Editing The New Buddhist Fellowship

== The New Buddhist Fellowship ==

=== From the Keiikai to New Buddhism ===

The immediate precursor of the Shin Bukkyō Dōshikai 新仏教同志会 (New Buddhist Fellowship) was the Keiikai 経緯会 (Warp and Woof Society), founded in December 1894 by Furukawa Rōsen 古河老川 (1871–1899). The Keiikai promoted “free investigation” (''jiyū tōkyū'' 自由討究) and “progressive reform” (''shinshū'' 新修), while criticizing the superstition and otherworldliness associated with established Buddhism. Furukawa had already proclaimed the emergence of a “New Buddhism” (''shin Bukkyō'' 新仏教) in 1894, arguing that religions passed through recurring stages of dogmatism, doubt, and criticism. Buddhism, he believed, had only begun to emerge from dogmatism into an “age of doubt”; its reconstruction required the willingness to subject inherited beliefs to critical investigation without abandoning religious faith itself. In February 1899, members of the Keiikai circle helped establish the Bukkyō Seito Dōshikai 仏教清徒同志会 (Buddhist Pure Believers Fellowship), which adopted the name Shin Bukkyō Dōshikai in 1903.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 91–97.</ref>

The Fellowship consisted of a relatively small circle of young scholars, journalists, educators, and activists, several of whom had studied with prominent Buddhist modernists such as Murakami Senshō and Inoue Enryō. Leading members included Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋 (1871–1933), Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡辺海旭 (1872–1933), Sugimura Sojinkan 杉村楚人冠 (1872–1945), Katō Genchi 加藤玄智 (1873–1965), and Takashima Beihō 高嶋米峰 (1875–1949). Although several had received clerical training, the movement was strongly lay-oriented and deliberately distanced itself from the authority of the established Buddhist sects. Through its journal, ''Shin Bukkyō'' 新仏教 (New Buddhism), launched in July 1900, the Fellowship brought Buddhist reform into conversation with philosophy, science, ethics, literature, and contemporary social thought. Buddhism was neither to retreat into the monastery nor to become merely a private faith; it was to operate within the intellectual and social life of modern Japan.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 97–100.</ref>

=== Against “Old Buddhism” ===

The New Buddhists defined themselves polemically against what they called “old Buddhism” (''kyū Bukkyō'' 旧仏教). Their 1900 manifesto portrayed established Buddhism as corrupted by sectarian prejudice, ritualism, superstition, institutional privilege, and attachment to temples and clerical authority. Its rhetoric could be deliberately provocative: if Buddhism consisted merely in worshipping statues and scriptures, obeying priests, chanting, manipulating prayer beads, and defending one's sect, the manifesto suggested, it had ceased to constitute a living faith. This critique drew upon an older discourse of “degenerate Buddhism” (''daraku Bukkyō'' 堕落仏教), previously employed by Confucian and Shinto critics and increasingly internalized by Buddhist reformers during the Meiji period. The New Buddhists, however, turned this critique against the authority of the established sects themselves, insisting that Buddhism remain open to investigation and reconstruction.<ref>“Sengen” 宣言 [Declaration], ''Shin Bukkyō'' 1, no. 1 (July 1900): 3; Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 98–100.</ref>

Their “Statement of General Principles” (''kōryō'' 綱領) condensed this program into six commitments: the cultivation of a “sound Buddhist faith”; the fundamental reform of society; free investigation of Buddhism and other religions; the eradication of superstition; rejection of the necessity of traditional religious institutions and ceremonies; and opposition to government interference in or preferential treatment of religion. Taken together, these principles reveal why New Buddhism cannot be reduced either to rationalist Buddhist apologetics or to the privatization of religion. The Fellowship sought simultaneously to free Buddhism from sectarian and state authority and to make religious practice more fully relevant to social life. Its members rejected state-sponsored religion, but they did not conclude that religion should therefore be confined to an autonomous private sphere. Their alternative was a Buddhism at once rational, ethical, this-worldly, and social.<ref>“Sengen,” ''Shin Bukkyō'' 1, no. 1 (July 1900): 3; Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 98–100.</ref>

=== ''Genseshugi'', Pantheism, and “Sound Faith” ===

At the center of the New Buddhists' attempt to reconstruct Buddhism was ''genseshugi'' 現世主義 (this-worldliness), an insistence that the significance of religion be sought within the conditions of present existence rather than in another world. Associated particularly with Sakaino Kōyō and Tanaka Jiroku 田中治六 (1869–?), ''genseshugi'' did not simply reject traditional Buddhist cosmology in favor of secular materialism. Rather, it relocated Buddhist religious meaning within the world of ordinary human life, ethical relations, and society. This orientation was closely connected with the New Buddhists' attraction to “pantheism” (''hanshinron'' 汎神論). Sakaino proposed a pantheistic worldview as a foundation for New Buddhism, while Tanaka expressed its immanent logic through a deliberate adaptation of the ''Heart Sutra'': “everything is divine and divinity is everything” (''issai soku kami, kami soku issai'' 一切即神、神即一切). Pantheism offered the New Buddhists a way to affirm religious significance within the present world without appealing to a transcendent realm separate from ordinary existence.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 103–7; Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, ''Shin Bukkyō'' 2, no. 9 (August 1901): 325.</ref>

This this-worldliness did not entail the abandonment of religion. On the contrary, the first of the Fellowship's general principles called for a “sound Buddhist faith,” and New Buddhist writers repeatedly resisted the assumption that rational criticism must culminate in unbelief. Their project instead joined religious commitment to free inquiry, modern science, and ethics. The resulting Buddhism was “secular” only in a qualified sense: the New Buddhists rejected superstition, clerical privilege, and the confinement of religious truth within inherited institutions, but they also resisted the privatization of religion. Religious life was to be realized within the same social world investigated by science, ethics, and political thought. In this respect, ''genseshugi'' carried forward the rationalizing and critical impulses of Meiji Buddhist modernism while directing them more explicitly toward lived social existence.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 99–111; Shields, James Mark (2017), “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’,” ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96.</ref>

The limits of this synthesis became particularly visible in the New Buddhists' exchanges with the socialist Sakai Toshihiko 堺利彦 (1871–1933), an occasional contributor to ''Shin Bukkyō''. Sakai pressed their pantheism toward what he called “pantheistic materialism” (''yuibutsuteki hanshinron'' 唯物的汎神論), questioning what he regarded as the inconsistency of their refusal to adopt a more thoroughgoing materialist position. The New Buddhists resisted this move. They sought instead to account for what they described as the mysterious workings of matter and mind (''busshin no myōyō'' 物心の妙用), preserving a religious dimension that could not be reduced to materialism. The exchange marks an important boundary within Meiji Buddhist modernism. The New Buddhists could embrace this-worldliness, rational inquiry, social reform, and dialogue with socialism while rejecting the materialism they associated with the radical left. Later radical Buddhists would confront the boundary differently, attempting to combine Buddhist ethical and religious commitments with increasingly structural analyses of society.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 105–7.</ref>

=== From Social Buddhism toward Radicalism ===

The social implications of New Buddhism varied considerably among members of the Fellowship. For Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡辺海旭 (1872–1933), this-worldly Buddhism developed especially through engagement with poverty, social welfare, and the human consequences of industrialization. A Jōdo-shū priest and Buddhist scholar, Watanabe spent a decade in Germany studying Sanskrit, Pāli, Buddhist studies, and comparative religion. There he became increasingly convinced that Buddhist faith and scholarship must issue in social practice. After returning to Japan in 1910, he established the Jōdoshū Rōdō Kyōsaikai 浄土宗労働共済会 (Jōdo Sect Labor and Mutual Aid Society) and argued that modern religion must investigate not merely the symptoms but the social and economic causes of poverty. Watanabe did not become a revolutionary socialist; his approach remained broadly reformist. Yet his work represents an important extension of ''genseshugi'': the “present world” to which Buddhism must respond was increasingly understood as a world shaped by poverty, labor, and the disruptive effects of modern industrial capitalism.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 116–19.</ref>

Inoue Shūten 井上秀天 (1880–1945) pushed New Buddhist social criticism further. A Sōtō Zen priest, traveler, and prolific contributor to ''Shin Bukkyō'', Inoue developed a Buddhist critique of war, nationalism, and Japanese imperial expansion. Travels through South and Southeast Asia, together with his study of Theravāda Buddhism, reinforced his interest in ''ahiṃsā'' (nonviolence), while his encounters with the emerging socialist movement brought him into contact with figures including Uchiyama Gudō. Inoue's commitments became especially consequential around the High Treason Incident (''Taigyaku jiken'' 大逆事件) of 1910–1911, when advocacy of peace could itself attract suspicion of socialism or anarchism. His significance lies not in the construction of a systematic Buddhist socialism but in demonstrating how the New Buddhist critique of sectarianism and religious authority could develop into a Buddhist critique of war, nationalism, imperial expansion, and political repression.<ref>Moriya Tomoe 守屋友江 (2005), “Social Ethics of ‘New Buddhists’ at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: A Comparative Study of Suzuki Daisetsu and Inoue Shūten,” ''Japanese Journal of Religious Studies'' 32, no. 2: 283–304; Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 124–28.</ref>

The Fellowship's proximity to the emerging socialist movement was nevertheless real. ''Shin Bukkyō'' provided a forum in which Buddhist reformers and socialists could encounter one another, and several New Buddhists—including Takashima Beihō, Sugimura Sojinkan, Mōri Saian 毛利柴庵, and Inoue Shūten—displayed varying degrees of sympathy toward contemporary socialist thought. Yet the Fellowship never became a socialist organization. Its members shared with socialists a dissatisfaction with existing social conditions and, in some cases, opposition to established religious and political authority, while generally resisting revolutionary socialism and materialist metaphysics.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 112–28.</ref>

The New Buddhist Fellowship thus occupies an intermediate position in the genealogy of radical Buddhism. It was neither a socialist organization nor simply another movement of Buddhist apologetics. Its members challenged sectarian privilege, rejected government control of religion, subjected inherited Buddhism to free investigation, and insisted that Buddhist faith be enacted within contemporary social life. Some moved further, confronting industrial poverty, nationalism, war, and political repression. In doing so, the New Buddhists helped establish a vocabulary and field of debate within which later Buddhists could ask a more radical question: if suffering was produced not only by individual ignorance and craving but also by social, economic, and political structures, could Buddhist liberation require the transformation of those structures themselves? Takagi Kenmyō 高木顕明, Uchiyama Gudō 内山愚童, and later Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎 would answer that question more explicitly than the New Buddhist Fellowship ever did.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 120–36.</ref>

== Selected Literature in English ==

* Ketelaar, James Edward (1990). ''Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution''. Princeton University Press. {{annotation|A major study of the transformation of Japanese Buddhism during the Meiji period, providing important historical and intellectual background for the emergence of New Buddhism.}}

* Moriya, Tomoe (2005). “Social Ethics of ‘New Buddhists’ at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: A Comparative Study of Suzuki Daisetsu and Inoue Shūten.” ''Japanese Journal of Religious Studies'' 32.2: 283–304. {{annotation|An important study of New Buddhist social ethics, particularly Inoue Shūten's engagement with peace, social reform, and the political questions of the late Meiji period.}}

* Shields, James Mark (2017). ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan''. Oxford University Press. {{annotation|Provides an extended account of the origins, principal figures, philosophical commitments, social thought, and historical significance of the New Buddhist Fellowship.}}

* Shields, James Mark (2017). “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’.” ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96. {{annotation|Examines New Buddhist ''genseshugi'' (this-worldliness), pantheism, and the movement's attempt to formulate a modern religious position resistant to both otherworldliness and secular materialism.}}

== Selected Literature in Japanese ==

* Ikeda Eishun 池田英俊. ''Meiji no shin Bukkyō undō'' 明治の新仏教運動 [The New Buddhist Movement of the Meiji Period]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1976. {{annotation|A major Japanese-language study of the New Buddhist movement, its intellectual background, principal figures, and relationship to broader currents of Meiji Buddhist reform.}}

* Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. ''Shin Bukkyō junenshi'' 新仏教十年史 [A Ten-Year History of New Buddhism]. Tokyo: Ryōbundō, 1909. {{annotation|A contemporary history of the New Buddhist movement by one of its principal leaders and an important primary source for the Fellowship's development and self-understanding.}}

* Yoshida Kyūichi 吉田久一. ''Nihon kindai Bukkyōshi kenkyū'' 日本近代仏教史研究 [Studies in the History of Modern Japanese Buddhism]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1992. {{annotation|A major synthetic study of modern Japanese Buddhism that situates New Buddhism within the wider development of Buddhist reform and social thought.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Shields, James Mark ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). “New Buddhism”. ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/New_Buddhism</nowiki>.