀⩏asone
attempttoschematizethedifference:forKiyozawa,a“coretruthofaBuddhistschool
establishedbyitsfounder”couldbemaintainedasshgiandsubjecttotheorthodoxiesofthe
institutionalleadership,whilethe“traditionofcriticalinquiry”or“theprocessofhow
individualsmadesenseofthiscreedlikeshgi”wasshgaku,therubricunderwhichcouldbe
toleratedsomemeasureofintellectualdiversityandcriticalmethodology(Blum2011,34).
36
TheStsect’sDaigakurinSenmonHonkwastheprecursorofthemodernStflagshipKomazawa
University.ItwasestablishedontheprecinctsoftheSendanrin ᰽᷄ᯘ aseminaryonthegroundsof
Kichijjiྜྷ⚈ᑎinEdo,foundedin1592.ItbecameStshDaigakurin(1904)andStshDaigaku
(1905)beforemovingin1913andtakingitscurrentnameKomazawaDaigaku(1925).SeeHeine2003,
174,189n;Reader1985,35–36.
37
IshiinotesthatinSt,thetermusedpriorto1932forsectarianstudieswas“sectvehicle”shj᐀஌
(Ishii2012,226).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.24
ƵĚĚŚŝƐŵĂŶĚEĂƚŝŽŶĂůŝƐŵŝŶƚŚĞDĞŝũŝ
Thereisabroadconsensusinthescholarshipthatnationalisticandmilitaristicrhetoric
andactivismsuffusedtheBuddhistestablishmentfromtheearlyMeijithroughtheearlyShwa
᫛࿴period(19261989),spanningtheSatsumaRebellion(1877),the(First)SinoJapaneseWar
(18941895),theRussoJapaneseWar(19041905),andtheFifteenYearWar(19311945).This
postureoftheBuddhistestablishment,whileintensifyingthroughtheTaish኱ṇperiod
(19121926)andpeakingintheearlyShwaperiod,unquestionablyhasitsrootsintheMeiji.
FromthefirststirringsofMeijiantiBuddhistpolicy,therewasaconcertedattemptonthepart
oftheBuddhistinstitutionstoregaintheirlostfavorwiththeState,andageneraltrendinthe
publicstatementsofBuddhistleaderswastoasserttheperfectalignmentofthegoalsof
BuddhismwiththegoalsoftheemperorandtheMeijigovernment.TheseferventBuddhist
assertionsof“theunityofimperialandBuddhistlaw”(bbuppichinyo⋤ἲ௖ἲ୍ዴ)were
closelyrelatedtotherhetoricofJapaneseBuddhismasboththeessenceofJapanandthe
evolutionarypinnacleofworldreligioushistory,andtotheparalleldiscourseofinnateJapanese
militarysuperioritybasedontheyamatodamashii኱࿴㨦andbushidṊኈ㐨.38Statements,
ceremonies,pledges,andmaterialcontributionsinsupportoftheJapanesemilitaryand
imperialistprojectsbyBuddhistleaderswerethenorm,andmanywentasfarastoenlist
outrightinthearmy.BrianVictoriaisamongthemostactivescholarsonthistheme,andhis
controversialbooksonthetopicarelargelycompilationsofthemoststrikingofthese
expressions.39
Theemergingroleofthe“United”ortranssectarianvisionofBuddhismintheMeijihas
beennotedabove,anditshouldbeemphasizedagainthatthefunctionofthemanyMeijipan
BuddhistorganizationswasnotmerelytoprofessdoctrinalunityortoassertNewBuddhist
inclinationsbuttoexpressandmanifesttheunityoftheBuddhistinstitutionsintheirloyaltyto
theemperor.TheMeijierasawamultitudeofBuddhistnationalistorganizationsand
publicationsexpressingjustthat,aswellasrobustBuddhistparticipationinbroadernationalist
38
Onbbuppichinyo⋤ἲ௖ἲ୍ዴ,see,forexample,Ives2009.OnJapaneseBuddhismasthe
essenceofJapanandpinnacleofreligiousevolution,see,forexample,Snodgrass2003.ForBuddhism
andthebushidṊኈ㐨discourse,see,forexample,Sharf1995a.
39
SeeVictoria2006;Victoria2003.OthertreatmentsincludeIves(Ives2009,13–53)andDavis(Davis
1992,174–175).WhileVictoria’simportantworkhasraisedtheprominenceoftheissueinthe
scholarshipandalsowithintheBuddhistestablishment,ithasalsobeenthesubjectofsignificant
critique.Some,likethatofSat(SatandKirchner2008;SatandKirchner2010)ismarredbya
defensiveandapologetictone,whileothers,likethatofIves(Ives2009,102–107)andFaure(Faure
2010,216–217)aremorelevelheaded.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.25
organizations.40Manyoftheseorganizationsweretranssectarianandcomprisedofboth
laypeopleandclergy,andtheysharedanemphasisonpatriotism,militarism,anddefenseof
theState.ThisflourishingofpanBuddhistorganizations,Victorianotes,was“unprecedented,”
as“underthepreviousTokugawaregimeallintrasectarianBuddhistorganizationshadbeen
banned”(Victoria6).Twoofthemostimportantoftheseorganizationsarediscussedbelow.
Thefirst,the1868“AllianceofUnitedSectsforEthicalStandards”(Shoshdtoku
kaimei)attemptedtowinthesympathyofthenewgovernmentbyassertingtheirloyaltytothe
principleoftheinseparabilityofimperialandBuddhistlaw(bbuppichinyo)anda
commitmenttoaidintheexpulsionofChristianity.41Whilesomeelementsofthegovernment
seemedtoappreciatethethought,itdidnotproveeffectiveinforestallingthemomentumof
theantiBuddhisthaibutsukishaku.42TheearlyMeijigovernmentdid,though,inwhatKetelaar
calls“theonlypublicapprobationaccordedBuddhistatthistime”placepragmatismabove
rhetoricandacceptedtheofferfromtheBuddhistinstitutionstoservetheStateinthe
colonizationofthenorthernterritories(moderndayHokkaid)andinthepacificationof
condemnedprisonlaborersstationedthere.Thesects,graspingatwhateverscrapstheycould
findfromtheMeijigovernment’stable,tookontaskwithgusto,puttingsubstantialmaterial
andpersonnelresourcesintotheevangelizationcolonizationeffort.43
In1889,aftertheearlyMeijiantiBuddhistsurgehadabated,uchiSeiranandothers
likeShimajiMokuraiandInoueEnryformedthe“FederationforVeneratingtheEmperorand
RepayingtheBuddha”(Sonnhobutsudaiddanᑛⓚዊ௖኱ྠᅋ)inconjunctionwiththe
publicationofatreatisebyuchientitled,“ATreatiseonVeneratingtheEmperorandRepaying
theBuddha”(Sonnhobutsuronᑛⓚዊ௖ㄽ).Victoriasaysofthisorganizationthatit
“representedtheorganizationalbirthofaBuddhistformofJapanesenationalismthatwas
exclusionistandaggressivelyantiChristianincharacter,”lendingsupporttotheimperialistand
militaristicprojectwhilereassertingthestatusofBuddhismasthefoundationofJapan.44
ThisproimperialistBuddhisttrendcontinuedthroughouttheMeiji,forinstanceinthe
WartimeConferenceofReligionists(senjishkykakondankaiᡓ᫬᐀ᩍᐙ᠓ㄯ఍)of1904,in
40
See,forexample,Ives2009,22.
41
SeeKetelaar1990,73;Ives2009,21.
42
Inanexampleofgovernmentmoderation,NishiHonganji,astrongsupporteroftheorganization,
receivedaprivatecommuniqueinthefallof1868fromgovernmentofficialsdistancingthemselvesfrom
thepersecutionandattributingitto“foulmouthedrebelsclaimingtospeakfortheimperialcourt.”See
Victoria2006,6;Ketelaar1990,12–13.
43
SeeKetelaar1990,68–69,248n.ImportantworkonMeijiBuddhistmissionizingincolonialKoreahas
beendonebyHur(whofocussesonStsectinvolvement)andKim(Hur1999;H.I.Kim2012).Nishiari
BokusanhadconnectionswithShoshdtokukaimei,andheplayedanimportantroleinthe
evangelizationofHokkaid;seeSectionThree.
44
SeeIves2009,22;Victoria2006,18.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.26
whichBuddhistsjoinedShint,Confucian,andChristianleaderstoproclaim“thattheRusso
JapaneseWarwasbeingwagedfor‘eternalpeace’”;andinthegovernmentsponsored
“ConferenceoftheThreeReligions”(Sankykaid୕ᩍ఍ྠ)of1912inwhichBuddhist
institutionsagainassertedtheirunitywithimperialgoals.45TheBuddhistestablishmentalso
tooktheopportunityinthefinalyearsoftheMeijiperiodtoreassertitsloyaltytothestateby
unequivocallycondemningthe“HighTreasonIncident”(taigyakujiken኱㏫஦௳),analleged
(andpossiblyfabricated)assassinationattemptontheemperorwhichresultedinapolitical
crackdown.SeveralBuddhistclergywereconvictedintheincident,andoneoftheonlypublicly
leftistandantiwarBuddhistsofthetime,UchiyamaGudෆᒣហ❺(18741911)oftheSt
sect,wasexecutedforit.Buddhistinstitutions,layleaders,andscholarsunanimouslylenttheir
fullsupporttothegovernmentaroundtheincident,distancingthemselvesfromtheaccusedso
thoroughlyastoerasethemfromtheclericalranks.46TheStsectwentsofarastocall
Uchiyama’sinvolvementthe“mostseriouscrimeinthesect’slastonethousandyears”(Victoria
2006,50).47
Despitebroadagreementinthescholarshipaboutthepervasivenessofnationalisticand
militaristicideologyinMeijiBuddhism,thereisalsoconsiderabledebateabouttheextentof
anygivenindividual’s“actual”supportforthewars.Whilethedetailsofthesedisagreements
vary,MohrindicatesacommonthreadindivergentreadingsofMeijiBuddhists,namelythe
difficultyinproperlycontextualizinganygivenstatement.ObjectingtoSharf’scharacterization
ofNantenb,amajorMeijiRinzaiZenfigure,as“astaunchnationalistandpartisanofthe
Japanesemilitary,”MohrnotesthatwhileNantenb’sinvocation,forexample,of“the
JapaneseSpirit”(yamatodamashii)“instantlyevokesdarkassociationswiththemilitary
dictatorshipoftheShwaera,”forapersonlikeNantenb“raisedduringtheTokugawaperiod
andsteepedintheprincipleofbushid,however,itwasprobablyasordinaryasthephrases
‘theAmericanSpirit,’or‘l’espiritfrançais’intoday’sworld”(Mohr1998,199).Evenwhensuch
“darkassociations”arewarranted,however,thequestionremainsoftheextenttowhichthey
reflectanindividual’spositionaboveandbeyond“thenationalmood”andtheconstraintsof
theauthorizeddiscourse.48
45
SeeIves2009,21;Victoria2006,53.
46
Uchiyama,forexample,wasnotrestoredtotheStclericalranksuntilover80yearsafterhisdeath,
inalongposthumousannouncementissuedin1993(Victoria2006,46).
47
Forgooddiscussionsoftheincident,andUchiyama’sroleinit,seeIshikawa1998;Victoria2006,38–
54;andIves2009,24–25.
48
InmyownreadingofNishiariBokusan,forexample,Ihavefeltthisproblemacutely.Whileitseems
clearthatheisastaunchnationalist,itishardifnotimpossibletoteaseouthispersonalopinionsfrom
thenationalmood,indeedthenationallanguageofimperialism,thatpervadesthewritingsofthetime.
Howareanindividual’sopinionscodedwithinaverynarrowsphereofacceptablespeech,andcanthose
codesbecrackedoutsideofthecontextoftheirdelivery?Theseproblemsseemtounderliethewide
divergenceinscholars’andsectarians’interpretationsofthemotivationsofMeijiBuddhistfigures.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.27
Thisinterpretivedivergenceismostpronounced,andmostemotional,inthedebates
aroundSuzukiDaisetsu,theassessmentofwhosewartimepositionhasbecomesomethingofa
cottageindustry.ThevastnessofSuzuki’sworkseemstoenableanyscholartofindmaterial
thatalignswiththeirargument,butitalsoseverelyhindersadefinitiveassessmentofhis
perspectiveabouttheimperialistfervorofwartimeJapan.Ultimately,itisclearthatthereare
bothhighlynationalisticandmilitaristicinstancesofhiswritingaswellasmuchmore
moderatedones.Howoneassessesthese,inlightofthebaselinerhetoricalnoiseofthetime,
seemsarathersubjectivematterandlendsitselfoverwelltotheagendasofanygiven
scholar.49
ItisarguablethatformuchifnotallofBuddhisthistorythebenefitstotheStateof
sponsoringBuddhismhavebeenexploitedbytheBuddhistinstitutions.Selfservingnotionsof
aBuddhismfortheprotectionoftheState,andoftheunityofimperialandBuddhistlaw,has
rootsearlyintheChineseandJapaneseBuddhisttraditions.50Itisthereforedoubtfulthatthe
JapaneseBuddhistestablishmentsupportforearlytwentiethcenturyJapaneseimperialism
constitutesaparticularly“modern”orevennoteworthyphenomenon.Ives,forexample,
arguesthatsuchmovesarealittlemorethanmoderninstanceofthetimehonoreddiscourse
of“Buddhismfortheprotectionoftherealm”(gokokubukkyㆤᅜ௖ᩍ)(Ives2009,101–127).
AsSharfputsitinhisattempttocontextualizetheissue,the“mastersofold”ora“medieval
Zenabbot”wouldnotnecessarily“havetakenwhatwebelievetobethemoralhighgroundon
theissueofJapaneseimperialistaggressionduringthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury.The
realquestion,asIseeit,iswhywewouldexpecthimto”(Sharf1995b,51).Justas
establishmentBuddhistsupportforJapaneseimperialismdoesnotstandoutinBuddhist
history,itisalsonotexceptionalwithinMeijiJapaneseculture:nationalistsentiment(orat
leastrhetoric)extendedthroughoutvirtuallyeverysecularandreligiousinstitutionandlocalein
Japan.AusefulcaseinpointofhowdeeplysuchsentimentpervadedMeijiJapanmaybefound
inThelle’saccountofnationalismduringtheSinoJapaneseWar(189495):
“[E]ventheJapaneseSocietyofFriends(Quakers),forwhom
pacifismhadbeenacentralconcern,supportedthewarby
allowingitsmemberstojointhearmy.WhentheAmerican
FriendscriticizedtheirJapanesecolleaguesandexpelledfour
studentsfromtheirschoolforabandoningpacifism,theywere
accusedoffailingtocombineloveofone’sfellowmenwithlove
49
VictoriaandSathavefoughtsomeofthisoutinthepagesofTheEasternBuddhist(SatandKirchner
2008;Victoria2010;SatandKirchner2010),andVictoriahasgottenthelastwords(fornow)inThe
AsiaPacificJournal(Victoria2013a;Victoria2013b).Sharf,Kirita,andothershavealsoweighedin
(Sharf1995a;Sharf1995a;Kirita1995).
50
ForahistoryofthethemeinChinasee,forexample,Hirata1995,4–8;forJapan,seeIves2009,107–
111.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
ofone’scountry.Theconflictfinallyendedwithasplitwithinthe
SocietyofFriends,andtheAmericanQuakerswithdrewtheir
supportoftheJapaneseworkofthesociety.”(Thelle1987,171)
WhileImaintainthatBuddhistnationalismremainsanimportantandinteresting
objectofstudy,ImustagreewithSharfthatitisonlywhenthesecontextsof
BuddhisthistoryandJapanesenationalismareignoredthattheissuecanbemet
withthekindofsurpriseandindignationthatcharacterizes,forinstance,
Victoria’swork.
pg.28
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.29
SECTIONII
StZeninMeijiJapan
TheStsectwasamongthelargestoftheMeijireligiousorganizations,with14,310
templesand12,467abbotsin1882,anditwaswellrepresentedinthepanBuddhist
developmentsoftheMeiji(Jaffe1998,78).TheroleofStfigureslikeuchiSeiran,Takada
Dken,andothersinthegeneraldevelopmentsinMeijiBuddhismhavebeenbrieflynotedin
SectionOne.Butwhilesimilarpressuresandtrendsaffectedeachsect,theirresponses
differed,andamorenarrowtreatmentoftheStMeijisituationinparticularwillbenecessary
tocompletethepictureofthecontextinwhichNishiariBokusanlivedandoperated.Inwhat
follows,IwilldrawonaselectionofthescatteredEnglishandJapaneselanguagesourceson
thetopictooutlineafewofthemajordevelopmentswithintheStinstitutionintheMeiji.
ThefactthatthetermStsh(Ch.CaodongZong ᭪Ὕ᐀)isattestedasfarbackas
SongᏵChina(9601279)mightleadonetoimaginethatitrepresentsacontinuousinstitution
oratleastadiscreteanddistinctsetofpractices,doctrines,andinstitutionalforms.Thebirth
oftheStshasaunifiedinstitutionalentity,however,isaproductoftheMeijiera—Foulk
datesitsbirthspecificallyto1874,theyearofitslegalincorporationasareligiousentityin
Japan.51Whatisnowtakentobeaunifiedsectwaspriortothatperiodaloosesetof
individuals,lineagerelationships,andtempleaffiliationsdispersedacrossdiverseregionsand
sharinglittlemorethantherhetoricofacommonancestor,Dgen.AsingularStshdidnot
emergefromthatdiversityuntiltheearlyMeijiperiod,atimeatwhichallthesectsand
branchesofBuddhismwereintheirownwaysscramblingtonegotiatetherapidlychanging
politicalandsociallandscapeandtorespondtoincreasingdemandsforunification,
standardization,andcentralizationacrossallaspectsofsociety.
ThepressureexertedbytheMeijigovernmenttoclarifysectarianidentitieshasbeen
notedinSectionOne,andithasbeennotedthatthepressurestowardsbothsectarianismand
transsectarianismpulledonthesectsintheMeiji.AsJaffeputsit,theMeijigovernment
demanded,asitdidofallsects,thattheStleadership
codifyaninstitutionalstructure,sectlaw,andanoverarching
formalStidentity.Elidingtheregional,sectarian,and
51
DigitalDictionaryofBuddhism,“᭪Ὕ᐀,”articlebyGriffithFoulk.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.30
hierarchicalvariationsinpracticethathadexistedinthepast,the
Stleadersadopteduniformrulesandinstitutional
arrangementsforallmembersofthedenomination(Jaffe1998,
78).
Therewasindeedmuchto“elide.”Whiletheimpulsetocentralizeandstandardizemadesense
fromthepointofviewofthegovernmentandwasconsistentwithitseffortstocentralizeand
standardizeallsocialinstitutions,andwhilefurthermoresuchorganizationcertainlyfacilitated
thegovernment’sabilitytomanagereligionandsociety,itposedasignificantproblemsforthe
“sects”themselves,whichwereforcedtodefine,oreventoinvent,homogenousanddiscrete
entitieswherenosuchthingshadnecessarilyexisted.Theconstructionofasingularand
homogenousStsectintheMeijiwasinthissenseasproblematic—andasmuchafacetof
whatGrapardhascalleda“culturallie”—aswasthebroaderprojectoftheseparationand
clarificationofShintandBuddhisminshinbutsubunri.52
TodefinetheStsectposedthetwinchallengesof,ontheonehand,distinguishing
itselfamongthematrixofZenandBuddhistbranches,and,ontheother,unifyingitsinternal
lineagesandbranches,especiallytheEiheijiỌᖹᑎandSjiji⥲ᣢᑎtemplebranches.53This
processresultedintheinstitutionalbirthofthesectsastheyareknowninthemodernperiod,
butitisimportanttoemphasizethatthisbirthwasnotamatterofpullingapreexistentand
unified“Stsh”fromalargermatrix,butratherofhackingoutaspecialidentitywithin
Buddhismandfabricatingaunityacrosstemplesandbranches.ThoughtheStsh
endeavoredtoexpressitselfastheintrinsicnatureunderlyingthesevariouslineagesand
temples,itisperhapsbetterconceivedasahastilyconstructedumbrellaoverthem.
Admittedly,thisaccountofthe“birth”ofStrisksoverstatingthenoveltyofMeiji
Buddhistsectarianism.Indeed,thereisampleevidenceforBuddhistsectarianisminthe
Tokugawaperiod,andeveninSongorTang ၈(618907)China.54JustasShintandBuddhism
wereinsomegeneralsense“distinguishable”inthepremodernperiod—aBuddhistmonk,for
example,thoughtofhimselfasaBuddhistmonk—sotooitismisleadingtosuggestthatthe
distinctionbetweenZenandotherschoolsofBuddhism,orbetweentheRinzai,St,and
52
ForGrapardonshinbutsubunriasa“culturallie,”seeSectionOneandGrapard1984,242–245.
53
MichaelaMrosshaskindlyremindedmethatwhiletheEiheijiandSjijibranchesdidconstitutethe
mainfaultlineofMeiji(andTokugawa,andcontemporary)St,itisimportantnottotakethese
branchesasmonoliths;eachwasitselfcomprisedofdynamicandconflictingfactions.
54
Asnoted,withrespecttoChineseBuddhisthistory,Sharfandothershavearguedthatitisgenerally
misleadingtoapplymodernsectariancategories,anditiscertainthatatleastintheTangtherewere
notinstitutionalizedsectsaswewouldunderstandthemtoday(Sharf2002a;Sharf2002b).The
scholarship,however,bynomeanssuggeststhattherewerenotChineseBuddhistmonkswhoidentified
themselveswithoragainsttherhetoricofcertainschoolsofteaching.Foroneexample,seeSchlütter
onthevociferousLinjiCaodong(RinzaiSt)disputesintwelfthcenturyChina(Schlütter2008).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.31
baku㯤᷑schools,isentirelyaproductoftheMeijiperiod.Mohr,forexample,who,as
noted,convincinglyarguesfora“shroudedcontinuity”betweenTokugawaandMeijiBuddhism,
hasspecificallyexploredthedeepsectarianismofRinzai,St,andbakuintheTokugawa
period(Mohr1994;Mohr1998).TheinstitutionalsectariandevelopmentsintheMeijiare
indisputable,however,and,asalsonotedabove,Ketelaarputsitsuccinctly,“Theonce
amorphousdivisionbetweenspecific‘sects’(sh᐀)and‘schools’(haὴ)was,duringthis
periodandforthefirsttime,solidifiedandconstitutedasalegallybindinghierarchyof
difference”(Ketelaar1990,76).
InthestudyoftheStsectintheMeiji,then,aswiththestudyofBuddhisminthe
Meijimorebroadly,thisquestionofcontinuityorchangeloomslarge.WhiletheShushgiಟド
⩏andtheGyjikihan⾜ᣢ㌶⠊,forexample,exploredbelow,arenotableexpressionsofthe
standardizationofdoctrineandpracticeintheStsect,Jafferemindsusthatthequestionof
allegiancetothesenewlycentralizedstandardsoverlocaltraditionshasyettobeinvestigated
(Jaffe1998,78).Furthermore,ithasyettobeestablishedhowradicaladeparturefrompast
precedentwasthenewlyestablishedStorthodoxyandorthopraxis.Stsectarianscertainly
argueforacontinuityofdoctrineandpractice,anditiscommonplacetohear,forexample,that
themonasticformsofmodernStarepreciselythosepracticedinthethirteenthcentury.55
Whilesuchclaimsmustbetakenskeptically,afullaccountofthemodernizationofSt,and
theextenttowhichitcanbeseenasruptureorcontinuity,remainstobewritten.
_____
AsdiscussedinSectionOne,thefirstandmostimportantmandatefromtheMeiji
governmenttoclarifysectarianboundariesandunifydiversebrancheswastheestablishment
ofthe“chiefabbot”(kanch)system,aprocessthatbeganin1872withtheestablishmentof
theposition“chiefabbotofdoctrinalinstructors”(kydshokukanch)toservetheGreat
TeachingAcademy.IkedatranslatesanannouncementfromtheMinistryofDoctrine
(Kybush)fromthesixthmonthofthatyear:
Everytempleineachjurisdictionmustbenotified,inaccordance
withthestipulationsprovidedontheattachedsheet,ofthefact
thathereaftereachsectwillhaveonechiefdoctrinalinstructor,[a
measuretaken]forthepurposeofregulatingtherespectivesects
andbranches.(Ikeda1998,13–14)
55
ArecentmovieaboutthelifeofDgenisanextremeexampleofthispervasiveelementofmodern
Strhetoric(Takakashi2009).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.32
ThisfirstiterationofthekanchpolicyrecognizedonlysevenBuddhistsects,mandatinga
singlechiefabbottopresideoverthe“Zensect,”butthisattempttocombineallthebranches
ofRinzai,St,andbakuintoasingleinstitutionprovedunworkable.Therefore,“on22
February1874[theMinistryofDoctrine]reversedthispolicy,disbandingthenew,unified‘Zen
sect’andallowingtheRinzaiandStorganizationstoregisterseparately,”and“[o]nlythendid
theRinzaiandSttraditionsappointtheirownchiefabbotandreorganizethemselvesinto
modernsectarianinstitutions"(Ikeda1998,14).56
This1874birthoftheStshasalegalinstitutiondidnotmarkacompletionbutrather
abeginningofaprocessofselfdefinition,centralization,andstandardizationinthesect.Some
elementsofthisprocessasitunfoldedthroughouttheMeijiwillbediscussedinthissectionas
follows:
1)Thedevelopmentofthetenuousinstitutionalrelationshipbetweenthehead
templesEiheijiỌᖹᑎandSjiji⥲ᣢᑎ,especiallytheircollaborationaroundtwo
majortextualprojects,namely,
2)theTjgyjikihanὝୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊ritualmanualforclerics(1889),and
3)thelayorientedStkykaishushgi᭪Ὕᩍ఍ಟド⩏catechism(1890),
whichcametodefineorthodoxyforlayandclericalike.Finally,
4)thenewemphasisonthestudyoftheShbgenz,andtheemergenceofthe
genze║ⶶ఍formatforitsexegesis.
dǁŽdĞŵƉůĞƐ͕KŶĞ^ĞĐƚ͗ŝŚĞŝũŝĂŶĚ^ƃũŝũŝ
ApartfromtherenewedneedtodistinguishitselffromtheotherZensects,themajor
taskoftheearlyMeijiStinstitutionwastounifyitsinternaldivisionsandhomogenizeits
diversetemples.Asnoted,thestrongestinternaldivisionwithinthefieldofStaffiliated
templeswasthedivisionbetweentheEiheijiandSjijibranches.Sinceearlyintheseventeenth
centurythetwotempleshadbeenaffirmedbytheemperorandshogunasdualheadtemples
(honzanᮏᒣ)oftheStsect,theresultofwhatMrosshasnotedwasadeliberatestrategy
appliedacrossBuddhistsectsbytheshogunTokugawaIeyasuᚨᕝᐙᗣ(15431616)to
preventtheaccumulationofpowerinthehandsofanysingleheadtemple(Mross2009).This
arrangementwasconvenientforthegovernment,butitlednaturallytopowerstruggles
betweenthetwotemples,andconflictsbetweenEiheijiandSjijiwerecontinuousthroughthe
56
ThebakusectremainedalegalbranchoftheRinzaisectuntilan1876orderrecognizedittooas
institutionallyindependent.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.33
TokugawaperiodandcontinuedinfullforceintotheMeiji.Bodiforddescribesthetemples’
relationshipsuccinctly:
“Throughout[theTokugawa]period,SjijiandEiheijiwererivals
inthetruesenseoftheword.IneachofthemajorSt
controversiesoftheTokugawaperiod—onquestionsrangingfrom
DharmasuccessiontothepropermannerofwearingtheBuddhist
robe—EiheijiandSjijistakedoutopposingpositionsonthe
issues”(Bodiford1993,81–82).57
Whateverthecontentofagivendispute,theunderlyinginstitutionaldynamicwasclear:
thevastmajorityofSttemples,theeconomicandinstitutionalbaseofthesect,werebranch
temples(matsujiᮎᑎ)ofSjiji,whereasthedoctrinalandpatriarchalcenterofthesect,
claimingexclusiveaccesstothesect’sJapanesefounderDgen,layatEiheiji.58
Thisoldrivalrywas,inMohr’swords,“reawakened”atthestartoftheMeijierain1868,
whenEiheijiofficialsproposedtothenewgovernmentareformationoftheStorganization
thatwouldestablishEiheijiasthesingleheadtemple(shonzan⥲ᮏᒣ)(Mohr1998,174–
175).ThereisnodoubtthattheselfservingEiheijiproposalof1868didintensifythe
conflictualdynamicbetweentheheadtemples,butitshouldnotbeinferredthattherivalry
wasinanywaydormantimmediatelypriortoit.Indeed,themostrecentactivedispute
betweenthetwoheadtemples(“thethreerobecontroversy”)hadbeennominallysettledonly
in1861,justsevenyearsprior,andaccordingtoRiggs,“tensionscontinuedoverthisissue”until
atleast1872(DianeElizabethRiggs2010,253–256).
Thegovernment,afterrealizingthedepthofSjiji’soppositiontotheideaofpromoting
Eiheijitosoleheadtemplestatus,ultimatelyrejectedthe1868Eiheijiproposalandtooksteps
toforcethetemplestocooperatewithoneanother.Thefirstoftheseattemptswasan1870
imperialordertoappointa“firstindependentabbotofSjiji”(Sjijidokujisse⥲ᣢᑎ⋊ఫ୍
57
See,forexample,DavidRiggsandBodifordonthesuccessioncontroversies(DavidERiggs2002,131–
176;Bodiford1991)andDianeRiggsontherobecontroversies(DianeElizabethRiggs2010).
58
Bodifordreportsthatcirca1750,Eiheijibranchtemplesconstitutedamere1,300ofthe17,500St
temples,therestofwhichwereSjijibranchtemples(Bodiford2012a,208).TheascensionofSjijias
the“institutionalcenter”oftheStsecthasrootsinthe14thcentury,particularlytheeffortsofGasan
Jsekiᓚᒣ㡥☒(12761366),andisdetailedbyBodiford(Bodiford1993,95–139).Thisdynamicof
institutionalanddoctrinalcentersissometimesdescribedintermsofSjijibeingtheheadofSt
templelineagesandEiheijibeingtheheadofallStDharmalineages,aclaimthatseemstolevelthe
fieldbutwhichBodifordrightlyfindsincoherent,astheideaofa“headtemple”(Eiheiji)of“lineages”is
aconfusionofterms(Bodiford2012a,209).BodifordarguescompellinglythatEiheiji’ssuccessin
maintainingitsstatusasequaltoSjijiatthetopoftheinstitutiondespitehavingvirtuallynoaffiliated
templeshasbeentheresultofpersistentandaggressivecampaignstopreservethe“memory”ofDgen
andtoidentifyitselfasthemaincaretakerofhislegacy(Bodiford2012a).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.34
ୡ),whichachieved“asemblanceofasolution…toacknowledgetheclaimsofSjijifor
independence”(Mohr1998,174–175).Themoresignificantstep,however,wasagovernment
mandatedcompactbetweenthetwotemplessignedin1872statingthattheirpastdifferences
anddisputeswouldberesolvedinaccordancewiththeteachingsofbothDgen,thefounderof
Eiheiji,andKeizanJkin⍧ᒣ⤂⍲(12681325),thefounderofSjiji(Bodiford1993,82).
Intheseveralyearsfollowingthe1872compact,thetwotemplescollaboratedona
numberofthings.Thesectopenedadministrativeheadquarters(shmuch᐀ົᘍ)inTky
in1872,aninstitutionwhich,Readernotes,“servedatfirstsimplyasacoordinatingcenter
throughwhichthesectcouldkeepabreastofpoliticaldevelopmentsandalsodisseminate
information,but,inthemannerofallbureaucracies,grewintoapowerfulanddominating
organatthecoreofSt,becomingthedrivingforcebehinditsmodernevolution.”Afirstsect
wideassembly(kaigi఍㆟)forcentralizeddecisionmakingwassubsequentlyheldunderthe
auspicesoftheshmuchin1875.59Bodiford’slistofthepostcompactcooperativeendeavors
includes,“rulesfortheoperationoftemples”(jih)(1876),sponsorshipof“aformalSt
church(kykaiᩍ఍)…[as]anattempttobypasstherigidhierarchyoftemplefactions”(1876),
theadoptionofaritualcalendarwhichforthefirsttimeelevatedKeizan(andtherebySjiji)
(1877),aStshconstitutionthat,amongotherthings,“definedtherelationshipbetween
headandbranchtemples”(1882),andtheregistrationwiththegovernmentofthesect’s
unified“governingorganizationandadministrativerules(shsei)”(1885)(Bodiford1993,81–
82).Perhapsmostimportantofallwerethejointeditingandauthorizingofthestandardized
ritualmanual,theTjgyjokihan(1889);and,secondly,thecatechismStkykaishushgi
(1892),affirmedbyjointSjijiandEiheijiedictastheorthodoxsummaryofthesect’steachings
(shkynotaii ᐀ᩍࣀ኱ព)(Watanabe1983,137).Thisclusteroffoundationaldevelopments
intheStshdeservesmorestudythanithasreceivedintheEnglishlanguageliterature.
The1885administrativerules(shsei)areespeciallyinterestingamongthesebecauseof
theirroleintherelationsbetweenEiheijiandSjiji.Theserulesweredraftedandregisteredin
responsetoan1884governmentorderinwhichtheCouncilofState(Dajkanኴᨻᐁ),aspart
ofabolishingthe“failed”doctrinalinstructorsystem,and“relinquish[ing]anyremnantsof
directcentralgovernmentcontrolofwhatwerenowdeemedinternalsectarianaffairs,”
mandatedthateachsectsubmit“sectarianprescriptions”(shsei)and“templerules”(jih)for
authorizationbytheMinistryofDomesticAffairs(Naimushෆົ┬)(Jaffe1998,61).60Though
59
SeeReader1985,35–36.Readersuggeststhatthis“sectcouncil…reflect[ed]thedevelopmentof
democratictrendswithinJapanbroughtaboutbythenewcontactswithWesternculture.”
60
Jaffetranslatesshseias“denominationwideregulations”andcommentsonthetermsfurther:
“Shseiarethefundamentalrulestobefollowedwithinaparticulardenomination.Jiharethebasic
regulationstobefollowedattheindividualtemplesofthedenomination.Inpractice,however,the
regulationsissuedbyvariousdenominationsrarelydistinguishthetwotypesofstatutes.”The
Naimushoversawthe“ShrineandTempleBureau”(Shajikyoku♫ᑎᒁ),whichwasassigned
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.35
thismandateledto“internaldifficultyintheattempttobalancetheneedsofdifferent
branches,”itwastakenonenthusiastically.Afurtherorderin1885raisedthestakesby
stipulatingthatthesenewdocumentswouldsupplantallpreviouslyauthorizedsectarian
prescriptionsandtemplerules(Ikeda1998,27).
The1885shseisubmittedbytheStsectisaninterestingdocumentonseveral
counts,andisdiscussedindetailbyKawaguchi.61“Otherpower”(tariki௚ຊ)languageinthe
fourthsection,forinstance,“OutlineofthePrinciplesandTeachingsoftheStSect”(Stsh
shkytaii᭪Ὕ᐀᐀ᩍ኱ព)setoffconsiderablecontroversyintheputatively“selfpower”
(jiriki⮬ຊ)sect.62IntermsoftheviabilityofthecoalitionbetweenEiheijiandSjiji,though,
the1885shseiwascriticalinthatitincludedthetermsoftheir1872truce.Thisensuredthat
whentensionsflaredupbetweenpartisansofthetemples,whatBodifordcallsthe“forceof
law”thatthetrucehadacquiredbyitsregistrywiththegovernmentcouldkeeptheinstitution
frombeingtornapart.
Thefragileunityofthetwoheadtempleswasespeciallychallengedintheyears1892
1894,thepeakoftheSjijiindependencemovementandatimeofsuchgreatdiscordthat
MichaelaMross,oneofthefewWesternscholarstohaveworkedontheconflict,hascalledit
“probablythedeepestcrisisinthehistoryoftheStschool.”ShesuggeststhatSjijiinthose
yearsinfactcameextremelyclosetorealizingitsgoalofindependence(Mross2009).Two
majorcatalystsfortheSjijiindependencemovementwerethe1885poachingfortheEiheiji
abbacyofaSjijibranchtempleabbot,TakiyaTakush℧㇂⌶᐀(18361897),andthe1891
electiontosucceedhim,inwhichapriestwhoservedatSjijiitself,MoritaGoy᳃⏣ᝅ⏤
(18341915),63defeatedNishiariBokusan,whosesupporterscontestedtheresultsanddecried
theelectionasillegitimate.64SjijipartisanscomplainedthattheelectionofMorita,likethatof
Takiya,“deprivedSjijiofitsbestpersonnelwhilegivingEiheijitoomuchauthorityoverSjiji
branchtemples”(Bodiford1993,83).Competingassociationsrepresentingthetwotemples
sprungupinthelate1880sandin1892aSjijifactionpersuadedtheSjijiabbotAzegami
Baisen␁ୖᴝ௝(18251901)todeclareSjiji’sindependence,withdrawingrecognitionof
managementofsectarianaffairsuponthe1877eliminationoftheMinistryofDoctrine(Kybush).See
Jaffe1998,61,61n.
61
SeeKawaguchi2002,638–651.
62
SeeLobreglio2009,86–87;Ikeda1998,36–37;andScarangello2012,297–304.
63
RiggsnotesthatMorita“heldseveralhighleveladministrativepositionsatbothEiheijiandSjiji.”She
citeshisworkontheTjgyjikihan(seebelow)asevidencethat,borrowingthephrasefromBodiford,
he“workedhardtocalmrelationsbetweenthesetwoheadtemples”(DianeElizabethRiggs2010,258;
Bodiford1993,83).ForalistofhispostsatEiheijiandSjiji,seeZGD,1229b.
64
SeeSectionThreebelow;thehagiographiesofNishiariclaimthatNishiarilostonlybecauseballotson
whichthedifficultcharacterboku✕weremiswrittenwereinvalidated.(SeeforexampleNBZ,31).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.36
Eiheijianditsbranchtemplesandnullifyingallpastagreementsbetweenthetemples.65This
declarationcouldnotstand,however,inlightoftheMinistryofHomeAffairs’rulingthatthe
1885shsei,andbyextensionthetermsofthe1872truce,werelegallybinding.Azegamiwas
thereupondismissedbythegovernmentfromhisconcurrentpostaspresidentoftheSt
headquarters(shmuch),andNishiariandMoritawereorderedtosharethepost.The
interventionofthegovernmentandthedemotionofAzegamifurtherrileduptheadvocatesof
Sjiji’sindependence,andby1893thethreatofasplinteringwassoacutethattheMinistry
intervenedagain,thistimeforcingAzegamitoresigntheSjijiabbacy.In1894,inasymbolic
showofreconciliationandunity,theEiheijiabbotMoritaalsoresigned.Shortlythereafter,new
Stshregulationswereestablishedtoclarifytheabbatialelectionprocessandtoaffirmthe
temples’unity,andAzegamiandMoritabothresumedtheirheadtempleabbacies.Bodiford
writes:
Atthistime,Stleadersproclaimedthecompromisedoctrines
of“twoheadtemples,onesect”and“twopatriarchs,one
essence.”Officially,anyindependentvenerationofSjijiorEiheiji
wastoserveasvenerationofboth.Likewise,anydifferences
betweenthedoctrinesweretobeviewedasalternate
expressionsofthesamereligiousteaching.(Bodiford1993,82–
84)
^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŝnjŝŶŐ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͗dŚĞTjGyjiKihan;ϭϴϴϵͿ
AmajoraspectofthecollaborationbetweenEiheijiandSjiji,asnoted,wasthe
compositionoftheTjgyjikihan Ὕୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊(“TheStandardObservancesofthe
FollowersofTzan”),atextthatmadegreatstridestowardstheunificationand
homogenizationoftheStsect.66ThereisnoEnglishaccountoftheTjgyjikihanasaMeiji
65
Azegami,whotrainedalongsideNishiariBokusanunderGettanZenry ᭶₺඲㱟andpreceededhim
asSjijiabbot,ismajorfigureinMeijiStinstitutionalhistory.Forabriefbiography,seeZGD7a.
66
ThetermIhavehesitantlytranslated“followersofTzan,”TjὝୖ,isusedcommonlyinearlyMeiji
writingtorefertoSt᭪Ὕ,andallEnglishtranslationsofthetermthatIhavecomeacrosssimply
renderit“St.”IobjecttothisprimarilybecauseIfinditincoherentforanEnglishtranslationto
renderoneJapanesewordwithanotherJapaneseword.Ialso,suspect,however,thatthoseusingthe
termintheMeijiweremakingaconsciousdecisiontoavoidthetermSt.WhilethecharacterTὝis
universallyunderstoodtorefertoDongshanLiangjie ὝᒣⰋ௴(807–869,J.TzanRykai),Kawaguchi
describesearlyMeijidebatesonthequestionofwhethertheS᭪characterreferstothesixthancestor
Huineng្⬟(638–713,J.En),knownalsobytheplacenameCaoxi᭪⁇(J.Skei),ortoalater
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.37
eradocument;evenFoulk,whohascommentedonandtranslatedalatereditionofthetextin
full,doeslittletosituateitsrootsintheMeijiortodescribeitasexpressiveoftheaimsand
exigenciescharacteristicofthatperiod.67TheTjgyjikihanisnotsimplyanobjectiveor
commonsensecompilationfromanarrayofpriorrulestexts,however,andIbelievethatitis
bestunderstoodinitsMeijicontextofStunificationandidentitycreation.
Ontheheelsofthe1885Stshshsei,andatacriticalpointofcooperationbetween
EiheijiandSjiji,theabbotsAzegamiBaisenofSjijiandTakiyaTakushofEiheijiannounced
theircollaborationonarulestext.Watanabecitesthetextofthe1886announcement:
୍᐀୍㌤ࣀἲつࣤ☜ᐃࢭࣥࢥࢺࣤせࢫ↛ࣝࢽ⾜ἲࣁつᘧከ➃
ࢽࢩࢸ࿭Ⴗࢽ୧୍ࣤㅮࢩ㞴ࢩ⮬௒ซࢯ஬ࣨᖺࣤᮇࢩࢸᨵṇつ
๎ࣤ⦅⧩ࢭࢩ࣒ྍࢩ(Watanabe1983,134)
Despitetheneedtodefinetheproceduresandregulationsof‘a
singlesectwithasinglebody,’thepracticesintheprocedural
codesarenumerous,anditisdifficulttoquicklyorganizethem
intoone.Wewillcompilerevisedstandardswithinapproximately
fiveyears.
TwoyearslaterthispromiseyieldedtheTjgyjikihan.Theprefacetothetextnames
theeditors,allhighlevelStsectofficialswithconnectionstoSjiji,Eiheiji,orboth:Morita
Goy,KitanoGenp ໭㔝ඖᓠ(18421933),68andtoriShungei 㬨᫓೓(d.1926).69Theywere
ancestor,thediscipleofDongshannamedCaoshanBenji᭪ᒣᮏᐢ(840–901,J.SzanHonjaku)
(Kawaguchi2002,373–377).Ican’thelpbuttospeculatethatthechoiceofTjwasawayforaMeiji
authortoskirtthecontroversyandtoavoidusingatermwhosereferentwascontested.Whileitis
temptingtofurtherspeculatethatthetermTjfadedasdidtheMeijiiterationofthecontroversyover
thereferentofS(Foulkmakesreferencetoamorerecentiteration),itmayinfactbelessaquestionof
“Tj”fadingsomuchas“St”ascendingasthesectwasincreasinglycodifiedundertheofficial
designation“Stsh.”Foulknotesthat“themembersofthistraditioninChinaarealsoreferredtoas
Ὕᐙ,Ὕୖ;and Ὕୗ,”whichindicatesthatMeijiauthorshadampleprecedentfortheuseofTj
(DigitalDictionaryofBuddhism,“᭪Ὕ᐀,”articlebyGriffithFoulk).
67
Foulk’stranslationiscalledStandardObservancesoftheStZenSchool,basedonthe1966revision,
ShwashuteiStshgyjikihan᫛࿴ಟゞ᭪Ὕ᐀⾜ᣢつ⠊(Foulk2010a).
68
Kitano,likeMorita,isrememberedforhishardworktowardsstabilizethesectduringtheEiheijiSjiji
conflicts,andin1918hebecamethesixtyseventhabbotofEiheiji.SeeZGD,202b.
69
Referencestotoriarescarce,butScarangelloprovideshisdeathdateandidentifieshimasthethird
postreconstructionabbotofSjiji.Henotesthat“despitehisimportancetoMeijiperiodSt,[he]left
fewindependentlyauthoredtextstoposterity”(Scarangello2012,320).(Scarangello’sresearchhasled
himtoreadthenameasK,whileIfollowareferenceinthesupplementtothe1966Shwashutei
Stshgyjikihanandprefertori[Stshshmuch1988,1].)
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.38
saidtohavebeguntheirworkinthefirstmonthof1888andtohavecompleteditbythe
eleventhmonthofthesameyear(Stshshmuch1889,1).
Thenextyear,1889,theabbotsAzegamiandTakiyamadeanofficialdeclarationofthe
orthodoxyofthetext:
᫂἞ᰯゞὝୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊⦅⧩᏶ᡂࣤ࿌ࢣࢱࣝࢽ⏤ࣜ⋠ࢽஅࣤ
㡺ᕸࢭࢩ࣒᐀ෆൔ౶୍⯡ࢽಟ⩦ࢩࢸᚑ๓༊ࠎࣀ⾜ᣢࣤᗫṆࢩ
᫂἞ᘘᅄᖺ୍᭶୍᪥௨ᚋྠ୍ࢽṈࣀ㌶⠊ࣤ㑂⾜ࢫ࣊ࢩ
(Tokuno2010,22)
WeherebyannouncethecompletionofthecompilationofaMeiji
editionoftheStandardObservancesoftheFollowersofTzanand
distributeit,abolishingthevariousobservancesthathave
previouslybeenordinarilypracticedbytheclergywithinthesect.
Thesestandardsmustbeobservedeffectivethefirstoftheyear
ofMeiji24[1891].
AsJansenhasobservedoftheMeiji“restoration”ofpoliticalandculturaltraditionsin
general,heretoowecanseethat“‘tradition’itselfwasdeclaredfinalized”(Jansen2000,493).
Rhetoricallyatleast,theannouncementabolishesinasinglestrokewhatwascenturiesof
diversityinregionalandtemplespecificobservances,aswellasaslewofpracticestransmitted
independentlyinmasterdisciplelineages,likenowlostesoterickirigamiษ⣬ andmantra
practices(Watanabe1983,132).70Ithustakethisannouncementtobeamongthedefining
momentsofSthistory.
TheTjgyjikihanthatfromthatmomentsupercededallpriorpracticesisamanualof
ritualandobservancesorganizedarounddaily,monthly,annual,andoccasionalobservances.
FoulknotesthelimitationsoftheEnglishterm“ritual”inthediscussionofsuchobservances,
andwhilehenotesthatgyjiistheSinoJapanesetermthat“comesclosestinsemanticrange”
totheEnglishword,infactgyji“encompassesaverybroadrangeofactivitiesthatZenclergy
engagein.”Theseincludesleeping,bathing,eating,andstudy—“everydayactivities”the
etiquetteandproceduresforwhicharedetailedinatextliketheGyjikihanbutwouldlikely
falloutsideofacasualEnglishsenseof“ritual”(Foulk2010b,23).Followingprevioustextual
precedentslikeKeizan’sRulesofPurity(seebelow),alleditionsofthetexthaveincludedwhat
Foulkcalls“socialritualsandbureaucraticprocedures,”likethecompositionofformal
invitationsandtheappointmentofmonasticofficers,aswellasmore“religious”and“didactic”
elements,likesermonsbytheabbot,consultationswiththeabbot,sittinginmeditation,
chanting,andmemorialservices(Foulk2010b,15–17).
ItshouldbeemphasizedthatthereislittledoctrinalcontenttotheTjgyjikihan
apartfromitstersescriptsforritualexchangesandubiquitousversesfortransferringmerit(ek
70
Foragoodtreatmentofkirigami,seeIshikawa2000.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.39
ᅁྥ).Somedoctrinalstancescouldlikelybeinterpretedorinferredfromthechoreography
andliturgicalprioritiesofthemonasticlifeprescribed,butthetextisnottheplacetolookto
establishtheMeijiStsectunderstandingofthefunctionorefficacyofritualobservancesor
thepointofmonasticlifeitself.Itisfirstandforemostatechnicalmanual,andfortheorthodox
meaningoftheobservancesdescribedinthetext,onemustlookelsewhere,totheStkykai
shushgi,forinstance,whichspeaksindetailabouttheefficacyoftheformulaofrepentance
(sangeᠲ᜼)ortheritualofprecepttaking(jukaiᤵᡄ).
Thesourcesandeditorialvaluesofthetextaresuccinctlyexpressedinthewordsofthe
Tjgyjikihanintroductionitself:
୍ ᮏつࣀᚲせࣁᚑ๓Ὕୖࣀ⾜ᣢἲᘧ༊ࠎࢽ΅ࣞࣝࣔࣀ୍ࣤ
ᐃࢭࣥࢺḧࢫࣝࢽᅾࣜᨾࢽ඼኱⥘᳥ࣤᶞᯘᣦ༡グൔᇽΎつᑠ
Ύつࣀ୕ࢽ㈨ࣝࢥࣀ୕つࣁὝୖ⌧⾜ࣀἲᘧࢽࢩࢸ༊ࠎࢽ΅ࣞ
ࣝࣀ᰿ཎࢼࣝࢽ⏤ࣝ⪋ࢩࢸஅࣤ↷ࢫࢽ⚙ⱌΎつ኱Ύつ⍧ᒣῤ
つᰯᐃΎつഛ⏝Ύつධ⾗᪥⏝Ύつᗁఫ⳽ῤつສಟⓒ୔Ύつ➼
ࣀㅖつࣤ௨ࢸࢩ᭦ࢽྛᆅ᪉ྀᯘࢽู⾜ࢫࣝつᘧ୪ᮎὴൔ౶୰
ࣀᘓゝୖ⏦ཬ⌧௒୙ᩥ័⩦ࣀἲࣤ㢳࣑ࢸᚓኻࣤཧ⪃ࢩᑓࣛ᫬
ᶵࢽ㐺ᛂࢫࣝ⾜ᣢἲࣤᕪᐃࢭࣜ
x Theneedforthepresentstandardscomesfromourdesireto
standardizethewiderangeofobservancesandceremonial
practicesofpreviousfollowersofTzan.Thepresentstandards
aredrawnfromtheGuidelinesfortheShjuGrove,71theRulesof
PurityforSanghaHalls,72andtheSmallEiheiRulesofPurity.73
Thesethreerulestextsincludeawiderangeofobservancesand
ceremonialpracticesofthefollowersofTzan,andwetookthese
asourbasis.Wealsoconsultedmanyotherstandardstexts,like
theRulesofPurityforChanMonasteries,74theLargeEiheiRulesof
71
᳥ᶞᯘᣦ༡グShjurinshinanki,compiledin1674byGesshSko᭶⯚᐀⬌(16181696)andhis
discipleManzanDhaku༜ᒣ㐨ⓑ(16361715)(Foulk2010b,8).
72
ൔᇽΎつSdshingi,byMenzanZuih㠃ᒣ⍞᪉(16831769),publishedin1753(Foulk2010b,8).
73
ᑠΎつ Shshingi(abbreviationofỌᖹᑠΎつEiheishshingi),writtenbyGentSokuch ⋞㏱༾୰
(1729–1807),publishedin1805(Foulk2010b,9).
74
⚙ⱌΎつZen’enshingi/Chanyuanqinggui,compiledin1103byChangluZongze㛗⸼᐀㉐(Foulk
2010b,10).YifahasproducedafullEnglishtranslation(Yifa2002).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.40
Purity,75Keizan’sRulesofPurity,76theRevisedRulesofPurity,77
theAuxiliaryRulesofPurity,78theRulesofPurityforDailyLifein
theAssembly,79theRulesofPurityfortheHuanzhuHermitage,80
andtheImperialEditionofBaizhang’sRulesofPurity.81
Moreover,weconsideredthespecificrulesandceremoniesofthe
monasteriesofeachregion,thereportedopinionsofrankandfile
monks,andthosecustomaryprocedureswhichareunwritten.
Weexaminedtherelativemeritsof[allof]theseandselected
onlythoseobservancesthataccordwiththetimes.
୍ ㅖΎつࣀ␗ྠཬࣄᮏつࣀ᥇ࣝฎࢽࢩࢸᑬࣔᚲせࣀ⟠ᡤࣁ
ᮏᩥ୰ࢽᤄὀࢩཪࣁ඼ࣀ㡯ࣀᮎᑿࢽ஦⏤ࣤグࢩࢸᚓኻࣤ♧ࢫ
(Stshshmuch1889,1–2)
x Forthepresentstandardswehaveadoptedthemostessential
passagesfromthesemanyanddivergentpurestandardstexts.At
theendofeachpassagewenotethereason[foritsselection]and
indicateitsrelativemerits.
FoulkoffersathoroughintroductiontotheGyjikihansourcetextsandtheir
intertwininghistories,andIwillnotreproducehisworkhere(Foulk2010b,8–22).Thegenreof
“purestandards”or“rulesofpurity”(shingiΎつ)hasbeendiscussedespeciallybyYifa,who,
75
኱Ύつ Daishingi(abbreviationofỌᖹ኱Ύつ Eiheidaishingi),alsoknownsimplyastheỌᖹΎつ
Eiheishingi,editedin1794byGentSokuchfromanearlier1667workbyKshChidග⤂ᬛᇽ“who
compileditbypiecingtogethersixseparateworkspertainingtomonasticpracticethathadoriginally
beenwrittenbyDgen”(Foulk2010b,9).LeightonandOkumurahavetranslatedthistextinfull
(LeightonandOkumura1996).
76
⍧ᒣΎつ Keizanshingi(abbreviationof⍧ᒣ࿴ᑦΎつKeizanoshshingi),originallycomposedin
1324byKeizanandeditedbyGesshSkoandManzanDhakuin1678(Foulk2010b,15).
77
ᰯᐃΎつKteishingi/Jiaodingqinggui(abbreviationofྀᯘᰯᐃῤつ⦻せSrinkteishingi
sy/Conglinjiaodingqingguizongyao),compiledin1274byJinhuaWeimian㔠⳹ᝳຮ(Foulk2010b,
16).
78
ഛ⏝ΎつBiyshingi/Beiyongqinggui(abbreviationfor⚙ᯘഛ⏝Ύつ Zenrinbiyshingi/Chanlin
beiyongqinggui),completedin1286byZeshanYixian⃝ᒣᘤဒandpublishedin1311(Foulk2010b,
16).
79
ධ⾗᪥⏝ΎつNyusshunichiyshingi/Ruzhongriyongqinggui,writtenin1209byWuliangZongshou
↓㔞᐀ኖ(Foulk2010b,18).
80
ᗁఫ⳽Ύつ Genjanshingi/Huanzhuanqinggui,writtenin1317bytheZhongfenMingben୰ᓠ᫂ᮏ
(12631323)(Foulk2010b,15).
81
ᩉಟⓒ୔ΎつChokushhyakujshingi/Chixiubaizhangqinggui,compiledbyDongyangDehuiᮾ㝧
ᚫ㍤between1335and1338(Foulk2010b,18–19).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.41
followingFoulkindisputingtraditionalnotionsofacharacteristically“Chan”formofmonastic
life,arguesforthegenre’scontinuitywithChineseVinayatexts(Yifa2005;Foulk1993).
ReadingtheGyjikihaninthiscontext,Foulktakestheperspectivethat“thetextisheirtoa
longandvariedtraditionofadaptingandaugmentingrulesandproceduresforBuddhist
monasticpracticethatcanbetracedallthewaybacktotheearliestChineseattemptsto
interpretandimplementtheVinayatransmittedfromIndia”andarguesthat“insurveyingthe
longhistoryofBuddhistmonasticpracticeinEastAsia,thecontinuitieswiththepastthatone
findsintheGyjkikihanfaroutweightheinnovations”(Foulk2010b,21).Withoutdisputing
thesecontinuities,itshouldbeclearthatboththeproductionandthecontentoftheTjgyji
kihancanbeunderstoodintermsoftheconstructionofsectarianidentityintheMeiji,andthat
scholarsofMeijiBuddhismshouldtakeseriouslythetext’sinnovations,ormoreprecisely,its
omissions.
OneomissioninthetexttowhichFoulkdoescallsattentionistheconspicuousabsence
ofanyreference“inanyeditionoftheGyjikihan”tothetext’sdebttobakuZenstandards.
Asnotedabove,bakuZen,animportfromMing᫂dynasty(1368–1644)Chinaarrivingto
Japanintheseventeenthcentury,wasfirstclassifiedbytheMeijigovernmentaspartofthe
Rinzaisectbeforeachievingstatusasanindependentsect.Giventhesectariansensitivitiesof
thetime(sensitivitiesthathavepersistedtothepresenteditionoftheGyjikihan),itis
unsurprisingthatthismajortextualsourcehasgoneunacknowledged.ThelargeMingstyle
monasteryManpukujiⴙ⚟ᑎ,foundedwithhelpfromtheTokugawashogunatebyYinyuan
Longqi㞏ඖ㝯⌹(15921673,J.IngenRyki),deeplyimpressedJapaneseBuddhistsatthetime,
and“leadersoftheStandRinzaischoolsofZenwerestimulatedtoinitiatereformsthat
resultedinthereinstatementofmanyoftheformsofcommunalmonastictrainingthathad
beenlostintheinterveningcenturies.”Foulknotesthattwoofthethreeprimaryrulestexts
takenasthesourcefortheGyjikihan,theShjurinshinankiandtheSdshingi,drewon
Yinyuan’sManpukujiritualmanual,the1672bakuShingi㯤᷑Ύつ.82
AlongwiththisunacknowledgedsourcedetailedbyFoulk,theTjgyjikihanpreface
alsoincludeswhatWatanabearguesarefalselyacknowledgedsources.Thoughinthepreface
excerptedabovetheauthorsclaimthat“regional,”“reported,”and“unwritten”sourceswere
consultedalongwiththeorthodoxtextualstandards,Watanabefindsveryfewunwritten
customsincludedinthetext,andhedismissestheassertionthatregionalruleswereseriously
consideredatall.Whateverthepreface’srhetoricofinclusion,itseemsthatmanypractices
failedtomeetthestandardof“accordingwiththetimes.”83
Themoststrikingomissioninthetext,giventheoverwhelminglyfuneraryflavorof
contemporaryJapaneseBuddhism,istheabsenceofanyreferencetofuneralservices.
WatanabeandTokuno,bothconcernedexplicitlyaboutthemoderndevelopmentoffunerary
82
SeeFoulk2010b,19–20.
83
SeeWatanabe1983,133.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.42
ritual,explorethefactthatalthoughsomeprovisionremainedformemorialobservancesfor
StpatriarchslikeDgenandKeizan,thereisnomentionatalloffuneraryrituals,layor
monastic,intheTjgyjikihan(Tokuno2010;Watanabe1984).Funeralrituals,though,have
undeniablydeeprootsintheZentradition.84Indeed,thisareaofritualpracticewassocentral
totheBuddhismoftheTokugawaperiodthatsomeNativists“perceivedBuddhiststylefunerals
tobethecentralaxisoftheBuddhistinstitutionalframeworkaswellasofitssocial
organization”andthusdeliberatelytargetedthem,promotingShintritualsandinsomelocales
banningBuddhistfuneralsoutright(Ketelaar1990,44–45).AsNativistvoicesdominatedthe
earlyMeijigovernment,policieslimitingBuddhistfuneralsandpromotingShintoneswere
alsoadoptedatthenationallevel.85TheexclusionoffuneralsfromtheTjgyjikihan,then,is
bestunderstoodnotasastatementofintrinsicStsectvaluesbutasanattempttoconform
totheexigenciesoftheperiod.Thattheseriteswereamongthoseaddedinthefirstrevisionof
thetext,in1918,indicatesthattheyhadbeenwaitingjustbelowthesurface,andthereislittle
doubtthatfuneraryobservanceshadcontinuedinpracticedespitetheirimpliedproscriptionby
theirabsencefromtheTjgyjikihan.
ThereareotherinstancesofalterationoftheGyjikihansourcetextsinlightofthe
governmentpolicyofreligiousseparationandthenationalproscriptionsofarangeofpractices
Ketelaarcalls“potentiallysubversive”or“carnivalesque.”Amongafewexamplesofferedby
WatanabearetheRyten 㱟ኳ,thedharmaprotectingdeitieshonoredespeciallyintheNew
Year,whoaredeemedoverlyShintandreplacedintheTjgyjikihanbyJhShichir
DaigenShuriBosatsuᣍᐆ୐㑻኱ᶒಟ฼⳶⸃,abodhisattvaprotectorofmonasteries
introducedtoJapanbyDgen.86WatanabealsolooksattheproscriptionintheTjgyjikihan
ofthetraditionalChineseceremonialpracticeofburningpapermoneyandpaperhorses,which
isprohibitedonthegroundsofbeingoccult(onmyteki㝜㝧ⓗ).87Further,traditional
Japaneseobservanceslikeyearendmochipounding(saimatsumochitsukiṓᮎ㣰ᦍ)andthe
winter’sendbeanscattering(setsubunmakimame⠇ศᧈ㇋)weredeemed“worldlyaffairs”
(zokuh಑ἲ)andlikewiseprohibitedbytheTjgyjikihan.88
84
Foroneexampleamongmany,seetheChanyuanqinggui,amajorsourcefortheGyjikihan,which
treatsmonasticandabbatialfuneralservicesindetail(Yifa2002,206–211;217–219).
85
Atthenationallevel,theprohibitionofBuddhistfuneralsonlyeverextendedtoshrineattendantsand
theirfamilies(Ketelaar1990,44–45;241n1).Evenintheabsenceofabroadlegalprohibition,though,
therewasclearlytremendouspressurefromtheStatetoadoptShintfunerals.SeealsoCollcutt1986,
149.
86
WatanabenotesthatlaterintheTjgyjikihantextareferenceremainstotheryten,whichhe
takesasevidenceoftheunresolved,indeedirresolvable,problemforthetextasitstruggledtobalance
ChineseprecedentwithMeijipoliticalreality.
87
ThetermrefersspecificallytoOnmyd 㝜㝧㐨orTsuchimikadoShintᅵᚚ㛛⚄㐨,occultsyncretic
systemsproscribedearlyintheMeijiperiod.
88
SeeWatanabe1983,135–136.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.43
ForWatanabe,thesespecificalterationsandprohibitionsareemblematicofabasic
stanceintheTjgyjikihanagainstpracticesdeemedmundaneornonZen.Thosearethe
veryculturalpractices,however,thatweremostimportanttothelaityandindeedconstituted
whattheyexpectedreligiontoprovide.InthecaseoftheTjgyjikihan,howcoulda
“restoration”of“pure”StZenobservancesbeappealingtoalaityaccustomedtodealing
withreligionintermsofthisworldlybenefit(genzeriyaku⌧ୡ฼┈)?89Eventhoughsuch
practicesclearlycontinuedpostTjgyjikihan,Watanabeisstruckbytheinabilityofthetext
tocompromiseonsuchpracticesortoreinterprettheminStterms.Watanabesuggeststhat
latereditionsofthetextareabletostrikeamorecompellingbalance,couchingfuneral
practicesandlayceremonies,forexample,intermsthatconformtoStorthodoxy.He
concludesthataccommodatingtheneedsofthelaitywassimplynotanaimoftheTjgyji
kihan.Instead,thetextwasfirstandforemostdedicatedtotheconsolidationofthesectas“a
singlesectofasinglebranch”(isshippa୍᐀୍ὴ)and“asinglesectofasinglebody”(issh
ittai ୍᐀୍㌤);thatis,itaimedfornothingmoreorlessthanthecreationofanindependent,
coherent,andsingularStsh.90
^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŝnjŝŶŐŽĐƚƌŝŶĞ͗dŚĞStKykaiShushgi;ϭϴϵϬͿ
Thissametensionbetweenmonasticorthodoxyandpopularneedsalsoliesattheheart
oftheStkykaishushgi᭪Ὕᩍ఍ಟド⩏(“TheMeaningofPracticeandRealizationinthe
StFellowship”),theotherSttextthathaslastedwellbeyondtheMeiji.91WhereastheTj
gyjikihanfacesthelayclericaltensionanderrscompletelyonthesideofmaintaining
monasticpurityatthecostofthelaity,theStkykaishushgifallsattheoppositeextreme,
effacingbasicStmonasticpracticeinanattempttoconnectwiththeneedsofthelaity.
Somewherebetweenthetwomaylieasustainablebalance,anddespitetheinabilityofeachof
thesecoretextstocapturetheentiretyofwhatMeijiStneededtooffer,itwasperhapsin
thestabilityofthetensionbetweenthetwothatthesectwasabletocraftanidentityand
thrivethroughtheMeijiperiodandbeyond.
TheStkykaishushgiisperhapsthesinglemostimportantStdocumentofthe
modernperiodandwithoutquestionremainsthebestknowndoctrinalstatementinthesect.
Heine,forexample,callsitthe“crucialfactorinthecontinuingpopularityofStZen,”suggests
89
Foranaccountofthekindsof“thisworldly”servicesprovidedtothelaityinTokugawaStZen,see
Williams2005.Forthecentralityin“Japanesecommonreligion”of“thisworldlybenefit”seeReader
andTanabe1998.
90
SeeWatanabe1983,136–138.
91
ManyEnglishtranslationsofthistextexist,includingaversionbyFoulk2001.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.44
thatitistheprimarymeansbywhichtheworkoftheStpatriarchEiheiDgenỌᖹ㐨ඖ
(12001253)hasbeenknowninmoderntimes,andshowsthatleadingsectarianscholars
consistentlyattributethetexttomuchofthesuccessandpopularityoftheStsectinmodern
Japan(Heine2003,170–172,188n).92IkedausefullysituatestheShushgiinthecontextofthe
layBuddhistmovement,callingthetexttheprimarylegacyoftheformativeperiodofteaching
assembliesandlaysocietiesinMeijiSt(Ikeda1998,39).Followingthatlead,Iwillleave
asidethevexedquestionsofthetext’sfidelitytoDgenor“Dgen’sintent,”andinwhat
followsIwillconsiderthetextinitscontextasaMeijicompositionandshowthatitisaresultof
thevariouspressurescharacteristicofMeijiBuddhism,including,amongothers,theneedto
craftacompellingpathoflayunderstandinganddevotion,thepoliticalimperativestoclarify
sectdoctrine,andthesenseamongBuddhistleadersthatthesuccessofChristianitywas
relatedtoits“textualunity”andrepentancemechanisms.
TheStsectintheearlyMeijistruggledtoeffectivelyreachlaypeople,whowere
vulnerabletothegeneralantiBuddhistmoodofthetime,andwho,asnotedinSectionOne,
withthecollapseofthedankasystemofmandatorytempleregistration,wereincreasinglyless
ofacaptiveaudienceandmorelikethereligiousconsumersofthemodernperiod,exercising
freedomtochoosebetweenthemanysectarianbrandsofanjin(Ᏻᚰ,“peaceofmind”or,
morefreely,“spiritualassurance”).WhileStwasnottheonlysecttofacethischallenge,it
washamperedbythestricturesofitsowntradition,asScarangellodescribes:
Somesectswerefortunateenoughtohaveinheritedtheworship
ofaparadigmaticBuddhapossessingextremelyinclusiveformsof
corporeality,orfounderfigureswhohadenumeratedteachings
thatmoreeasilyfacilitatedtheincorporationofdiversepractices
andpractitionersintothesect.ModernSt’straditional
resourcesmadeitdifficulttoappealtothelaityorawiderangeof
diversepractices.ItsparadigmaticBuddhaembodiedanascetic
ideal,andwhenplumbingthefounder’sideasforthe
92
DumoulinandKimhavealsoweighedinonthecentralityofthetextinmodernSt;seeDumoulin
2005,414;H.J.Kim2004,6,254n12).Readerwrites:“Thetextwastheproductofaparticularera…but
ithascontinuedtofunctiontothisdayasthesect’sstandardteaching.Manysectpublications
nowadaysarebasedontheShushgiandthegradual,preceptorientedpathitrepresentsliesatthe
heartofmodernStoutlooks”(Reader1985,34).Lobreglionotesthatindeed,thefourthemesofthe
Shushgiandthedualteachingsofzenkaiichinyoandshushfuni(seebelow)remaintothisday
enshrinedasthecoreofStorthodoxyintheStshConstitution(Stshshken᭪Ὕ᐀᐀᠇)
(Lobreglio2009,90n28).IwouldaddthatthetextitselfranksjustbelowtheprimaryworksofKeizanin
themodernConstitution’slistofdefinitivetexts.AsHeinepointsout,andmyownexperience
corroborates,itissignificantthatthismajortextofStZenhashadabarelydiscernableimpacton
“convert”/nonAsianWesternZen(Heine2003,188).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.45
enumerationofacoherentlaysoteriologyearlyStleaders
foundlittletoworkwith.Nevertheless,thepreservationof
identityanduniquenessvisàvisothersectsdemandedan
orientationtowardsakyamuniandtheteachingsofthemonk
DgenKigen.(Scarangello2012,45)
WhiletheStshheadquartershadin1876and1885alikeincludedregulationsforteachings
assemblies(kykaiᩍ఍)andlaysocieties(kessha⤖♫)intheirformalsectarianprescriptions
(shsei),andhadmadeeffortstoincreasetheirinvolvementinandoversightoftheirlaybase,
Ikedahasfoundthatbetween1872and1888thevastStestablishmentofover14,300
templescouldclaimonly113officialteachingassembliesandlaysocieties(Ikeda1998,35–36).
TheofficialattemptstopropagateacentralStdoctrineanddevotionalpathtothelaitywere
badlyfailing.
Atthesametime,layBuddhistmovements,understandingthemselvesasoutsideofthe
religiousinstitutionsandtosomedegreenonreliantonclergy,werethriving.Snodgrasscalls
thiszaikebukkya“noninstitutionallaypractice”andsuggeststhat,despitesomestronganti
clericalandantiestablishmentrhetoric,“thethrustofthemovementshouldbeunderstoodas
providinglayaccesstoBuddhismparalleltothecontinuinginstitutionalformsratherthan
replacingthem”(Snodgrass2003,126).AgiantamongtheselayactivistswasuchiSeiran,
someofwhoseeffortshavebeennotedabove,aStsectlaymanwhosefatherwasaSt
sectmemberandwhosemotherfollowedtheJdoshinsh.uchiassertedthattheBuddhist
laitywere“thesameastheirshukke[ฟᐙ]masters,”and“seriouslysuggestedthatlay
BuddhismbemadethemainthrustofthereligiontoreplaceclergycenteredBuddhism.”
uchi’sinvolvementinthetextthatwouldbecometheStkykaishushgibeganin
1887whenhefoundedthe“AssociationfortheSupportofSt”(Stfushkai᭪Ὕᢇ᐀఍).
Thisumbrellaorganizationcametohaveover1,100confraternities,andby1889over80%of
Stsectabbotsweremembers.uchistartedthisorganization“asaleagueandlaysociety
withtheobjectiveofdesigningaclearmethodforteachinglaypersons,ataskthathadalready
beenidentifiedasacentralissueinthe‘StSectRegulationsforTeachingAssemblies’enacted
in1876.”93AsReaderhaspointedout,theStlayorganizationslikethefushkaiwere
modelledonthestronglayorganizationsofthePureLandschools,whichactivistsnotedwere
alsothesectswhichwerefaringbestin“weatheringthetrialsoftheMeijiperiod.”Healso
notesthatwhiletheprimaryaimofthesocietyhadbeen“toprovidebasicguidanceforthe
laity”eventually,“withtheinvolvementofleadingpriests,andinlightoftheneedforsome
guidanceforpriestsaswell,thisorganization…soonbegantoinfluencetheoverallteaching
notionsofthesect.”94
93
SeeIkeda1998,3539.
94
SeeReader1985,36.Hetranslatesthename“StAidSociety.”
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.46
Underuchi’sleadership,theStfushkaisponsoredthecompilation,distribution,
andpublicizationofatextcalledtheTjzaikeshushgiὝୖᅾᐙಟド⩏(“Themeaningof
PracticeandRealizationfortheLayFollowersofTzan”).AccordingtoHeine,uchiissaidto
havepreparedforthetaskofcomposingtheShushgi,whichinvolvededitingDgendownto
thesizeofashortdoctrinalsummary,byreadingthefullShbgenzseventimes;whatever
thebasisofthatclaim,thereisnodoubtthatconsiderablescholarshipwentintothetext’s
production.Heinefurtherwritesthat“thepublicationoftheShushgiwastheresultofa
complexprocessofeditingthatactuallyevolvedoveraperiodofseventyyearsbasedon
consultingfortytofiftymedievalandearlymoderncommentariesontheShbgenz,”andhe
notesthetext’sdebttopriorcompilationsoflayfriendlyDgenexcerpts.95Appreciatingthe
extraordinaryscholasticeffortinvolvedinthecomposition,KimfollowsKagashimaHiroyukain
assigningthecreationofthetextaroleinthedevelopmentofscholarlymethodologiesinthe
school:
Thetaskofmakingtheworkrequiredsomeunexpectedly
painstakingeffortsrelativetolinguistic,textual,andliterary
studiesofShbgenz.Theseeffortsgaveanimpetusin
subsequentyearstogenuinelyscholarlyandsystematic
endeavorsforbasicresearch.(H.J.Kim2004,254n12)
Howeverdeepthegroundingofuchi’sscholarshipandsources,however,hewasnot
primarilyconcernedwithstayingconsistentwiththeoverallthrustofDgen’sworkorwith
honoringtheprecedentsofDgeninterpretation.Hisclearandoverridingaimwasratherto
provideaplatformforStlaypropagationandtorepresentStorthodoxyandorthopraxisas
congenialtotheneedsandcapacitiesofthelaity.AsScarangellonotesinthepassagecited
above,themainstreamoftraditionalStrhetoricrevolvedaroundthepracticeofzazenᗙ⚙
andmonasticconduct,pointsunlikelytogeneratemuchenthusiasminthelaycommunity.
Readerdrawsonuchi’sownwritingstoillustratehisattitudeabouttheproject:
[AccordingtohiscommentsontheShushgi,uchi]was
convincedthatitwasessentialtofocusonareaswhichwouldnot
causethelaitytoomuchdifficulty:anythingproblematicwould
havetheeffectofdrivingpotentialfollowersawaytoChristianity
orthePureLandsects,whichheconsideredprovidedeasyand
accessibleteachingsthatwerecertaintoattractlaysupport.He
thereforerejectedzazenasamajorplankintheStsect’slay
teaching:althoughherecognisedthatitwasfundamentalto
Dgen’sZenaswellasbeinganactivityhepersonallyregardedas
95
TheseincludeMenzanZuih'seighteenthcenturyEiheiKakunanditsearlynineteenthcentury
successors,theTjShshketsuὝୖṇ᐀ジandtheEiheiShshkunỌᖹṇ᐀カbyHonshYran
ᗃ⹒ᮏ⚽(d.1847).SeeHeine2003,178;ZGD,1246a.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.47
beneficial,hefeltitdemandedtoomucheffort,time,pain,and
commitmentfortheaveragelaymantowanttobecomeinvolved
initspractice.Itwasomittedbecauseitwasfelttobealiability
towardsattractingfollowers.
Indeed,thereisstrongevidencethatuchipressedforthe
adoptionofanembutsustylerecitation,alongthelinesofthat
usedbyPureLandsects,asthebasisforStlaypractice,onthe
groundsthatitwaseasytoperform,buthadtoabandontheidea
washecouldnotfindanyjustificationforsuchapracticein
Dgen’swritings.However,hedidmanagetofindadequate
justificationforapracticebasedonthetakingofprecepts(jukai).
(Reader1985,37)
ItsdeparturesfromStprecedentnotwithstanding,uchi’sTjzaikeshushgi
succeededinoutlininganapproachthatresonatedwiththelayStcommunity.The
immediatepopularityofthetextandthegrowinginfluenceofuchi’sStfushkaiwasnot
lostontheStestablishment,whichmovedtocoopttheprocessbyincorporatingthe
organizationintotheofficialsectteachingassembliesandbyadoptingtheShushgiasan
officialSttext,bothofwhichwereachievedatthegeneralsectassembly(kaigi)of1889
(Ikeda1998,38–39).
Afteradoptinguchi’stext,however,thesectleaderssetouttoeditit.Understanding
thatthetextwouldcometodefineStorthodoxy,itscontentwasfiercelydebated.There
wasnoconsensusevenatthetopofthesecthierarchy,andScarangello,forexample,has
shownhowevensodeeplyembeddedaninstitutionalfigureasNishiariBokusancouldfind
himselfatoddswiththeemergingorthodoxy(Scarangello2012,315–316).Justaswiththe
Tjgyjikihan,thisinvolvedacategorizationofpreviouslyacceptedStdoctrinesand
practicesintowhatLobregliohascalled“orthodox,”“heterodox,”or“heretical,”as“a
multiplicityofbeliefsandpracticeswasreducedtoasingular,officialstatementofSt
doctrine.”Involvedina“consciousdistancingbothfromtraditionalideasandpractices
deemedoverlyelitist,aswellasfrompopularpracticeslongassociatedwithStthatrisked
transgressingcontemporaryepistemicsensibilities,”thesectarianleadershipineditingthe
Shushgideemed,forinstance,thepracticesofShakanembutsu㔘㏑ᛕ௖andAmida
nembutsu㜿ᘺ㝀ᛕ௖heterodox,andtheworshipoftheBodhisattvaKannonほ㡢heretical.96
Lobregliodetailssomeoftheintensedebatesinthesectofhowtomoveforwardwitha
statementofStdoctrine,howtodealwiththedistinctionbetweenmonasticandlay,and
whichpracticesanddoctrinestodeemhereticalandwhichtodeemorthodox.Likeother
commentators,heseesintheShushgiadefinitivemovetowardstheeffacingofthemonastic
laydistinction,amovemostblatantinthestrikingdeletionoftheterm“laity”(zaike)fromthe
96
SeeLobreglio2009,77.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.48
titleofthetext,arevisionmadebyEiheijiabbotTakiyaTakushthatinastrokeremovedthe
textfromitsoriginallaycontextandsetituptodefineorthodoxyforclericsandlaityalike.97
HealsodiscussestheestablishmentofShakyamuniandtheThreeTreasuresthemselvesover
AmidaorKannonasthemainobjectofreverenceinthesect,reflectingthemodernneedsfor
historicalverifiabilityandtheunderstandingofreligionsasbasedina“historicalfounder.”In
additiontoeschewingpopularpracticeslikenembutsu,thetextalsoabandonedthemes
deemedoverlyelitist,strikingallmentionofzazenorsatoriᝅandaffirmingtheidentityof
Stas“selfpowered”(jiriki)ratherthan“otherpowered”(tariki).Inplaceofthepractices,
doctrines,andobjectsofworshipthatthetextrejectedwasinstalledan“ethicscentered”
manifestationofWesternscientificandProtestant“epistemicvalues.”
Intheend,afterthecontestedprocessofrevision,especiallyatthehandofEiheijiabbot
TakiyaTakush,“inall,abouthalfofuchi’stextwaschanged”(Reader1985,38).While
Readerisrelativelycavalierabouttheimplicationsofthesechanges,suggestingthat“some
morephilosophicalaspects[were]added,butthebasicsremainedthesame,”Lobreglio’smore
thoroughworkisadamantattheirimportance,goingsofarastocalltherevisionsbyTakiyaa
“CopernicanRevolution”inSt.98
Thefinal,authorizededitionofthetextwaspublishedastheStkykaishushgiin
1890bytheStsh,andtheorthodoxyofthenewtextforlayandclericalikewasaffirmedby
ajointedictissuedin1892bytheabbotsofbothheadtemples,TakiyaandAzegami.Comingas
itdidnearthepeakoftheSjijiindependencemovementof18921894,thisjointedictwasa
major,ifinsufficient,showofcooperationbetweentherivaltemples.
_____
TheStkykaishushgipresents“aprogressivelystructured,ethicscenteredreligious
paththatfocusesuponthepracticesofrepentance,takingprecepts,vowing,andregular
expressionsofgratitude”(Lobreglio2009,90).Thetextisorganizedintofivesections,largely
keepingtheformofuchi’stext:a“GeneralIntroduction”(sjo⦻ᗎ)thatemphasizes
impermanenceandthecertaintyofkarmicretributionasanimpetustoengageingoodaction;
“RepentingandEliminatingBadKarma”(sangemetsuzai ᠲ᜼⁛⨥);“ReceivingPreceptsand
JoiningtheRanks”(jukainyiཷᡄධ఩);“MakingtheVowtoBenefitBeings”(hotsuganrish
97
Lobreglioalsoarguesthatgiventheevaporationofameaningfuldistinctionalreadybetweenclerical
andlayintheaftermathofnikujikisaitai,theShushgi’seffacementofthedifferencebetweenthetwo
canbeseenas“anattempttocraftareligiousteachingthatreflectedthisnewdefactoclericalreality”
(Lobreglio2009,96)
98
SeeReader1985,38;Lobreglio2009,90–95.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.49
ⓐ㢪฼⏕);and“PracticingBuddhismandRepayingBlessings”(gyjihon ⾜ᣢሗᜠ).99Much
couldbesaidaboutthecontentofthetext,buthereIwilllimitmyselftoanaccountofafewof
itsmoststrikingfeatures.
LobregliocallstheShushgia“patchwork”fromtheShbgenz,notingthatthetext’s
“surfaceintegritybeliesaremarkablecollageofsentences,indeedevenphrases,thathave
beenstitchedtogetherfromchronologicallyandthematicallydistinctlociinDgen'sextensive
corpus”(Lobreglio2009,90).Indeed,inreadingtheShushgiwithreferencetoitsShbgenz
sources,itbecomesclearthatthese“patches”areinsomecasescutsosmallthatvirtually
anythingatallcouldhavebeenconstructedfromthem;theShbgenzhereisnotaroottext
beingabridged,butisinsteadakindofalphabetwithwhichanearlylimitlessrangeofdoctrines
couldbecomposedfromthewordsofthefounder.Heinederidestheclaim,persistingeven
amongcontemporaryscholars,thattheShushgiservesasagoodsynopsisandintroductionto
theShbgenz,andrecallsthewarningofuchiSeiran,whohimselfcautionedagainsttrying
tounderstandtheShbgenzthroughtheShushgi(Heine2003,172,188n9).
Asnoted,astrikingfeatureofthetextistheabsenceofanyreferencetozazen,or,as
Lobreglionotes,theuseofthecharacterZen⚙atall.ThecentralpracticeofStinthe
Shushgiisprecepts:“thewholetextoftheShushgirepresentsanalterationofthefocusof
Dgen’sZen,settingoutastructured,gradualpathinwhichthetakingofBuddhistprecepts(by
implicationundertheauspicesoftheStsect)hasbecomethecentralandmostvitalstage”
(Reader1985,34).ThiseffacingofthepracticeofzazenfromDgen’steachingsisbasedonthe
principleofzenkaiichinyo⚙ᡄ୍ዴ,theonenessofZenandprecepts,anotionfoundinDgen
butforegroundedintheworkoftheinfluentialTokugawaperiodStexegeteBanjinDtanⴙ
௡㐨ᆠ(16981775).TheShushgiblendsthelogicofzenkaiichinyoandthedoctrineofshush
funiಟド୙஧,thenondistinctionofpracticeandrealization,toasserttheidentityofprecepts
withenlightenment.Thatis,thatpractice—zazen—whichisforDgenthepracticethatis
nondualwithrealization,isherereplacedwiththepracticesofreceivingpreceptsandritual
confession,butthisreplacementismadewithoutdisruptingtheunderlyinglogicoftheidentity
ofpracticeandenlightenment.ThetextthuspreservesthelogicofDgenbutreplaceshiscore
terms,creatinganoveldoctrineofpreceptritualasBuddhistawakening.
99
ChaptertitlesaredrawnfromStZenTranslationProject(Foulk).Ikedarenderssangemetsuzaias
“annihilationoffaultsbyrepentance”;jukainyias“entranceintotheposition[ofaBuddha]bytaking
theprecepts”;hotsuganrishas“benefitingsentientbeingsbyformulatingvows;andgyjihonas
“repayinggratitudebysteadfastpractice”(Ikeda1998,39)Heinedescribesthesectionsasfollows:
“understandingtheProblemoflifeanddeathandtheuniversalityofkarmicretribution”;“penitence
leadingtotheeradicationofevilkarma”;“receivingthesixteenprecepts”;“benefitingothersthrougha
vowofbenevolence”;and,“expressinggratitudebymeansofconstantpractice”(Heine2003,171).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.50
Alongwithprecepts,inthe“ethicscentered”approachofthetextthereisastrong
emphasisonkarmaandrepentance.100ItisnotmerelytheemphasisintheShushgion
repentancethatstrikesHeine,“rather,thepointisthattheShushgiemphasizesaspecificand
perhapsratherextremeapproachtorepentance,thatis,thenotionoftheeradicationor
eliminationofsins,transgressions,ordefilementsaccordingtothenotionof[s]angemetsuzai.”
Henotesthatthispowerofamechanicalritualofrepentancetoautomaticallyeradicateevil
karmaistheobjectofmuchofthecontemporarycritiqueleveledagainstmainstreamStby
socalledCriticalBuddhism(hihanbukkyᢈุ௖ᩍ).Heinealsodistinguishesthisbrandof
sangemetsuzaifromDgen’swellattestedsenseofamore“stern,puritanical,andunforgiving
attitudeconsistentwiththeearliestZenBuddhistmonasticrules”aswellasfromthe“formless
repentance”ofthePlatformSutraandthe“metanoesis”(sangedᠲ᜼㐨)ofTanabeHajime’s
postwarphilosophy.101
Wherethen,doesthis“ratherextremeapproach”torepentancecomefrom?Whileitis
possibletofindinklingsoftheapproachinDgen,Heinearguesinsteadthat“uchiSeiranand
otherMeijilayleaderscreatedaviewofrepentanceinShushgibasedinlargepartonthe
challengeofChristianityduringtheWesternizationprocess.”Hedescribeshowthesuccesses
ofbothProtestantismandRomanCatholicismwereimitatedintheconceptualizationand
compositionoftheShushgi.DrawingonChristianstrategiesthat,asnotedabove,allowedthe
laycommunity“greateraccesstosalvifictruth,”thetextreflectstheProtestantuseof
decontextualizedBiblicalquotationinsermonsandrituals,aswellastheRomanCatholic
emphasisonthe“redemptivepowerofconfession.”102
100
Heine’sanalysisoftheShushgi,drawingonsubstantialJapanesescholarshiponthetext,
demonstratesthatitisprimarilydrawnfrom,andreflectstheteachingsof,thesocalled“twelvefascicle
Shbgenz,”fromwhatHeinehascalledthe“latelate”periodofDgen.Thiscorrelationisparticularly
strikinginthattheexistenceofthetwelvefascicleShbgenzassuchwasnotverifieduntil1930,well
afterthepublicationoftheShushgi.(FormoreonHeine’speriodizationofDgen,seeHeine2006.)As
thecharacterofthefasciclesofthatlateedition,however,clusteraroundissuesofkarmaand
repentance,itisnotcoincidentalthatthecompilersoftheShushgiweredrawntothosefasciclein
theirsearchforDgenexcerptstoexpresstheiremphasisonthesamethemes.Inlightoftheclear
emphasisintheShushgifromtextsinthetwelvefascicleedition,Heineexpressesdismaythat“many
commentatorscontinuetoechoafallaciousideathattheShushgicontainspassagesfromeachand
everyoneoftheninetyfiveShbgenzfascicles.”SeeHeine2003,180–183,191n.
101
SeeHeine2003,173,184–186.
102
SeeHeine2003,174.RobertSharfhasremindedme,however,thatthereislikewisealongBuddhist
traditionofextractinganddecontextualizingscripture,andthattoassociatesuchmovesexclusivelywith
ProtestantismmaybetooverlookthatBuddhistexegeticalheritage.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.51
ƃŐĞŶĨŽƌƚŚĞDĞŝũŝ͗dŚĞGenze;ϭϵϬϱͿ
WhiletheShushgiwasanoveldevelopmentthatwentfarafieldofthethemesof
Shbgenzevenwhileitusedthetext’sownwords,anotherexpressionoftherenewed
interestinDgenintheMeijiemergedlaterintheformoftheinstitutionalizationofthe
characteristicmodernStexegeticalformatknownasthegenze║ⶶ఍(“[TrueDharma]Eye
TreasuryAssembly”).Thegenzeconsistsofaseriesofformallectures(teishᥦၐ)delivered
byaStclericwho,inaformaltemplecontextandtoanaudienceofclergy,laity,orboth,
readsandcommentslinebylineonagivenfascicleofDgen’sShbgenz.Thisformatisa
significantMeijidevelopmentintheStsectthatmustbeunderstoodinthecontextofthe
growingidentityoftheStsectwithDgenandtheShbgenz,theriseoftheBuddhist
universities,andthenascentsecularstudyofDgen.
ItmustbeemphasizedthatthecommonplaceequationsofStZenwithDgenandof
DgenwiththeShbgenzarebothmodernphenomena.Dgendidofcourseplayan
importantroleinStidentitylongbeforetheMeijiperiod,especially,asBodifordnotes,at
Eiheiji,wherehisprestigeandlegacywasactively,consciously,andselfservinglypromoted
(Bodiford2012a).Theresurgenceofhisteachingandhisincreasedimportanceinthe
coalescenceofStidentityintheMeijiwastheresultnotonlyofthebroadermovementto
clarifyandcodifysectarianboundariesbutalso,asHeineargues,aparalleltrendofthetime
towardstherenewedglorificationofthetraditionalsectfounders(Heine2003,175).
ForBodiford,thecentralityofDgentotheStsectarianidentityislargelytheresultof
severalhundredyearsofconcertedpublicrelationseffortsbyEiheiji,whosestatusandvery
survivalinitsrivalrywithSjijidependeduponitsabilitytomaintaintheprominenceofDgen
asthechiefpatriarchofthesectandtopreservethestatusofEiheijiasthe“sacredlocus”for
hisveneration(Bodiford2012a).TheidentityofDgen,inturn,withtheShbgenzisa
particularMeijiversionofthislongstandingEiheijitraditionofDgenpromotion,andBodiford
emphaticallyremindsusthat“theDgenoftheShbgenz,theDgenwhoisheldupasa
profoundreligiousphilosopher,isafairlyrecentinnovation…Instead,itistheDgenof
sectarianagendas,theDgenwhostandsaboveKeizan,theDgenwhoworksmiracles,andso
forth,whocommandedthememoryofearliergenerationsofJapanese”(Bodiford2012a,222).
Hefurthermorenotesthat,“[s]incetheearly20thcentury,theShbgenzhasbecomethe
preeminentsourceforDgen’steaching”whereas,“priortothe20thcentury,thegeneral
publicknewofDgen’steachingsprimarilyonthebasisofhisrecordedsayings(gorokuㄒ㘓)”
(Bodiford2012b,20,22).
Infact,BodifordshowsthatpriortolastdecadesoftheTokugawaperiod,the
Shbgenzwaslargelyunread.ThiswastheresultofaprocessbywhichaccesstoJapanese
Sttextswasincreasinglyrestricted,valuedassecrettransmissionsratherthanpublic
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.52
teachings.Bodifordsuggeststhatthisprocessbeganasearlyasthelatefourteenthcenturyand
culminatedintheearlysixteenthcentury,bywhichtime“DgenShbgenzhadbecomemore
importantasasymbolofreligiousauthoritythanasareligioustext”(Bodiford1993,135).
Chinesetextsremainedpubliclyavailable,formingthebasisofStsermons,butJapanese
textshadbecometempletreasurestobe“hoarded,”anditwastheirpossession,ratherthan
theirexegesis,thatgrantedreligiousauthority.Bodifordsummarizesthesubsequentstatusof
theShbgenzintotheTokugawaperiod:
EvenaftertextuallearningwasrevivedduringtheearlyTokugawa
period,mostJapaneseStmonksstudiedonlywellknown
ChineseBuddhistscripturesorclassicChineseZentexts.
Eventually,afewscholarlymonkslikeMenzanZuih[㠃ᒣ⍞᪉,
16831769]begantostudyDgen’swritings,buttheywerethe
exception.EvenwhenscholarlymonksreadDogen’swritings,
theyusuallydidnotlectureonthemtotheirdisciples.Infact,
from1722until1796,thegovernmentauthoritiesactually
prohibitedthepublicationordisseminationofanypartofDgen’s
Shbgenz.”(Bodiford2012a,220)
ThefirstpublicationoftheShbgenzafterthebanwasliftedin1796wasnotcompleteduntil
1815,byEiheiji,andwithitspublicationtheShbgenzbegangraduallytogainmomentumas
atextaStclericmightstudyratherthansimplycovetandrevere.
TherenewedinterestintheMeijiperiodonDgen,withitsnewemphasisonthe
Shbgenz,andtheviewofemergingviewofDgenasa“religiousphilosopher,”canbe
understoodinthecontextoftheriseofsecularstudyofBuddhismandtheinfluenceof
Westernacademicmethodologies,asdiscussedinSectionOne.Whiletheexplosionofsecular
interestinDgenandtheemergenceofDgenStudiesasasecularfieldinitsownrightdates
fromtheTaishperiodworkofWatsujiTetsur ࿴㎷ဴ㑻(18891960),fromearlyintheMeiji
periodWesterncriticalmethodologieswereimpactingSt,andtheStapproachtoDgen,
justastheywereinfluencingsectarianstudiesacrossallofthesectsintheMeiji.Indeeditwas
aStpriest,HaraTanzan,whogavethefirstuniversitylecturesonBuddhism,atTky
Universityin1879(Snodgrass2003,139).He“wasconvinced,aswereothers,thatBuddhists
hadtoadoptsomeofthetextualandscientificmethodsofWesternreligiousscholarshipin
theirownstudyandteaching”(Collcutt1986,166).StclericslikeNishiariBokusanand
TeizanSokuichi 㰓୕༶୍(18051892)were,inMohr’swords,“tryingtoraisethelevelofSt
scholarship”throughtextualcriticalandexegeticalwork.Thepublicationin1879ofTeizan’s
emendationofKounEj’s Ꮩ㞼᠜ዔ(11981280)Kmyzzanmaiග᫂⸝୕᫕markswhat
Mohrcalls“thebeginningofanewwaveofpublicationsaimedatfosteringStsectarian
studies(shgaku)(Mohr1998,178–179).Itisinthiscontextofsectarianscholarshipthatthe
genzewasestablishedandthrived.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.53
TraditionholdsthattheoriginsofthegenzelayintheconcernfeltbytheEiheijiabbot,
MoritaGoy,overtheneglectoftheShbgenzbyStscholars.Inthis1905statementfrom
thefirstgenze,OkaStanୣ᐀₺(18601921)expressesthegenzeorigintradition:
㧗♽ࡣ஬ⓒ⏕ࡢၿ▱㆑ࡓࡾࠋභ௦௨ୖࡢேࠋ඼ࡢⴭࡍᡤࡢṇ
ἲ║ⶶࠊ௖▱ぢࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋ᚟ࡓవ⸾࡞ࡋࠋ⥔᪂௨ᚋࠊ᐀㛛ࡢ
Ꮫᚐࠊᑓࡽኳྎ⳹ཝ➼ࡢᩍ஌ࢆᨷࡵࠊ᚟ࡓṇἲ║ⶶࢆ㢳ࡳ
ࡎࠊ㧗♽ࡢ᐀㢼ࠊᑗ࡟ᆅࢆᡶࢃࢇ࡜ࡍࠋỌᖹ⌧ⴷສ≉㈷ᛶ
ᾏឿ⯪⚙ᖌஂࡋࡃஅࢆ៧࠼ࠊᖖ࡟ቒ⥴ࢆᤂᅇࡏࢇ࡜ḧࡍࠋ௒
⋠࡟ᒣ㔝ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊ㧗♽┿๓࡟ᑵ࠸࡚ࠊṇἲ║ⶶࢆᥦၐࡏࡋ
ࡴࠋ(Fueoka 1972, 4)103
Theeminentancestor[Dgen]isawisefriendandguidetomany
beings.Hesurpassestheemperorsofold.HisShbgenz
revealsBuddha’swisdom,withnothingextraneous.Afterthe
[Meiji]Restoration,sectarianscholarsworkedexclusivelywiththe
teachingsoftheTendaiandKegonschools,ignoringthe
ShbgenzsuchthatthewindsofDgen’steachingwereonthe
vergeofbeinglostfromtheworld.EiheiGent,oftheimperially
bestowednameZenMasterShkaiJisen,[MoritaGoy]haslong
lamentedthis,wishingtorecoverthedroppedthread.Here,now,
bumpkinthatIam,sincerelyfollowingtheeminentancestor
[Dgen],IlectureontheShbgenz.”
Ascanbeseenfromthispassage,thestudyoftheShbgenzforOka,Morita,andother
leaderswasinexorablytiedtothesuccessoftheStsect.TheShbgenzhereisarallying
point,atextthatcouldbeusedtoestablishacommonStsectarianidentitythatcutacross
thefactions,lineages,branches,andregionstopulltogetherthediverse“St”teachingsand
establishthe“asinglesectofasinglebody.”
Thisfirstgenze,offeredbyOkaStanatEiheiji,spannedaseventydayperiodfromthe
fifthtoseventhmonthsof1905.Thefollowingyear,thetimeallottedwasreducedtoasixty
dayperiod,concludinginthesixthmonth,andthelecturersweretovaryamongdisciplesof
NishiariBokusan.104AccordingtoBodiford,thisfirst“Shbgenzconference,”thoughjust
anothermoveinalongpublicrelationscampaignbyEiheiji,wasanextremelysuccessfulone,
indeedonewhichwouldsetthecourseformodernStteaching:
EiheijinotonlypublishedDgen’sShbgenz,butalsopromoted
itsstudybyStmonksandlaypeople.Beginningin1905,Eiheiji
103
ThisrenderingFueoka’stranslationfromtheClassicalJapanese(kanbun₎ᩥ).AccordingtoFueoka,
theoriginaltextappearedinagenzerecordcalledJishinroku☢㔪㘓,inthefifthmonthof1905.
104
SeeKurebayashi1972;ZGD,291d.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.54
organizeditsfirstShbgenzconference(genze).Thisfirst
genzewassuccessfulbeyondallexpectations.Since1905ithas
becomeanannualeventatEiheiji,andovertime,itgradually
changedthedirectionofStZenmonasticeducation.Inearlier
generations,onlyoneZenteacher,NishiariBokusan,isknownto
haveevenlecturedonhowtheShbgenzshouldbereadand
understood.OneofBokusan’sdisciples,OkaStan,servedasthe
firstleaderofthegenze.Stan’slecturesprovidedamodelthat
couldbeemulatedbyeachoftheotherZenmonkswhocameto
Eiheiji.Thismodelhasbecomethenorm,nottheexception.
TodayeveryStZenteacherlecturesonDgen’sShbgenz.
(Bodiford2012a,221)
Attendingandpresentingtheselecturesbecomeastandardpracticeforeliteclerics.Theyalso
appeartobetheprimaryvenuebywhicheminentclericslikeAkinoKd⛅㔝Ꮥ㐨(1858
1934)andKishizawaIan ᓊ⃝⥔Ᏻ(18651955)wouldcraftandexpoundtheirinterpretations
ofdoctrine.WhilethegenzewastechnicallylimitedtoShbgenzexegesisandreferred
originallytotheEiheijieventonly,itssensibilityandritualformatspilledoverintothe
presentationofotherSttextsasitbecamethepreferredmodefordoctrinalexegesis
generallyandspreadwidelythroughouttheSttemplenetwork.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.55
SECTIONIII
TheLifeofNishiariBokusan
NishiariBokusanす᭷✕ᒣ(18211910)isamongthepreeminentStZenclericsofthe
modernperiod,bestknownforhisenormouslyinfluentialthreevolumestudyofDgen,the
Shbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║ⶶၨ㏔.105Thiswork,transcriptionsbyTomiyamaSoei ᐩᒣ♽ⱥ
(18761929)ofgenzestylelecturesNishiarideliveredbetween1897and1910,isthefirstand
arguablythemostimportantShbgenzcommentaryinmodernSt.Withthistext,“the
basicapproachtotheinterpretationoftheShbgenzwassettled”andthecoursewassetfor
theStsectarianstudies(shjorshgaku)ofthetwentiethcentury,establishingan
orthodoxythathasonlyrecentlybeguntobechallenged.106Whiledoctrinallyimportant,the
workisalsoengagingandreadable;inthewordsofBielefeldt,it“combinesscholarshipwitha
spiritedcolloquialstyleandapractical,practiceorientedapproach”and“issurelythemost
popularcommentarywithintheStschooltoday”(Bielefeldt1972,11).
AsScarangellonotes,however,whileNishiariis“sometimesconsideredthefatherof
themodernsectariantraditionofstudyingDgen’sShbgenz,”comingtoprominenceashe
didduringavitalperiodintheformationoftheStsh,heisalsoregardedasaninstitutional
“fatherofthemodernStsect”(Scarangello2012,158,162).Thisreputationisdeserved:he
wasaprofessorattheStDaigakurin ኱Ꮫᯘ thatwouldbecometheStstudiesflagship
universityKomazawa,abbot(kanshu㈏㤳)ofStheadtempleSjiji,recipientofanimperial
name,andforatimethechiefpriest(kanch)oftheentireStsect.Furthermore,Nishiari’s
studentsbecamemajorStfiguresintheirownrights.HismostprolificdiscipleandDharma
heir,forexample,wasKishizawaIan,authorofthemassivetwentyfourvolumecommentary
Shbgenzzenkṇἲ║ⶶ඲ㅮ,awellknownDgenspecialist(genzka║ⶶᐙ)whoseown
105
Hisnameoccasionally,andIthinkincorrectly,appearsromanizedas“NishiariBokuzan.”
106
SeeIshii2012,224–225.This“basicapproach”ischaracterizedbytheShbgenzkeiteki’semphasis
onthelinesofinterpretationpresentedintheShbgenzkikigakishṇἲ║ⶶ⪺᭩ᢒ(abbr.Goshᚚ
ᢒ),acommentarywritteninDgen’slifetimebySenne ヮ្(d.u.)andcompiledbySenne’sdisciple,
Kyg ⥂㇦(d.u.).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.56
studentsinturncametofillprominentpositionsattheStheadtemplesandKomazawa
University.ThelistofclericsandscholarstrainedbyNishiariincludesmanyotherswhoroseto
greatprominence,includingabbotsofbothSjijiandEiheiji(AkinoKdandHiokiMokusen᪥
⨨㯲௝[18371920])aswellasacademicpresidentsoftheStDaigakurinandKomazawa
University(TsutsugawaHgai⟄ᕝ᪉እandOkaStan).Nishiari’stremendousimpacthas
accordinglyextendednotonlyoverabroadswathofJapaneseStbuttoWesternStas
well.Infact,NishiariservesasakindofnexusforWesternSt:hisstudentOkaStan’sown
studentSawakiKd⃝ᮌ⯆㐨(18801965)inturnhaddiscipleslikeDeshimaruTaisen ᘵᏊ୸
Ὀ௝(19141982)andUchiyamaKsh ෆᒣ⯆ṇ(19121998)whohavebeentremendously
influentialinthedevelopmentofEuropean,LatinAmerican,andNorthAmericanZen;Oka’s
studentHashimotoEkᶫᮏᜨග(18901965)wasanimportantteacherforKatagiriDainin∦
᱒኱ᚸ(19281990),founderoftheMinnesotaZenMeditationCenter;andtheJapanese
missionarySuzukiShunry㕥ᮌಇ㝯(19041971),authorofthepopularZenMind,Beginner’s
Mind(1970)andfounderoftheSanFranciscoZenCenter,studiedfortwentyfiveyearswith
Nishiari’sheirKishizawa.EventheSanbkydanfounderYasutaniHakuunᏳ㇂ⓑ㞼(1885
1973),whoselastinginfluenceintheWestcomesespeciallythroughthelineagesofTaizen
Maizumi๓ゅ༤㞝(19311995)andPhillipKapleau(19122004),forallhiseventualcritiqueof
Nishiari,infactstudiedextensivelyinhisyouthwithbothNishiariandKishizawa.107
DespiteNishiari’simportancetoStZenworldwide,hehasbeenthesubjectofvery
littleWesternscholarship.108ThismarksasignificantcontrastwithotherMeijiBuddhistfigures
107
PaulJaffetranslatesthefollowingpassagetoexpressYasutani’smixedfeelingsaboutNishiari:
BeginningwithNishiariZenji’sKeiteki,Ihavecloselyexaminedthe
commentariesontheShbgenzofmanypeopleinmoderntimes,and
thoughitisrudetosayit,thereareanexceedinglylargenumberof
placeswheretheyhavefailedtograspitsmeaning….Itgoeswithout
sayingthatNishiariZenjiwasapriestofgreatlearningandvirtue,but
evenagreenpriestlikemewillnotaffirmhiseyeofsatori….The
resultingevilofhistheoreticalZenbecameasignificantsourceoflater
degeneration….Soitismyearnestwish,inplaceofNishiariZenji,to
correctsomedegreetheevilheleft,inordertorequitehis
benevolence,andthatofhisdisciples,whichtheyextendedtomeover
manyyears.
(Yasutani1996,xxii).
108
ThefewtreatmentsofNishiariinEnglishlanguagescholarshiparefragmentaryandtendtobelimited
tohisinvolvementinasingletextortemple.ThemostdetailedworkisbyJaffeandScarangello(Jaffe
2001;Scarangello2012);passingmentionsarefoundinNishijima,Heine,PaulJaffe,Ishii,andelsewhere
(Nishijima1997;Heine2012a;Yasutani1996;Ishii2012).TheonlyfullEnglishtranslationsofhiswork
are“ARefutationofClericalMarriage”byJaffeandhiscommentaryonGenjkan⌧ᡂබ᱌by
WeitsmanandTanahashi(Jaffe1999;WeitsmanandTanahashi2011).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.57
likeSuzukiDaisetsu,whohavereceivedsubstantial(ifstillnotexhaustive)treatmentinWestern
scholarship.AsdiscussedinSectionTwo,thoughitisnaturalthatSuzukiandotherinnovators
associatedwiththeMeiji“NewBuddhism”havereceivedthelion’sshareofscholarlyattention,
atthispointMeijiBuddhiststudieshaveprogressedsufficientlyevenintheWestthatthe
institutional,establishmentsideofthepicturemustbegivenitsdue.JaffeandMohr,citing
Davis,havesuccinctlyexpressedthisneed:
IfwearetounderstandtheformationofmodernJapaneseZen,
wemustbegintoresearchthethoughtandactionsoftheleaders
whocontrolledtheestablishedZendenominationsandthe
ordinaryclericswhoranthethousandsofZentemples.Inhis
studyofBuddhismandmodernization,WinstonDavishas
stressedtheimportanceoftheseclericsandtheirtemples,
arguingthattotrulycomprehendthevariousBuddhistresponses
tothechallengesofmodernity,wemustlookatestablished
templeBuddhism,which—rumorsofitsdemiseafterthe
medievalperiodnotwithstanding—remainedduringtheMeijiera
the“numerically,socially,andpoliticallydominant”formof
BuddhisminJapan.(JaffeandMohr1998,3)
ItisinthisspiritthatastudyofNishiariiswarranted:herepresentsaconservative,
institutional,evenreactionarysideofMeijiSt,andissomeonewhoseimpactonmodern
JapaneseBuddhisthistoryis,inmyestimation,atleastassignificantasthatofthebetterknown
Buddhistreformers.109WhileIhopethatthepresentprojectmarksafirststepinthatstudy,its
limitationsaremany,andathoroughEnglishlanguagetreatmentofNishiari’slife,thought,and
impactmustawaitalatertime.
IncontrasttothescantreferencesinEnglish,thereisnopaucityofJapaneselanguage
biographicalmaterialsonNishiari.AbibliographycomposedbymembersoftheHachinoheඵ
ᡞCitysponsoredNishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲ఍researchgroupand
appearingintheirsubstantialcommemorativevolumeNishiariBokusanZenji:Botsugo
hyakunenomukaeteす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄࠼࡚(2009)(hereafterabbreviatedNBZ),
listsnearlytwentydedicatedbiographicalpiecesplusanotherthirtyorsoworksthatmake
substantialreferencetohim.Tothislistmustbeaddedtheautobiographicalsourcesthat
informmanyofthebiographies,especiallytheKeirekidan⤒Ṕㄯ,whichappearsinthe
collectionNishiariZenwaす᭷⚙ヰ(1905).Thesesourcesaregenerallyhagiographicinnature,
andIhavereliedheavilyonsomeofthemcognizantofthefactthat,withacriticalbiography
109
Nishiaricanwithoutquestionbegenerallycharacterizedasastronglyconservativeinstitutionalvoice,
butitisimportanttoheedthewarningsofSawadaandothers,notedinSectionTwo,againstthe
tendencytodesignatesomeMeijiBuddhistfiguresas“conservative”withoutconsideringtheir
complexity(Sawada1998,142–143).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.58
outsidemypresentscope,Icanofferlittlemorethanaversionofthe“authorized”accountof
Nishiari.InparticularIhavemadeuseofhisdiscipleKishizawa’sreverential,anecdotal,free,
andfarrangingSenshiNishiariBokusanOshඛᖌす᭷✕ᒣ࿴ᑦ(1938)andthedetailed
chronologycompiledbytheHachinoheMunicipalLibrary(Hachinoheshiritsutoshokanඵᡞᕷ
❧ᅗ᭩㤋)forthebookKydonomeis:NishiariBokusanZenjisonohitotonenpu㒓ᅵࡢྡൔ
ࠕす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌࡑࡢே࡜ᖺ㆕ࠖ(1972)andexcerptedinfullinNBZ.Thischronologyisbased
onarangeofbiographicalmaterialsandisrichindirectcitationsfromNishiari’sownworksas
wellassecondarystudiesofhim,andIhavedrawnnotonlymuchofmydatafromthissource
buthavealsoborrowedafewofitswellselectedcitations.110Ihavealsoincludedsomeofthe
fullblownhagiographichighlightsfromtheillustratedItsuwash㐓ヰ㞟(1938)commissioned
byNishiari’seponymousSaiyjiす᭷ᑎandalsoreprintedinNBZ.Giventherepetitionofmost
ofthebasicbiographicalmaterialacrossmultiplesources,Ihaveingeneralelectedtocite
specificsourcesonlywhendistinguishingordirectlyquotingfromthem.111
InthispaperIrefertoNishiariBokusansimply,andarbitrarily,asNishiari.Thereare,
however,manyothernamesassociatedwithhim.Priortohisordinationattheageoftwelve,
hewasknownalternatelyasSasamotoKazuyoshi➲ᮏ୓ྜྷandNishimuraKazuyoshiすᮧ୓
ྜྷ.AtordinationhereceivedthenameKin’ei㔠ⱥ,thecharactersofwhichwerechangedbya
subsequentteachertoread ⍲ⱥ(alsoKin’ei).Thesecondpartofhisordinationnameis
Bokusan ✕ᒣ.112AsabbotoftheprestigiousprayertempleKasuisaiྍ╧ᩪ,Nishiariborrowed
atemplecharactertobecomeknownasKaྍ⩝,andthenamesMuian↓Ⅽᗡ,UanRjin᭷
Ᏻ⪁ே,andUanDnin᭷Ᏻ㐨ேarealsorecordedasaliases.113Hismostformalname,
attachedtosomeofhispublishedworks,ishisimperialname,JikishinJkokuZenji┤ᚰίᅜ⚙
ᖌ,conferredbytheMeijiemperorin1901attheheightofNishiari’sprestigeandpower.
KishizawareportsthatthelegalnameNishiariす᭷wasselectedbyNishiarihimselfas
anadult,inresponsetoaMeijigovernmentmandatethatpriestsadoptlegalfamilynames.
JaffediscussestheissuesofclericalsurnamesintheMeijiinsomedetail,identifyingCouncilof
110
Forconvenience,whencitingthechronology,IwillusethepaginationoftheeditioninNBZ.
111
Anadditionalsource,andperhapsthemostcomprehensiveofalloftheworksonNishiari,is
Bakumatsu/MeijinomeisNishiariBokusanZenji:sonoshgaitoshsekiᖥᮎ࣭᫂἞ࡢྡൔす᭷✕ᒣ
⚙ᖌ㸸ࡑࡢ⏕ᾭ࡜຾㋱byYoshidaRyetsuྜྷ⏣㝯ᝋ(1976).Iwasunfortunatelyunabletoprocure
thisobscureresourceuntillateinmyresearchandhavenotbeenabletomakefulluseofitforthis
paper.
112
KishizawanotesanoddityofNishiari’sofficialnameintheStregistries:atthetimeofhissandai
ཧෆpromotionin1845(grantinghimtheprivilegetowearanonblackkesa⿃⿸)hisnamecharacter
Eiⱥwastaboobyvirtueofitsuseintheimperialhousehold.Thepromotionwasrecordedunderthe
name“BokusanBokusan.”Kishizawawritesthatthisunusualcircumstancewasalsosharedbythegreat
StreformedManzanDhaku༜ᒣ㐨ⓑ(16351715),whoforthesamereasonwasregisteredas
“ManzanManzan.”SeeKishizawa1938,576–577.
113
SeeZGD,1148a;Jaffe2001,116.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.59
StateProclamation265,ofOctober,1872,asthemandate“thatallBuddhistclericsadopta
surnameandregisteritwiththegovernmentbytheendoftheyear.”Thispolicy,whichJaffe
citesMasutaniascallingtantamount“toanendtogovernmentrecognitionforordination”was
metwithresistancebymostBuddhistclergy,whohadtraditionallyabandonedthesurnameat
ordination.WhileJaffedescribesthereturnbysomeclericstotheirfamilynames,manychose
newnames,likeShaku㔚,denotingthehistoricalBuddha’skyaClan,orinventedaname,like
“thefamouspreceptadvocateFukudaGykai[⚟⏣⾜ㄕ](18091888),[who]reputedlymade
theBuddhisttermfukuden[⚟⏣],‘fieldofmerit’(Sk.puyaketra)thebasisforhissurname.”
JaffenotesthatthegovernmenttriedbrieflytoreininthesecreativeandoverlyBuddhistic
namingdecisions,butitsattemptstodosowerelargelyineffective.114
Nishiari,everconservativewithrespecttomonasticdeportmentandtherenunciationof
familyties,wasnaturallyunwillingtoreturntohisbirthnameand,likeFukudaandthemany
Shakus,heassignedhimselfanewsurname.Itistemptingtospeculatethatheborrowedthe
Nishiすcharacterfromhismother’sfamilynameNishimuraすᮧ,whichhehimselfcarriedfor
apartofhischildhood,butIhavenotfoundthissuggestedinthebiographies.Kishizawa
suggeststhatNishiaridrewthename,whichliterallymeans“isintheWest”notfromthe
WesternParadiseofthePureLandSutrasasonemightassume,butratherfromtheBussoTki
௖♽⤫⣖ accountofthefirstcontactinChinawiththeBuddha’simage,thestoryinwhich
EmperorXiaomingᏕ᫂ᖇ(r.516–528)istoldbyaministerthat“thereisintheWestasage
whohascomeforthandiscalledtheBuddha.”115
114
SeeJaffe2001,73–78.
115
“す᪉᭷⪷ே⪅ฟ඼ྡ᭣௖.”SeeKishizawa1938,575–576.TheBussoTkiisaTiantaihistoryby
Zhipanᚿ☬(1220–1275),andthesectionofthetextcitedbyKishizawaisdrawninturnfromthe
EmperorXiaomingᏕ᫂ᖇ(r.516–528)sectionoftheChinesehistoricaltextHanshu₎᭩.Thesame
storyistoldintheSutraofFortyTwoSections(Shijnishkyᅄ༑஧❶⥂):
“InancienttimesEmperorXiaomingoftheLaterHanhadadreamone
nightinwhichhesawaheavenlybeingwithagoldenbodyandabright
haloonitsheadflyintothepalace.Hewasgreatlydelightedbythis.The
followingday,theemperoraskedhisministers,“Whichheavenlybeing
wasthat?”Fuyi,amanofvastlearningandexperience,said,“Ihave
heardthatinIndiatherewasapersonwhohadattainedtheWay,called
‘Buddha,’whocouldflyeasily.Theheavenlybeingmustbehim.”(Cleary
2005,31)
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.60
PartI:Nishiari’sEarlyLifeandZenTraining
ŚŝůĚŚŽŽĚĂŶĚKƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƵŶĚĞƌ<ŝŶƌLJƻ;ϭϴϮϭͲϭϴϯϵͿ
ThemanwhocametobeknownasNishiariBokusanwasbornSasamotoKazuyoshi➲
ᮏ୓ྜྷ,onOctober23,1821,nearlyfiftyyearspriortotheendofTokugawaPeriod.Hewas
bornintheharborareaofHachinoheCity ඵᡞᕷinwhatisnowAomoriPrefecture㟷᳃┴,
thenorthernmostJapanesemainlandprovince.Hismother(17941879)wasoftheNishimura
すᮧfamily,thesecondwifeofNishiari’swidowerfather,asmalltimetofumerchantnamed
SasamotoChsabur➲ᮏ㛗ḟ㑻(d.1850).ThehagiographiesreportthatNishiariwasasan
infantfoundtohaveaglowingsoybeanintheshapeoftheBodhisattvaKannonclenchedinhis
fist;thisauspicioussignisconsistentwithhislifelongdevotiontoKannoninparticularamong
theBodhisattvasandBuddhistdeities.
BecauseNishiariwasthesecondsonofhisfatherSasamoto,andbecausethefamilyof
hismotherNishimurahadnomaleheirs,attwoyearsoldNishiariwasadoptedintohis
mother’sfamilyandtookupresidencewithhismaternaluncleafewmilesawayfromhis
parents.116Threeyearslater,however,amaleheirwasborntotheNishimurafamilyandthe
fiveyearoldNishiariwassentbackhome.HewasthereafterraisedaSasamoto,where
accordingtoKishizawahewasaccordedtheprivilegesofafirstsonduetoamentaldisability
onthepartofhiselderbrother(Kishizawa1938,577).
Nishiari’saspirationtobecomeamonkbeganearlyinhislife.Nishiari’smotherwas
affiliatedwiththeShinSectandhadfamilygravesatanearbyShintemplecalledGan’eiji㢪ᰤ
ᑎ,andNishiari’saspirationtobecomeamonkissaidtohavebegunonavisittothistempleat
theageofeight.Walkingaroundthetemplewithhismother,theboyNishiariaskedaboutthe
depictionsofhellsandpurelandshesawadorningthetemplewalls.Hismotherrepliedthat
thepicturesofthehellsshowedwheresheherselfwouldgoafterdeathunlessoneofher
childrenweretobecomeamonk.Shefurtherexplainedthat,ontheotherhand,ifoneofher
childrenwouldbecomeordained,thewholefamilywouldbeassuredrebirthinthepurelands
pictured.Nishiariwasmovedbythissentiment,anditissaidthatfromtheageoftenhe
repeatedlyimploredhisparentstogranthimpermissiontoordain.
AttheageoftwelveNishiarifinallyreceivedhisparents’blessingtoordain.Withtheir
blessingcametheirsternwarningthathenotbecomesimplyanordinarycountrymonk,and
Nishiarihimselfwrotethatthisadmonitiontobecomeextraordinaryremainedapowerful
116
ReferencestoNishiari’sagefollowtheWestern,nottheJapanese,countingsystem.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.61
motivatorforhimthroughouthislife(NBZ,16).Withtheirblessing,Nishiarilefthomeandwas
ordainedonJune21,1833.HisordinationtookplaceatthelocalSttemplewithwhichhis
Sasamotofamilywasaffiliated,Chryji㛗ὶᑎ,andwasconductedbyapriestnamedKinry
㔠㱟.KinrybestoweduponNishiaritheclericalnameKin’ei㔠ⱥ.117
In1834,theyearafterhisordination,Nishiari’steacherKinrywaspromotedtothe
abbacyofaprominenttempleintheregion,HkjiἲගᑎinnearbyNakuiྡஂ஭,wherehe
becamethetwentysixthgenerationabbot.Nishiariaccompaniedhimthere,andinthewinter
ofthatsameyear,KinryassignedthethirteenyearoldNishiaritofilltheroleoftemple
superintendent(kansu ┘ᑎ)ofaHkjisubtemplecalledKryjiග㱟ᑎ.118
(IwillnoteherethatHkjiandKryjiremainedimportanttemplestoNishiari
throughouthislife,andthatthelaterprominenceofthesetemplesseemstoowemuchtothe
statureofNishiari.Forinstance,whenattheageofthirtysevenin1858Nishiaricompleteda
Kannonpilgrimage,hereservedonethirdofsacredearthhehadcollectedtointeratthe
KannonworshipsiteofHkji.119Subsequently,afullfortyyearsafterhisfirstresidence,
NishiarireturnedtoserveasHkjiabbot,apostheheldfrom18741877.Duringthattimethe
templewaspromotedinstatustoahightemplerank.120Nishiari’smostpowerfulcontribution
tothetemplewashisofferingofthreeDgenrelics,andHkjitodayboastsastatueinhis
honor,andalongwiththerelicsofDgenalsoclaimstohousearelicoftheBuddhahimself.As
fortheHkjisubtempleKryjiwhereNishiariasateenagerhadheldhisfirstofficialpost,in
1878itsheditssubordinationtoHkjiandwasnamedanindependenttemplewithNishiarias
itsfounder.NishiariinstalledthereaniconofthesyncreticShintBuddhistfireprotecting
deityknownasSanshakub୕ᑻᆓ,apowerfulreligiousartifactthatledtothefurther
promotionofthetempleandestablisheditasasiteforpilgrimageanddeitycultworship.121)
117
ItisinterestingtonoteherethatintheearlybiographyofthisgreatStsectarian,heshowsno
specialorpersonalinclinationforthesect;theselectionofaSttempleissimplythefactofhisfather’s
familyaffiliation.Thestoryofhisfirst“arousingofbodhimind”(hotsubodaishinⓎ⳶ᥦᚰ),too,ashas
beenseen,isnotatallcouchedinStbutonlyingenericBuddhistterms,andwassaidtohavetaken
placeinaPureLandtemple.
118
ItisnotentirelyclearwhatthispositionwouldhaveentailedatasmalltempleinthelateTokugawa
period.Itwaslikelyaceremonialrole,althoughitmightalsohaveentailedresponsibilitiesforthe
maintenanceofthetemplesuppliesandgrounds.See,forexample,DigitalDictionaryofBuddhism,“┘
ᑎ,”articlebyGriffithFoulk&CharlesMuller.
119
TheotherpartsheinterredatthegravesitesofhisparentsandhisDharmatransmission(shihႹἲ)
teacher,respectively.SeeNBZ,28.
120
Therankwasjge ᖖᜏ఍,atemplefor“regulargatherings”inwhichwinterandsummertrainings
periodsareheldannually.SeeZGD,543a.
121
FormoreontheDgenrelicsandNishiari’srelationshiptoSanshakubanddeitycultsingeneral,see
thesectionbelowonKasuisai.SeealsoFaure1991,143n3637.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.62
NishiaritrainedunderKinryforsixyears,agestwelvetoeighteen,from1833untilthe
teacher’sdeathin1839afteraperiodofpartialparalysis.Thebiographiesallcelebratethe
youngNishiari’sdevotiontohisteacherinundertakingatwentyonedayfastandprayerperiod
beforeKannonforKinry’srecovery,thoughtheaccountsdifferwithrespecttothelengthof
Kinry’sillness,andwhetherheultimatelysuccumbedafewyearsoronlyafewmonthsafter
Nishiari’sausteritiesandKannondevotions.
dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚƐƵŽŶ;ϭϴϯϵͲϭϴϰϭͿ
SoonafterthedeathofhisordinationmasterKinry,theeighteenyearoldNishiarileft
Hkji,Kryji,andtherelativebackwaterofthefarnorthoftheJapanesemainlandforan
urbantemple,Shonjiᯇ㡢ᑎ,inthelargecityofSendai ௝ྎ.Helivedtherefortwoyears,
reportedlyundergoingintenseandseveretrainingunderapriestnamedEtsuonᝋ㡢.Itisalso
saidthatduringthisperiodNishiaricompletedhisreadingoftheentiretyoftheChineseClassics
andBuddhistcanon,aprojecthehadbegunearlyinhisteenageyears.
DuringNishiari’sstayatShonjiinSendai,hewasexposedfirsthandtothedevastation
oftheGreatTempFamine(Tempnodaikikinኳಖࡢ኱㣚㤡).Thebruntofthefaminehitin
1837and1838,butNishiari’sstoryofthefamineisdatedto1841.Thefaminewasamongthe
mostsevereoftheTokugawaperiod;Jansennotesthatinsakathecrisistookthelivesoften
percentofthepopulation.122Thedeathanddevastationoftheperiodmadeaprofoundimpact
onNishiari,asdescribedbelowinhisownwords:
వࡣኳಖ༑஧ᖺࡢปṓ࡟㐼㐝ࡋ࡚⏕ᾭࡢ኱ᖾ⚟ࢆᚓࡓࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋṈᖺࡢ㣚㤡ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ఱศ࡟ࡶ㣗≀ࡀ୙㊊࡛࠶ࡿࡓ
ࡵ࡟㣹Ṛࡋࡓ⪅ࡀ↓ᩘ࡛࠶ࡘࡓࠋࡑࡢ᝺≧௒࠿ࡽࡇࢀࢆᛮࡩ
࡜ᐇ࡟⫙࡟⢖ࢆ⏕ࡎࡿࡢឤࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୍ᑍ㏆ᡤࢆṌ⾜ࡋ࡚ࡶഹ
࠿࡟༑⏫࠿༑஬⏫ࡢ㛫࡟㣹Ṛ⾜ᩢࢀࡢ஬භேࡶࡳࡿ࡜பࡩ࡯
࡝࡛ࠊ࡞࠿࡞࠿᝺≧ࢆᴟࡵࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
IreceivedoneofthegreatestblessingsofmylifetimewhenI
experiencedthecropfailuresofTemp12(1841).Thefamineof
thatyearwasextraordinary,andinthetotalscarcityoffood
countlesspeoplediedofstarvation.Tothisdayitgivemechillsto
thinkoftheterriblescene.Itwasindeeddevastating:eveninjust
122
SeeJansen2000,225–226.Jannetta,thoughfocusedontheHidaregion,detailsthemagnitudeof
themortalitycrisis,andconcludesthatfamine,notepidemic,wasindeedtheprimaryfactor(Jannetta
1987,178–187).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
alittlestrollthroughtheneighborhood,overonlytenorfifteen
blocksonewouldseefiveorsixdyingpeopleorstarvedcorpses.
㸦୰␎㸧඼ࡢ㣹Ṛࡸ⾜ᩢࢀࡀ㈋❓ேࡤ࠿ࡾ࠿࡜பࡩ࡟ࠊỴࡋ
࡚ࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㌟࡟⤱ᕸࢆࡲ࡜ࡦ㢌࡟㰑⏥ࡢ᷸ࢆ࠸ࡓ࢐
ࡁࠊ᠜୰࡟ࡣ⃝ᒣࡢ㔠㖹ࡶᡤᣢࡋࡘ࢏㣹Ṛࡋࡓ⪅ࡀ⃝ᒣ࠶ࡘ
ࡓࡢࡖࡸࠋవࡣ⏕ᚓ⮑⑓ࡢᛶ㉁࡛࠶ࡘࡓࡀࠊṈࡢปᖺ࡟㝿ࡋ
࡚ࠊ୍⏫࡟୍㣹Ṛࠊ༑⏫࡟༑⾜ᩢࢀࠊኪ⾜ࡍࢀࡤṚேࡢ㢌ࢆ
㋃ࡴ࡜பࡩ᝺≧ࢆ┠ᧁࡋࡓ࠿ࡽࠊ᭱ึࡢ୰ࡣỀ࿡ࡶ᝵ࡃࠊ࡞
ࢇࡔ࠿ᜍࢁࡋ࠸࡜பࡩࠊ࠸ࡣ࢐⮑⑓⚄࡟ㄏࡣࢀࡘ࢏࠶ࡘࡓ
ࡀࠊẖ᪥ẖኪࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊࡘࡦ࡟ࡣṚேࡢᜍࡿ࡭࠿ࡽ
ࡊࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᚰᗏ࠿ࡽྜ㯶ࡋ࡚⮑⑓ࡢᛶ㉁ࡀㆰ໬ࡋ࡚㣾⛬኱⮉
࡟࡞ࡘࡓࡢ࡛ࠊỴࡋ࡚Ṛேࢆᜍᛧࡏࡠࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ୍ษࡢ
஦≀࡟㦫࠿ࡠࡸ࠺࡟࡞ࡘࡓࡢࡖࡸࠋࡇࢀࡣ␬ࡢୖࡢỈ⦎࡛࡞
ࡃᐿᆅ࡟⥂㦩ࡋࡓᏥၥࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ⌮❍ࡸ㆟ㄽࢆ㞳ࢀ࡚≀࡟ᜍᛧ
ࡍࡿᛕࡀⷧࡃ࡞ࡘࡓࡢࡖࡸࠋ
…Itisnotatallthecasethatthesedyingorstarvedpeoplewere
onlythepoor;manyofthedeadbodiesweredrapedwithsilks,
withtortoiseshellcombsontheirheadsandplentyofmoneystill
intheirpockets.Ihaveaninherentlycowardlynature,andwhen
onewalkedatnightinthatterribleyear—withastarvedcorpse
oneachblock,andwithtendyingpeopleoneverytenblocks—
onewouldstepontheheadsofthedead.Seeingthisterrible
situation,mycowardicegotevenworse—onemightsayIwas
temptedbygodofcowardice!Butsincethiswentoneverysingle
dayandnight,finallyatthebottomofmyheartIrealizedthatI
mustnotbeafraidofdeadpeople.Mycowardlynaturethus
changed,andIbecamequitecourageous.NotonlywasItotally
unafraidofcorpses,butnothingatallsurprisedmeanymore.This
wasnotthepractice[ofzazen]onthetatamimatbutwasthe
realizationoftheteachingsinreallife.Transcendingtheoryand
opinions,fearfulthinkingwanes.
㸦୰␎㸧వࡀᬌᖺࡲ࡛ⱞᏥࢆམࡣࡠࡢࡣṈᖺࡢปṓࡢ⥂㦩ࡀ
ከᑡࡢຊ࡜࡞ࡘ࡚ᒃࡿࡢ࡛ࠊవࡢ⥂Ṕ୰࡟ࡣᛀࡿ࡭࠿ࡽࡊࡿ
㧗ᜠࡢ࠶ࡘࡓᖺ࡜பࡩ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
…IntomyfinalyearsIhavenotavertedfromthestudyof
suffering,andthatpowercomeslargelyfromthatyearofmy
pg.63
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.64
experiencewiththeterribleharvest.InmywholelifeIhavenever
forgottenthegreatblessingsofthatyear.123
dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞĂƉŝƚĂůĂŶĚƐĐĞŶĚŝŶŐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞZĂŶŬƐ;ϭϴϰϭͲϭϴϰϵͿ
In1841,attheageoftwenty,Nishiariresumedhismigrationsouthward,andtowards
increasinglyurbanareas,leavingthecityofSendaiforthemetropolitancapital,EdoỤᡞ
(moderndayTky),whereheenrolledattheprestigiousSendanrin᰽᷄ᯘ seminaryinthe
areaofKomagome㥖㎸,onthegroundsofKichijjiྜྷ⚈ᑎTemple.124Nishiariissaidtohave
donebeggingrounds(takuhatsuᡸ㖊)inthecityeverydaytocoverhiseducationalexpenses,
andheisdescribedasapproachinghisstudywithgreatvigor.OneprominentEdobookstore
grewsousedtohisloiteringtherethattheybeganlettinghimtakehomebooksforthenight.
AttheSendanrinhecontinuedhisstudynotonlyofStdoctrinebutalsoofConfucianclassics,
andhewasespeciallyinfluencedbyaConfucianturnedBuddhistnamedKikuchiChikuan⳥ᆅ
➉ᗡ(18291868).
Itwasin1842thatNishiariwasfirstexposedtotheShbgenz,afactthatis
highlightedinallofthebiographiesgivenhislaterascensiontobecomethepreeminentDgen
scholarmonkoftheperiod.Thatyear,theabbotofKichijji,aDgenscholarnamedDaitotsu
Guzen኱ズហ⚙(17861859),wasinvitedbytheabbotofShinshji┿᐀ᑎindistantEchigo
Uonuma㉺ᚋ㨶἟tolecturethereonShbgenzoverathreemonthretreat(angoᏳᒃ).
Guzenaccepted,andNishiariaccompaniedtheabbot,carryinghisbooksandluggage—saidto
weighsomethinglikeonehundredfiftypounds—onthewalkingtripofsometwohundred
milesfromEdotoEchigo,viatheUsuiPass☄ịᓘ,andthenbackagainatthecloseofthe
retreat.AnothercontactofNishiari’swiththeShbgenzwasthroughaguestlectureron
DgenattheSendanrin,BkEryᛀග្ு,whowassaidtohavebeenintheteaching
lineageofBanjinDtan.TheseexposurestoDgenwereseminalinthecareerofNishiari,butit
wasnotuntil1845,uponhisreturnfromasummertrainingperiodatDaijji኱஌ᑎ,that
NishiarifullytookuphisstudyofDgenwiththeabbotscholarGuzen.Intheyearsthatwould
followofNishiari’sdoctrinaltrainingwithGuzen,heissaidtohaveconcentratedonDgen’s
nonShbgenzworksliketheDaishingi኱Ύつ(alsoknownastheEiheiShingiỌᖹῤつ),
Hkykiᐆ៞グ,andGakudyjinshᏛ㐨⏝ᚰ㞟,andalsotohavestudiedthebroader
123
IhavedrawnthistextfromNishiari’sKeirekidan,butIhavepreservedtheplacementofthe
redactionsfromtheeditedandmodernizedversioninNBZ(Nishiari1905,11–12;NBZ,19).
124
SeeSectionOneontherelationshipoftheSendanrintotheStDaigakurinandKomazawa
University.KishizawanotesthattheSendanrinwasoneoftwoStseminaries,andthatitemphasized
doctrinalstudieswhiletheother,atSeishji㟷ᯇᑎ,emphasizedzazen(Kishizawa1938,584).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.65
Buddhistdoctrinalbackground,namelytheHokkekachἲ⳹⛉トandtheTendaishikygiኳྎ
ᅄᩍ൤.
In1842and1843,inadvanceofNishiari’sfirstabbacy,anappointmenttoHrinji㬅ᯘ
ᑎ in1843,Nishiariwasquicklypromotedthroughtherequisiteclericalranks.These
promotionswerefacilitatedbyTaigenSory Ὀཝ᭪㝯,whowastheabbotofthenearby,
KichijjiaffiliatedSsanji᐀ཧᑎ,andwho,likeNishiari,wasfromthesmallanddistant
hometownofHachinohe.InformationisscarceonSory,butitseemsthathewasateacherof
someprominencewhohadtrainedatDaijiji኱ឿᑎbeforegoingtoEdo,hadconferredDharma
transmission(shihႹἲ)uponelevendisciples,andwaspublicallyrecognizedasavirtuous
monkbytheTokugawagovernment’stempleandshrineadministrator(NBZ,22).Nishiari
duringhistimeattheSendanrinwasinandoutofSsanjivisitingSory,andin1842Sory
appointedhim“headseat”(shuso㤳ᗙ)forathreemonthretreatatthetemple,duringwhich
timethetwentyoneyearoldNishiariwascloisteredatSsanjiandassistedSoryinleadingthe
training.KishizawanotesthatNishiariwasabletoacceptthepostinpartbecausehisprior
teacherfromSendai,Etsuon,inavisittotheSendanrinhadgivenhisblessingforNishiarito
trainwithSory,dissolvinghimofhispriorcommitmenttoreturntoSendaiafterhistimeinthe
capital(Kishizawa1938,589–590).
WhileNishiarididnotreceiveDharmatransmission(shih)directlyfromSory,Sory
facilitatedhistransmissionbydirectingadiscipleofhisowntoperformtheceremonyfor
Nishiari.InKishizawa’stelling,thisdiscipleofSory,AnsuTaizenᏳ❆Ὀ⚙,theabbotof
Honnenjiᮏ↛ᑎ,alsointhevicinityofEdo,hadadifficulttemperamentandnodisciplesofhis
own,andSory’sdirectinghimtoperformthetransmissionforNishiaricomesacrossas
somethingofafavortoTaizen.NotonlydidSorydirectTaizentoconductthetransmissionfor
Nishiari,buthethenadvisedNishiarinottotrainwithTaizenatall,buttoleavehimafter
receivingthetransmission.125Whateverthecomplexrelationshipsinplay,onthetenthdayof
theeighthmonthof1843,attheageoftwentytwo,NishiaricompletedDharmatransmission
underTaizen.Withthis,heachievedtherankofosh࿴ᑦandbecameeligibletobemadean
abbot.
Anabbacywasquicktocome:soonafterhisDharmatransmissionin1843,Nishiari
becamethefifteenthabbotofHrinji㬅ᯘᑎ,nearSory’stempleSsanji,fillingavacancyleft
bythedeathofthepriorabbot,aclericwhohadnodisciples.Nishiarihadforsometimebeen
assistingregularlyatthattemple,providingservicesforthelaityandmaintainingthetemple
groundsandcemetery,andheissaidtohaveearnedtherespectandadmirationofthe
parishionerseveninadvanceofhisinstallationasabbot.Heissaidhereagaintohavedone
dailybeggingtosupporthimselfandthetemple,aswellastorepaydebtsthetemplehad
incurredpriortohisappointment.
125
SeeKishizawa1938,591–592.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.66
BasedatHrinjifrom18431849,Nishiaricontinuedtoascendthroughtheclericalranks
and,reportedly,togainawidespreadreputationinEdoasaprominentyoungscholarmonk.In
1845,asnotedabove,heperformedsandaiandgainedtheprivilegetowearnonblackkesa.
ThesameyearhealsoparticipatedintheprestigioussummertrainingperiodatDaijji኱஌ᑎ
inKagaຍ㈡.In1847,attwentysixyearsold,theKichijjiabbotGuzeninvitedhimtohosta
threemonthretreatassembly(gkoeỤ†఍)atHrinji,andwhileGuzendidmuchofthe
teaching,Nishiarisharedtheresponsibilityandwasaccordinglypromotedtotherankof“Great
Teacher”(daiosh኱࿴ᑦ).
Thisrapidascensionasateacherwassaidtohaveledtosomeprideonthepartof
Nishiari,andinhisownautobiographicalremarkshehighlightsaninstancewhen,in1849atthe
ageoftwentyeight,heattemptedtovisithismotherinHachinoheonlytobehumbledbyher
refusaltogranthimentryandherinsistencethathecontinuetopracticediligentlyforthesake
oftherebirthsofhisfamilymembers.Thisstory,anditsretellingthroughouttheliterature,
atteststoNishiari’ssenseofthefinalityof“homeleaving”(shukke).
dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞGenzka'ĞƚƚĂŶĞŶƌLJƻ;ϭϴϰϵͲϭϴϲϮͿ
WhileNishiariwasinvolvedwithvarioustemplesfrom1849to1862,agestwentyeight
tofortyone,thistimeinhislifeisbestdefinedashisperiodoftrainingwiththeDgenscholar
monk(genzka)GettanZenry ᭶₺඲㱟(d.1865).126Gettanwasabbotofareputedlysevere
trainingmonasterycalledKaizjiᾏⶶᑎ,inOdawaraᑠ⏣ཎinwhatisnowKanagawa
Prefecture.AccordingtoKishizawa,thetemplehousedjustafewmonksintrainingwhen
Nishiarifirstarrived,butgrewasGettan’sreputationgraduallyspread,suchthatbythetime
Nishiarilefttheregionthemonasticassemblyhadgrowntofiftyandhadincludedlater
prominentStfigureslikethegreatStscholarHaraTanzan,whostayedforatleastasingle
threemonthretreat,andthelongtimecolleagueofNishiariandsecondindependentSjiji
126
GettanisknownbothasGettanZenryandasZenryGettan,aswellasbythenamesShiyan⮳​
⳽andRokutanභ‣.BorninKumamoto ⇃ᮏ,Gettanfirststudiedclassicsandthenwentontotrainin
TendaiatMt.HieibeforetakingupZenandtrainingwithMokushitsuRyy㯲ᐊⰋせ(17791833)and
atRytakuji 㱟⃝ᑎ withateachernamedYju(?)㣴ᑑ.HereceivedshiheitherfromYjuorDaih
Giseki኱᪉⩏☒,andhelaterbecamethethirteenthabbotofHjuinᐆ⌔㝔andthefortiethabbotof
Kaizji.Inadditiontothe[Tj]hbukukakush[Ὕୖ]ἲ᭹᱁ṇcowrittenwithMokushitsuand
entrustedtoNishiari(discussedbelow),GettanauthoredtheDaikaiymon኱ᡄせᩥ(printedin
VolumeThreeoftheStshzensho ᭪Ὕ᐀඲᭩)andtheSandkaihkyzanmaikgiཨྠዎᑌ㙾୕
᫕ㅮ⩏.SeeZGD,708a.Anextensivecollectionofhisrecordedsayingswasrecentlypublishedasthe
GettanZenryOshgoroku᭶₺඲㱟࿴ᑦㄒ㘓(2012).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.67
abbot(discussedinSectionTwo),AzegamiBaisen(Kishizawa1938,598–600).Gettanwasa
primarymentorforNishiari,likelyhissinglemostimportantintellectualinfluence.Though
NishiariwasnotadiscipleofGettanbyordinationortransmission,itisclearthatGettan
treatedhimassuch.Forexample,inhisfirstyearwithGettanin1849,theteacherchangedthe
charactersofNishiari’sclericalnamefromKin’ei㔠ⱥtoKin’ei⍲ⱥ,substitutingthe
pedestriancharacter“gold”withthehomophonousbutmoreobscureandelegantcharacter
“gem,”onefurtherloadedbyassociationwiththenameoftheStpatriarchandSjiji
founder,KeizanJkin⍧ᒣ⤂⍲(1268–1325).
NishiarijoinedtherelativelyunknownGettanin1849afterleavingHrinji,Guzen,and
thecapitalEdo.GiventheemphasisonShbgenzinNishiari’steachingcareer,itislikelythat
Nishiari’smovetoKaizjiwasmotivatedbyhisgrowinginterestinthestudyofDgen,but
thereareofcourseanynumbersofreasonshewouldhavemadethemove,includingthe
possibilitiesthathehadtiredofurbanlife,feltconstrainedbyhisresponsibilitiesasanabbot
accountabletoparishioners,orfelthehadexhaustedGuzen’steaching.Inanycase,the
biographerspointoutthathischoicewasremarkable:leavingEdoasawellregardedalumnus
oftheSendanrin,Nishiariwouldhavebeenwelcomedatmoreprominentmonasteries,likethe
onehundredmonktraininghallRykaiin 㱟ᾏ㝔 inMaebashi๓ᶫ,theeightymonktraining
hallShuzenjiಟ⚙ᑎinIzu ఀ㇋,orthehundredplusmonktraininghallKshji⯆⪷ᑎinUji
Ᏹ἞.Infact,NishiarididlaterspendsignificanttimetrainingRykaiinand,toalesserextent,
atShuzenji,butNishiari’sprimarychoicetotrainatthelesserknownKaizji,whereincontrast
tothesemonasteriesthestudyofShbgenzwasprioritizedoverzazen,crystallizedhis
identityasfirstandforemostagenzka.ThisisnottoimplythatGettanexclusivelytaught
Shbgenz;duringNishiari’stenurewithhimGettanalsolecturedextensivelyon,forinstance,
theSutraofPerfectEnlightenment(Engakukyᅭむ⥂).
LookingbackfromthecontextofcontemporarySt,itmayseemnaturalthatan
ambitiousStmonkwouldprioritizethestudyShbgenz,but,ashasbeennotedinSection
Two,theidentificationofStwiththeShbgenzisinfactaMeijieradevelopment.As
Kishizawanotes,Gettan’semphasisonShbgenzinthemidnineteenthcenturywasunusual
forthetime(Kishizawa1938,594–596).Inthisperiodwellbeforethesurgeinpopularityofthe
ShbgenzfollowingWatsujiTetsurandothers,andbeforeeventhetext’s
institutionalizationinStthroughtheShushgi,genzeandthelike,teachersandstudents
whospecializedinthetextwerenotinthemainstream.ThelengthstowhichNishiariissaidto
havegonetohearGuzenteachingtheShbgenz,forexample,isemblematicofthis—aSt
clericsincethelateMeijiwouldhavenoneedtotravelfartohearextensiveteachingson
Shbgenz,butwouldfromthefirstdaysofhistrainingunderstandasamatterofcoursethat
thestudyofStdoctrineistantamounttothestudyofShbgenz.
FollowingalongstandingtropeinZenhagiography,thebiographieslingeronthe
severityofNishiari’strainingandthepovertyanddisrepairofKaizji.Kishizawarelatesa
dialoguesaidtohavetakenplacewhileNishiariandtwoothermonksstoodawaitingentryat
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.68
thetemple,inwhichGettanmadeitclearthattherewouldbenofoodforthemiftheytrained
there.Nishiariandhiscompatriotsrepliedthattheywouldarrangefortheirownfood
(presumablythroughthedailybeggingroundstheyweresubsequentlysaidtohavepracticed),
andonlyatthatweretheyadmitted.Kishizawaalsorelatesanotherstorycelebratingthe
malnutritionatKaizji,inwhichKishizawahimselfspeakstoanoldmonkwhohadtrainedthere
whileNishiarihadbeentheheadofthekitchen(tenzo඾ᗙ).Theoldmonkdescribedto
Kishizawahowthericegruelatthattimehadbeensothinthattheceilingcouldbeseen
reflectedinit,andthatinmisosoupforfiftymonks,Nishiariwouldputjustasinglescoopof
miso.127
ItisunclearhowlongNishiariresidedwithGettanatKaizji.Thebiographiesreport
thatheservedGettanfortwelveyears(18491862),sevenofwhichheservedastenzo(1851
1858).Duringthisperiod,however,Nishiarialsohadinvolvementsinothertemples.Thus
whilethehagiographiesmakemuchofNishiari’smettleinpersistingwiththesevereGettanfor
twelveyears,andwhileitisclearthathedidstudycloselywithhimandcompletedanumberof
Kaizjiretreats,bymycalculationsitseemsthatNishiarilivedconsecutivelyatKaizjiforonly
thefirstthreeofthosetwelveyears,from1849to1852.128
In1855,NishiariwasappointedtotheabbacyofNyoraijiዴ᮶ᑎinMishima୕ᓥ,
whereoversawfourteenorfifteenmonksintraining.Latein1858,heassumedaconcurrent
postasabbotofthenearbyEichinⱥ₻㝔.NyoraijiwasaboutfifteenmilesawayfromKaizji,
andEichinwasevencloser,andthroughhistimeintheseabbaciesNishiaristayedclosely
connectedwithGettan.WhenGettanheldthreemonthretreatsatKaizji,Nishiariwasableto
takeupresidencetherewithhim,andduringothertimesoftheyear,despitehisotherduties,
NishiariwasabletoregularlycommutetohearGettanlecture.Thebiographiesuniversally
celebratethiscommutefromNyoraijitoKaizji,whichwouldbegininthedarkofmorningand
finishinthedarkofnight,asademonstration,likehislongwalkin1842fromEdotoEchigoto
hearGuzen,ofhisprofounddevotiontotheShbgenzandtohisteachers.Duringthissame
period,Nishiarialsomaintainedcontactwithotherteachers,andheissaidin1861tohave
studiedforanonandoffyearwithateachernamedBaimy ᱵⱑofShuzenjiandtohave
127
SeeKishizawa1938,596–599.
128
TheseyearsrepresenttheonlyspaninNishiari’sputativeKaizjiperiodthatheisnotshownas
havingsignificantresponsibilitieselsewhere.Asdetailedbelow,thebiographiesindicatethathespent
atleastthetwosummersof1853and1854trainingatRykaiin,andlikelytheinterveningandfollowing
monthsaswell.Subsequently,after1855whenNishiaritookuptheabbacyofNyoraijiዴ᮶ᑎ,and
throughhisconcurrentabbacyofthenearbyEichinⱥ₻㝔fromthewinterof1858until1862,hewas
onlyanintermittentresidentatKaizji,livingthereduringformalthreemonthretreatperiodsbut
otherwisecommutingtoattendlectures.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.69
realizedthetruthofthecosmosinhisteachingonthe“fireattheendoftheeonthatdestroys
allthings”(gkatnenຕⅆὝ↛).129
AculminationofNishiari’strainingwithGettancamein1862,shortlypriortoNishiari’s
returntoEdotoassumetheabbacyofSsanji᐀ཧᑎ,thetemplewhereexactlytwentyyears
priorhehadservedasshusounderTaigenSory.Beforehisdeparture,GettanvisitedNishiari
atNyoraijiandtheregrantedhimconfirmationofenlightenment(inkashmei༳ྍド᫂).130
KishizawacitestheversebywhichGettanconferredthiscertification:
ɖ
ɖ
ᐩᕌᕴම୕ᓥ஝
ɲɎ
㟋㱥ᖺྂ ⲡⰝⰝ
ɑɪ Ȯɐ ɓ
ඡᚄ୍㊰㞪 㝶 Ỉ
ɴ
ɱ ɒɲ
⳯ⴥ୙Ͼὶᚨ⮬㩭 (Kishizawa1938,610)
TothesoutheastofMt.FujiandthenorthwestofMishima131
Aspiritaltargrowsoldinyears,andgrassesflourish.
Althoughthesinglepathoftherabbitrunsalongthewater,
Novegetablefloats[there],andthevirtueisselfevident.132
WhiletheperiodofhisregularcontactwithGettancametoaclosewiththeinkaandthemove
backtoEdo,Nishiaricontinuedtohavesomecontactwiththeteacher,assistinghimfor
exampleat1865eventsatFukushji⚟ᫀᑎ,inthepositionofpreceptor(kaishiᡄᖌ).
^ƃƐĂŶũŝďďĂĐLJ;ϭϴϲϮͲϭϴϳϭͿ
129
ThislikelyreferstothefamousquestioninCase#4ofthekancollectionHekiganroku ☐ᕑ㘓,of
whetherornotanythingremainsaftertheworlddestroyingfire.SeeZGD,306a.
130
IhavenotbeenabletoestablishtheroleofinkashmeiinlateTokugawaSt.Unlikeshih,itdoes
notappeartohavebeenascriptedceremonyortoconstituteaconcretepromotionintheinstitutional
ranks.Iamtemptedtospeculate,astheAmericanZenteacherJamesFordhassuggestedabout
contemporarySt,thatthecertificationservedasakindof“secondDharmatransmission”intheSt
sect,awaytosealamasterdisciplerelationshipwhilesidesteppingthecentralStdoctrinethat
Dharmatransmissioncanbereceivedonlyonce,andfromasingleteacher.SeeZGD,55a;Ford2012.
131
ItakethislineasaroughdescriptionofthegeographicallocationofNyoraiji.
132
ThisseemsareferencetoatropeinZenliteraturethatavegetableleaffloatingdownstreamofa
hermitageisevidenceofahermitwho,infrugal,lacksawakening.Ihavebeenunabletodeterminethe
originalcontextofthistrope.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.70
NishiariresidedasabbotatSsanjifrom1862until1871,whenhelefttheareaofEdo
againtoassumetheabbacyofHsenji㬅௝ᑎinKiry᱒⏕.AtSsanjiheoversawatraining
hallofabouttwentymonks,includingsomewhowouldlaterrisetoprominenceinthesect,and
hebeganhimselftolectureontheShbgenz.Atthattime,Nishiarifelthewasbeginningto
fullytoappreciatetheteachingsofhisteacherGettan:
ᑠ⏣ཎࡢ᪩ᕝ࡟฿ࡾᾏⶶᑎࡢ᭶₺⪁ே࡟ཧࡎࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ๓ᚋ༑
஧ᖺ࡛ࠊṈ㛫࡟᭶₺⪁ேࡼࡾ║ⶶࡢᥦၐࢆ஧ᅇ⫈⪺ࡋࡓࡢ࡛
₞ࡃᮋẼ࡟ᚚ㛤ᒣࡢᚚᛮྊࢆ❚ࡩࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡓࡸ࠺࡞ᚰᆅࡀ
ࡋࡓ࠿ࡽỤᡞ࡟ṗࡘ࡚᐀ཧᑎ࡛ึࡵ࡚║ⶶࡢᥦၐࢆࡋ࡚ึᚿ
ࡢᗄศ࡟㓘ࡦࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ133
IstudiedforabouttwelveyearswithOldManGettanofKaizjiin
HayakawainOdawara.DuringthattimeItwice[daily]heardhim
lectureontheShbgenz,[yet]IfeltIcouldonlybarely,faintly
glimpsethesublimethoughtsoftheesteemedFounder[Dgen].
UponmyreturntoEdo,[however,]whenIbegantooffer[my
own]lecturesontheShbgenzatSsanji,myoriginalintention
wastosomedegreefulfilled.
dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŶůŝŐŚƚĞŶŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚDŽƌŽƚĂŬĞŬŝĚƃ;ϭϴϱϮͲϭϴϱϱͿ
AnimportantinterludeinNishiari’strainingwithGettanwasthetimehespentwiththe
prominentteacherandeventualabbotofSjiji,MorotakeEkid ㅖᕌዒᇽ(18051879).134As
notedabove,Gettanwasfirstandforemostatextualscholar,andinhismonasterytherewas
littleemphasisonthepracticeofsittingmeditation.Therefore,afteraboutthreeyearsat
Kaizji,GettanissaidtohavesentNishiaritodeepenhistraininginzazenatMorotake’s
hundredmonktraininghall,Rykaiin,someeightymilesawayinthevicinityofKyto.Inthe
eighthmonthof1852,afterjoiningwithStmonksfromacrossthecountryinassistingwith
majorservicesatEiheijiincelebrationofthesixhundredthanniversaryofDgen’sdeath,
133
IhavedrawnthistextdirectlyfromNishiari’sKeirekidan,butIamindebtedforitsselectiontothe
editedandmodernizedversionintheNenpuinKydonomeis(Nishiari1905,15;NBZ,25).
134
Morotakeisalsoknownbyhisimperialname,KsaiJitokuZenjiᘯ⃽ឿᚨ⚙ᖌ.Thefirst
independentabbotofSjiji,MrossnoteshissupportoftheSjijiindependencemovement,andJaffe
noteshisparticipationinthepanBuddhistorganizationShoshdtokukaimeiSeeMross2009;Yokoi
1991,462;Jaffe2001,115.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.71
NishiarimetupwithMorotakeandaccompaniedhimbacktoRykaiin,whereheproceededto
trainforabouttwoandhalfyears.135
NishiariissaidtohavemadequiteanimpressiononMorotakeandthemonksat
Rykaiin.Uponhisarrival,MorotakeimmediatelypromotedNishiaritoahighrankwithinthe
temple(fsu๪ᑎ).136Further,theteacherissaidtohaveentrustedthethirtythreeyearold
NishiariwiththeDharmaseatinthebimonthlyquestionandanswerceremonyofshsanᑠ
ཧ:
ዒᇽ㛛ୗ࡟ࡣⓒே௨ୖࡢಟ⾜ൔࡀ㞼㞟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋዒᇽࡣẖ᭶
୍᪥ࠊ୍஬᪥ࡢᑠཨ㸦ಟᏛൔࡀၥ⟅ࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸧࡟ࡣᡶᏊ
㸦ᑟᖌࢆࡘ࡜ࡵࡿ㐨ල㸧ࢆ⍲ⱥ࿴ᑦ࡟ࢃࡓࡋࠊࠕᑠཨࡣ๪ᑎ
࡟୍௵ࡍࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚⮬ศࡣ᪉୔ࡢ㛫࡬ᖐࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ┤ᚋᮏᇽ
࡛ࡣⅆࡢฟࡿࡼ࠺࡞࿨ࢆ࠿ࡅࡓἲᡓၥ⟅ࡀ㜚ࢃࡉࢀࡓࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ⍲ⱥ࿴ᑦࡢ⾜ゎ㸦ᗙ⚙ࢆᏛၥ㸧୧඲ࡢே᱁ࡢຊ㔞ࡀࠊಟ
⾜ൔࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚Ⅿⅆࡢዴࡃ⇿Ⓨࡋࠊ⃭ὶࡢዴࡃὶฟࡋࡓ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪤࡟⍲ⱥ࿴ᑦࡣ୍ᐙࡢᮏ᐀ᑗ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᙜ᫬᪩ࡃ
ࡶࡑࡢ㐨㄃ࡀ኱ᮏᒣỌᖹᑎ࡟ࡶ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࠊ⍲ⱥ࿴ᑦࡣ୙⪁㛶
㸦Ọᖹᑎ㈏㤳ࡢᐊ㸧࡟ୖࡗ࡚㟋ᇽ⚙ᖌ࡟┦ぢࡋ࡚᮶ࡓࠋ137
Overahundredpracticingmonkshadflockedtofollow
[Morotake]Ekid.Attheshsan(questionandanswer
[ceremony]withmonksintraining)heldonthefirstandfifteenth
ofeachmonth,Ekidwouldpassthehossu(thetoolusedbythe
guidingteacher)toMasterKin’ei[Nishiari],saying“Ientrust
shsantothefsu[Nishiari],”andreturningtotheabbot’sroom.
Immediatelyafterwards,likeaneruptionofflamesandwiththeir
verylivesinthebalance,Dharmacombatwouldbewagedinthe
mainhall.MasterKin’eiwouldmeetthedistinctcapacityofeach
individualwithhisownpracticeunderstanding(learnedinzazen),
135
Thecoreofthistrainingwasthetwosummerretreatsof1853and1854.GiventhewinterRykaiin
settingfortheanecdoterecordedbelowasNishiari’senlightenmentstory,andtheexistenceofaverse
byMorotakeuponNishiari’s1855departuretohisnewpostasabbotofNyraiji,itseemslikelythat
NishiaristayedstraightthroughbetweenretreatsatRykaiin,ultimatelytrainingthereforatleasttwo
andhalfyearsfromtheeighthmonthof1852throughatleasttothefirstmonthof1855.
136
Fusu,technicallyanassistanttothekansudescribedabove,isatempleadministrativepostthat
likewiseconfersstatusandceremonialresponsibilitiesbutmayormaynotinvolvepracticalduties.See
DDB,“┘ᑎ,”articlebyGriffithFoulkandCharlesMuller.
137
ThetextandparentheticalnotesarefromYoshida,Bakumatsu/MeijinomeisNishiariBokusanZenji,
excerptedinNBZ(NBZ,27).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.72
explodinglikearagingfireandflowinglikeathunderingriver.
AlreadyMasterKin’eiwasamongthecoreleadersofthesect.
EvenasearlyasthattimehisreputationintheWaywasknown
evenatthegreatheadtempleEiheiji,andhecametoenterthe
roomoftheEiheijiabbotandmeetZenMasterRyd.
RykaiinismostsignificantforNishiari’sbiographersasthesiteoftheanecdote
recordedasNishiari’s“suddengreatenlightenment”(katsuzendaigo㇉↛኱ᝅ).Kishizawa
tellsthestoryasfollows:
࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁዒᇽ⚙ᖌ࡟ᑓ౑ࢆ࿨ࡐࡽࢀࠊ⣮⣮࡜ࡋ࡚㬾ẟࢆ࡜ࡤ
ࡍ㞷ࢆ࠾࠿ࡋࠊ἟⏣ᅾ࡟ࡺࡁࠊ୍ᑻࡶࡘࡶࡗࡓ࡞࠿ࢆ࠿࠼
ࡾࠊ㛛࡟ධࡿ࡜⾜⪅ࡀࡳࡘࡅ࡚඾ᗙᑅ࡟ࡣࡋࡾ࠾‫࠸ࡽࡓࢆ‮‬
࡟ࡃࡳࡁࡓࡾࠊࡲࡵࡲࡵࡋࡃⲡ㠠ࡢࡦࡶࢆ࡜࠸࡚ࡃࢀࡓࠋඛ
ᖌࡀ㊊ࢆࡩࡳධࢀࡿ࡜ࠊ࡟࠼ࡓࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⇕‫࠾ࡽ࠿ࡓࡗ࠶࡛‮‬
ࡶࢃࡎࠊࠕ࠶ࠊ࠶ࡘ࠸ࠖ࡜ࠊ࠸࠺࡚㊊ࢆࡦࡁ࠶ࡆࡿ㏵➃࡟⾜
⪅ࡀࡍࡤࡋࡇࡃᗞ࡟࡜ࡧฟࡋ࡚࠿࠿࠼࡚ࡁࡓ㞷ࢆ࠾‫ࡓࡓ࡟‮‬
ࡗࡇࡴ࡜ࠊࡋࡹ࠺࡜࠸࠺ኌࢆࡓ࡚࡚࡜ࡅ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋඛᖌࡇ
ࢀࢆࡳ࡚㇉↛࡜ࡋ࡚኱ᝅࡋࠊ
Ɏ
ɺ
Ɂɴɘ
ᢕࢽ㞷ᅋᅋ୍ᢞ
ȿɎ
ࢽ
ɓ
⇕‫୍‮‬
ɳ
஝ᆞ᧞ⴠ ጁ㧗൞
ɱ
ɖ
ɻ
୙烁▱௒᪥ఱ᫬⠇
ȿɎ ɺ
ɚ
㋍ࢽಽ㖟┙୍➗୍ሙ(Kishizawa1938,605)
Once[Nishiari]wassentoutonanerrandbyMaster[Morotake]
Ekid.Itwassnowinglikeaflurryofgoosefeathers,andinthe
ricepaddiesandcountrysidethesnowcameuptoafoothigh.
Enteringthegate,[Nishiari]foundtheMaster’sattendant[to
reporthisreturn],andthenhurriedtothetemplekitchentofetch
atubfullofhotwater.Hecarefullyuntiedthelacesofhisstraw
sandals,[but]whenmyformerteacher[Nishiari’s]foottouched
theboilinghotwater,hespontaneouslycried“Aaah!Hot!”and
yankedhisfootout.TheMaster’sattendantimmediatelyrushed
tothegarden,collectedsomesnow,andthrewitintothehot
water.Witha“shuu”sounditmeltedcompletely.Seeingthis,my
formerteacher[Nishiari]suddenlygreatlyunderstood,and
composedthisverse:
Grabbingupthesnow,andthrowingitintothewater,
Heavenandeartharecastoff,Mt.Merucollapses.
Idonotknow[even]whatseasonitis!
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.73
Laughingatonce,Ikickoverthesilverdish.138
Itshouldbenotedherethatwhilethisstoryisthestandardaccount,anotherstoryalso
circulatesasNishiari’srequisiteenlightenmentmoment.Thisversion,setduringhistimewith
Gettan,isrecordedintheZengakuDaijitenisasfollows:
୕ࠐṓࡢ᫬ࠊ㬅ᯘᑎࢆ㎡ࡋ┦ᶍ(⚄ዉᕝ┴)ᾏⶶᑎ᭶₺඲❳ࡢ
఍ୗ࡟ᢞࡌࠊ้ⱞཧ⚙㎪㐨ࡍࡿࡇ࡜୍஧ᖺ࡟ཬࡪࠋ୍᪥ࠊ⪁
ேࡢࠝᴊᄫ⥂ࠞࢆᥦၐࡍࡿࢆ⪺ࡁࠊࠕ▱ぢ୙ࣞ❧ࣞぢࠖࡢㄒ
࡟࠸ࡓࡗ࡚ᛛ↛࡜ࡋ࡚㛤ᝅࠋ
Atthirtyyearsold,[Nishiari]leftHrinjiandthrewhimselfinto
theassemblyofGettanZenryofKaizjiinSagami([inwhatis
now]KanagawaPrefecture),fortwelveyearswholeheartedly
endeavoringinZentrainingandthepracticeoftheWay.Oneday
asheheardhisteacherlectureonthera
gamastra,atthe
words“seeingthroughknowingisnotseeing”139hesuddenly
openedandunderstood.
ItisnoteworthythattheenlightenmentstoryissostandardafeatureofZen
hagiographythatitcannotbedispensedwitheveninthecaseofanorthodoxStteacherlike
Nishiari,whotaughtthedoctrineof“theonenessofpracticeandenlightenment”(shushfuni)
andseemedtoendeavortodeemphasizethekindofthinkingthattheenlightenmentstory
genresupports.Topickanexamplefromhistranslatedwork,forinstance:
Becauseenlightenmentmustnotremain,yougrinditoff
completely,untilthereisnotevenaspeckofenlightenment.
Whenyoureachthepointof“nostinkofenlightenment,”where
thereisnotrace,youvowwithgreatdeterminationtoletthe
138
“Silverdish”(ginban㖟┙)here,especiallyinthesnowycontextoftheanecdote,invokesthephrase
“fillingasilverbowlwithsnow”(ginwanniyukiwomoru㖟┊┒㞷),fromDongshan’sHkyzanmai,a
Stliturgicaltext.SeeZGD,239d.
139
Thisphraseisambiguous,andastudyofthelinesintheirsutracontextisoutsidethescopeofthe
presentpaper.Thephrase▱ぢ୙❧ぢdoesnotappearintheTaisheditionofthera
gamastra,
norinanyotherTaishtext.Itmaybeareferencetothefollowingsectionfromthestra,inwhichthe
Buddhaaddresses
nandaasfollows:
▱ぢ❧ࠋ▱༶↓᫂ᮏࠋ▱ぢ↓ࠋぢ᪁༶ᾖᵎࠋ↓₃┾῕ࠋ
Toseethroughknowingistherootofignorance.Whenthereisnotseeing
throughknowing,thereisnirva,untaintedandpure.
(T945:19.124c910.TextfromSATDaizky;theCBETAtextpunctuationdiffersonthe
firstphrase:▱ぢ❧▱ࠋThisfourcharacterphrasingexpressedbytheCBETA
punctuationismorecompellingthanthephrasingoftheSATedition.)
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.74
absenceofenlightenmentcontinuelong,long,long,likeasingle
railofironformyriadmiles.(WeitsmanandTanahashi2011,59)
Indeed,KishizawainhistellingoftheenlightenmentstoryofhisteacherNishiariseems
toacknowledgeanassumption,perhapsimpliedbytheaboverhetoric,thatNishiariwasnot
enlightened.Asnotedabove,YasutaniHakuun,forexample,saidsooutright.Kishizawathus
concludeshistellingofNishiari’senlightenmentstory,whichincludestheexchangeofseveral
additionalverseswithMorotake,withthefollowing:
ୡ㛫࡛ࡣࠊඛᖌ࡟ᝅࡾ࡞ࡋ࡜࠸࠺ࡀࠊ࠿࠼ࡾ࡚Ὕᒣྂ௖࡟ග
᫂࠶ࡾࡸ࠸࡞ࡸࢆၥࢃࡤࠊఱ࡜⟅࠼ࢇ࡜ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ㜿࿣࿣ࠋ
(Kishizawa1938,605)
Intheworlditissaidthat[Nishiari]myformerteacherwasnot
enlightened,butifyouaskedtheOldBuddhaTzan[Dongshan]if
hehadthebrightlight(kmy)whatwouldhesay?Hahaha.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.75
PartII:NishiariandtheMeijiBuddhistPersecutionandReinvention
WhenNishiarireturnedtothecapitalin1862,astheprominentabbotofSsanjihehad
accesstoelitesocietyandhadatleastsomecontactwithmembersoftherulingTokugawa
family.Forexample,atamajorpreceptconvocation(jukaieᤵᡄ఍)heldin1865atwhichhe
officiatedwithGettan,overonethousandparticipantsweresaidtohavereceivedtheprecepts,
includingsuchhighlevelTokugawafamilymembersasTokugawaTenshinኳ⍻㝔(1837
1883),theordainedwidowofthethirteenthshgunTokugawaIesadaᚨᕝᐙᐃ(18241858).
ThecontinuityintotheMeijiperiodofNishiari’sinevitablepoliticalinvolvements,andhis
considerablepoliticalskills,areevidentinastoryfromtheBoshinᠾ㎮War(18681869)inthe
tumultuousyearoftheestablishmentoftheMeijiregime.Atthattime,theabbotNishiariis
saidtohaveriskedhislifetosaveaSsanjiparishioner,Murogaᐊ㈡,whohadfoughtonthe
sideoftheTokugawashogunatebutlaterjoinedthegovernmentarmy.PursuedbyTokugawa
loyalistsangeredathisdefection,MurogafledtoseeksanctuaryatSsanji.Nishiarisaved
Muroga’slifebyconvincingthetroops—twohundredstrong,intheaccountofonehagiography
(Saiyji1938,29)—tosparehim.Justasthereligiousinstitutionsstruggledtostayontheright
sideofthepoliticalturmoilnationally,atthelocallevel,too,priestslikeNishiarineededto
strikeabalancebetweenpastloyaltiesandthepresentpoliticalrealities.
Likeallleadingmonksoftheperiod,however,Nishiari’srelationshipswiththe
governmentandgovernmentpolicyranfardeeperthananylocalparishconcern.Aninfluential
voiceintheStestablishment,hewasactivelyinvolvedatthetoplevelsofthesectarian
leadershipinshapingtheinstitutionfortheMeiji.Ingeneral,whileNishiariresistedsomeof
thereformstoBuddhismproposedandenactedbytheMeijigovernment,hejoinedthe
mainstreamofBuddhistinstitutionalfiguresinassigningthebulkoftheblameforthe
persecutionontheexcessesanddegenerationofBuddhiststhemselves.140Ratherthantowork
againstantiBuddhistpoliciesortorejectthemasunfounded,Nishiarijoinedintheeffortto
reformBuddhismsuchthatitsimaginedpreTokugawapuritywouldberegainedandthenew
regimecouldrecognizeitasausefulandpowerfulpartnerinitsmodernizing,imperialist
agenda.AStabbot,UedaShetsuୖ⏣⚈ᝋ,expressesthisorientationofNishiariinhis
recentapologeticarticle,“NishiariBokusanandthePersecutionofBuddhism”(NishiariBokusan
tohaibutsukishakuす᭷✕ᒣ࡜ᗫ௖ẋ㔘).DiscussingNishiari’s1873text,“Guidelinesto
ProtecttheDharma”(Gohyjinshㆤἲ⏝ᚰ㞟),hewrites:
140
AsnotedinSectionOne,thishasbeentheoverwhelmingtrendinBuddhisthistoriographyand
persiststothepresent.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.76
✕ᒣ⚙ᖌࡣࠕㆤἲ⏝ᚰ㞟ࠖࢆⴭࡋ࡚ᗫ௖ẋ㔘ࡢㄗࡾࡸᘢᐖࢆ
ᣦ᦬ᢈุࡋࠊṇἲࡢㆤᣢ࡜ൔ㢼ࡢ㠉᪂ࢆၐ㐨ࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ⚙ᖌࡣᓥᆅ㯲㞾➼㠉᪂ⓗ㐍Ṍὴࡢࡼ࠺࡟ṇ㠃ᨻᗓࡢ᐀
ᩍᨻ⟇ࢆ᫝ṇࡏࡋࡵࢇ࡜ࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ᫬ὶ࡟ᶋࡉࡋ࡞ࡀ
ࡽࠊࡑࡢὶࢀࢆᨵṇࡏࡋࡵࡿᰂ㌾࡞ᡓ⾡࡟࡛ࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(Ueda2009,53)
ZenMasterBokusanwrote“GuidelinestoProtecttheDharma”to
identifyandcritiquetheerrorsandharmfuleffectsofhaibutsu
kishaku.Initheadvocatedforthepreservationofthetrue
DharmaandthereformofSanghacustoms.Hedidnottryto
rectifythegovernment’sreligiouspoliciesattheirsurface,asdid
ShimajiMokuraiandhisreformist,progressivefaction,butrather
employedsofttactics:alteringthestreamofeventswhileflowing
alongwiththecurrentofthetimes.
These“softtactics,”thoughcelebratedbyUedaascorrectiveofthereligious
administrationofthewholecountryandshowingthepathforwardforgenuineBuddhist
progress,seemlargelytohaveamountedtoNishiari’sfullandcongenialparticipationwiththe
governmentprogram.Hewasrecognizedandpromotedbythegovernmentduringhisservice
undertheGreatTeachingAcademy(Daikyin;seeSectionOne)inthe1870s,andmaintaineda
highenoughprofileandacordialenoughrelationshipwiththegovernment,thatbythelate
MeijihewaspersonallygrantedaZenMaster’snamebytheemperor.Thisname,Jikishin
JkokuZenji┤ᚰίᅜ⚙ᖌ(“DirectMind,PurifyingtheNation”),wasconferredonhiminthe
sixthmonthof1901,comingperhapsasamatterofcourseshortlyafterhiselectionaschief
abbot(kanshu)ofSjiji.Thename’sdistinctlynationalisticvalenceisnoaccident,Ithink,and
certainlyreflectsNishiari’scareerlongproStatestance.TherelationshipwiththeMeiji
emperordidnotendwiththebestowalofthename:biographiesalsorecordvisitsbyNishiari
totheimperialcourttoblesstheemperorintheNewYearin1902and1904inhispositionat
thepinnacleofthesecthierarchyaschiefabbot(kanch).
ǀĂŶŐĞůŝnjŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞ;ϭϴϳϮͲϭϴϳϰͿ
NishiariwasinvolvedintheGreatTeachingAcademyfromitsbeginningsin1872,having
inthethirdmonthofthatyearreceivedasummonstoreporttothenewlyempoweredMinistry
ofDoctrine(Kybusho).Thoughheissaidtohavefirmlyrefusedthefirstrequest,hesoon
complied,andattheendofthefourthmonthof1872hewasmadearepresentativeofSjijito
theMinistryofDoctrine,andearlythefollowingmonthwasappointedMinistryrepresentative
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.77
oftheheadofthesect(kanchjimutoriatsukai⟶㛗஦ົྲྀᢅ).Whateverreservationsmay
havebeenbehindhisinitialrefusaltoreporttotheMinistry,hewentontoserveit
wholeheartedlyasamidlevelandthen,fromthetenthmonthof1872,asanupperlevel
doctrinalinstructor(daikgi኱ㅮ⩏)andasanexaminerforthecertificationofStsect
lecturersfortheAcademy.
MissionizingacrossJapan,andespeciallyinHokkaid,Nishiariwasbyallaccountsan
eagerandableambassadoroftheGreatTeachingAcademyanditsproState,neoShint
ideology.Nishiariisnotatallunusualinthis,asnotedinSectionOne,attheAcademy’speak
therewere81,000doctrinalinstructorsactiveinJapanfromtheBuddhistinstitutionsalone.I
havenotbeenabletofindthecontentofanyofNishiari’slecturesfromtheperiod,butIexpect
thattheywouldmakeforaninterestingstudy.Icannotyetestablishtheextenttowhichhe
stuckstrictlytothemandated“ThreeStandardsofInstruction”(sanjkysoku)andthelater
“Themes”(kendai)oftheGreatTeaching,ortowhatextenthewastemptedintothe“individual
orBuddhisticinterpretations”warnedagainstinthe1872governmentproclamationnotedin
SectionOne.
JoiningtheAcademywellbeforethecodificationofStdoctrineasexpressedinthe
Shushgi,forexample,itisnotclearexactlywhatmessageNishiariwouldhavehadfortheSt
laityinthecontextofAcademysponsoredlectures.LobreglionotesthattheAcademydid
circulateatexttoaidStlecturers,ashortentryinan1872textcalledtheShoshsekkyygi
ㅖ᐀ㄝᩍせ⩏,amanualforAcademylecturersofthevariousBuddhistsects.Followingthe
trendinStthoughtatthetime,thetextexpressesapositionthatTakiya’srevisiontothe
Shushgiwouldlateroverturn:anunderstandingofStaswhatLobregliocallsa“twotiered”
systemwith“moredifficultandrarefiedpath”formonasticsanda“lowertieredpath”forthe
“laymasseswhoseintellectualandspiritualcapabilitiesweredeemednotadequateforthe
subtletiesofthemostprofoundBuddhistdoctrinesandtherigorsofzazen.”Nishiariresisted
someaspectsoftheShushgiconsensus(seeScarangello2012,315–316),andonthispointtoo
helikelyobjected;hislifelongemphasisonmonasticpuritywouldpointtoaninclination
towardsthe“twotiered”system.TheStinstructionsissuedbytheAcademyarevague,but
theydogivesomeindicationofthekindsofethicsbased,nationalisticteachingsNishiariwould
havebeenexpectedtodelivertolayaudiencesintheearly1870sasheworked,necessarily,
undertheauspicesoftheGreatTeachingAcademy.Lobregliodescribesthecontentofthis
Academypublishedtextofunknownauthorship:
Thetextexhibitsanumberofelementscharacteristictovirtually
allsuchdocumentsofthisperiod:supportforanemperor
centeredsystemofruleinwhichthecontinuityoftheimperial
lineagewiththeancestralkami,ordeities,ofthenationis
stressedandardorforcontributingtotheedificationofa
benightedpopulace.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.78
Despitesuchclearcateringtothewishesofthegovernment,and
itslackofindepthdoctrinalexplication,thelittlethatitdoessay
aboutdoctrinalmattersisofinterest.Firstofall,thecentral
doctrinaltropesfound…[inotherSttextsoftheperiod]are
onceagainaffirmed:“Zen[...]takesasitsmainprinciple(shshi)
‘directlypointingtothemind,seeingintoone'snatureand
becomingBuddha.’”Secondly,though,suchelevatedspiritual
attainment,andthetasteofitssubtlejoy,areclearlynot
conceivedassomethingopentoall.Thefactofinequalityin
humancapabilitiesisdulynotedandtheStapproachtothose
lessableisspelledout:
“Inordertoguidethosedullwittedpeopleofaverageorbelow
averageability,weteachsuchthingsaskanzenchaku
(encouraginggoodandchastisingevil)andingah(retribution
basedoncauseandeffect).Thisleads[them]torespectand
worshipthekamiandbuddhas,humblyservetheEmperor,think
fondlyabouttheirdebttothenation,liveinharmonywiththe
actualconditionsoftheirlives,and[it]spreadsthebenefitsof
civilizedgovernanceeverywherethroughout[theland].”
(Lobreglio2009,83–84)
Nishiaribeganhismissionizingwiththegovernment’sAcademyin1872inthenorthern
mainland,theregionofAkita⛅⏣Prefecture,workforwhichin1874hewasbestowedbythe
abbotofEiheijiamonetarycommendation.Heismostcelebrated,though,forhismissionary
work,beginningin1873,ontheAcademy’scircuitinHokkaid,theremotenorthernisland
underthecontroloftheMeijigovernment’snewDevelopmentCommission(Kaitakushi㛤ᣅ
౑).Thevalueofmissionariesincolonizationhasbeenwellknowntoimperialgovernments
throughouthistory,anddespiteitsantiBuddhistrhetorictheMeijigovernmentdidnothesitate
touseBuddhistmissionstogainafootholdintheircolonizingeffortsinHokkaid.Foritspart,
theBuddhistinstitutionalleadership,strivingtoregainthegoodgracesofthegovernment,rose
enthusiasticallytotheoccasionandthrewsubstantialmaterialandpersonnelresourcesinto
theeffort.141Nishiariwasanenthusiasticparticipantinthiscollaboration,andbythethird
monthof1874,attheageoffiftythree,hewaspromotedtotherankofsupervisinginstructor
fortheAcademyworkinHokkaid(Hokkaidkydtorishimari໭ᾏ㐨ᩍᑟྲྀ⥾).Hisefforts
inHokkaidculminatedwithhis1881establishmentofthetempleChji୰ኸᑎinSapporoᮐ
ᖠ.TheEiheijiabbotKugamiTsuunஂᡃᐦ㞼(18171884)consentedtoserveasthenominal
founder(kaisan㛤ᒣ)ofthetemple,andthoughhewasimmediatelyreplacedbya“second
141
SeeSectionOne.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.79
generation”abbotoflowerstature,thetemplewasgrantedthehighstatusofdirectbranch
temple(jikimatsuji┤ᮎᑎ)toEiheiji.142
Nishiari’sevangelizingprowesswasonfulldisplayduringhistimeinHokkaid,wherehe
issaidtohavetaughtsevenoreighttimesaday,andareinevidencefromthedayofhisarrival.
DeniedentrytotheDevelopmentCommission’sadministrativeheadquartersatSapporobya
highrankingofficialnamedMatsumotoJrᯇᮏ༑㑻withpronouncedantiBuddhist
leanings,Nishiariengagedhiminadebatesaidtohaveragedforseveraldays.WhenNishiariat
lastprevailed,Matsumotonotonlybecameafollowerbutofferedhisfulladministrative
cooperationandgrantedhimthelargetractoflandthatwouldeventuallybecomethesiteof
Chji.
TheextensivemissionizingandevangelismofNishiarimustbeappreciatedforits
markeddistinctionfromtheWesternmodernistZenselfcharacterizationasanantievangelist
teaching.143Nishiarihimselfwasanunapologeticevangelist,andJapanesesectarian
biographerswritingthroughoutthetwentiethcenturyhaveunambivalentlycelebratedhis
excellenceinthisregard.NorshouldhisevangelismwiththeAcademybetakensimplyasa
functionofthegovernment’sdoctrinalinstructionmandate;beforeandafterhistenureasa
doctrinalinstructoroftheGreatTeaching,Nishiariwasdevotedtothepropagationofthefaith
amongthelaityandthroughouttheland.Tociteoneexampleamongmany,whenasabbotof
Kasuisaihewasdismayedbythepeople’slackoffaith,Nishiaribecameanoutrightstreet
evangelist.BuyingcartloadofBuddhistrosaries(juzuᩘ⌔),hehandedthemout
indiscriminatelytoeveryonehemet,saying,“ThesebeadswillgiveyoufaithinBuddhism,bring
youhappiness,andprotectyou.”144
AsnotedinSectionOneofthispaper,theGreatTeachingAcademydissolvedin1877
afterbeingdeeplyunderminedbythe1875withdrawalbytheShinsectfromtheproject.Itis
unclearwhenexactlyNishiarilefttheranks—biographiesshowhewasactiveinAcademy
missionizingfrom1872throughatleastlatein1874,butIfindnoreferencestoactivitybyhim
underitsauspicesin1875orlater.
ItshouldbenotedthatNishiari’scooperationwithMeijigovernmentpolicieslikely
extendedtoadvocacyoftheexpansionistexercisesoftheJapanesemilitaryintheSino
JapaneseWar(18941895)andtheRussoJapaneseWar(19041905).Thoughthe
142
KugamiTsuunwasthesixtyfirstgenerationabbotofEiheiji;alsoknownasKugamiKankeiஂᡃ⎔῱.
SeeZGD,244c.
143
AsRichardJaffehasremindedme,itisusefultonotethatNishiari’sevangelisminHokkaid,likethat
ofBuddhistmissionariesinKorea,wouldhavebeenprimarilyorientedtowardsJapanesesettlersrather
thanregionalnatives.Totheextentthatthiswasso,andremainedsofortheJapaneseBuddhist
missionariestotheWestaswell,itisperhapsnaturalthatWesternZenconvertsinthetwentieth
centurymayhavebeenleftwiththesensethattheyhadthemselvesnotbeenevangelized,andby
extensionthatthetraditionitselfwasantievangelist.
144
௖ᩍಙᚰࢆ࡞ࡉࢀࠊᖾ⚟ࢆ୚࠼ࠊ㌟ࢆᏲࡿᩘ⌔࡛ࡈࡊࡿࠋUeda2009,53.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.80
hagiographiesaremutedonthesubject,thereisnoreasontobelievethatNishiari’sapproach
totheescalatingJapanesemilitarismofthetimeshouldbedistinguishedfromthe
overwhelmingmajorityofBuddhistestablishmentvoices.Infact,inNishiari’sworkcanbe
heardforerunnersofthekindofrhetoricthatwouldculminate,forexample,inthestatement
byNishiari’s“granddisciple”SawakiKdthat“Itisthepreceptforbiddingkillingthatwields
thesword”(Victoria2006,35).See,foranexampleamongmany,Nishiari’semphasisonthe
principleof“killingtheonetosavemany”intheveryfirstwordsofhisintroductiontohis1903
commentsonZenprecepts,theBussoshdenzenkaishkwaష♽ṇബ⚮ᡄ㕒ㅮヰ:
ྠࡌẅ⏕ᡄ࡛ࡶࠋᑠ࠸ᚰࠋ⊃࠸ᚰࢆ௨ࡘ࡚ẅ⏕ᡄࢆᣢ࡚ࡤᑠ
஍ࡢᡄἲ࡜࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋṈࡢᑠ஍࡟౫ࡘ࡚ẅ⏕ᡄࢆ
ᣢ࡚ࡤ⦲௧ࡦⓒⴙࡢᩛࡀ᮶࡚ࡶࠋ୍ேࡶẅࡍࡇ࡜ࡣฟ౗࡞
࠸ࠋ኱஌࡛ࡣࠋ᝵ே୍ேࢆṶࡋ࡚༓ⴙேࡢⅭࡵ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡞
ࢀࡤࠋẅ⏕ᡄࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋⱝࡋ᝵ே୍ேࢆṶࡉࡎ࡟⨨
࠸࡚ࠋᐖẘࢆ༓ⴙே࡟ὶࡉࡏࡿࡸ࠺࡞஦࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠋ༷ࡘ࡚ẅ
⏕ᡄࢆ◚ࡘࡓࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ(Nishiari1903,1)
Eventhough[theSmallandGreatVehicleshave]thesame
preceptagainstkilling,whenthisnonkillingpreceptisobserved
withasmallandnarrowmind,itistheprecepttaughtbythe
SmallVehicle.Observingthenonkillingpreceptfromthat
standpointoftheSmallVehicle,evenifamillionenemiescome,
onecannotkillasingleone.IntheGreatVehicle,[however,]to
killasingleevilpersonforthesakeoftenmillionpeopleisto
observethenonkillingprecept.Ontheotherhand,tonotkilla
singleevilperson,and[thereby]toallowharmtoflowtoten
millionpeople,istobreakthenonkillingprecept.
ZĞĨŽƌŵŝŶŐƚŚĞ^ĂŶŐŚĂ
ToarguethatNishiariwasingeneralcooperativewiththegovernment’smandatesis
not,however,tosuggestthatheacceptedasamatterofcoursethereformstoBuddhism
proposedbythegovernment.Onthecontrary,itisclearforinstancethatasadefenderof
monasticdiscipline,Nishiariwasstronglyopposedtogovernmentpoliciesthatsought
effectivelytolaicizetheclergy.Ueda’spraiseforNishiari’s“softtactics”notwithstanding,on
thesepointsofmonasticdeportmentNishiariwasclearinhispositions.AsUedanotesinthe
passagecitedabove,Nishiari’sadvocacyfor“thereformofSanghacustoms”boreno
resemblancetothekindofreformsproposedbyShimajiandotherprogressivesattemptingto
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.81
adapttheBuddhistinstitutionstothemodernworld.Nishiariinsteadwasinthemoldof
traditionalistreformerslikeFukudaGykaiandShakuUnsh,whosoughtareturntoanidealof
monasticdiscipline.WhatJaffesaysofFukudaappliesequallytoNishiari:
FukudadidnotbelievethattherevitalizationofBuddhism
dependedonabolishingpreceptsthatwereoutofstepwiththe
time.ForFukuda,therenewal(isshin)ofBuddhismmeantthe
restoration(fukko)ofpastpractices.
JaffearguesthatNishiari’sreligiousconservatismwaspartandparcelofabroadersocial
conservatism,andthatNishiari’sstaunchdefenseofBuddhistpreceptscanbeunderstoodas
partofhisbasicallyreactionarystancetowardthemodernizingsocial,economic,andpolitical
landscapeofJapan.Jaffewritesthat,
Nishiariattributedahostofproblems—rangingfromdisloyaltyto
socialdislocation—totheoverwhelmingconcentrationon
materialprogressandmodernizationattheexpenseofspiritual
cultivation.TheinabilityoftheBuddhistclergytokeeptheirvows
wassymptomaticofamorefundamentalillthatplaguedJapan.It
wasinnerdevelopment,notmaterialprogress,thatmarkedtrue
‘enlightenmentandcivilization.’145(Jaffe2001,139)
HegoesontociteNishiari’santimarriagetract,Dansryosaitaironᙎൔ౶ጔᖏㄽ
(1879):
IamoldfashionedandtherearethingsIdonotunderstandabout
‘civilizationandenlightenment.’Shouldwhatishappeningin
Japantodaybeseenasprogressordecline?Themoststriking
thingsaboutthesocalledprogressofcivilizationaresuch
externalmanifestationsasmachinery,tiledroofs,Western
clothes,Westernliterature,andWesternlanguage.However,
whenweexaminethedispositionofthosewhoareadolescentsor
younger,wefindthatthosewithflippant,servile,andresentful
voicesarenumerous,butthosewithasenseofintegrityare
extremelyfew.
Preceptviolationbytheclergy,thebusinessenterprisesofthe
nobles,andexsamuraipullingrickshawsarenotconsidered
contemptuous.Awomanisnotembarrassedaboutbeinga
consortorgeisha,andthingshavereachedthestatewhereitis
145
Jaffe2001,123.“Civilizationandenlightenment”(Bunmeikaika ᩥ᫂㛤໬)isanumbrellaslogan
withwhichmuchofthemodernizingmovesofMeijiJapanwerejustified,signifyingalignmentwiththe
WestandtheadoptionofWesterninstitutionsandvalues.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.82
consideredfoolishtobea“virtuouswomanandagoodwife.”
Deceitisanaturaloccurrence.Itisdifficulttoloanandborrow
moneywithoutcollateral,evenamongfathersandsonsor
brothers.Ifthistrendcontinuesforafewmoreyears,whatwill
becomeofthenation,letalonetheBuddhaDharma?When
comparedtothegenerationsinwhichcelibateclericswerevalued
andvirtuouswomenwereadmired,isthecurrentstateofaffairs
beautifulorugly,progressordecline?Ultimately,mygrieving
overthedeclineoftheBuddhaDharmaresultsinmygrievingfor
thenation.(Jaffe2001,139)
EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝŽŶůĞƌŝĐĂůDĂƌƌŝĂŐĞĂŶĚƵĚĚŚŝƐƚŽƐŵŽůŽŐLJ
Nishiari’soppositiontoclericalmarriage,anissueofgreatsignificanceinMeijiBuddhism
thathasbeennotedinSectionOne,hasbeenstudiedindetailbyRichardJaffe,whoinhis2001
workpresentsasummaryandanalysisoftheDansryosaitaironandinhis1999work
publishesacompletetranslationofit.Jaffedescribesthetext,writtenbyNishiariunderthe
pennameUanDnin ᭷Ᏻ㐨ே,asoneofthe“majortractsopposingclericalmarriagethat
werepublishedin1879.”Nishiari’saimsandeffortswerethusalignedwiththemain
organizationseekingtherepealofthelaw,thepansectarian“AllianceofUnitedSectsfor
EthicalStandards”(Shoshdtokukaimei)mentionedinSectionOne.Icannotestablish
whetherNishiariwasaformalmemberofthegroup,buthisteacherMorotakewasamongits
leadersandthereisnoquestionthatNishiarisharedthevaluesoftheorganization.TheShosh
dtokukaimei“linkedadherencetotheBuddhistpreceptstotherevivificationofBuddhismand
viewedthedecriminalizationofnikujikisaitaiasastumblingblocktoBuddhistreformation.”146
JaffepresentsthreeaspectsofNishiari’sargumentindefenseofclericalcelibacyinthe
Dansryosaitairon:appealstocosmology,totheprotectionofthenation,andtofilialpiety.
Nishiari’scosmologicalargumentisnotonlyinterestingintermsofitsattempttojustify
BuddhistcelibacythroughShintcosmology—amoveintendedtoswaytheShintistswho
controlledthegovernmentpolicies—butalsobecauseitspeakstoNishiari’sstaunchdefenseof
aliteralunderstandingofBuddhistcosmology.DonaldLopezhaseloquentlytoldthestoryof
thedebatesbetweenBuddhistcosmologistsandtheirChristianandscientificinterlocutorsin
theearlymoderneraaspartofhiswelldocumentedattempttoprovethattheBuddhist
modernistprincipleofBuddhism’scompatibilitywithscienceisneitherrootedintraditionnor
historicallyuncontested.LopezdescribesindetailtheliteralistapproachtoBuddhist
146
SeeJaffe2001,115–116.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.83
cosmologypropoundedbyFumonEntsᬑ㛛෇㏻(1755–1834),andJaffealignsNishiari’s
perspectiveonBuddhistcosmologysquarelywiththis“mostprolificmoderndefenderof
Buddhistcosmology,”Ents.Nishiari,Jaffewrites,alongwithFukudaGykaiandShakuUnsh,
“continuedtoargueforaliteralunderstandingthreerealm,SumerucenteredBuddhistcosmos
andelementsofBuddhisteschatology.”Thisstandsinmarkedcontrast,forinstance,with
figureslikeInoueEnrywhoinsteadadvocatedthemodernizingofBuddhismbyharmonizing
itsteachingswithscienceandmodernvaluesand“arguedthattheMountMerucosmography
wasaHnaynateaching,andthuswasancillarytoBuddhism;whetheritistrueornotis
immaterial,althoughitremainsofhistoricalinterest.”147
JaffedescribesFukuda’suseofcosmologytojustifycelibacyasrootedinBuddhist
cosmology,anargumentthattobeabletoreachbeingsinallthreerealmsofdesire,form,and
nonform,Buddhistclergycannotbeentangledinthesingledesirerealmastheyareiftheyeat
meatorhavesex.Nishiari’sargument,ontheotherhand,istailoredtoShint,makingan
argumentthatShintcosmologyitselfisfundamentallyinaccordwiththeprincipleofcelibacy,
andthatthepurityofcelibacyreflectsacosmicprinciplerecognizedbyShintandBuddhism
alike.NishiariremindsreadersthatthecosmosiscreatedasexuallyinShint,andthatindeed
theplungeofthecosmosintodefilementispreciselytheresultofthebeginningofsex.He
claimsthatthisdoctrineofcreationfrompuritycorrespondstothetruthsunderlyingthe
Buddhistuniverse,inwhichsexualdesireisabsentinthehigherrealms.Jaffeparaphrases
Nishiari’sconclusion:“Therefore,ifthekamiviewedhumansexualrelationswithdisgust,how
muchmoresomusttheBuddhaswhohavetranscendedthethreerealms?”148
WhilesomeconservativeMeijiclericslikeFukudaresistedthebbuppichinyo
rhetoricofBuddhistStateequalityandarguedinsteadfortheprimacyofBuddhism,Nishiari
wasmoreardentanationalistandaffirmedtheroleofBuddhisminprotectingthenation.In
whatJaffecalls“thetruespiritofthedefenseoftheDharmaliterature,”Nishiari“yoked
togetherthepurityoftheclergyandthefortunesoftherealm.”HecitesagainNishiari’sDan
sryosaitairon:
ThekamiandtheBuddhastakepleasureinanabundanceofpure
clerics.WhenthekamiandtheBuddhasrejoicethentheir
protectiongrowsstronger.Thuswecansaythatwhenpure
clericsarenumerous,thosewhoprotectthenationare
numerous.
ThefateoftheTokugawafamilyisarecentexampleofthis.At
thebeginningoftheTokugawa’sreign,theclergy’sruleswere
upheld,inthemiddletherulesgraduallyslackened,andbythe
endtheruleswereingreatdisorder.Thisgaverisethe“abolish
147
SeeLopez2008,47–51;Jaffe2001,133.
148
SeeJaffe2001,134.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.84
theBuddhas”movementofLordMito.Isitnotthecasethatthe
vigorandweaknessofthepureclericscorrespondedwiththe
prosperityanddeclineoftheTokugawafamily?
Ifyouloveyournationyoushouldsupportthecelibateschools
andyoushouldpraythatthosewhoupholdthepreceptswill
increasedaily.Youshouldnotfavorthosewhobreakthe
precepts.(Jaffe2001,135)
JaffedescribesNishiari’sthirddefenseofcelibacyasarefutationoftherenewed
ConfuciancritiquesinthelateTokugawaandearlyMeijiofthefundamentalunfilialityofworld
abnegatingBuddhists.AsJafferemindsus,thislineofattack,andthecorrespondingBuddhist
rebuttals,havealonghistoryinEastAsia,andNishiaridrawsonthistraditiontoanswerthe
rehashedcritiques.Nishiariarguesthatsince“theBuddhastated,‘allsentientbeingsaremy
children,’”thenthereisafraternalconnectionthatbindsallpeople.Hearguesthatsomeone
whorushestotherescueofasiblingwouldnotbeconsideredunfilialevenifheneglectedhis
parentsindoingso,andthattheBuddhistclergyarepreciselythosepeople,rushingtorescuea
worldfullofsiblingsfromtheparamountdangerof“thethreepoisonsandthefourdevils.”149
EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝŽŶůĞƌŝĐĂůƌĞƐƐ
Jaffenotesthatthedebatesonclericalmarriagetouchedonmoreminorpointsof
disciplinelike“meateating,abandoningtonsure,andwearingnonclericalclothing”(Jaffe2001,
xiv).ItisclearthatonvirtuallyallofthesepointsNishiarimaintainedhistraditionaliststance.
Thebiographiesemphasize,forexample,aparticularmomentin1873whenNishiarithrewhis
fullenergyandinfluencebehindhisoppositiontoaproposedgovernmentmandatefromthe
MinistryofDoctrinethatwouldhaveforcedBuddhistclergytowearnonclericalclothing.The
Ministryeventuallyrelented,andthedecisionwasinsteadtransferredtotheheadsofthe
individualsectstobedecided.150
AsanadvocateoforthodoxStmonasticdress,Nishiarialsohasalittleacknowledged
butimportantroleinthedevelopmentofthe“robethataccordswiththeDharma”(nyoheዴ
ἲ⾰)traditionofsewingandwearingthedefinitiveBuddhistgarment,thekesa.Amongthe
textsNishiarieditedandpublishedisan1896editionofaworkentitledProperDharmaAttire
(Hbukukakushἲ᭹᱁ṇ),aseminaltextinthenyohemovementcompletedin1821by
MokushitsuRyy㯲ᐊⰋせ(17791833)withthehelpofadisciple,GettanZenry(whowould
149
SeeJaffe2001,137–138.
150
SeeUeda2009,53.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.85
laterbecomeNishiari’steacher).RiggsdescribesthistextasdrawingfromDgen’sfascicles
Kesakudoku⿃⿸ຌᚨandDen’e ബ⾰toproduce“astudythatbalancesvinayaandscriptural
teachingsaboutthekesawithDgen’swritingsandotherZensources.”Shenotesthatthe
work“isreveredbymodernStZenstudentsofthekesa”likeSawakiKdandHashimoto
Ek,whoselecturesonthetext“inspiredagenerationofStclerics,nuns,andlaypeopleto
beginsewingrobesinamannertheyrefertoasnyohe.”ThoughRyyandGettanhad
completedthetextin1821,thetextwasstillunpublishedwhenGettanpassedittoNishiarifor
caretaking.Nishiariwasfinallyabletoeditandpublishthemanuscriptwiththehelpofhis
formerfellowstudentunderGettan,andhispredecessorasSjijiabbot,AzegamiBaisen.His
1896editionofthetextmarksthefirsttimeitwaspublished.151
EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝĂŶĚůĐŽŚŽů;͞WƌĂũŹĈtĂƚĞƌ͟Ϳ
Nishiari’swellattestedfondnessforalcoholisonestrikingexceptiontohisdedicationto
monasticdiscipline.WhilestrictlyspeakingtheZenpreceptsastransmittedtoNishiarididnot
prohibitintoxicationbutonlythesaleofalcohol(fukoshukai୙㓓㓇ᡄ),giventhestrictnessof
NishiarionpointsofmonasticdeportmentitissurprisingtonotethathereNishiaridiffers,at
leastinpractice,fromhismostconservativereformistcolleaguesaswellashisprogressive
reformistopponents.
ItshouldbenotedthatatemperancemovementwasgainingpopularityinBuddhist
circlesinthemidMeiji,influencedlargelybyChristianityandWesterntemperancemovements,
amovementthatidentifiedalcoholasakeyelementofBuddhistdegradationandadvocated
temperanceasapathtoBuddhistrenewal.AsThelleshows,theBuddhisttemperancesociety
Hanseikai ཯┬఍,foundedin1886,wasenormouslyinfluential:by1895itboastedmorethan
twentythousandmembers,and“mostofthesocalledNewBuddhistswereatsometime
membersoftheassociation,”includinggiantslikeShimajiMokuraiandInoueEnry.The
organizationgrewsoinfluentialthatitsalliesboastedthat“whatwasneworprogressiveinthe
BuddhistworldhadeitherbeenstartedbyHanseikaiorinfluencedbyHanseikai.”152Notonly
weretheNewBuddhistsinvolvedintemperance,but,ashasbeennoted,establishmentfigures
likeFukudaandShakuUnshwereworkingwithintheinstitutionsto“restoretheprecepts,”
andtheyalsosharedthegoaloftemperance.ShakuUnsh,forexample,“strictlyadheredto
the250preceptsandisreputedtohaverefrainedformuchofhislaterlifefromdrinkingliquor,
carryingmoney,eatingafternoon,andtakinglife”(Jaffe2001,141).
151
SeeDianeElizabethRiggs149–150,204–206,257.TherearealsoreferencestothistextastheTj
hbukukakushὝୖἲ᭹᱁ṇ.SeeZGD,708a.
152
FromtheNewBuddhistjournalBukky;seeThelle1987,200.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.86
EventhemostblatantlyhagiographicofthesourcesonNishiari,however,saysplainly
thathewasa“heavydrinker”.153AlatetwentiethcenturywriteuponhislifeintheSt
journalDaihrin኱ἲ㍯describestheparadoxofNishiari’sdisciplinequitesuccinctly:
㓇ࡔࡅࡣ⁛ἲዲࡁ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡽࡋ࠸ࡀࠊ⫗㣗ࠊጔᖏࠊ⵳㧩ࢆࡋ
࡞࠸ࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ↓ㄽࡢࡇ࡜ࠊඵࠐṓࢆࡍࡂ࡚ࡶࠊⱝ࠸㞼Ỉࡓࡕ
࡜ࠊ⾜ືࢆ࡜ࡶ࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ᚊ⮬ᡄࡢ⏕άࢆཝᏲࡋࡓࠋ
(Akizuki1979,147)
Thoughitseemsthathewasextraordinarilyfondofsake,itgoes
withoutsayingthatNishiariabstainedfrommeateating,
marriage,andgrowingouthishair.Evenpasttheageofeightyhe
trainedalongsidetheyoungmonks,strictlyobservingalifestyle
thataccordedwiththevinayaand[Zen]precepts.
AcrossvirtuallyeverysourceonNishiariareregularandconsistentreferencestohis
heavydrinking.Thesebeginathisyouth:oneanecdote,recordedbyKishizawaanddatedto
theperiodoftheyoungNishiari’sserviceunderhisfirstteacherKinry,hasNishiarigulping
sakeatthehomeofawidowedparishioner;theanecdoteturnsonthepunthatshedrinksfor
thepainofloss(awanutsurasa㐂ࢃࡠࡘࡽࡉ)andheforthepainofmillet(awanotsurasa⢖
ࡢࡘࡽࡉ),thatis,ofhavingtoeatmilletinthetempleinsteadofrice(Kishizawa1938,580–
581).Anotherstory,thisfromhistrainingatKaizjiunderGettaninhisthirties,hasNishiari
andhislaterprominentfriendAzegamiBaisenregularlyslippingoutofthetakuhatsulineto
drinklargeamountsofsakewhilebeggingintown.Thestorynotedabove,too,ofhissaving
theparishionerMurogafromangrysoldiers,turnsonhisabilitytosharesakewiththetroop’s
leader(Saiyji1938,29).Astrikinganecdoteentitled“ZenMasterBokusan’sPrajñWater”
(BokusanZenjinohannyat✕ᒣ⚙ᖌࡢ⯡ⱝ‫)‮‬,byaStabbotnamedKudTaigenᕤ⸨Ὀ
ཝ,recallsadrunkenconversationswithadiscipleofNishiari’snamedTagawaYzen⏣ᕝ㞝⚙,
whopraisesNishiari’shabitofmixingsakeandhotwaterinateabowl,abeverageofsomany
meritsthatitiscalled“PrajñWater”(NBZ,40).
ItisunfortunatelybeyondthescopeofthisstudytoreviewNishiari’slectureson
Buddhistpreceptstoconsidertheextenttowhichhis“extraordinaryfondness”foralcohol
impactedhisrhetoricaroundthetraditionalmonasticprohibitionsofalcohol.Acursoryreview
ofhiscommentsontherelevantfukoshukaipreceptinhisBussoshdenzenkaishkwa,for
example,indicatethestrongcondemnationofdrinkingthatonewouldexpectfromsuchatext.
153
ThisistheSaiyjiitsuwash,usingthetermshug㓇㇦inreferencetoNishiariandAzegamiboth
duringthetimeoftheirtrainingwithGettan(Saiyji1938,26).ItisnotinsignificantthatNishiarihereis
showndrinkingwithhisfriend,anotherprominentmonk:thereisnoquestionthattheconsumptionof
alcoholwaspervasiveintheBuddhistestablishmentatthetime.Athoroughaccountoftheroleof
alcoholinNishiari’slifewouldneedtoconsiderthecontextofconsumptionhabitsintheregionsand
templesofhistime.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.87
WhileIthussuspectthathedidnotmoderatehisrhetoricagainstalcoholinlightofhisown
consumption,afullconsiderationofthistopicwillneedtoawaitanothertime.
EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝĂŶĚƚŚĞZĞŶĞǁĂůŽĨ^ƃƚƃŽĐƚƌŝŶĂů^ƚƵĚLJ
AsnotedinSectionOne,thegrowingemphasisondoctrinalstudyinMeijiBuddhismisa
developmentthatcannotbeseparatedfromtheexposureofJapaneseBuddhiststoWestern
academicfieldslikereligiousstudies,Buddhology,andOrientalism.Whilethereisaclear
distinctionbetweenthesectarianprojectofshgakuandthepositivistWesternacademic
approach,Nishiari’seffortstowhatMohrcalls“raisethelevelofStscholarshipinthesect,”
especiallythroughrigoroustextualstudies,arguablyleftanimpactonbothmodesof
scholarship(Mohr1998,178–179).ApartfromhismasterworkShbgenzkeiteki,thehigh
levelofNishiari’sscholarshipisevidentinhispublicationoftextualeditionsofanumberof
Tokugawaperiodtexts.154
WhileNishiarihimselfappearstohavedonerelativelylittleseminaryteaching,from
1877athisalmamatertheSendanrin,hisstudentswouldbecomemajorfiguresintheSt
University,likeOkaStan,whowouldlaterbecomepresidentofKomazawaUniversity,andhis
studentSawakiKd,aninfluentialKomazawaprofessor.Thislineofinfluenceextendsinto
postwarscholarshipaswell,forinstanceintheworkoftwosubsequentKomazawapresidents,
KagamishimaGenry 㙾ᓥඖ㝯(19231989),astudentofOka’swhobridgedthegapbetween
shgakuandacademicBuddhiststudies,andKurebayashiKdᴯᯘⓡᇽ(18931987),a“a
toweringfigureinpostwarsectarianstudies,”whothoughastudentprimarilyofKishizawaIan
alsostudiedwithNishiari.155
ItwasnotedinSectionTwothatMoritaGoyisheldtobethefounderofthegenze,
butNishiari’sroleinthedevelopmentoftheinstitutionshouldnotbeoverlooked.As
Kurebayashinotes,notonlywashisdiscipleOkathefirstlecturer,butthelistofgenze
lecturersthroughtheearlyShwarevealsthathisstudentsdominated,ifnotmonopolized,the
lectureseat.156AsBodifordwrites,NishiariwasonlyZenteacher“tohaveevenlecturedon
howtheShbgenzshouldbereadandunderstood”priortoestablishmentofthegenze
(Bodiford2012a,221).Giventhis,andtheenormousroletheShbgenzkeitekihasplayedin
modernStstudies,itisnotanexaggerationtosuggestthatthereisnomoderncommentator
154
SeeAppendixforalistofhistextualeditions.
155
SeeIshii2012,231;Heine2012b,44.
156
SeeKurebayashi1972;ZGD,291d.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.88
onShbgenzinthesectorintheacademywhocannottraceintheirintellectualheritagea
directlinktoNishiari.157
157
Asnoted,astudyofNishiari’shermeneuticalapproachtoShbgenz,whichcentersonthe
Shbgenzkikigakish(abbr.Gosh)commentarybySenneandKyg,iswelloutsidethescopeofthis
paper.SomebriefattemptstosummarizeNishiari’sperspectiveontheShbgenzcanbefoundin
Nishijima1997;T2009;andIt1955.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.89
PartIII:Nishiari’sLaterLife
ZĞůŝĐƐ͕ĞŝƚŝĞƐ͕/ĐŽŶƐ͗,ƃŬƃũŝ;ϭϴϳϰͲϭϴϳϳͿĂŶĚ<ĂƐƵŝƐĂŝ;ϭϴϳϳͲϭϴϵϮͿ
NishiarireturnedfromHokkaidtothemainlandofJapanintheninthmonthof1874to
assumetheabbacyofHkji,thetempleinwhichhehadtrainedunderKinryfortyyearsprior.
HeservedasresidingabbotofHkjiuntil1877,andhiselevationofthetemple’sstatusduring
thattime,aswellashiscontributionstoitssubtemple,Kryji,havebeennotedaboveinthe
discussionofhisearlylife.
Hislongestandmoreimportantpostofthe1870sand1880s,however,beganin1877
whenattheageoffiftysixhemovedtoatemplecalledKasuisaiྍ╧ᩪinShizuoka㟼ᒸ to
becomeabbot.KasuisaiintheTokugawaperiodhadservedasaregionalheadquarterstemple
(srokujiൔ㘓ᑎ)withresponsibilityfortheregulationofallSttemplesinthefourprovinces
oftheTkai ᮾᾏregion,anditremainedanextremelyhighstatustempleintotheMeiji,
rankingjustbelowthelevelofthehonzanandoverseeinghundredsofsubordinatebranch
temples.158Afullycommittedresidentabbotdespitesomeconcurrentabbacies,Nishiari
residedatKasuisaiforfifteenyears,until1892,markingthelongestcontinuousstretchof
residencyinhiscareer.Hiswasclearlystronglyidentifiedwiththetemple,anditisduringthat
periodthatheadoptedthenameKa“OldManofKa”ྍ⩝.
ThisperiodofNishiari’slifeisuniquelywelldocumentedinWesternscholarshipthanks
toDominickScarangello’sworkonthesyncreticShintBuddhistcultatMt.Akiha⛅ⴥandthe
roleofKasuisaiinredefiningthecultintheviolentlyantisyncreticMeijieraofshinbutsubunri.
ScarangelloshowsthatinlargemeasureasaresultofNishiari’sefforts,Kasuisai—despitebeing
adozenmilesoffofMt.Akihaitself—wasabletoappropriatetheMt.Akihacultofthefire
protectingdeity/Buddhamanifestation(gongenᶒ⌧)Sanshakub୕ᑻᆓ.159Through
158
OnthecomplexsrokujisystemandKasuisai’splaceinthegovernmentadministrationofSt
templesintheTokugawaperiod,seeScarangello2012,96–97,97n26.Kasuisaitoday—inpartdueto
theeffortsofNishiari,asdiscussedbelow—isoneofthethreeprayertemples(kitdera♳⚏ᑎ)ofthe
Stsect,awellknownpilgrimageandprayersiteregardedespeciallyforitsefficacyinfireprotection.
LiketheotherStprayertemples,itisalsooneofthecoupleofdozenofficialStmonastictraining
hallsinthecountry(senmonsdᑓ㛛ൔᇽ).SeeReaderandTanabe1998,9–10,264n33.
159
ThemountainisalsopronouncedAkiba.Scarangello,whohasdoneextensiveworkatthesite,favors
thepronunciationAkihaandnotesthatAkibaistheway“itispronouncedinEasternJapan”(Scarangello
2012,51).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.90
concertedritualefforts,thecreativeuseofStdoctrine,andtheactiveevangelizationofthe
laity,NishiariwasabletotransformKasuisaiintoamoresacredandmoreappropriatespotfor
Mt.AkihacultworshipthanMt.Akihaitself.TheglimpseofferedofNishiariinScarangello’s
workrevealsaspectsofthecharismaticmonkthataremissedindepictionsofhimassimplya
monasticoriented,traditionalistscholarmonk—weseeinScarangelloaNishiariwhoisatonce
apowerfulritualist,aneffectiveevangelistwithakeenappreciationoftheneedtoadapttothe
concernsofthelaity,abodhisattvacultdevotee,ashrewdpoliticaloperatorandorganizer,and
acreativedoctrinalinnovator.
ThedramaofthecontestedsitesofMt.Akihacultdevotionthatliesatthecenterof
Scarangello’sstudyisoutsidethescopeofthispaper,butitisworthpresentinginbriefbyway
ofsituatingNishiari’sdoctrinalandritualeffortstolegitimateKasuisai’sclaimstothecult.In
oneofcountlesssimilardeterminationsthatunfoldedinthecourseoftheimplementationof
theearlyMeijipolicyofshinbutsubunri,officialsintheShizuokaregiondecidedthatthe
BuddhisttempleShyji⛅ⴥᑎ,longasiteforMt.Akiha⛅ⴥ cultdevotion,shouldbe
relocatedandreplacedwithaproperShintshrine.TheZenmonksofthemountainfervently
contestedthisdecision,butonlymanagedtoputofftherelocationuntil1873,atwhichpoint
theShintpriestsandShugendpractitionersprevailed,dismantlingShyjiandestablishing
theAkihaShintShrine.Around1874thetemple’spreciousSanshakubiconswere
transferredtoKasuisai,thehighestrankingZentempleinthearea.Acoupleofyearlater,in
1876,justbeforeNishiariassumedtheabbacy,Kasuisaipubliclyenshrinedtheicons,
announcedthat,geographyaside,itwasthelegitimatesiteforMt.Akihacultworship,and
beganconstructionofaspecialworshiphallfortheicons.Soonafterthisannouncement,
however,supportersoftheoriginalMt.AkihaZentemple,Shyji,managedtogain
governmentapprovaltoreopenattheiroriginalsite,atwhichtimetheyreassertedtheirlogical
geographicprimacyasthesiteofMt.Akihadevotion.Asaresult,wheretherehadinitially
beenasinglesiteforMt.Akihacultdevotion,therewerenowthree(Shyji,Kasuisai,andthe
AkihaShintShrine);theensuingstruggleforprimacycontinuestothepresent.Theforceof
Kasuisai’slastingclaimastheprimarysiteowesinlargeparttoNishiari’sactiveengagementin
thefullenshrinementofthedeityatKasuisaiandhisnurturingofalayculttoSanshakubthat
wouldrecognizethecentralityofKasuisai.160
NishiariwascrucialinwhatScarangellocallsthe“enmoutaining”ofKasuisai—the
projectofmakingitsomehowmoreMt.AkihathanMt.Akihaitselfwas.Nishiariwenttogreat
lengthstocreatea“sacredlandscape”onthegroundsofKasuisai,onewhichwouldbeworthy
oftheSanshakubiconsandwhichcouldcompetewiththeinherentlysacredlandscapeofMt.
Akiha.Thusin1882Nishiaricreateda“numinousboundary”or“boundedsacredspace(kekkai
⤖⏺)”aroundthemonasterybylayingtwelvepillars,eachelaboratelyconsecrated,atintervals
160
SeeScarangello2012,9–10,144,246–268.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.91
alongtheedgesofthemonastery.ScarangellotranslatesfromKishizawa’streatmentofthe
process,inhissection“BoundedSacredSpace”(Kekkai⤖⏺):
Duetothedeterioratedstateofthemonastery[NishiariBokusan]
madeagreatvow—thateverypersonwhoenteredthegrounds
ofKasuisai—evenjustonce—wouldestablishakarmicconnection
withtheBuddha.ForthisreasonherecitedtheMindof
CompassionDhraandtheDisasterExtinguishingDhratens
ofthousandsoftimes,andafterwardscarefullyinscribedboth
incantations.Next,heusedboulderstofashionrectangular
pillars.Nishiariopenedholesinthetopofthepillars,insertedthe
dhras,tightlypluggedtheopeningsandthenburiedthemin
thecornersonallsidesofthemonastery.(Scarangello2012,255)
Scarangelloalsonotesthatalongwiththis“enmountaining”ofKasuisaiwasaprocessby
whichtheiconsofSanshakubreplacedthemountainandthedeityastheprimaryelements
ofdevotion.Toachievethis,anysenseoftheiconasmerelysymbolic,indeedasanythingless
thanBuddhaitself,wasstrippedawaycompletely.AccordingtoScarangello,Nishiarididthisby
usingthedoctrineof“theequivalenceofBuddhabodies”andfurtherbydrawingonthesense
of“theequanimityandimmanenceoftheBuddhasoftensuggestedinDgen’swork.”AsI
understandit,thatistosaythattheiconsitselfwereunderstoodtobeSanshakub,whowas
understoodtobetheBuddha;astheseBuddhamanifestationsindeityandiconwerenomore
orlessthananyotherBuddhamanifestation,theiconscouldberegardedasproperand
orthodoxobjectsforStveneration.161
ThisintegrationofAkihacultworshipintoStdoctrineandtheteachingsofDgen
requiredsometheologicalfootwork,andNishiari,inScarangello’stelling,workedhardwith
Stdoctrineto“makeroomfordevotionalcults.”ScarangelloanalyzesNishiari’stextof
“spiritualassurance”forlaypeople,AnjinketsuᏳᚰジ(1890),andconcludesthatitdepartsin
keywaysfromtheStconsensusexpressedintheShushgiinorderto“mak[e]roomfor
devotionalpracticesthroughthe[doctrineofthe]interpenetrationofallBuddhas.”TheAnjin
ketsutookaremarkablyinclusiveapproachtothecontentofrecitativepractices,includingthe
threerefuges(astheShushgiadvocatedexclusively),orthesinglerefuge(inBuddha),or
Bodhisattvas’names,ordhra.Nishiarithus“brokewiththeShushgi’ssoleandexclusive
prioritizationofthethreerefugesfortheattainmentofspiritualassuranceandopenedup
roomforBodhisattvaordeitycults.”
[Nishiari]BokusandidnotmentiontheAkihadeityinparticular,
butdisplayedaspecialconcernfortheproblemofpersonal
devotionintheformofparticularcultsorpopularrecitations.
Devotionalcultsareanissuethatisentirelyabsentfromthe
161
SeeScarangello2012,273,327.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.92
Shushgi,butwasobviouslyimportantforpropagationat
Kasuisai.Bokusanhimselfisrumoredtohavebeenintensely
devotedtotheBodhisattvaKannon.Incontrasttohislectureson
theShbgenz,Bokusandidnotthoroughlyelaboratethe
corporealinterpenetrationofalltheBuddhasinAnjinketsu.Yet,
heappearstohavedeployedhisunderstandingofthe
relationshipsoftheBuddhasforthepurposesofopeningup
interpretivespacetoincorporateBodhisattvaorothertypesof
devotionalcultsintoStspiritualassurance.Thiswouldhave
alsoencompassedthevenerationoftheAkihadeityandthe
inclusionofitsfirepreventing,protectivemantraintospiritual
assuranceatKasuisai.162
NishiarispreadthedoctrinalunderpinningsandthedevotionalpracticesoftheKasuisai
Sanshakubcultthroughtheestablishmentof“teachingassemblies,”organswhich,as
discussedinSectionsOneandTwo,werecentraltoBuddhistlaypropagationandinstitutional
developmentintheMeiji.Scarangello’sresearchhasuncoveredaKasuisaiteachingassembly
foundedbyNishiariforMt.Akihacultdevotionasearlyas1879,buthismostprominent
teachingassemblyatKasuisai,foundedin1881,wascalledtheKshkai ᩙၐ᭳.This
associationofclergyandlaitywasdedicatedto“moralityandreligiouseducation,”emphasizing
clericalpurity(i.e.therejectionofmeateatingandclericalmarriage)andthereassertionof
fundamentalStdoctrine“tocombatthenotionofBuddhismasprimarilyabodyofancestor
venerationandfuneraryrites.”ThoughcouchedinorthodoxStterms,however,Scarangello
arguesthatMt.Akihacultdevotionwascentraltotheworkoftheassociation,andsuggests
thatitisnocoincidencethat“the1881Kshkaiteachingassemblyconferencewasheldatthe
sametimeasthepublicviewingofKasuisai’ssecretSanshakubicon(kaich㛤ᖒ),ajubilee
eventintheoryheldonlyonceeverysixtyyears.”163
DuringNishiari’stenureatKasuisai,thetemplereceivedfromEiheiji’sabbotanartifact
evenmorepowerfulandprestigiousthantheSanshakubicons:arelicofDgenhimself.
Nishiariwasdeeplymovedtoencounterthisrarerelic,andbysomeaccountstherelic,too,was
movedbythemeeting.ScarangellotranslatesKishizawaonNishiariandthisrelic:
WhenNishiariBokusanwasstilltheabbotofKasuisai,hereceived
afragmentofboneofSt’sfounderDgenfromEiheijiabbot
Kankei.164Bokusanwascertainthatthiswastheresultofa
mysteriousresonancewithDgen,andassuch,hesetupanaltar,
162
SeeScarangello2012,314–317.
163
SeeScarangello2012,141–148.
164
TheabovementionedKugamiTsuun ஂᡃᐦ㞼(18171884),thesixtyfirstgenerationabbotof
Eiheiji;alsoknownasKugamiKankeiஂᡃ⎔῱.SeeZGD,244c.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.93
enshriningthebonefragmentnexttothemainBuddhaofthe
temple.Hededicatedlymadeofferings,reveredandmade
obeisancetothebonefragmentofDgen,chantingthe“Sarra
WorshipIncantation”(Shariraimon⯋฼♩ᩥ)beforeitdayand
nightwithoutfail.
Onemorning,Bokusanhadjustfinishedmakingfullbody
prostrationsandchantingthe“SarraWorshipIncantation”tothe
relic,when,ashelifteduphisheadsomethingoccurredthat
couldonlyhavebeenamutualresonancebetweenBokusanand
Dgen.[Atthatmoment]therelicshatteredwithaslightdinging
soundand[fromonebone]fivepiecesofrelicsappeared,giving
offapowerfulradiantlight.
SuchathinghadneveroccurredsinceDgen’sdeath,andforthis
reasonitwastrulyanunusual,unfathomablenuminous
resonance.Bokusanwasbothsurprisedandelated,andrevered
Dgenallthemore.HemadeavowtopropagateShbgenz
andfaithfullycontinuedmakingofferingsandworshipingthe
relics.(Scarangello2012,328–329)
Thepassagegoesontonotethatofthefiverelicsproducedfromthesinglerelicinthis“mutual
resonance”(kanndkឤᛂ㐨஺)betweenDgenandNishiari,threewereeventually
transferredtothetempleofNishiari’syouth,Hkji,andtworemainedatKasuisaitobelater
enshrinedina“nationprotectingstupa”(gokokutㆤᅜሪ).165
165
Onthenovel,Indianstyle“nationprotectingstupa”completedatKasuisaiin1911,seeJaffe2006,
275278.ForthetransferoftherelicstoHkji,seethesectionaboveonNishiari’searlylife.Faure
mentionsthethreerelicsatHkjiinhisnoteonthesevenmonasteriessaidtohouseDgenrelics,but
hemakesnomentionofrelicsatKasuisai;inlightofKishizawaandScarangello,Itakethisasan
oversight(seeFaure1991,143n3637).IwilladdwithrespecttotheaccountofNishiari’s“mutual
resonance”withtherelicthat,asalwayswithsuchsupernaturaloccurrencesthatsuffuseBuddhist
historiography,Icannothelpbuttospeculateontheprotagonists’ownexperienceoftheevent.Inthis
case,asamodernwhocannothelpbuttorejectthenotionthataspiritual“mutualresonance”would
spontaneouslyeffectphysicalmatter,Iwonder,forexample,whetherthisreproductionofrelicshada
physicalbasis(forexample,intheirfallingoffofthealtarandshattering),orwhetheritwasadeliberate,
fraudulentreproductioncarriedoutselfconsciouslybyNishiari,orwhetherthedivisionoftherelichas
nofactualbasisatall,andissimplyastorytoldbydisciplesaboutfiveemptyboxes.Whateverthe
irretrievable“fact”ofthematter,itisclearthatNishiari,despitetheagehelivedin,wasno“modern”
monk,anditisstrikingtosenseinthisaccountthedepthofhispremodernformation(aswellasthatof
Kishizawa,whodespitelivingdecadesdeeperintothetwentiethcentury,relatestheaccountentirely
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.94
ItisinterestingheretonotetherelationshipsuggestedinKishizawa’saccountbetween
Nishiari’scommunionwiththerelicandhistextualstudy.ItisclearherethatforNishiari
ShbgenzisworldsapartfromthephilosophicaltextlatermodernizerslikeWatsujiTetsur
wouldhaveitbe.ForNishiarihere,infact,itseemsthattherealpoweroftheShbgenzis
notprimarily“textual”ordoctrinalatall.Instead,thepowerofthetextispartandparcelof
Dgen’spersonalreligiouspower;imbuedwithapowermoreimmediatethananyofthe
particulardoctrinesitmightexpress,theShbgenzisaveritabletextual“relic”ofDgen
himself.Hereagain,Nishiari’sdevotion,awe,andmysticalcommunionwiththisrelicshould
dispelanylingeringnotionsofhimasamodernistStmonkcommittedonlytothecore
practicesofmeditation,textualstudy,anddiscipline.
AsKasuisaiunderNishiarisucceededinwinningthisrelicofDgenandestablishingitself
asthebaseforSanshakubdevotion,itgrewinresourcesandinprominence,andwithit
NishiaritoorosestillfurtherthroughtheStranks.Nishiariduringhistimetherewasnamed
the“leaderofpropagationactivitiesinWesternShizuoka”(kydtorishimariᩍᑟྲྀ⥾)and
wasaffirmedbythetwoStheadtemplestohave“seniorranking(jsekiୖᖍ)when
attendingeventsatbothinstitutions”;Kasuisaiwas“designatedtheregionalofficeforsectarian
affairs,”becamea“directbranchtemple”ofSjiji,andwasgrantedpermissiontoestablisha
sectarianschool.Thisschool,theManshSchool(ManshGakusha୓ᯇᏛ⯋),becamea
venuefortheKshkaitofulfillitsmissionofdoctrinaleducation,andaplatformforNishiarito
lectureonShbgenz.166
ĞƚǁĞĞŶůĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͗ĞŶƐŚŝŶũŝ;ϭϴϵϮͲϭϵϬϭͿ
In1891,whileresidingatKasuisai,Nishiarihitabumpinhisotherwiseunobstructed
ascentthroughtheStinstitution,narrowlylosinganelectiontotheabbacyoftheSthead
templeEiheiji.Thoughhenevertrainedtherehimselfasayoungmonk,overthecourseofhis
careerhehadofcoursehadsubstantialcontactwithEiheiji.Fiveyearsprior,forinstance,in
1886attheageofsixtyfive,hehadspentsometimethereenjoyingtheprestigiousstatusof
seidすᇽ,apromotionwhichhadentitledhimtoweartheabbatialrobesofredandyellow
andwhichguaranteedhimalifetimestipendfromthesect.167Asthebiographiestellit,
uncritically,leavingopenthequestionofhisowngenuinesenseofthefactualbasisofthismystical
resonance).
166
SeeScarangello2012,156–158.
167
Theguaranteeofalifetimestipendfromthesectfollowinghis1886promotionswasasupplementto
Nishiari’sincome,butitshouldbenotedthatasNishiariassumedabbaciesandascendedtheStranks,
hisfinancialcompensationlikelyalsoroseaswell.Indeed,inlookingatrecordeddonationsmadeby
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.95
however,hisfameandprestigeinthesectwerenotenoughtoovercomeamostmundaneof
obstacles:withmanyballotsinvalidatedduetoorthographicerrors,heissaidtohavelostbya
slimmarginonlybecauseofthedifficultyofhisnamecharacterboku✕.
Whilethedifficultyofthecharacterbokumayhavefiguredintohisloss,amore
compellingexplanationcomesfromMichaelaMross,whoinanunpublishedpapersuggests
thatNishiari’slossshouldbeunderstoodinthecontextofthedisputesbetweenEiheijiand
Sjiji,andamongSjijifactions(seeSectionOne).Nishiari’scontestationofthelegitimacyof
theelection,then,wasbroadlyconnectedtothefightforSjijiindependenceandtheongoing
strugglesbetweentheheadtemples,anunderstudiedandcriticalpartofStinstitutional
historyintowhichwereentangledallofthemainplayersinMeijiSt,includingNishiariand
thoseclosetohim,likehispeerAzegamiandhisteacherMorotake.
Itistemptingtoinferthathislossoftheelectioncatalyzed,orperhapsforced,his
departurefromKasuisai,butwhateverthereason,NishiariretiredfromKasuisaiattheageof
seventyonein1892.HethenassumedtheabbacyofDenshinjiఏᚰᑎinShimadaᓥ⏣,about
twentymilesaway.HeservedatDenshinjiuntil1901whenfinallyhewasabletowinelection
toaheadtempleabbacy,thistimeofSjiji.Nishiari’stimeatDenshinjithusmarkstheperiod
betweenhislossoftheelectionforEiheijiabbotandhisvictoryintheelectionforSjijiabbot.
ThoughhebeganhisteachingofShbgenzasearlyashispostatSsanjiandwasinvolvedin
doctrinaleducationatKasuisaithatincludedsomegenzestylelectures,mostofhisteaching
ontheShbgenztookplaceafter1892whilebasedatDenshinji.Thelectureshegaveduring
histimeatDenshinjiwereformativeinthecareersoflaterprominentgenzkamentioned
above,likeOkaStan,KishizawaIan,TsutsugawaHgai,AkinoKd,andothers.Itisinthis
periodtoothatYasutaniHakuuntrainedwithNishiariandservedashisattendant.168
ThetimeatDenshinji,betweenhisretirementfromKasuisaiandhismovetoSjiji,was
averyactivetimeforNishiari.HelecturedaroundthecountryatprominentSttempleson
textsliketheShbgenzandotherworksofDgen,commentarieslikeMenzanZuih’sEihei
kakunỌᖹᐙカ,andtheHeartSutra(hannyashingy⯡ⱝᚰ⤒).Heledpansectarian
BuddhistservicesinhishometownofHachinoheandelsewhere,andwashonoredwithamajor
Nishiariin1876,1886,and1896,itcanbeinferredeitherthathewasbecomingmorecharitablewith
ageorthatthesizeofhisdisposableincomewasincreasingconsiderably.Donations,increasingover
theyears,arereportedtovariousassociationsforthepublicgood,likepublicworksforleveesand
reconstructionfromfire,orphanages,andschools,aswellasanumberoftemples.Thathisdonations
tocharitableworksarenotedatallinthebiographiesisinterestingandmustbeunderstoodintermsof
theMeijiperiodBuddhistemphasisoncharity,inspiredbyChristianity,thatwasnotedinSectionOne.A
studyofNishiari’sownfinances,ortheeconomicsofStintheMeijiingeneral,wouldmakeforan
interestingstudybutiswelloutsidethescopeofthispaper.
168
Yasutani’spublicrejectionofNishiariwastocomemuchlater,asnotedabove.SeeYasutani1996,
xxii.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.96
banquetinhonorofhisbirthdayatthesiteofhisEdoseminary,Kichijji.Hewasalsovery
activeasapreceptor,holdingbacktobackpreceptconvocationsin1900,forexample,that
drewoverfivehundredpeopleinEdointheninthmonthandoversevenhundredandfifty
peopleinHanamakiⰼᕳthemonthfollowing.In1902aloneheissaidtohavetaughtatthirty
differentlocationsforatotalofoverahundreddays.Duringthistimeofintensiveteachinghe
alsofoundedthreetemples:Mantokuji‶ᚨᑎ(1893)inYokohama,whichwasmadea
subtempleofKasuisai;Jgenjiᖖ⌧ᑎ(1899)nearHachinohe;andtheeponymousSaiyjiす᭷
ᑎ(1900),alsoinYokohama,asubtempleofMantokuji.
In1899,attheageofseventyeight,afterlecturingatJganjiᡂ㢪ᑎ,aboutfortymiles
fromhisbaseatDenshinji,hecontracteddysentery.Theillnesslastedaboutthreemonths.It
issaidthatevenwhileonhissickbedhedidnotrelentinhisstudies,workingatthetimewith
theGoikenketsuganjikyaku ஬఩✛ジඖᏐ⬮,a1793commentarybyGettanTsui᭶‣ὝỈ
(17281803)ontheGoikenketsuofDongshanLiangjieὝᒣⰋ௴(TzanRykai,807869).
Nishiariwouldin1901publishaneditionofasubcommentaryontheGoikenketsuganjikyaku
(seeAppendix).Nishiari’sstudentAkinoKdreportedthatwhenhesuggestedtoNishiarithat
readingtextswhileillwasnotgoodforhisbody,theteachersaid“Thereadingsideisthe
readingside,theshittingsideistheshittingside,”aphrasewhichhisstudentswouldcometo
calltheganjikyaku(ඖᏐ⬮,“basisoftheoriginaltext”)ofdysentery.169
Shortlyafterhisillness,NishiariwasvisitedbyJapan’sfirstfemalejournalist,Hani
Motoko ⩚ோࡶ࡜Ꮚ(18731957),alsofromHachinohe.Basedonhervisitsandtheir
conversations,shepublishedaglowingserializedarticleintheHchiShimbun ሗ▱᪂⪺
newspaperaboutNishiari’slifeandteaching,basedaroundthethemesof1)hismother’s
influence;2)hislifestyle;and,3)histeachingsonthemindandspiritofZen.Thispieceseems
tohaveconsiderablyinfluencedlaterbiographers.170
EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝĂƚƚŚĞWŝŶŶĂĐůĞŽĨƚŚĞ^ĞĐƚ;ϭϵϬϭͲϭϵϬϱͿ
Anovicethinksofbecominganelder.Anelderthinksof
becomingheadpriest.Headpriestwantstobeheadofthe
council.Acouncilmemberthinksofbecomingheadofthesect.
Becauseofthemanylegsoftheself,wearenotreallysettled.
Wecarryourselvesforwardandthenrunafterthemyriad
dharmas.Thisisdelusion.
169
ぢࡿ᪉ࡣぢࡿ᪉ࠊᨺࡿ᪉ࡣᨺࡿ᪉ࡔࠋSeeNBZ,32.
170
SeeIt2009.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.97
—NishiarionGenjkan171
Whilehisdisputedlossinthe1891electiontotheEiheijiabbacyprovedhisonlychance
atthatposition,tenyearslaterin1901Nishiarididwinanelectiontotheabbacyoftheother
headtemple,Sjiji,thistimebyareportedlywidemargin.Hethusbecamethethird
independentabbotofSjiji,aposthehelduntil1905.172
ItwasconcurrentwithhispostasSjijiabbotthatNishiariservedatthepinnacleofthe
sectasStsectchiefabbot(Stshkanch).Aspartofthetenuouscompromisebetween
thebattlingheadtemples,ithadbeendeterminedthatthechiefabbacyofthesectwould
alternateannuallybetweenEiheijiandSjijiabbots.Thus,beginningonthefirstoftheyearof
1902,concurrentwithhisSjijiabbacy,theeightyoneyearoldNishiariassumedofficeasthe
seventhchiefabbotoftheStsect.Followingtherotation,EiheijiabbotMoritaGoystepped
intothepostforthedurationof1903,andNishiariservedasecondyearagainin1904.
TheSjijiabbotandStsectchiefabbotpostswerepositionsofnationalstature.As
notedabove,chiefabbotshadthestatusof“semigovernmentofficials,”wereempoweredwith
“fullauthorityoverthesect”and,bygovernmentproclamation,wereconsideredofequal
statustootherimperiallyappointedofficials.173ThusinthisroleNishiariwasconnected,at
leastnominally,withthehighestlevelsoftheMeijigovernment.Asmentionedabove,afew
monthsafterhiselectiontoSjijihewasgrantedtheimperialnameJikishinJkoku,andduring
hisyearsaschiefabbotheperformedatleasttwopalacevisits.
Theperiodbefore,during,andafterNishiari’spostwasoneofturmoilatSjiji,aperiod
inthehistoryofthetemplebetweenitsdestructionandrebuilding,duringwhichtimeitisnot
entirelyclearwhatsortoftrainingormonasticpracticewaspossible.In1898afireissaidto
havedestroyedmostofthetemple,andin1903itwasdecidedthatthetempleshouldmove
fromNoto⬟Ⓩ,whereitwasdeemedtooclosetoEiheiji,toTsurumi㭯ぢ inthevicinityof
Yokohama.AsabbotofSjijiatthetime,andgivenhisownconnectionsinYokohama(where
hehadfoundedMantokujiandSaiyji),itislikelythatNishiariplayedanimportantifnot
decisiveroleinthisdetermination.ThebenefitsofamovetoYokohama,asitemuchcloserto
thecentersofgovernmentpowerandinternationaltravel,weretremendous;indeed,Sjiji
stoodtogainsomuchfromthemovethatitistemptingtoquestionthenatureandcauseof
the1898fire.SjijididnotreopeninYokohamauntil1911;theNotositeoftheoriginaltemple
waseventuallyrebuiltasSjijisoin⥲ᣢᑎ♽㝔.
171
TranslationbyWeitsmanandTanahashi2011,41.
172
Ontheestablishmentofthe“independentabbacy”ofSjijiasanattemptbytheearlyMeiji
governmenttosettlethediscordbetweenEiheijiandSjiji,seeSectionTwo.
173
SeeIkeda1998,13–18.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.98
Inmid1903,Nishiarisufferedastrokefromwhichhetookaboutthreemonthsto
recover.ItisunclearwhetherthisleftalastingimpactonNishiari,butIsuspectthatitdid;a
littlemorethanayearlater,inthesecondmonthof1905,shortlyaftercompletinghissecond
yearlongtermaschiefabbotofthesect,heretiredfromSjijiandmovedafewmilesawayto
Saiyji.
EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝ͛Ɛ&ŝŶĂůzĞĂƌƐ;ϭϵϬϱͲϭϵϭϬͿ
NishiaristayedatthenewlyfoundedSaiyjiasabbotforthefiveyearsbetweenhis
retirementfromSjijiandhisdeathin1910.Atleasttwopreceptconvocationswereheld
duringthisperiod,in1906and1910,buthislecturingaswellashispublishingseemstohave
droppedofffollowinghisretirementfromSjiji.Itakethisprecipitousreductioninhisteaching
scheduleasfurtherevidencethatheneverfullyrecoveredfromhis1903stroke.Whateverthe
stateofhishealth,thereisnoquestionthatheremainedamonkofgreatprominence;his
“eightyeighth”birthdaypartyin1908,forexample,boastedoverathousandpeoplein
attendance,reportedlyincludingdignitariesliketheprominentNewBuddhistandmissionaryto
America,ShakuSen,kumaShigenobu኱㝰㔜ಙ(18381922),whowouldlaterbecomethe
primeministerofJapan,andmembersoftheTokugawaclan.
Attwoo’clockintheafternoononthefourthdayofthetwelfthmonthof1910,atthe
ageofeightynine,NishiaridiedatSaiyji.Itissaidthatbeforepassingawayhesatuprighton
hismatandgesturedtohisdiscipledenJinrei⋢⏣ோ㱋tofithiskesaontohim.Nishiari
thereuponpassedaway,wearingfullrobesandwiththenameoftheBodhisattvaKannonon
hislips.
Thedeathpoemrecordedtohisnameis:
⪁ൔ஑༑
ゝ➃ㄒ➃
ᮎᚋ↓ྃ
᭶෭㢼ᐮ(Saiyji1938,35)
Anoldmonkofninetyyears,174
“Thespeechistothepoint,thewordsaretothepoint.”175
174
BytheJapanesereckoning,Nishiaridiedattheageofninety.
175
Gontangotan ゝ➃ㄒ➃.Literallydenotingsomethinglike“atthelimitsofwordsandspeech,”this
phraseappearsintheverseintheHekiganroku(Case2)andisgenerallytakenasapositiveexpression
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
Aftertheendthereisnoverse.
Themoonischillyandthewindiscold.176
pg.99
ofthepoweroflanguage.IhaveborrowedCleary’stranslationoftheline.Yokoirendersit“wordsare
theexpressionoftruth”.SeeClearyandCleary1977,13;Yokoi1991,171;ZGD,368b.
176
Getsureifkan᭶෭㢼ᐮ.ThisevokesasimilarphraseinanotherverseintheHekiganroku(Case82),
getsureifk᭶෭㢼㧗,whichClearyrenders,“Themooniscold,thewindishigh.”SeeClearyand
Cleary1977,533;ZGD,274d.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.100
Appendix
ThePublishedWorksofNishiariBokusan
ListedbelowarethetitlesofNishiari’spublishedwork,muchofittranscriptionsfrom
lectures.ThelistisdrawnfromtheworkoftheNishiariBokuzanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ
㢧ᙲ఍researchgroupinthecommemorativevolumeNishiariBokusanZenji,andmore
completebibliographicinformationonthesetitlescanbefoundthere.Togiveasenseofthe
rangeofNishiari’sdoctrinalinterestsandteaching,Ihavedroppedthechronologicalstructure
oftheNishiariBokusanZenjibibliographyandhavearrangedthetitleslooselybythetopic
implied.IhaveaddednoteswhenIhavebeenabletodetermineadditionalinformationabout
thetext,andIhaveincludedpublicationdateswiththecautionthattheydonotnecessarily
beararelationshiptothedateofthecompositionorlecture.
DŽŶĂƐƚŝĐŽŶĚƵĐƚ
AuthoredWorks
x
CollectionofAdmonitionsontheDefenseoftheDharma.Gohyjinshㆤἲ⏝ᚰ㞟.
1873.(SeeSectionThree.)
x
ATreatiseRefutingClericalMarriage.Dansryosaitaironᙎൔ౶ጔᖏㄽ.1879.(Jaffe
hastranslatedandanalyzedthistext;seeSectionThree.)
TextualEditions
x
ProperDharmaAttire.Hbukukakushἲ᭹᱁ṇ.1771896.Thefirstpublishededition
ofaseminaltextbyMokushitsuRyy㯲ᐊⰋせ(17791833),completedin1821.
(DianeRiggshasdiscussedthistext;seeSectionThree).
177
AlsoknownastheTjhbukukakush Ὕୖἲ᭹᱁ṇ,seeZGD708a.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.101
ƃŐĞŶŽŵŵĞŶƚĂƌŝĞƐ
AuthoredWorks
x
TeachingsfromtheLectureSeaton[Dgen’s]Gakudyjinsh.Gakudyjinshken
kunjmongeᏛ㐨⏝ᚰ㞟ㅮ⟙ᱯᣠ⪺ゎ.1884.(Icannotdeterminetherelationshipof
thistexttotheGakudyjinshmonge Ꮫ㐨⏝ᚰ㞟⪺ゎbyMenzanZuih㠃ᒣ⍞᪉
[16831769].)
x
LectureNotesonShbgenz.Shbgenzkaikbibṇἲ║ⶶ㛤ㅮഛᛀ.1896.
x
PersonalCommentaryon[Menzan’s]Eiheikakun.Eiheikakunshiki Ọᖹᐙカ⚾グ.
1897.
x
RecordedTeachingson[Dgen’s]Gakudyjinsh.GakudyjinshteijirokuᏛ㐨⏝
ᚰ㞟ᥦ⪥㘓.1908.
x
Lectureson[Dgen’s]ShbgenzBendwa.Shbgenzbendwakgiṇἲ║ⶶ᤼㐨
ヰㅮ⩏.1908.
x
RecordedTeachingson[Dgen’s]Fukanzazengi.Fukanzazengiteijirokuᬑ໅ᆘ⚙൤ᥦ
⪥㘓.1911.
x
AGuidetotheShbgenz[1930].Shbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║⸝ၨ㏔.10volumes.
1930.TranscriptionsbyTomiyamaSoei ᐩᒣ♽ⱥ(18761929)oflecturesonthe
Shbgenz.
x
AnAnalysisofCommentarieson[Dgen’s]Hkyki.Hkykibenbenᑌ៞グ㎪ࠎ.
1942.
x
AGuidetotheShbgenz[1965].Shbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║⸝ၨ㏔.Lectureson
twentynineShbgenzfascicles,transcribedbyTomiyamaSoeiandeditedby
KurebayashiKdᴯᯘⓡᇽ(18931987).Consistsoflecturesonthefollowingfascicles:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Bendwa㎪㐨ヰ
Makahannyaharamitsuᦶヅ⯡ⱝἼ⨶⻤
Genjkan⌧ᡂබ᱌
Ikkamyju୍㢛᫂⌔
Sokushinzebutsu༶ᚰ᫝ష
Uji ᭷᫬
SansuikyᒣỈ⥂
Shinfukatokuᚰ୙ྍᚓ
Kokyྂ㙾
Kankin┳⥂
Busshషᛶ
Gybutsuiigi⾜షጾ൤
Jinz⚄㏻
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
pg.102
Zazenshinᆘ⚮⟿
Bukkjjiషྥୖ஦
Inmoᜂ㯟
Kaiinzanmaiᾏ༳୕᫕
Jukiᤵグ
Kannonや㡢
Arakan㜿⨶₎
Hakujushi᯽ᶞᏊ
Kmyග᫂
Shinjingakud㌟ᚰᏥ㐨
Muchsetsumuክ୰ㄝክ
Gaby␓㣰.
Sesshinsesshㄝᚰㄝᛶ
Shohjissㅖἲᐿ┦
Mujsepp↓᝟ㄝἲ
Shji⏕Ṛ
TextualEditions
x
TheOriginalTextoftheShbgenzshiki.Shbgenzshikiehonṇἲ║ⶶ⚾グ᭯ᮏ.
1896.ThistextisaShbgenzcommentaryfromthe1770sbyZkaiZakke(1730
1788),describedbyBielefeldtas“agood,clear,‘orthodox’interpretation”(Bielefeldt
1972,10;ZGD,717a).Nishiaribasedthiseditiononoriginalmanuscriptsfromthe
Tenmeiera(17811789)(SeeZGD,582a).
x
LecturesontheContinuingThreadofShbgenz.Shbgenzzokugenkgiṇἲ║ⶶ
⥆⤋ㅮ⩏.1896.ThistextisaseriesoflecturesonShbgenzbeginning1731by
OtsudKanch எᇽႏଢ଼(d.1760)(ZGD,184d,582d)
x
CompilationofShbgenzWago[sh]and[Shbgenz]Byakujaketsu.Shbgenz
wagoteibyakujaketsugapponṇἲ║ⶶ࿴ㄒᲓ㜣㑧ジྜᮏ.1898.Aneditionoftwo
textsbyMenzan:Shbgenzbyakujaketsuwrittenin1738,translatedbyRiggsas
“ExposingFalseInterpretationsoftheShbgenz”anddescribedas“anattackon
Tenkei’sviewsonthecompilationoftheGenz”;andMenzan’s1764Shbgenzwago
sh,translatedbyRiggsas“JapaneseLanguageSelectionsfromtheShbgenz”and
describedas“glossesonmostlyJapanesewordsandphrasesofGenz”(DavidERiggs
2002,255–256).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.103
ĞŶWƌĞĐĞƉƚƐ
AuthoredWorks
x
InstructionsonSustainingtheZenPrecepts.Zenkaikunm⚙ᡄカⵚ.1902.
x
Lectureson[BanjinDtan’s]Bussoshdenzenkaish.Bussoshdenzenkaishkwaష
♽ṇബ⚙ᡄ㕒ㅮヰ.1903.(SeeSectionThree).
x
TheEssentialPointsoftheZenPrecepts.Zenkainoyketsu⚙ᡄࡢせジ.1922.
x
GossipBehindtheScenesofaTransmissionofPreceptsGathering,andOther[Writings].
Denkaierikanwahokaബᡄ఍⿬㛩ヰ௚.1977.
^ƉŝƌŝƚƵĂůƐƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ;AnjinᏳᚰͿ
AuthoredWorks
x
TheMeaningofAnjin:AlsoCalledtheMeaningofRefugeintheThreeTreasures.Ᏻᚰ
ジ:୍ྡⓛ౫୕ᐆジ.Anjinketsuichimeikiesanbketsu.1889.(Scarangellohas
analyzedthistext;seeSectionThree.)
x
TheMeaningofAnjinforFollowersofTzan.TjshintanjinketsuὝୖಙᚐᏳᚰジ.
1890(revised1905).
x
TheMeaningofAnjinforStSectAdherents.Stshshintanjinketsu᭪Ὕ᐀ಙᚐ
Ᏻᚰジ.1933.
&ŝǀĞZĂŶŬƐ;Goi஬఩Ϳ
AuthoredWorks
x
LecturesontheStTeachingoftheFiveRanks.TjgoisetsukgiὝୖ஬఩ㄝㅮ⩏.
1897.
x
TalksonTzan’sTeachingoftheFiveRanks.TzangoisetsukenὝᒣ஬఩ㄝㅮ₇.
1901.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.104
TextualEditions
x
Goikenketsuganjikyakujijokattsh஬఩㢧ジඖᏐ⬮⮬ླྀⴱ⸨㞟.1901.TheGoi
kenketsuganjikyakuisa1793commentarybyGettanTsui᭶‣ὝỈ(17281803,also
knownas ᭶‣඲ⱑGettanZenby)ontheGoikenketsuofDongshanLiangjieὝᒣⰋ௴
(TzanRykai,807869).IhavebeenunabletodetermineexactlywhattheJijo
kattshtextis,butthenoteintheNishiariBokusanZenjibibliographyimpliesthatitis
aneditionorsubcommentary,byGettanBonch(?)᭶‣Კ୎,178ofTsui’s
commentaryonDongshan’swork.(NBZ,231;ZGD,273d,301cd)
DŝƐĐĞůůĂŶĞŽƵƐ
AuthoredWorks
x
IdleWordsfromtheShadowoftheMountains.Saninkanwaᒣ㝜㛩ヰ.(Date
unknown.)
x
ABriefExplanationofThreeSections(?).Sanshryakkai୕❶␎ゎ.1874.
x
RegulationsoftheAssociationofSanshakubConfraternities.Sanshakubksha
kekisoku୕ᑻᆓㅮ♫೥つ๎.(1880s).ThistextisnotmentionedintheNishiari
BokusanZenjibibliographybutiscitedinScarangello(Scarangello2012,314n28).
x
DiscourseontheTeaching(?).Migyron(?)ᚚᩍㄽ.1903.CoauthoredwithMorita
Goy᳃⏣ᝅ⏤(18341919).
x
ACollectionofTeachings.Suikaiissokuᆶㄕ୍๎.1903.
x
ZenTalksofNishiari.Nishiarizenwaす᭷⚙ヰ.1905.
x
TheRecordedSayingsofZenMasterJikishinJkoku(NishiariBokusan).JikishinJkoku
Zenjigoroku┤ᚰ῕ᅧ⚮ᖌㄒ㗴.1926.
x
Recordedteachingson[Keizan’s]Zazenyjinki.Zazenyjinkiteijirokuᆘ⚙⏝ᚰグᥦ⪥
㘓.1933.
TextualEditions
x
TeachingsoftheClock.Jishingisetsu᫬㎮൤ㄝ.1877.Thisisaneditionofatextby
KumagaiTsh⇃㇂ᮾὪ(d.1890).
178
IhavebeenunabletofindinformationaboutthisGettanBonch᭶‣Კ୎,thoughhealsoappears
asaneditoroftheTsuiOshgorokuὝỈ࿴ᑦㄒ㘓(StshzenshoVolume5)andispresumablya
discipleoftheGoikenketsuganjikyakuauthorTsui.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.105
x
Hkyzanmaikun’ydanᑌ㙾୕᫕⸊ⷉㄯ.1886.Thisisaneditionofacommentary
byGesshSko ᭶⯚᐀⬌(16181696)ontheStliturgicaltextHkyzanmaiby
Dongshan.
x
Sandkaikun’ydanཨྠዎ⸊ⷉㄯ.1886.Thisisaneditionofacommentaryby
GesshSko ᭶⯚᐀⬌(16181696)ontheStliturgicaltextSandkaibyShitouXiqian
▼㢌ᕼ㑄(SekitKisen,710–790).
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.106
WORKSCITED
AkizukiRymin⛅᭶❳╀et.al.1979.“Tokush:NihonNoZensNoKotoba:Stsh:Nishiari
Bokusan≉㞟࣭᪥ᮏࡢ⚙ൔࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࣭᭪Ὕ᐀࣭す᭷✕ᒣ.”Daihrin,1979(June):
147.
Besserman,Perle,andManfredBSteger.1991.CrazyClouds:ZenRadicals,Rebels,and
Reformers.Boston:Shambhala.
Bielefeldt,Carl.1972.“ShbgenzSansuiky.”MA,Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.
Blum,MarkL.2011.“ShinBuddhismintheMeijiPeriod.”InCultivatingSpirituality:AModern
ShinBuddhistAnthology,editedbyMarkLBlumandRobertRhodes,1–52.Albany:State
UniversityofNewYorkPress.
Bodiford,WilliamM.1991.“DharmaTransmissioninStZen:ManzanDohaku’sReform
Movement.”MNMonumentaNipponica46(4):423–51.
———.1993.StZeninMedievalJapan.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress.
———.2012a.“RememberingDgen:EiheijiandDgenHagiography.”InDgen:Textualand
HistoricalStudies,editedbyStevenHeine.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
———.2012b.“TextualGenealogiesofDgen.”InDgen:TextualandHistoricalStudies,edited
byStevenHeine.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Clarke,ShayneNeil.2014.FamilymattersinIndianBuddhistmonasticisms.Honolulu:University
ofHawai’iPress.
Cleary,J.C.2005.ApocryphalScriptures.Berkeley,Calif.:NumataCenterforBuddhist
TranslationandResearch.
Cleary,J.C.,andThomasF.Cleary.1977.TheBlueCliffRecord.Boulder,Colo.:Shambhala.
Collcutt,Martin.1986.“Buddhism:TheThreatofEradication.”InJapaninTransition,from
TokugawatoMeiji,editedbyMariusBJansenandGilbertRozman.Princeton,N.J.:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Davis,Winston.1992.JapaneseReligionandSociety:ParadigmsofStructureandChange.
Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Dumoulin,Heinrich.1992.ZenBuddhisminthe20thCentury.NewYork:Weatherhill.
———.2005.ZenBuddhism:AHistory,Japan.WorldWisdom,Inc.
Fader,Larry.1982.“HistoricalandPhilosophicalImplicationsofthe1893ChicagoWorld’s
ParliamentofReligions.”TheEasternBuddhist.15:122–45.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.107
Fasan,JacquesT.2012.“KiyozawaManshi(18631903)andtheSearchforAutonomyinModern
Japan.”Ph.D.,Illinois:TheUniversityofChicago.
Faure,Bernard.1991.TheRhetoricofImmediacy:ACulturalCritiqueofChan/ZenBuddhism.
Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.
———.2010.“Afterthoughts.”InBuddhistWarfare,editedbyMichaelKJerrysonandMark
Juergensmeyer.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Ford,James.2012.“DharmaTransmissioninNorthAmericanStZen:AProgressReport.”
MonkeyMind.May28,2012.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2012/05/dharmatransmissioninnorth
americanStzenaprogressreport.html.
Foulk,T.Griffith.1993.“Myth,Ritual,andMonasticPracticeinSungCh’anBuddhism.”In
ReligionandSocietyinTangandSungChina,editedbyPatriciaBuckleyEbreyandPeter
NGregory,147–208.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress.
———.2001.“TheMeaningofPracticeandVerification(Shushgi).”InStSchoolScriptures
forDailyServicesandPractice(StshNikkaGongySeiten᭪Ὕ᐀᪥ㄢ໅⾜⪷඾).
———.2010a.StandardObservancesoftheStZenSchool,Vol.I.Tky:Stshshmuch.
———.2010b.StandardObservancesoftheStZenSchool,Vol.II.Tky:Stshshmuch.
FueokaJish➜ᒸ⮬↷.1972.“GenzetoIshiharaToshiaki║ⶶ఍࡜▼ཎಇ᫂⩝.”In
Shbgenzzenkṇἲ║ⶶ඲ㅮ,byKishizawaIanᓊ⃝ᝳᏳ,Supplement#19,᭶ሗ
19:3–8.Tky:Daihrinkaku.
Gluck,Carol.1985.Japan’sModernMyths:IdeologyintheLateMeijiPeriod.Princeton,N.J.:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Grapard,AllanG.1984.“Japan’sIgnoredCulturalRevolution:TheSeparationofShintand
BuddhistDivinitiesinMeiji(‘ShimbutsuBunri’)andaCaseStudy:Tonomine.”Historyof
Religions23(3):240–65.
Hachinoheshiritsutoshokanඵᡞᕷ❧ᅗ᭩㤋.1972.KydoNoMeis:NishiariBokusanZenji
SonoHitotoNenpu㒓ᅵࡢྡൔࠕす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌࡑࡢே࡜ᖺ㆕ࠖ.Hachinohe:
Hachinoheshiritsutoshokan.
Hardacre,Helen.1989.ShintandtheState,18681988.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversity
Press.
Heine,Steven.2003.“AbbreviationorAberration?:TheRoleoftheShushgiinStZen.”In
BuddhismintheModernWorld:AdaptationsofanAncientTradition,editedbySteven
HeineandCharlesS.Prebish.OxfordUniversityPress,USA.
———.2006.DidDgenGotoChina?:WhatHeWroteandWhenHeWroteIt.NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress.
———.2012a.Dgen:TextualandHistoricalStudies.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.108
———.2012b.“WhatIsontheOtherSide?DelusionandRealizationinDgen’s‘Genjkan.’”
InDgen:TextualandHistoricalStudies,42–74.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Hirata,Seik.1995.“ZenBuddhistAttitudestoWar.”InRudeAwakeningsZen,theKyto
School,&theQuestionofNationalism,editedbyJamesWHeisigandJohnCMaraldo,
translatedbyThomasKirchner,3–15.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress.
Hur,NamLin.1999.“TheStSectandJapaneseMilitaryImperialisminKorea.”Japanese
JournalofReligiousStudies26(1/2):107–34.
———.2007.DeathandSocialOrderinTokugawaJapan:Buddhism,AntiChristianity,
andtheDankaSystem.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter.
Ikeda,Eishun.1998.“TeachingAssembliesandLaySocietiesintheFormationofModern
SectarianBuddhism.”JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies25(1/2):11–44.
Ishii,Seijun.2012.“NewTrendsinDgenStudiesinJapan.”InDgen:TextualandHistorical
Studies,editedbyStevenHeine,223–35.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
IshikawaRikizan▼ᕝຊᒣ.2000.“TransmissionofKirigami(secretInitiationDocuments):A
StPracticeinMedievalJapan.”InTheKanTextsandContextsinZenBuddhism,
editedbyStevenHeineandDaleSWright,translatedbyKawahashiSeish,233–43.
NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
———.1998.“TheSocialResponseofBuddhiststotheModernizationofJapan:The
ContrastingLivesofTwoStZenMonks.”TranslatedbyPaulL.Swanson.Japanese
JournalofReligiousStudies25(1/2):87̽115.
ItShjiఀ⸨຾ྖ.2009.“BokusanZenjitoHaniMotoko✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ࡜⩚ோࡶ࡜Ꮚ.”InNishiari
BokusanZenji:Botsugohyakunenomukaeteす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄࠼࡚,by
NishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲ఍,222–25.Hachinohe:Nishiari
BokusanZenjiKenshkai.
ItYichiఀᮾὒ୍.1955.“NishiariBokusanNoShbgenzKanす᭷✕ᒣࡢṇἲ║ⶶほ.”
RinrigakuNenp೔⌮Ꮫᖺሗ4:1–11.
Ives,Christopher.2009.ImperialWayZen:IchikawaHakugen’sCritiqueandLingering
QuestionsforBuddhistEthics.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress.
Jaffe,Richard.1998.“MeijiReligiousPolicy,StZen,andtheClericalMarriageProblem.”
JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies25(1/2):45–85.
———.1999.“ARefutationofClericalMarriage.”InReligionsofJapaninPractice,editedby
GeorgeJTanabeandIanReader,78–86.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
———.2001.NeitherMonknorLayman:ClericalMarriageinModernJapaneseBuddhism.
Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.
———.2006.“BuddhistMaterialCulture,‘Indianism,’andtheConstructionofPanAsian
BuddhisminPrewarJapan.”MaterialReligion2(3):266293.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.109
Jaffe,Richard,andMichelMohr.1998.“Editors’Introduction:MeijiZen.”JapaneseJournalof
ReligiousStudies25(1/2):1–10.doi:10.2307/30233596.
Jannetta,AnnBowman.1987.EpidemicsandMortalityinEarlyModernJapan.Princeton,N.J.:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Jansen,MariusB.2000.TheMakingofModernJapan.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressof
HarvardUniversityPress.
Josephson,JasonAnanda.2006.“WhenBuddhismBecamea‘Religion’:Religionand
SuperstitionintheWritingsofInoueEnry.”JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies
JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies33(1):143–68.
———.2012.TheInventionofReligioninJapan.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.
KawaguchiKfᕝཱྀ㧗㢼.2002.MeijizenkiStshnokenky᫂἞๓ᮇ᭪Ὕ᐀ࡢ◦✲.
Kyto:Hzkan.
Ketelaar,JamesEdward.1990.OfHereticsandMartyrsinMeijiJapan:BuddhismandIts
Persecution.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Kim,HeeJin.2004.EiheiDgen:MysticalRealist.Boston:WisdomPublications.
Kim,HwansooIlmee.2012.EmpireoftheDharma:KoreanandJapaneseBuddhism,18771912.
Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter.
Kirita,Kiyohide.1995.“D.T.SuzukionSocietyandtheState.”InRudeAwakeningsZen,the
KytoSchool,&theQuestionofNationalism,editedbyJamesWHeisigandJohnC
Maraldo,translatedbyRichardSzipplandThomasKirchner,52–74.Honolulu:University
ofHawai’iPress.
Kishimoto,Hideo.1956.JapaneseReligionintheMeijiEra.TranslatedbyJohnF.Howes.Tky:
bunsha.
KishizawaIanᓊ⃝ᝳᏳ.1938.SenshiNishiariBokusanOshඛᖌす᭷✕ᒣ࿴ᑦ.In
Shbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║ⶶၨ㏔byNishiariBokusanす᭷✕ᒣ,579653.2004.
Tky:Daihrinkaku.
Kitagawa,JosephMitsuo.1993.“The1893World’sParliamentofReligionsandItsLegacy.”In
MuseumofFaiths,171–89.Atlanta:ScholarsPress.
KiyozawaManshi.1984.DecemberFan:TheBuddhistEssaysofManshiKiyozawa.Translatedby
HanedaNobuo.Kyto:HigashiHonganji.
KurebayashiKdᴯᯘⓡᇽ.1972.“Genzenorekishi║ⶶ఍ࡢṔྐ.”InShbgenzzenkṇ
ἲ║ⶶ඲ㅮ,byKishizawaIanᓊ⃝ᝳᏳ,Supplement#2,᭶ሗ 2:1–4.Tky:
Daihrinkaku.
Leighton,TaigenDaniel,andShohakuOkumura.1996.Dgen’sPureStandardsfortheZen
Community:ATranslationoftheEiheiShingi.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYork
Press.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.110
Lobreglio,John.2009.“Orthodox,Heterodox,Heretical:DefiningDoctrinalBoundariesinMeiji
PeriodStZen.”BochumerJahrbuchZurOstasienforschung(BochumYearbookforEast
AsianStudies)33:77–103.
Lopez,DonaldS.2008.Buddhism&Science:AGuideforthePerplexed.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
Marcure,KennethA.1985.“TheDankaSystem.”MonumentaNipponica40(1):39–67.
Mohr,Michel.1994.“ZenBuddhismduringtheTokugawaPeriod:TheChallengetoGobeyond
SectarianConsciousness.”JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies21(4):341–72.
———.1998.“JapaneseZenSchoolsandtheTransitiontoMeiji:APluralityofResponsesinthe
NineteenthCentury.”JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies25(1/2):167–213.
Mross,Michaela.2009.“TheIndependenceMovementofSjiji:AMilestoneintheFormation
ofModernStZen.”Unpublished.
Muller,A.Charles,ed.DigitalDictionaryofBuddhism.<http://buddhismdict.net/ddb>.
Nelson,JohnK.2013.ExperimentalBuddhism:InnovationandActivisminContemporaryJapan.
Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress.
NishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲ఍.2009.NishiariBokusanZenji:Botsugo
hyakunenomukaeteす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄࠼࡚.Hachinohe:NishiariBokusan
ZenjiKenshkai.Abbreviated“NBZ”.
NishiariBokusanす᭷✕ᒣ.1903.BussoshdenZenkaishkwa௖♽ṇఏ⚙ᡄ㕒ㅮヰ.Tky:
Kmeisha.http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/823469.
———.1905.Nishiarizenwaす᭷⚙ヰ.Tky:Kmeisha.
http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/823426.
———.2004.Shbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║⸝ၨ㏔.3vols.TranscribedbyTomiyamaSoeiᐩᒣ♽
ⱥandeditedbyKurebayashiKdᴯᯘⓡᇽ.Tky:Daihrinkaku.
Nishijima,GudoWafu.1997.“JapaneseBuddhismandtheMeijiRestoration.”Presentationto
TheAmericanAcademyofReligion:AnnualMeeting1997.SanFrancisco.
Reader,Ian.1985.“TransformationandChangesintheTeachingsoftheStZenBuddhist
Sect.”JapaneseReligions14(1).
———.1986.“ZazenlessZen?:ThePositionofZazeninInstitutionalZenBuddhism.”Japanese
Religions14(3).
Reader,Ian,andGeorgeJojiTanabe.1998.PracticallyReligiousWorldlyBenefitsandthe
CommonReligionofJapan.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress.
Riggs,DavidE.2002.“TheRekindlingofaTradition:MenzanZuihandtheReformofJapanese
StZenintheTokugawaEra.”Ph.D.,LosAngeles:UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.
Riggs,DianeElizabeth.2010.“TheCulturalandReligiousSignificanceofJapaneseBuddhist
Vestments.”Ph.D.,LosAngeles:UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.111
Saiyjiす᭷ᑎ.1938.“SaiyjiItsuwashす᭷ᑎ㐓ヰ㞟.”InNishiariBokusanZenji:Botsugo
HyakunenOMukaeteす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄࠼࡚,byNishiariBokusanZenji
Kenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲ఍,14–35.2009.Hachinohe:NishiariBokusanZenji
Kenshkai.
Sat,KemmyTaira,andThomasKirchner.2008.“D.T.SuzukiandtheQuestionofWar.”The
EasternBuddhist39(1):61–120.
———.2010.“BrianVictoriaandtheQuestionofScholarship.”TheEasternBuddhist41(2):
139–66.
Sawada,JanineAnderson.1998.“PoliticalWavesintheZenSea:TheEngakuJiCircleinEarly
MeijiJapan.”JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies25(1/2):117–50.
———.2004.PracticalPursuits:Religion,Politics,andPersonalCultivationinNineteenth
CenturyJapan.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress.
Scarangello,DominickJohn.2012.“EmbodyingtheDeities:AStudyoftheFormationofa
ModernJapaneseDeityCult.”Ph.D.,Virginia:UniversityofVirginia.
Schlütter,Morten.2008.HowZenBecameZentheDisputeoverEnlightenmentandthe
FormationofChanBuddhisminSongDynastyChina.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’i
Press.
Sharf,RobertH.1995a.“TheZenofJapaneseNationalism.”InCuratorsoftheBuddha:The
StudyofBuddhismunderColonialism,editedbyDonaldSLopez,107–60.Chicago,Ill.:
UniversityofChicagoPress.
———.1995b.“WhoseZen?:ZenNationalismRevisited.”InRudeAwakeningsZen,theKyto
School,&theQuestionofNationalism,editedbyJamesWHeisigandJohnCMaraldo,
40–51.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress.
———.2002a.“OnEsotericBuddhisminChina.”InComingtoTermswithChineseBuddhism:A
ReadingoftheTreasureStoreTreatise,263–78.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress.
———.2002b.“OnPureLandBuddhismandCh’an/PureLandSyncretisminMedievalChina.”
T’oungPao88(4/5):282–331.
Snodgrass,Judith.2003.PresentingJapaneseBuddhismtotheWest:Orientalism,
Occidentalism,andtheColumbianExposition.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolina
Press.
———.2009.“PublishingEasternBuddhism:D.T.Suzuki’sJourneytotheWest.”InCasting
Faiths:ImperialismandtheTransformationofReligioninEastandSoutheastAsia,
editedbyThomasDavidDuBois,46–72.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Stshshmuch᭪Ὕ᐀ົᒁ.1889.TjGyjiKihanὝୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊.2vols.Tky:Stsh
shmuch.http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/823402.
———.1988.“StshGyjiKihan”nokaiteinitsuiteࠗ᭪Ὕ᐀⾜ᣢ㌶⠊࠘ࡢᨵゞ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚.
Tky:Stshshmuch.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.112
Staggs,KathleenMarie.1979.“InDefenseofJapaneseBuddhism:EssaysfromtheMeijiPeriod
byInoueEnryandMurakamiSensh.”Ph.D.,NewJersey:PrincetonUniversity.
TakakashiBanmei㧗ᶫ᫽ᡂ.2009.Zen⚙.KadokawaPictures,Inc.
Thelle,NottoR.1987.BuddhismandChristianityinJapan:FromConflicttoDialogue,1854
1899.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress.
Tokuno,Takayukiᚨ㔝ᓫ⾜.2010.“MeijiTaishniokeruStshnosgitsuizenkuyhgyji
kihanTjgyjiyonbunyrokuTjgyjifuginkindoshirytoshite᫂἞኱ṇᮇ࡟࠾
ࡅࡿ᭪Ὕ᐀ࡢⴿ൤㏣ၿ౪㣴ἲ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊Ὕୖ⾜ᣢᅄศせ㘓Ὕୖ⾜ᣢㅕ⤒㘊ᄞࢆ
㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ࡚.”KomazawaDaigakuDaigakuinBukkygakuKenkykainenp,no.43:19–
39.
TRyshinᮾ㝯┾.2009.“NishiariBokusantoShbgenzす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌࣄࠕṇἲ║ⶶࠖ.”
InNishiariBokusanZenji:Botsugohyakunenomukaete.す᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄
࠼࡚,byNishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲ఍,42–48.Hachinohe:
NishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkai.
UedaShetsuୖ⏣⚈ᝋ.2009.“NishiariBokusantohaibutsukishakuす᭷✕ᒣ࡜ᗫ௖ẋ㔘.”
InNishiariBokusanZenji:Botsugohyakunenomukaeteす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄
࠼࡚,byNishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲ఍,50–54.Hachinohe:
NishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkai.
Victoria,DaizenBrian.2003.ZenWarStories.London;NewYork:RoutledgeCurzon.
———.2006.ZenatWar.Lanham,Md.:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers.
———.2010.“The‘NegativeSide’ofD.T.Suzuki’sRelationshiptoWar.”TheEasternBuddhist
41(2):97–138.
———.2013a.“ZenasaCultofDeathintheWartimeWritingsofD.T.Suzuki.”TheAsiaPacific
Journal11(30.5).
———.2013b.“D.T.Suzuki,ZenandtheNazis.”TheAsiaPacificJournal11(43.4).
Watanabe,SheiΏ㒊ṇⱥ.1983.“TjgyjikihannitsuitenoisshitenࠕὝୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊ࠖ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡢ୍どⅬ.”Shgakukenky25(March):132–38.
———.1984.“TjgyjikihannitsuitenoisshitenniὝୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ୍どⅬ2.”
Shgakukenky26(March):149–54.
Weitsman,Mel,andKazuakiTanahashi,trans.2011.“CommentarybyNishiariBokusan.”In
Dgen’sGenjoKoan:ThreeCommentaries.CounterpointPress.
Williams,DuncanRyuken.2005.TheOtherSideofZen:ASocialHistoryofStZen:Buddhism
inTokugawaJapan.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Yasutani,Hakuun.1996.FlowersFall:ACommentaryonDgen’sGenjokoan.TranslatedbyPaul
Jaffe.Boston:ShambhalaPublications.
MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan
pg.113
Yifa.2002.TheOriginsofBuddhistMonasticCodesinChina:AnAnnotatedTranslationand
StudyoftheChanyuanQinggui.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress.
———.2005.“FromtheChineseVinayaTraditiontoChanRegulations.”InGoingForth:Visions
ofBuddhistVinaya:EssaysPresentedinHonorofProfessorStanleyWeinstein,editedby
WilliamBodiford,124–35.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress.
YokoiYhᶓ஭㞝ᓟ.1991.JapaneseEnglishZenBuddhistDictionary᪥ⱥ⚮ㄒ㎫඾.Tky:
SankibBuddhistBookstore.
YoshidaRyetsuྜྷ⏣㝯ᝋ.1976.Bakumatsu/MeijiNoMeisNishiariBokusanZenji:Sono
ShgaitoShsekiᖥᮎ࣭᫂἞ࡢྡൔす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㸸ࡑࡢ⏕ᾭ࡜຾㋱.Hachinohe:
Ikichishoinఀྜྷ᭩㝔.
ZengakuDaijitenHensanjo⚮Ꮵ኱㎫඾⦅⧩ᡤ⦅.1993.Shinpanzengakudaijiten᪂∧⚮Ꮵ኱
㎫඾.Tky:Taishukan.Abbreviated“ZGD”.
1/--pages
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа