Meiji Buddhist Modernism - Revision history

James: /* Buddhism and the Meiji Transformation */

2026-09-26T15:59:57Z

Buddhism and the Meiji Transformation

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 26 September 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	These movements were not themselves necessarily forms of radical Buddhism. Nevertheless, they transformed the intellectual possibilities available to later Buddhist radicals. Historical criticism weakened inherited claims to scriptural and sectarian authority; philosophical reconstruction presented Buddhism as compatible with reason and modern knowledge; nonsectarianism opened the possibility of distinguishing Buddhism itself from its established institutions; and an increasingly this-worldly orientation directed attention toward social and ethical life in the present. Figures such as Inoue Enryō 井上円了, Murakami Senshō 村上専精, and Kiyozawa Manshi 清沢満之 approached these problems in markedly different ways, while the New Buddhist Fellowship (Shin Bukkyō Dōshikai 新仏教同志会) brought several of these tendencies together in a self-consciously modern reform movement. In this sense, Meiji Buddhist modernism provided an important intellectual context from which more explicitly progressive and radical Buddhist projects could emerge.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 5–11.</ref>		These movements were not themselves necessarily forms of radical Buddhism. Nevertheless, they transformed the intellectual possibilities available to later Buddhist radicals. Historical criticism weakened inherited claims to scriptural and sectarian authority; philosophical reconstruction presented Buddhism as compatible with reason and modern knowledge; nonsectarianism opened the possibility of distinguishing Buddhism itself from its established institutions; and an increasingly this-worldly orientation directed attention toward social and ethical life in the present. Figures such as Inoue Enryō 井上円了, Murakami Senshō 村上専精, and Kiyozawa Manshi 清沢満之 approached these problems in markedly different ways, while the New Buddhist Fellowship (Shin Bukkyō Dōshikai 新仏教同志会) brought several of these tendencies together in a self-consciously modern reform movement. In this sense, Meiji Buddhist modernism provided an important intellectual context from which more explicitly progressive and radical Buddhist projects could emerge.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 5–11.</ref>

	== Buddhism and the Meiji ~~Transformation~~ ==		== Buddhism and the Meiji Restoration ==

	The Meiji Restoration of 1868 profoundly disrupted the institutional position Buddhism had occupied under the Tokugawa shogunate. The new government's policy of separating Buddhism and Shinto (''shinbutsu bunri'' 神仏分離) helped unleash the anti-Buddhist destruction conventionally known as ''haibutsu kishaku'' 廃仏毀釈, during which temples were closed or destroyed, property confiscated, and clergy forced to return to lay life. Although the most intense persecution was relatively brief, it exposed the vulnerability of Buddhist institutions within the emerging emperor-centered nation-state. Early Buddhist responses therefore combined institutional survival with reform. Figures such as Fukuda Gyōkai 福田行誡 and Shaku Unshō 釈雲照 sought renewed observance of the Buddhist precepts (''kairitsu'' 戒律), while Buddhist leaders also participated in state-sponsored projects such as the Great Teaching (''Daikyō'' 大教) campaign. Buddhist reconstruction from the beginning thus involved an uneasy combination of religious reform, institutional self-preservation, and accommodation to the modern state.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2012), “Awakening between Science, Art & Ethics: Variations on Japanese Buddhist Modernism, 1890–1945,” in Roy Starrs, ed., ''Rethinking Japanese Modernism'' (Brill/Global Oriental), 108–9; Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 9–11, 33–34.</ref>		The Meiji Restoration of 1868 profoundly disrupted the institutional position Buddhism had occupied under the Tokugawa shogunate. The new government's policy of separating Buddhism and Shinto (''shinbutsu bunri'' 神仏分離) helped unleash the anti-Buddhist destruction conventionally known as ''haibutsu kishaku'' 廃仏毀釈, during which temples were closed or destroyed, property confiscated, and clergy forced to return to lay life. Although the most intense persecution was relatively brief, it exposed the vulnerability of Buddhist institutions within the emerging emperor-centered nation-state. Early Buddhist responses therefore combined institutional survival with reform. Figures such as Fukuda Gyōkai 福田行誡 and Shaku Unshō 釈雲照 sought renewed observance of the Buddhist precepts (''kairitsu'' 戒律), while Buddhist leaders also participated in state-sponsored projects such as the Great Teaching (''Daikyō'' 大教) campaign. Buddhist reconstruction from the beginning thus involved an uneasy combination of religious reform, institutional self-preservation, and accommodation to the modern state.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2012), “Awakening between Science, Art & Ethics: Variations on Japanese Buddhist Modernism, 1890–1945,” in Roy Starrs, ed., ''Rethinking Japanese Modernism'' (Brill/Global Oriental), 108–9; Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 9–11, 33–34.</ref>

James at 00:37, 26 September 2026

2026-09-26T00:37:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:37, 26 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Meiji Buddhist modernism refers to the diverse attempts by Japanese Buddhist thinkers and reformers during the Meiji period (1868–1912) to reconstruct Buddhism in response to rapid political, intellectual, and social change. Confronted by the early Meiji persecution of Buddhism, Christianity, modern science and philosophy, historical-critical scholarship, and new conceptions of “religion,” reformers sought to present Buddhism as rational, ethical, socially relevant, and compatible with modern knowledge. Their projects differed considerably: some were apologetic or nationalist, others critical of inherited sectarian institutions, and still others increasingly concerned with Buddhism's responsibilities in the present world.		Meiji Buddhist modernism refers to the diverse attempts by Japanese Buddhist thinkers and reformers during the Meiji period (1868–1912) to reconstruct Buddhism in response to rapid political, intellectual, and social change. Confronted by the early Meiji persecution of Buddhism, Christianity, modern science and philosophy, historical-critical scholarship, and new conceptions of “religion,” reformers sought to present Buddhism as rational, ethical, socially relevant, and compatible with modern knowledge. Their projects differed considerably: some were apologetic or nationalist, others critical of inherited sectarian institutions, and still others increasingly concerned with Buddhism's responsibilities in the present world.

	These movements were not themselves necessarily forms of radical Buddhism. Nevertheless, they transformed the intellectual possibilities available to later Buddhist radicals. Historical criticism weakened inherited claims to scriptural and sectarian authority; philosophical reconstruction presented Buddhism as compatible with reason and modern knowledge; nonsectarianism opened the possibility of distinguishing Buddhism itself from its established institutions; and an increasingly this-worldly orientation directed attention toward social and ethical life in the present. Figures such as Inoue Enryō 井上円了, Murakami Senshō 村上専精, and Kiyozawa Manshi 清沢満之 approached these problems in markedly different ways, while the New Buddhist Fellowship (Shin Bukkyō Dōshikai 新仏教同志会) brought several of these tendencies together in a self-consciously modern reform movement. In this sense, Meiji Buddhist modernism provided an important intellectual context from which more explicitly progressive and radical Buddhist projects could emerge.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2012), “Awakening between Science, Art & Ethics: Variations on Japanese Buddhist Modernism, 1890–1945,” in Roy Starrs, ed., ''Rethinking Japanese Modernism'' (Brill/Global Oriental), 105–24; Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press)~~; Shields~~, ~~James Mark (2017), “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’,” ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96~~.</ref>		These movements were not themselves necessarily forms of radical Buddhism. Nevertheless, they transformed the intellectual possibilities available to later Buddhist radicals. Historical criticism weakened inherited claims to scriptural and sectarian authority; philosophical reconstruction presented Buddhism as compatible with reason and modern knowledge; nonsectarianism opened the possibility of distinguishing Buddhism itself from its established institutions; and an increasingly this-worldly orientation directed attention toward social and ethical life in the present. Figures such as Inoue Enryō 井上円了, Murakami Senshō 村上専精, and Kiyozawa Manshi 清沢満之 approached these problems in markedly different ways, while the New Buddhist Fellowship (Shin Bukkyō Dōshikai 新仏教同志会) brought several of these tendencies together in a self-consciously modern reform movement. In this sense, Meiji Buddhist modernism provided an important intellectual context from which more explicitly progressive and radical Buddhist projects could emerge.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 5–11.</ref>

	== Buddhism and the Meiji Transformation ==		== Buddhism and the Meiji Transformation ==

	The Meiji Restoration of 1868 profoundly disrupted the institutional position Buddhism had occupied under the Tokugawa shogunate. The new government's policy of separating Buddhism and Shinto (''shinbutsu bunri'' 神仏分離) helped unleash the anti-Buddhist destruction conventionally known as ''haibutsu kishaku'' 廃仏毀釈, during which temples were closed or destroyed, property confiscated, and clergy forced to return to lay life. Although the most intense persecution was relatively brief, it exposed the vulnerability of Buddhist institutions within the emerging emperor-centered nation-state. Early Buddhist responses therefore combined institutional survival with reform. Figures such as Fukuda Gyōkai 福田行誡 and Shaku Unshō 釈雲照 sought renewed observance of the Buddhist precepts (''kairitsu'' 戒律), while Buddhist leaders also participated in state-sponsored projects such as the Great Teaching (''Daikyō'' 大教) campaign. Buddhist reconstruction from the beginning thus involved an uneasy combination of religious reform, institutional self-preservation, and accommodation to the modern state.<ref>Shields (2012), “Awakening between Science,” 108–9; Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', ~~[pages]~~.</ref>		The Meiji Restoration of 1868 profoundly disrupted the institutional position Buddhism had occupied under the Tokugawa shogunate. The new government's policy of separating Buddhism and Shinto (''shinbutsu bunri'' 神仏分離) helped unleash the anti-Buddhist destruction conventionally known as ''haibutsu kishaku'' 廃仏毀釈, during which temples were closed or destroyed, property confiscated, and clergy forced to return to lay life. Although the most intense persecution was relatively brief, it exposed the vulnerability of Buddhist institutions within the emerging emperor-centered nation-state. Early Buddhist responses therefore combined institutional survival with reform. Figures such as Fukuda Gyōkai 福田行誡 and Shaku Unshō 釈雲照 sought renewed observance of the Buddhist precepts (''kairitsu'' 戒律), while Buddhist leaders also participated in state-sponsored projects such as the Great Teaching (''Daikyō'' 大教) campaign. Buddhist reconstruction from the beginning thus involved an uneasy combination of religious reform, institutional self-preservation, and accommodation to the modern state.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2012), “Awakening between Science, Art & Ethics: Variations on Japanese Buddhist Modernism, 1890–1945,” in Roy Starrs, ed., ''Rethinking Japanese Modernism'' (Brill/Global Oriental), 108–9; Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 9–11, 33–34.</ref>

	By the 1880s and 1890s, however, a younger generation increasingly addressed the intellectual as well as institutional challenges of modernity. Reformers such as Hara Tanzan 原坦山, Shimaji Mokurai 島地黙雷, Inoue Enryō, Murakami Senshō, Shaku Sōen 釈宗演, and Kiyozawa Manshi engaged modern science, Western philosophy, historical scholarship, Christianity, and newly imported categories of religion and ethics. They did not share a single program, and “Buddhist modernism” should not be understood as a unified movement. What linked their projects was the conviction that inherited forms of Buddhism could no longer simply be taken for granted: Buddhism had to be explained, defended, criticized, and reconstructed within the intellectual and institutional conditions of modern Japan.<ref>~~Shields (2012), “Awakening between Science,” 109–21;~~ Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', ~~[pages]~~.</ref>		By the 1880s and 1890s, however, a younger generation increasingly addressed the intellectual as well as institutional challenges of modernity. Reformers such as Hara Tanzan 原坦山, Shimaji Mokurai 島地黙雷, Inoue Enryō, Murakami Senshō, Shaku Sōen 釈宗演, and Kiyozawa Manshi engaged modern science, Western philosophy, historical scholarship, Christianity, and newly imported categories of religion and ethics. They did not share a single program, and “Buddhist modernism” should not be understood as a unified movement. What linked their projects was the conviction that inherited forms of Buddhism could no longer simply be taken for granted: Buddhism had to be explained, defended, criticized, and reconstructed within the intellectual and institutional conditions of modern Japan.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 33–34.</ref>

	== Inoue Enryō and the Rationalization of Buddhism ==		== Inoue Enryō and the Rationalization of Buddhism ==

	Inoue Enryō 井上円了 (1858–1919) was among the most influential architects of Buddhist intellectual reform in Meiji Japan. A Jōdo Shinshū priest by background and a graduate of Tokyo Imperial University, Enryō responded to the challenges of Western philosophy, modern science, Christianity, and the transformed religious environment of the Meiji state by presenting Buddhism as a rational and philosophical tradition compatible with modern knowledge. His investigations of supernatural phenomena (''yōkaigaku'' 妖怪学, “mystery studies”) formed part of this larger project: rational criticism could distinguish legitimate religious truth from superstition without requiring the abandonment of religion itself. Enryō was ~~neither~~ a political radical ~~nor~~ a ~~significant critic of the emerging Japanese nation~~-~~state~~. His importance for later progressive Buddhism was ~~instead~~ conceptual. By distinguishing a rational or philosophical core of Buddhism from historically contingent beliefs and practices, he helped establish a characteristic strategy of Buddhist modernism: inherited Buddhism could be criticized and reconstructed in the name of a deeper Buddhist truth adequate to modern conditions. Enryō's philosophical realism also influenced younger reformers, including Tanaka Jiroku 田中治六 of the New Buddhist Fellowship, who drew upon it in developing the this-worldly orientation known as ''genseshugi'' 現世主義.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2012), “Awakening between Science, Art & Ethics: Variations on Japanese Buddhist Modernism, 1890–1945,” in Roy Starrs, ed., ''Rethinking Japanese Modernism'' (Brill/Global Oriental), 105–24, 109–11; Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'', [pages]; Shields, James Mark (2017), “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’,” ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96; Brons, Lajos (2022), ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism'' (punctum books), 75–76.</ref>		Inoue Enryō 井上円了 (1858–1919) was among the most influential architects of Buddhist intellectual reform in Meiji Japan. A Jōdo Shinshū priest by background and a graduate of Tokyo Imperial University, Enryō responded to the challenges of Western philosophy, modern science, Christianity, and the transformed religious environment of the Meiji state by presenting Buddhism as a rational and philosophical tradition compatible with modern knowledge. His investigations of supernatural phenomena (''yōkaigaku'' 妖怪学, “mystery studies”) formed part of this larger project: rational criticism could distinguish legitimate religious truth from superstition without requiring the abandonment of religion itself. Enryō was not a political radical; indeed, his Buddhist rationalism coexisted with nationalism and a strong anti-Christian orientation. His importance for later progressive Buddhism was therefore not primarily political but conceptual. By distinguishing a rational or philosophical core of Buddhism from historically contingent beliefs and practices, he helped establish a characteristic strategy of Buddhist modernism: inherited Buddhism could be criticized and reconstructed in the name of a deeper Buddhist truth adequate to modern conditions.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 34–39.</ref> Enryō's philosophical realism also influenced younger reformers, including Tanaka Jiroku 田中治六 of the New Buddhist Fellowship, who drew upon it in developing the this-worldly orientation known as ''genseshugi'' 現世主義.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’,” ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96, [pages]; Brons, Lajos (2022), ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism'' (punctum books), 75–76.</ref>

	== Murakami Senshō and Historical Criticism ==		== Murakami Senshō and Historical Criticism ==

	Murakami Senshō 村上専精 (1851–1929), a scholar-priest of the Ōtani branch of Jōdo Shinshū, played a central role in establishing modern academic Buddhist studies in Japan. Drawing upon historical and comparative methods, he challenged the assumption that the authority of Buddhist doctrine depended upon the traditional attribution of Mahāyāna scriptures to the historical Buddha. His ''~~Daijō bussetsuron hihan~~'' ~~大乗仏説論批判~~ [~~A Critique~~ of ~~the Theory That Mahāyāna Was Taught by the Buddha~~] (1901~~) argued~~ that Mahāyāna ~~teachings had developed~~ historically rather than ~~originating directly in~~ Śākyamuni's preaching. The ~~resulting~~ controversy ~~over~~ ''Daijō hibussetsuron'' 大乗非仏説論 (the theory that Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha) challenged inherited conceptions of scriptural authority ~~and brought~~ Murakami ~~into conflict with the Buddhist establishment. Yet his purpose~~ was ~~not simply to discredit Mahāyāna. By distinguishing~~ the ~~historical origins~~ of Buddhist ~~teachings from their religious and philosophical significance, he sought~~ to ~~establish a critical foundation for~~ the ~~study and~~ reconstruction of Buddhism.<ref>Sueki Fumihiko 末木文美士 (2005), “Building a Platform for Academic Buddhist Studies: Murakami Senshō,” trans. James Mark Shields, ''The Eastern Buddhist'', n.s., 37, nos. 1–2: 8–27; Shields, James Mark (2012), “Awakening between Science, Art & Ethics: Variations on Japanese Buddhist Modernism, 1890–1945,” in Roy Starrs, ed., ''Rethinking Japanese Modernism'', 105–24, 111–13.</ref>		Murakami Senshō 村上専精 (1851–1929), a scholar-priest of the Ōtani branch of Jōdo Shinshū, played a central role in establishing modern academic Buddhist studies in Japan. Drawing upon historical and comparative methods, he challenged the assumption that the authority of Buddhist doctrine depended upon the traditional attribution of Mahāyāna scriptures to the historical Buddha. His multivolume ''Bukkyō tōitsuron'' 仏教統一論 [On the Unification of Buddhism], begun in 1901, combined historical criticism with a constructive project of Buddhist reform and unification. Murakami accepted that Mahāyāna scriptures were historically later developments rather than direct records of Śākyamuni's preaching, but he did not therefore dismiss Mahāyāna as religiously illegitimate. Instead, he argued that later Buddhist teachings could embody the Buddha's intention and represent historically developing expressions of Buddhist truth. The controversy surrounding ''Daijō hibussetsuron'' 大乗非仏説論 (the theory that Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha) nevertheless challenged inherited conceptions of scriptural and sectarian authority. Murakami's project was thus both critical and constructive: historical scholarship could expose the contingency of inherited Buddhist forms while contributing to the reconstruction of Buddhism under modern conditions.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 64–74; Sueki Fumihiko 末木文美士 (2005), “Building a Platform for Academic Buddhist Studies: Murakami Senshō,” trans. James Mark Shields, ''The Eastern Buddhist'', n.s., 37, nos. 1–2: 8–27.</ref>

	Murakami's historical criticism had implications extending well beyond academic Buddhist studies. If Buddhist scriptures and doctrines were products of historical development, inherited sectarian formulations could no longer claim unquestioned authority simply on the basis of their supposed antiquity. This did not make Murakami a socialist or political radical, but it opened intellectual possibilities that later Buddhist reformers would pursue in more explicitly social and political directions. ~~In particular,~~ Seno'o Girō ~~drew upon~~ the historical ~~understanding~~ of Mahāyāna~~'s development~~ to argue that Buddhism must continue to ~~adapt to changing circumstances rather than remain confined within established sectarian institutions~~. Murakami's significance for radical Buddhism therefore lies less in his own political commitments than in ~~the~~ critical ~~method~~ through which Buddhist tradition itself ~~became~~ an object of ~~historical investigation and~~ reconstruction.<ref>Shields (~~2012~~), ~~“Awakening between Science~~,~~” 111–13~~; Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎, “Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei sengen” 新興仏教青年同盟宣言 [Declaration of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism] (1931).</ref>		Murakami's historical criticism had implications extending well beyond academic Buddhist studies. If Buddhist scriptures and doctrines were products of historical development, inherited sectarian formulations could no longer claim unquestioned authority simply on the basis of their supposed antiquity. This did not make Murakami a socialist or political radical, but it opened intellectual possibilities that later Buddhist reformers would pursue in more explicitly social and political directions. Seno'o Girō, for example, would later invoke the historical development of Mahāyāna scripture to argue that Buddhism itself had always changed in response to changing social and cultural conditions and must continue to do so in the modern age. Murakami's significance for radical Buddhism therefore lies less in his own political commitments than in helping establish a historical-critical approach through which Buddhist tradition itself could become an object of reconstruction.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 64–74; Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎, “Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei sengen” 新興仏教青年同盟宣言 [Declaration of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism] (1931).</ref>

			STOP HERE

	== Kiyozawa Manshi and ''Seishinshugi'' ==		== Kiyozawa Manshi and ''Seishinshugi'' ==

James at 00:24, 26 September 2026

2026-09-26T00:24:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:24, 26 September 2026
Line 102:		Line 102:

	Shields, James Mark. “Meiji Buddhist Modernism.” ''Radical Buddhism Project''. Bucknell University. Accessed {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}.		Shields, James Mark. “Meiji Buddhist Modernism.” ''Radical Buddhism Project''. Bucknell University. Accessed {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}.

			== Notes ==

			<references />

James at 00:21, 26 September 2026

2026-09-26T00:21:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:21, 26 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~= Meiji Buddhist Modernism =~~

	Meiji Buddhist modernism refers to the diverse attempts by Japanese Buddhist thinkers and reformers during the Meiji period (1868–1912) to reconstruct Buddhism in response to rapid political, intellectual, and social change. Confronted by the early Meiji persecution of Buddhism, Christianity, modern science and philosophy, historical-critical scholarship, and new conceptions of “religion,” reformers sought to present Buddhism as rational, ethical, socially relevant, and compatible with modern knowledge. Their projects differed considerably: some were apologetic or nationalist, others critical of inherited sectarian institutions, and still others increasingly concerned with Buddhism's responsibilities in the present world.		Meiji Buddhist modernism refers to the diverse attempts by Japanese Buddhist thinkers and reformers during the Meiji period (1868–1912) to reconstruct Buddhism in response to rapid political, intellectual, and social change. Confronted by the early Meiji persecution of Buddhism, Christianity, modern science and philosophy, historical-critical scholarship, and new conceptions of “religion,” reformers sought to present Buddhism as rational, ethical, socially relevant, and compatible with modern knowledge. Their projects differed considerably: some were apologetic or nationalist, others critical of inherited sectarian institutions, and still others increasingly concerned with Buddhism's responsibilities in the present world.

James: James moved page Meiji New Buddhism to Meiji Buddhist Modernism

2026-09-26T00:20:03Z

James moved page Meiji New Buddhism to Meiji Buddhist Modernism

← Older revision	Revision as of 00:20, 26 September 2026
(No difference)

James at 00:17, 26 September 2026

2026-09-26T00:17:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:17, 26 September 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:

	Kiyozawa was not a socialist, and ''seishinshugi'' did not offer a program for structural political or economic transformation. Its significance for later progressive Buddhism was nevertheless considerable. By insisting that genuine Buddhism could be distinguished from the authority and interests of established Buddhist institutions, Kiyozawa opened another route toward the reconstruction of Buddhism outside conventional sectarian structures. Yet his emphasis on inward transformation also exposed a problem that would recur throughout modern Buddhist social thought: whether changing the self was sufficient to address forms of suffering produced by social and economic institutions. Later progressive and radical Buddhists would answer that question in different ways, often insisting that personal transformation had to be joined to transformation of the social world. In this respect, ''seishinshugi'' represents both an important resource for and a revealing limit of Meiji Buddhist modernism.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', [pages].</ref>		Kiyozawa was not a socialist, and ''seishinshugi'' did not offer a program for structural political or economic transformation. Its significance for later progressive Buddhism was nevertheless considerable. By insisting that genuine Buddhism could be distinguished from the authority and interests of established Buddhist institutions, Kiyozawa opened another route toward the reconstruction of Buddhism outside conventional sectarian structures. Yet his emphasis on inward transformation also exposed a problem that would recur throughout modern Buddhist social thought: whether changing the self was sufficient to address forms of suffering produced by social and economic institutions. Later progressive and radical Buddhists would answer that question in different ways, often insisting that personal transformation had to be joined to transformation of the social world. In this respect, ''seishinshugi'' represents both an important resource for and a revealing limit of Meiji Buddhist modernism.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', [pages].</ref>

	~~== The New Buddhist Fellowship ==~~
	~~=== From the Keiikai to New Buddhism ===~~
	~~=== Against “Old Buddhism” ===~~
	~~=== ''Genseshugi'', Pantheism, and “Sound Faith” ===~~
	~~=== From Social Buddhism toward Socialism ===~~

	== The New Buddhist Fellowship ==		== The New Buddhist Fellowship ==

James at 00:16, 26 September 2026

2026-09-26T00:16:23Z

Show changes

James: Created page with "= Meiji Buddhist Modernism = Meiji Buddhist modernism refers to the diverse attempts by Japanese Buddhist thinkers and reformers during the Meiji period (1868–1912) to reconstruct Buddhism in response to rapid political, intellectual, and social change. Confronted by the early Meiji persecution of Buddhism, Christianity, modern science and philosophy, historical-critical scholarship, and new conceptions of “religion,” reformers sought to present Buddhism as ration..."

2026-09-25T23:55:59Z

Created page with "= Meiji Buddhist Modernism = Meiji Buddhist modernism refers to the diverse attempts by Japanese Buddhist thinkers and reformers during the Meiji period (1868–1912) to reconstruct Buddhism in response to rapid political, intellectual, and social change. Confronted by the early Meiji persecution of Buddhism, Christianity, modern science and philosophy, historical-critical scholarship, and new conceptions of “religion,” reformers sought to present Buddhism as ration..."

New page

= Meiji Buddhist Modernism =

Meiji Buddhist modernism refers to the diverse attempts by Japanese Buddhist thinkers and reformers during the Meiji period (1868–1912) to reconstruct Buddhism in response to rapid political, intellectual, and social change. Confronted by the early Meiji persecution of Buddhism, Christianity, modern science and philosophy, historical-critical scholarship, and new conceptions of “religion,” reformers sought to present Buddhism as rational, ethical, socially relevant, and compatible with modern knowledge. Their projects differed considerably: some were apologetic or nationalist, others critical of inherited sectarian institutions, and still others increasingly concerned with Buddhism's responsibilities in the present world.

These movements were not themselves necessarily forms of radical Buddhism. Nevertheless, they transformed the intellectual possibilities available to later Buddhist radicals. Historical criticism weakened inherited claims to scriptural and sectarian authority; philosophical reconstruction presented Buddhism as compatible with reason and modern knowledge; nonsectarianism opened the possibility of distinguishing Buddhism itself from its established institutions; and an increasingly this-worldly orientation directed attention toward social and ethical life in the present. Figures such as Inoue Enryō 井上円了, Murakami Senshō 村上専精, and Kiyozawa Manshi 清沢満之 approached these problems in markedly different ways, while the New Buddhist Fellowship (Shin Bukkyō Dōshikai 新仏教同志会) brought several of these tendencies together in a self-consciously modern reform movement. In this sense, Meiji Buddhist modernism provided an important intellectual context from which more explicitly progressive and radical Buddhist projects could emerge.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2012), “Awakening between Science, Art & Ethics: Variations on Japanese Buddhist Modernism, 1890–1945,” in Roy Starrs, ed., ''Rethinking Japanese Modernism'' (Brill/Global Oriental), 105–24; Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press); Shields, James Mark (2017), “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’,” ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96.</ref>

== Buddhism and the Meiji Transformation ==

The Meiji Restoration of 1868 profoundly disrupted the institutional position Buddhism had occupied under the Tokugawa shogunate. The new government's policy of separating Buddhism and Shinto (''shinbutsu bunri'' 神仏分離) helped unleash the anti-Buddhist destruction conventionally known as ''haibutsu kishaku'' 廃仏毀釈, during which temples were closed or destroyed, property confiscated, and clergy forced to return to lay life. Although the most intense persecution was relatively brief, it exposed the vulnerability of Buddhist institutions within the emerging emperor-centered nation-state. Early Buddhist responses therefore combined institutional survival with reform. Figures such as Fukuda Gyōkai 福田行誡 and Shaku Unshō 釈雲照 sought renewed observance of the Buddhist precepts (''kairitsu'' 戒律), while Buddhist leaders also participated in state-sponsored projects such as the Great Teaching (''Daikyō'' 大教) campaign. Buddhist reconstruction from the beginning thus involved an uneasy combination of religious reform, institutional self-preservation, and accommodation to the modern state.<ref>Shields (2012), “Awakening between Science,” 108–9; Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', [pages].</ref>

By the 1880s and 1890s, however, a younger generation increasingly addressed the intellectual as well as institutional challenges of modernity. Reformers such as Hara Tanzan 原坦山, Shimaji Mokurai 島地黙雷, Inoue Enryō, Murakami Senshō, Shaku Sōen 釈宗演, and Kiyozawa Manshi engaged modern science, Western philosophy, historical scholarship, Christianity, and newly imported categories of religion and ethics. They did not share a single program, and “Buddhist modernism” should not be understood as a unified movement. What linked their projects was the conviction that inherited forms of Buddhism could no longer simply be taken for granted: Buddhism had to be explained, defended, criticized, and reconstructed within the intellectual and institutional conditions of modern Japan.<ref>Shields (2012), “Awakening between Science,” 109–21; Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', [pages].</ref>