Japan: Difference between revisions

From The Radical Buddhism Project
← Older edit

Lajos (talk | contribs)

3 user groups
996 edits
undo
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Provisional Entry}}
Japan provides one of the richest historical settings for the study of radical Buddhism. From its early institutional development in Japan, Buddhism developed complex and often mutually supportive relationships with political authority, including the imperial court, the powerful religious institutions of the medieval period, and the Tokugawa shogunate. These relationships never eliminated conflict or dissent, however, and Japanese history also supplied later Buddhist radicals with memories and models of religiously inflected resistance, including peasant uprisings and traditions of the self-sacrificing “righteous person” (''gimin'' 義民).<ref>Shields, James Mark (2016), “Opium Eaters: Buddhism as Revolutionary Politics,” in Hiroko Kawanami, ed., ''Buddhism and the Political Process'' (Palgrave Macmillan), 213–32, 214–15; Shields, James Mark (2016), “Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan,” ''Journal of Religion in Japan'' 5: 3–21.</ref>
Japan presents one of the richest and longest-running case studies in radical Buddhism: a nation in which Buddhist institutions were, for most of their history, deeply "imbricated" with secular power, whether the imperial court, the medieval temple-complexes (権門 ''kenmon'') of Heian and Kamakura Japan, or the shogunates of the Edo period, yet in which recurrent episodes of peasant unrest, sectarian reform, and modern political radicalism repeatedly generated dissident readings of the Dharma.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2016). "Opium Eaters: Buddhism as Revolutionary Politics". In: Kawanami, Hiroko (Ed.), ''Buddhism and the Political Process'': 213–232. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 214–215.</ref> The Meiji Restoration of 1868 subjected Buddhism to a short but severe wave of state persecution (廃仏毀釈 ''haibutsu kishaku''), after which successive generations of clergy and lay intellectuals sought to "modernize" the tradition along scientific, ethical, or nationalist lines. Out of this same ferment, and drawing on older domestic traditions of righteous peasant revolt, a much smaller current of explicitly left-wing "radical Buddhism" emerged in the late Meiji, Taishō, and early Shōwa periods, fusing Buddhist doctrine with anarchism, socialism, and Marxism. This current was violently suppressed by the prewar state but left a legacy of postwar self-criticism, most systematically in the postwar critique of wartime Zen associated with [[Ichikawa Hakugen]] and, decades later, in the "Critical Buddhism" (批判仏教 ''hihan Bukkyō'') movement's reassessment of Buddhist doctrine's complicity with social quietism.
 
The political and intellectual upheavals accompanying the Meiji Restoration of 1868 transformed this relationship. Following the brief but severe persecution of Buddhism known as ''haibutsu kishaku'' 廃仏毀釈, Buddhist clergy and lay intellectuals pursued a variety of projects to reconstruct Buddhism as compatible with a modernizing nation-state, modern science, new forms of scholarship, and changing conceptions of religion and ethics. Within and against this broader field of Buddhist reform there emerged, from the 1880s through the early Shōwa period, a much smaller and internally diverse current in which activists brought Buddhist ideas into constructive engagement with socialism, anarchism, and eventually Marxism. This entry uses “radical Buddhism” primarily for these attempts to connect Buddhist thought and practice with fundamental transformations of existing social, economic, and political relations.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press); Shields, James Mark (2014), “Zen and the Art of Treason: Radical Buddhism in Meiji Era (1868–1912) Japan,” ''Politics, Religion & Ideology'' 15, no. 2: 205–23.</ref>
 
Radical Buddhism in this narrower sense never became a dominant current within modern Japanese Buddhism. Its most explicitly left-wing prewar expressions were repeatedly subjected to state repression, most dramatically in the High Treason Incident of 1910–1911 and the destruction of Seno'o Girō's Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism in 1936–1937. Yet the questions these movements raised—about Buddhism's relationship to social inequality, capitalism, nationalism, war, and political authority—reappeared in different forms after 1945. The postwar critique of Buddhist complicity in Japanese militarism associated especially with Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦, and the later Critical Buddhism (''Hihan Bukkyō'' 批判仏教) movement, are therefore treated here not as straightforward organizational continuations of prewar radical Buddhism but as later forms of Buddhist social and doctrinal criticism that can be situated within a broader genealogy of modern Japanese critical Buddhism.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'' (State University of New York Press), 281–304.</ref>


== Buddhism in Japan ==
== Buddhism in Japan ==


Buddhism entered Japan from the Asian mainland in the sixth century CE and, over the following centuries, became closely interwoven with both the imperial court and successive ruling elites. By the Heian and Kamakura periods (794–1333), major temple complexes had evolved into powerful landholding institutions, functioning, in the analysis of Kuroda Toshio (黒田俊雄), as one of several elite factions (''kenmon'') that jointly constituted the ruling order alongside the court aristocracy and the warrior class.<ref>Shields (2016), "Opium Eaters", p. 215.</ref> The Kamakura period also saw the emergence of the great popular sectarian movements, Pure Land (浄土 ''Jōdo''), True Pure Land (浄土真宗 ''Jōdo Shinshū''), Zen, and Nichiren (日蓮) Buddhism, several of which would later furnish vocabularies and precedents for socially engaged and even insurrectionary forms of Buddhist practice discussed below. Despite a handful of dramatic exceptions, such as Oda Nobunaga's (織田信長) 1571 destruction of the Enryakuji (延暦寺) temple complex on Mount Hiei, the dominant historical relationship between the sangha and the Japanese state was one of symbiosis rather than either fusion (as in [[Tibet]]) or sustained antagonism: temples retained considerable autonomy over their own internal affairs while providing ritual and ideological support, including funerary and family-registry services, for the ruling authorities.<ref>Shields (2016), "Opium Eaters", pp. 215–216.</ref>
Buddhism entered Japan from the Asian mainland in the sixth century CE and over the following centuries became deeply embedded in the country's political, economic, and cultural institutions. By the medieval period, major monasteries and temple networks controlled substantial landholdings and exercised considerable political influence. Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄 famously analyzed religious institutions as one component of the system of powerful elite blocs (''kenmon'' 権門) through which court aristocrats, warriors, and major religious institutions constituted the medieval ruling order. The period also witnessed the development of influential Buddhist movements associated with figures such as Hōnen 法然, Shinran 親鸞, Dōgen 道元, and Nichiren 日蓮. Although some came into conflict with established religious and political authorities, Buddhist institutions generally developed through complex relationships of both autonomy and cooperation with political power rather than sustained opposition to it.<ref>Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄, “The Imperial Law and the Buddhist Law,” trans. Jacqueline I. Stone, ''Japanese Journal of Religious Studies'' 23, nos. 3–4 (1996): 271–85; Shields, James Mark (2016), “Opium Eaters: Buddhism as Revolutionary Politics,” 215.</ref> Under the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1868), these relationships acquired an extensive administrative form. Through temple registration (''terauke'' 寺請) and hereditary temple-parishioner relationships (''danka'' 檀家), Buddhist temples participated in the registration of households and regulation of religious affiliation while providing funerary and memorial services increasingly central to ordinary religious life.<ref>Tamamuro Fumio 圭室文雄 (2001), “Local Society and the Temple-Parishioner Relationship within the Bakufu's Governance Structure,” ''Japanese Journal of Religious Studies'' 28, nos. 3–4: 261–92.</ref>
 
The Meiji Restoration of 1868 profoundly disrupted this institutional settlement. The government-mandated separation of Buddhism and Shinto (''shinbutsu bunri'' 神仏分離) was accompanied in many regions by anti-Buddhist violence and destruction conventionally known as ''haibutsu kishaku'' 廃仏毀釈, stripping Buddhist institutions of much of their former status and property and forcing Buddhist leaders to reconsider the tradition's place within the new nation-state.<ref>Ketelaar, James Edward (1990), ''Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution'' (Princeton University Press); 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, 108–9.</ref> Responses ranged from renewed observance of the Buddhist precepts (''kairitsu'' 戒律), associated with figures such as Fukuda Gyōkai 福田行誡 and Shaku Unshō 釈雲照, to participation in government-sponsored projects such as the Great Teaching (''Daikyō'' 大教) campaign. A subsequent generation of scholar-priests and lay intellectuals—including Hara Tanzan 原坦山, Shimaji Mokurai 島地黙雷, Murakami Senshō 村上専精, Inoue Enryō 井上圓了, Shaku Sōen 釈宗演, and Kiyozawa Manshi 清沢満之—engaged modern science, philosophy, historical scholarship, and changing conceptions of religion. Historical-critical scholarship could pose particularly difficult questions for inherited authority: Murakami, for example, became associated with ''Daijō hibussetsuron'' 大乗非仏説論, the thesis that Mahāyāna scriptures were not directly taught by the historical Buddha. Modern Japanese Buddhist thought also intersected increasingly with academic philosophy, including the work of Nishida Kitarō 西田幾多郎 and the later Kyoto School.<ref>Shields (2012), “Awakening between Science,” 108–21.</ref>
 
By the 1930s and during the Asia-Pacific War, major Buddhist institutions accommodated themselves in varying degrees to the Japanese imperial state and its war effort. The extent and implications of this accommodation became an important subject of postwar Buddhist self-criticism, although sustained institutional reckoning developed only gradually. Ichikawa Hakugen's analysis of Buddhist war responsibility and “Imperial-Way Zen” (''kōdō Zen'' 皇道禅) became one of the most searching examples of this critique. He examined not only particular instances of wartime collaboration but also the doctrinal, ethical, and institutional tendencies that had facilitated Buddhist accommodation to political authority.<ref>Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦, ''Bukkyōsha no sensō sekinin'' 仏教者の戦争責任 [The War Responsibility of Buddhists] (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1970); Ives, Christopher (2009), ''Imperial-Way Zen: Ichikawa Hakugen's Critique and Lingering Questions for Buddhist Ethics'' (University of Hawai‘i Press); Shields (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” 282–84.</ref> These developments form an important counterpoint to the much smaller traditions of progressive and radical Buddhism discussed below.


This symbiosis reached its most administratively complete form under the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1868), when, despite the regime's own sympathies with Neo-Confucianism, the parish (檀家 ''danka'') temple registration system made Buddhist institutions into a de facto arm of state surveillance and, in effect, established Buddhism as the country's civil religion.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2012). "Awakening between Science, Art & Ethics: Variations on Japanese Buddhist Modernism, 1890–1945". In: Starrs, Roy (Ed.), ''Rethinking Japanese Modernism'': 105–124. Brill/Global Oriental, p. 108.</ref> The Meiji Restoration of 1868 shattered this arrangement almost overnight. Framed by its architects less as a "restoration" than as a wholesale invention of a modern nation-state centered on the emperor, the new government briefly promoted a policy of "throw away the Buddha and abolish Śākyamuni" (''haibutsu kishaku''), under which the number of Buddhist temples fell from roughly 450,000 to some 70,000 and the number of ordained priests from about 75,000 to under 20,000 within a few years.<ref>Shields (2012), "Awakening between Science", p. 108, citing Davis, Winston (1992). ''Japanese Religion and Society: Paradigms of Structure and Change''. SUNY Press, p. 161.</ref> Persecution proper ended by 1873, but Buddhist leaders remained under sustained pressure to prove the tradition's compatibility with a nationalist, modernizing Japan, prompting Buddhist priests such as Fukuda Gyōkai (福田行誡) and Shaku Unshō (釈雲照) to launch the ''kairitsu'' (戒律, precepts) reform movement, an attempt to rehabilitate Buddhism's public image through a renewed emphasis on monastic discipline and, more ambivalently, through active participation in state-sponsored nationalist campaigns such as the Great Teaching (大教 ''Daikyō'') movement of the 1870s.<ref>Shields (2012), "Awakening between Science", pp. 108–109.</ref>
== Radical Buddhism in Japan ==


A subsequent generation of scholar-priests, including Hara Tanzan (原坦山), Shimaji Mokurai (島地黙雷), Murakami Senshō (村上専精), Inoue Enryō (井上圓了), Shaku Sōen (釈宗演), and Kiyozawa Manshi (清沢満之), modeled their reformist efforts less on the ''kairitsu'' movement than on the secular "Civilization and Enlightenment" movement (文明開化 ''bunmei kaika'') associated with Fukuzawa Yukichi (福沢諭吉), seeking to "modernize" Buddhist doctrine and apologetics along scientific, historicist, and ethical lines without going so far as to abandon the tradition outright.<ref>Shields (2012), "Awakening between Science", pp. 109–111.</ref> One influential strand of this so-called "Buddhist Enlightenment," associated above all with Murakami Senshō and known pejoratively as ''Daijō hibussetsuron'' (大乗非仏説論, "the theory that Mahāyāna is not the true teaching of the Buddha"), applied historical-critical method to argue that much of Mahāyāna doctrine represented a later accretion rather than the Buddha's original teaching, provoking sustained controversy within the established sects.<ref>Shields (2012), "Awakening between Science", pp. 111–113.</ref> A related but philosophically distinct modernist current emerged from Nishida Kitarō's (西田幾多郎) Kyoto School, which grounded a specifically aesthetic and existentialist interpretation of Zen in the concept of "pure experience" (純粋経験 ''junsui keiken'') and, in Nishida's later writings on ''basho'' (場所, "place"), came to furnish, however unintentionally, a philosophical vocabulary that was mobilized in support of wartime Japanese ultranationalism.<ref>Shields (2012), "Awakening between Science", pp. 117–121.</ref>
The Radical Buddhism Project uses “radical Buddhism” in modern Japan primarily for attempts to bring Buddhist thought and practice into sustained engagement with projects for fundamental social, economic, or political transformation, particularly socialism, anarchism, and Marxism. Radical Buddhism was historically distinct from, although deeply indebted to, the broader currents of Buddhist reform and modernism described above, and its emergence cannot be traced to a single continuous tradition. Premodern revolts should therefore not be understood retrospectively as instances of “radical Buddhism.” They did, however, provide historical memories and symbolic models through which later activists could imagine religiously grounded resistance to established authority. The ''Ikkō-ikki'' 一向一揆 of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for example, brought together religious communities, peasants, local warriors, and other groups associated with the Honganji branch of Jōdo Shinshū in episodes of armed resistance and regional self-government. Their aims and social composition varied considerably and cannot simply be assimilated to modern socialism or anarchism.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2016), “Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan,” ''Journal of Religion in Japan'' 5: 3–21, 6–7.</ref>


Institutional Buddhism's accommodation with Japanese imperialism deepened through the Fifteen Years' War (1931–1945). D. T. Suzuki (鈴木大拙) himself would later argue that Zen had "sustained" the wartime military classes both morally, through its injunction never to look back once a course of action is decided, and philosophically, through its indifference to life and death.<ref>Suzuki, Daisetsu (1970). ''Zen and Japanese Culture''. Princeton University Press, p. 61; cited in Shields, James Mark (2023). "A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan". In: Scott, Robert H., & McRae, James (Eds.), ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'': 281–304. State University of New York Press, p. 282.</ref> In the immediate postwar period, the major sects faced little internal reckoning with this record, and it was this silence, more than any single doctrinal dispute, that would provide the immediate context both for the postwar critique associated with [[Ichikawa Hakugen]] and, a generation later, for the "Critical Buddhism" movement (see below). Since 1945, Buddhist institutions in Japan have continued to combine widespread ritual and funerary functions with a much-diminished public role, alongside the continued growth of lay new religious movements with roots in Nichiren Buddhism, such as Sōka Gakkai (創価学会) and Risshō Kōseikai (立正佼成会).
Of more demonstrable importance to modern radicals were Edo-period narratives of the self-sacrificing “righteous person” (''gimin'' 義民), especially village representatives remembered for suffering or dying after petitioning authorities on behalf of oppressed peasants. The semi-legendary Sakura Sōgorō 佐倉惣五郎 (1605–1653) became an especially powerful exemplar, while Ōshio Heihachirō 大塩平八郎 (1793–1837), the Osaka samurai scholar and former official who led an 1837 rebellion during a period of severe famine, provided another model of principled resistance to corrupt authority.<ref>Shields (2016), “Peasant Revolts,” 7–9.</ref> Their significance lies less in direct institutional or doctrinal continuity than in later appropriation. Such figures supplied what Shields describes as “root paradigms” of self-sacrificing resistance through which modern activists could interpret new conflicts involving poverty, capitalism, state authority, and social injustice. Uchiyama Gudō 内山愚童, for example, explicitly invoked earlier traditions of peasant resistance while articulating a thoroughly modern Buddhist anarchism.<ref>Shields (2016), “Peasant Revolts,” 4–5, 11.</ref> These appropriations did not make the earlier rebels socialists or anarchists retrospectively; rather, they allowed modern radicals to understand their political commitments through indigenous historical resources as well as newly imported ideas.


== Radical Buddhism in Japan ==
=== The Eastern Socialist Party ===


The Radical Buddhism Project treats twentieth-century Japanese "radical Buddhism," the deliberate fusion of Buddhist doctrine with anarchism, socialism, or Marxism, as historically distinct from, if indebted to, the broader current of Meiji Buddhist reform described above. Three overlapping sets of precedent are relevant to its emergence: older domestic traditions of religiously inflected peasant protest; an abortive but instructive early attempt to found an explicitly "Buddhist" socialist party in the 1880s; and the more immediate, self-consciously "modernist" Buddhist reform movements of the 1890s and early 1900s.
One of the earliest attempts in modern Japan to articulate a socialist political program through Buddhist and other East Asian concepts was the short-lived Eastern Socialist Party (''Tōyō Shakaitō'' 東洋社会党), founded by Tarui Tōkichi 樽井藤吉 (1850–1922) in May 1882. Established amid the political ferment of the Freedom and People's Rights movement, the party was prohibited by the government the following month. Tarui nevertheless continued his efforts to revive it and circulated revised party regulations in January 1883, activity for which he was sentenced to a year in prison.<ref>Tanaka Sōgorō 田中惣五郎, ''Tōyō Shakaitō kō'' 東洋社会党考 [A Study of the Eastern Socialist Party] (Tokyo: Ichigensha, 1930); Komatsu Yutaka 小松裕, “Tarui Tōkichi to Tōyō Shakaitō” 樽井藤吉と東洋社会党 [Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party], ''Ōsaka jiken kenkyū'' 大阪事件研究 5 (July 1986): 14–19; Shields, James Mark (2019), “Carrying Buddha into the Streets: Buddhist Socialist Thought in Modern Japan,” in Gereon Kopf, ed., ''The Dao Companion to Japanese Buddhist Philosophy'', 255–85, 256–60.</ref>


Among the peasant precedents, the ''ikkō-ikki'' (一向一揆) revolts of the Muromachi period (1336–1573), in which farmers, monks, and some nobles rose against samurai rule under the banner of Amida Buddha and Jōdo Shinshū teaching, provided an early template for collective, religiously legitimated resistance to secular authority.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2016). "Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan". ''Journal of Religion in Japan'' 5: 3–21, pp. 6–7.</ref> Even more influential for later radicals was the Edo-period tradition of the martyred peasant representative (義民 ''gimin''), exemplified by the semi-legendary farmer Sakura Sōgorō (佐倉惣五郎, 1605–1653) and by the samurai scholar-rebel Ōshio Heihachirō (大塩平八郎, 1793–1837), whose 1837 uprising in Osaka, inspired by Wang Yangming Neo-Confucianism, combined an appeal to imperial and shogunal ideals of "benevolent government" with an explicit call to redistribute the wealth of merchants and officials to the poor.<ref>Shields (2016), "Peasant Revolts", pp. 7–9.</ref> Shields argues that these narratives, whatever their outcome, functioned as "root paradigms" that later Buddhist socialists and anarchists, including [[Uchiyama Gudo|Uchiyama Gudō]], consciously invoked as models of principled, self-sacrificing resistance to illegitimate authority.<ref>Shields (2016), "Peasant Revolts", pp. 4–5, 11.</ref>
Tarui's draft party regulations reveal an eclectic attempt to formulate socialism through concepts drawn from Asian religious and ethical traditions rather than simply reproduce contemporary European socialist theory. Its first three principles made “affection” (''shin'ai'' 親愛) the standard of words and actions, affirmed the “equality of self and other” (''jita byōdō'' 自他平等), and identified the “greatest welfare” (''saidai fukuri'' 最大福利) of society as the party's goal. Subsequent provisions proposed measures intended to overcome divisions between rich and poor, including forms of communal ownership.<ref>Tarui Tōkichi 樽井藤吉, “Tōyō Shakaitō tōsoku sōan” 東洋社会党党則草案 [Draft Regulations of the Eastern Socialist Party], in Nihon shakai undō shisō shi 日本社会運動思想史, ed. Itoya Hisao 絲屋寿雄 and Kishimoto Eitarō 岸本英太郎, vol. 2 (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1968), 125–29; Shields (2019), “Carrying Buddha into the Streets,” 256–59.</ref>


=== The Eastern Socialist Party (1882) ===
Whether the Eastern Socialist Party should be regarded as “socialist” in the same sense as the socialist movements that developed in Japan around the turn of the twentieth century has long been debated. Some later commentators emphasized its distance from European socialist theory and situated it instead within the Freedom and People's Rights movement, agrarian demands for economic justice, and older East Asian ethical traditions.<ref>Kurokawa Teizaburō 黒川貞三郎, “‘Tōyō Shakaitō’ ron” 「東洋社会党」論 [On the Eastern Socialist Party], ''Seikei kenkyū'' 政経研究 28, no. 3 (1991): 39–42.</ref> For the history of radical Buddhism, however, this ambiguity is itself significant. Tarui's experiment illustrates an enduring problem for later Buddhist socialists: whether socialism should be understood as a largely imported body of political and economic theory to which Buddhism might be added, or whether egalitarian and communal elements within Buddhist and other Asian traditions could themselves provide resources for constructing a distinctively local form of socialism.<ref>Shields (2019), “Carrying Buddha into the Streets,” 255–60.</ref>


The earliest attempt to fuse Buddhist vocabulary explicitly with a socialist political program, predating the New Buddhist Fellowship discussed below by nearly two decades, was the short-lived Eastern (or Oriental) Socialist Party (東洋社会党 ''Tōyō Shakaitō'', 1882), founded by the pan-Asianist activist Tarui Tōkichi (樽井藤吉, 1850–1922). Suppressed by the government within months of its founding, the party's draft regulations nonetheless framed its socialist principles, "sincere love," the "equality of self and other" (自他平等 ''jita byōdō''), and "the greatest welfare for the general public", in avowedly Buddhist and Daoist terms, invoking the Lotus Sutra's image of a single "rain" of the Dharma falling equally on all beings and describing party members as "children of the Buddha" (仏子 ''busshi'') with a special compassionate mandate toward the poor.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2014). "Zen and the Art of Treason: Radical Buddhism in Meiji Era (1868–1912) Japan". ''Politics, Religion & Ideology'' 15.2: 205–223, pp. 206–208.</ref> As the historian Akamatsu Katsumaro (赤松克麿) later observed, the party "was not based on Western socialism [but rather] espoused a peculiar socialist blend of traditional Asian Buddhism and Taoism," and most subsequent socialists and scholars have judged Tarui's movement to fall short of "actual" socialism owing to its lack of sophisticated economic analysis and its heavy reliance on traditional religious idiom, an assessment that nonetheless established, at the very outset of the modern Japanese left, the recurring tension between indigenizing socialism in Buddhist terms and satisfying the doctrinal expectations of secular Marxists.<ref>Shields (2014), "Zen and the Art of Treason", pp. 208–209.</ref>
=== The New Buddhist Fellowship ===
{{Main|The New Buddhist Fellowship}}


=== Meiji Buddhist modernism ===
The most sustained collective expression of Meiji Buddhist modernism emerged in the Shin Bukkyō Dōshikai 新仏教同志会 (New Buddhist Fellowship), established in 1899 as the Bukkyō Seito Dōshikai 仏教清徒同志会 and renamed in 1903. Its members included Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡辺海旭, Takashima Beihō 高嶋米峰, Sugimura Sojinkan 杉村楚人冠, and Katō Genchi 加藤玄智, many of whom had studied with figures such as Murakami Senshō and Inoue Enryō. Through their journal, ''Shin Bukkyō'' 新仏教 (New Buddhism), they attacked “old Buddhism” (''kyū Bukkyō'' 旧仏教) as sectarian, ritualistic, superstitious, and institutionally corrupt. Their 1900 declaration called for a “sound Buddhist faith,” free investigation of Buddhism and other religions, the eradication of superstition, freedom from traditional religious institutions and ceremonies, opposition to state interference in religion, and the fundamental reform of society.<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), 91–100.</ref>
{{Main|Meiji New Buddhism}}


The second, more moderate precedent current, Meiji Buddhist modernism proper, produced organizations considerably more cautious than later radical Buddhism but which nonetheless established a "this-worldly," socially engaged reading of the Dharma on which later figures would draw. The short-lived Warp and Woof Society (経緯会 ''Keiikai'', 1894–1899), founded by the young Buddhist reformer Furukawa Isamu (古河勇, also known by his art-name Rōsen 老川), and its successor, the New Buddhist Fellowship (新仏教同志会 ''Shin Bukkyō Dōshikai'', 1899–1915; known in its earliest years as the Buddhist Puritan Fellowship, 仏教清徒同志会), rejected both the "old Buddhism" of ritual and institutional privilege and any straightforward state sponsorship of religion, advocating instead the "free investigation" of Buddhism and other faiths, the destruction of superstition, and a "sound faith" grounded, in the words of co-founder Sakaino Kōyō (境野黄洋), in an explicitly "pantheistic" this-worldliness (現世主義 ''genseshugi'').<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017). "Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the 'Religious Secular'". ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96, pp. 6–10.</ref> The term itself is usually credited to fellow founding member Tanaka Jiroku (田中治六, 1869–?), who grounded it in Inoue Enryō's realist metaphysics.<ref>Brons, Lajos (2022). ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism''. punctum books, pp. 75–76.</ref> Fellow founding member Watanabe Kaikyoku (渡辺海旭, 1872–1933), a priest who had studied Buddhism, Sanskrit, and Pāli in Germany for a decade, extended this this-worldly orientation into an early social-democratic critique of the human costs of industrial capitalism, while the widely traveled Inoue Shūten (井上秀天, 1880–1945), the Fellowship's most radical member, emerged from encounters with Dharmapāla, [[Taixu]], and [[Uchiyama Gudo|Uchiyama Gudō]] as a committed pacifist opposed to Japanese imperial war.<ref>Brons (2022), ''A Buddha Land'', pp. 76–77.</ref> Although the New Buddhists' own political engagement rarely went beyond mild protest and journalism, and they explicitly distanced themselves from Marxist "materialism," their insistence that authentic Buddhist faith entailed active, this-worldly engagement with poverty and injustice, and their willingness to collaborate with contemporary socialists such as Sakai Toshihiko (堺利彦), mark them as important forerunners of the more thoroughgoing Buddhist socialism of the 1920s and 1930s.<ref>Shields (2017), "Immanent Frames", pp. 8–10.</ref>
Central to New Buddhism was ''genseshugi'' 現世主義 (this-worldliness), which located the significance of Buddhist practice within present human and social existence rather than another world. Although most New Buddhists rejected revolutionary socialism and materialism, their insistence that Buddhism address contemporary society brought some members increasingly close to the emerging socialist movement. Watanabe developed forms of Buddhist social welfare and mutual aid, while Inoue Shūten 井上秀天 articulated an explicitly Buddhist critique of war, nationalism, and imperial aggression. The New Buddhist Fellowship thus occupied an important intermediate position between Meiji Buddhist modernism and radical Buddhism: it transformed the modernist reconstruction of Buddhist belief into a more explicitly social project without developing a common program for structural political and economic transformation.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 99–128; Shields, James Mark (2017), “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’,” ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96.</ref>


=== Takagi Kenmyo ===
=== Takagi Kenmyō ===
{{Main|Takagi Kenmyo}}
{{Main|Takagi Kenmyo}}


The first sustained fusion of Buddhist doctrine with explicitly revolutionary politics, rather than reformist social engagement, emerged only in the final years of the Meiji period, in the person of the Ōtani-branch Shin Buddhist priest Takagi Kenmyō (高木顕明, 1864–1914). Appointed head priest of Jōsenji (浄泉寺) in Wakayama Prefecture in 1899, Takagi ministered to a parish composed largely of ''burakumin'' (部落民) parishioners, whose combined experience of caste discrimination and economic hardship drove his turn toward socialist activism.<ref>Shields (2014), "Zen and the Art of Treason", pp. 210–211.</ref> In his unpublished 1904 essay ''Yo ga shakaishugi'' (余が社会主義, "My Socialism"), Takagi grounded his politics not in Marxist materialism, which he explicitly disavowed alongside the more secular and anti-religious socialism of Kōtoku Shūsui (幸徳秋水) and Sakai Toshihiko, but in the Shin Buddhist doctrine of ''tariki'' (他力, Other-power) and the ''nembutsu'' (念仏) invocation of Amida Buddha, arguing that "the Land of Bliss is the place in which socialism is truly practiced" and that genuine faith required a "revolution of thought" (''shisō no kaiten'') expressed through concrete social welfare.<ref>Shields (2014), "Zen and the Art of Treason", pp. 211–215.</ref> On this basis he condemned Japan's war with Russia, denounced fellow clergy who blessed soldiers with promises of rebirth in the Pure Land, and declared Buddhism to be "the mother of the common people and the enemy of the nobility."<ref>Shields (2014), "Zen and the Art of Treason", pp. 213–215.</ref> Charged with complicity in the fabricated conspiracy prosecution known as the High Treason Incident (大逆事件 ''Taigyaku jiken'', 1910–1911) alongside [[Uchiyama Gudo|Uchiyama Gudō]] and the Rinzai priest Mineo Setsudō (峰尾節堂), Takagi had his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment; defrocked by his sect on the date of his sentencing, he died by apparent suicide in prison in 1914.<ref>Shields (2014), "Zen and the Art of Treason", p. 211.</ref> Higashi Honganji (東本願寺) formally rehabilitated him only in 1996, going so far as to credit him with a guiding role in the sect's subsequent social-reform efforts.
Takagi Kenmyō 高木顕明 (1864–1914), a priest of the Ōtani branch of Jōdo Shinshū, represents one of the earliest sustained attempts in modern Japan to articulate an explicitly socialist Buddhism. In 1899 he became resident priest of Jōsenji 浄泉寺 in Shingū, Wakayama Prefecture, where encounters with poverty, discrimination against ''burakumin'' 部落民, and social inequality contributed to his involvement with the socialist and antiwar movements. In his 1904 essay “Yo ga shakaishugi” 余が社会主義 [My Socialism], Takagi explicitly distinguished his socialism from that of Marx and contemporary Japanese socialists, grounding it instead in his own Buddhist faith and practice. He understood socialism as a form of ''jissen'' 実践 (practice) beginning with personal spiritual transformation, while interpreting ''Namu Amida Butsu'' 南無阿弥陀仏 and the Pure Land tradition through the ideals of equality, peace, and compassion. Takagi declared Buddhism to be “the mother of the common people and the enemy of the nobility” and described the Pure Land as a realm in which socialism was already practiced. His Buddhist socialism thus joined social reform to the transformation of the practitioner, while providing a religious basis for his opposition to social inequality and the Russo-Japanese War.<ref>Takagi Kenmyō 高木顕明, “Yo ga shakaishugi” 余が社会主義 [My Socialism] (1904); Hishiki Masaharu 菱木政晴 (2012), ''Gokuraku no ninzu: Takagi Kenmyō “Yo ga shakaishugi” o yomu'' 極楽の人数――高木顕明『余が社会主義』を読む (Tokyo: Hakutakusha); Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 145–52.</ref>


=== Uchiyama Gudo ===
=== Uchiyama Gudō ===
{{Main|Uchiyama Gudo}}
{{Main|Uchiyama Gudo}}


Uchiyama Gudō (内山愚童, 1874–1911), abbot of the small Sōtō Zen temple Rinsenji (林泉寺) near Hakone, ran a clandestine printing press beneath his temple's altar, through which he distributed Japanese translations of Western anarchist writings and his own tract ''Museifu Kyōsan Kakumei'' (無政府共産革命, ''Anarchist Communist Revolution'', 1908), grounding an anarchist-communist program directly in the Buddhist doctrines of universal Buddha-nature and the equality of the Dharma. Both this tract and his ''Heibon no jikaku'' (平凡の自覚, "Ordinary Self-Awakening") return repeatedly to the compound motto ''anraku jiyū'' (安楽自由), "comfort and freedom", which Uchiyama treats as both a Buddhist existential awakening and a Western-style political liberty, and he further modeled his anarcho-communism on what he took to be the simple, communal life of the early Chinese Chan sangha.<ref>Victoria, Brian (1997). ''Zen at War''. Weatherhill, pp. 40–41; Shields (2014), "Zen and the Art of Treason", pp. 219–220.</ref> Convicted on publication and explosives charges in 1909, he was drawn into the High Treason Incident the following year and executed in 1911 at the age of thirty-six. He remains unusual among Buddhist radicals of his era for his open advocacy of revolutionary violence, and the Sōtō sect did not formally rehabilitate him until 1993.
Uchiyama Gudō 内山愚童 (1874–1911), a Sōtō Zen priest and abbot of Rinsenji 林泉寺 near Hakone, developed one of the most explicitly anarchist forms of radical Buddhism in Meiji Japan. Explaining his embrace of socialism, Uchiyama recalled that as a Buddhist missionary he taught that all beings possess buddha-nature, that within the Dharma there is equality without high or low, and that all beings are children of the Buddha; he came to see these teachings as fundamentally compatible with socialism. His radicalism joined this Buddhist egalitarianism to a critique of private property, economic inequality, imperial authority, and militarism. Unlike Takagi Kenmyō, whose Buddhist socialism remained largely reformist, Uchiyama increasingly identified the social and political structures producing inequality as themselves objects of transformation. Using a clandestine printing press at Rinsenji, he produced and circulated socialist and anarchist writings calling upon ordinary people to free themselves from the political, economic, and religious beliefs sustaining the existing social order.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 153–62; Sanada Yoshiaki 眞田芳憲 (2016), “Taigyaku jiken to zensō Uchiyama Gudō no ‘Bukkyō shakaishugi’ to sono kōdō no kiseki: Zensō Gudō no teikō no shūkyōteki rinri to sekinin” 大逆事件と禅僧内山愚童の「仏教社会主義」とその行動の軌跡――禅僧愚童の抵抗の宗教的倫理と責任 [The High Treason Incident and Zen Priest Uchiyama Gudō's “Buddhist Socialism” and the Course of His Activities: The Religious Ethics and Responsibility of Gudō's Resistance], ''Chūō Gakujutsu Kenkyūjo kiyō'' 中央学術研究所紀要 45: 2–61, 20–21.</ref>


In the immediate aftermath of the High Treason Incident, socialist and anarchist sympathies within Japanese Buddhism did not disappear, but they largely went underground, resurfacing, if at all, in depoliticized or euphemistic form. Itō Shōshin (伊藤証信, 1876–1963), a correspondent of Uchiyama's, abandoned the term "socialism" altogether in favor of ''muga-ai'' (無我愛), "selfless love," a doctrine blending Buddhism, pacifism, and a residual social concern that carefully avoided any open association with the revolutionary left.<ref>Shields, Against Harmony, 172–77, cited in Brons, Lajos (2022). ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism''. punctum books, p. 80.</ref> A similar retreat into an apolitical, Tolstoyan agrarian utopianism characterizes the Nichiren-affiliated poet Miyazawa Kenji (宮沢賢治, 1896–1933), now remembered chiefly for his fiction and verse rather than for any social program.<ref>Brons (2022), ''A Buddha Land'', pp. 80–81.</ref> It was against this quiescent background that Seno'o Girō would reintroduce an explicitly political Buddhist socialism two decades later.
Uchiyama was arrested in May 1909 for violating publication laws after police discovered his clandestine printing operation at Rinsenji; during their search, police claimed to have found materials for making explosives. Already imprisoned, he was subsequently implicated in the High Treason Incident (''Taigyaku jiken'' 大逆事件), convicted of participating in the alleged conspiracy against Emperor Meiji, and executed on January 24, 1911. Although Uchiyama advocated revolutionary change and did not categorically reject violence, the extent of his involvement in an actual assassination plot remains disputed. The Sōtō establishment stripped him of his clerical status in 1910 and strongly repudiated his ideas; in 1993 the denomination reversed its earlier action and restored his status, acknowledging that its treatment of Uchiyama had reflected the sect's alignment with the emperor-centered political establishment.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 153–56; Sanada (2016), “Taigyaku jiken to zensō Uchiyama Gudō,” 32–39; Sanada Yoshiaki 眞田芳憲 (2018), ''“Taigyaku jiken” to zensō Uchiyama Gudō no teikō'' 〈大逆事件〉と禅僧内山愚童の抵抗 (Tokyo: Kōsei Shuppansha).</ref>


=== Seno'o Giro and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism ===
=== From the High Treason Incident to the YLRB ===
 
The High Treason Incident of 1910–1911 marked a severe rupture in the development of explicitly radical Buddhism in Japan. The execution of Uchiyama Gudō and imprisonment of Takagi Kenmyō formed part of a broader suppression of socialist and anarchist activity, making open attempts to combine Buddhism with revolutionary socialism or anarchism exceptionally difficult. Buddhist social experimentation nevertheless continued in less overtly political forms. Itō Shōshin 伊藤証信 (1876–1963), for example, developed the ideal of ''muga-ai'' 無我愛 (selfless love), combining religious and ethical transformation, pacifism, and communal social practice while deliberately distinguishing his movement from socialism. His Muga-ai movement, begun in 1905, survived the repression of the late Meiji period and reemerged during the Taishō era alongside other experiments in Buddhist, Tolstoyan, agrarian, and communal reform.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 163–80; Brons, Lajos (2022), ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism'' (punctum books), 77–80.</ref>
 
The relative openness of the Taishō period (1912–1926) nevertheless transformed the context in which Buddhist social thought operated. Socialist ideas circulated more widely, while Buddhist thinkers confronted questions of poverty, capitalism, labor, and the social responsibilities of religion. There was no continuous “radical Buddhist” movement linking the Meiji radicals to their successors: responses ranged from anti-socialist apologetics to social welfare, utopian experiments, and selective engagement with socialism and Marxism. Seno'o Girō's emergence from the quite different world of reformist and nationalist Nichiren Buddhism illustrates both this discontinuity and the persistence of the underlying social questions. By 1926 he was criticizing nationalist readings of Nichiren, and by 1929 he was arguing that a revitalized Nichirenism must stand with the public and engage the socialist struggle against capitalism. These developments prepared the ground for the founding of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei 新興仏教青年同盟) in 1931.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 181–205, 213–16.</ref>
 
=== Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism ===
{{Main|Senoo Giro}}
{{Main|Senoo Giro}}
{{Main|Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism}}
{{Main|Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism}}


The most theoretically developed and organizationally sustained experiment in prewar Japanese Buddhist socialism was led by the lay Nichiren activist Seno'o Girō (妹尾義郎, 1889–1961), who broke over the course of the 1920s with the nationalist Nichirenshugi movement of Tanaka Chigaku (田中智学) and Honda Nisshō (本多日生) and turned instead toward Marxism and anti-fascist internationalism. In April 1931 Seno'o founded the Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei (新興仏教青年同盟, Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism), which argued that Buddhism, properly understood, was atheistic, materialist, and revolutionary, and which fused a reinterpreted Buddhist Three Refuges with an explicit commitment to anti-capitalist and anti-militarist politics.<ref>Shields (2023), "A Century of Critical Buddhism", pp. 293–296.</ref> The League became one of the few explicitly Buddhist participants in the mid-1930s popular front movement, joining Katō Kanjū's (加藤勘十) Proletarian Party of Japan (日本無産党 ''Nihon Musantō'') in 1936, before its suppression by the state in 1936–1937, following Seno'o's arrest and forced political recantation (転向 ''tenkō'').<ref>Shields (2023), "A Century of Critical Buddhism", pp. 296–297.</ref> Seno'o's fusion of Buddhism and Marxism was distinctive in insisting that the two were not merely compatible but coextensive: "the process of liberating the oppressed from suffering is nothing other than Buddhist awakening."<ref>Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎, 『妹尾義郎宗教論集』[Seno'o Girō's Collected Writings on Religion] (Tokyo: Daizō 大蔵出版, 1975), p. 253, translated in Shields (2023), "A Century of Critical Buddhism", p. 298.</ref>
Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎 (1889–1961) emerged from the reformist but strongly nationalist Nichirenshugi 日蓮主義 movement before moving increasingly toward socialism during the 1920s. By the end of the decade, his encounters with poverty and social conflict, criticism of established Buddhist institutions, and engagement with socialist and Marxist thought had led him to identify capitalism itself as a major source of suffering. On April 5, 1931, Seno'o and a small group of young activists founded the Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei 新興仏教青年同盟 (Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism, YLRB). Rejecting existing Buddhist sects as corrupt and capitalism as incompatible with the Buddhist spirit, the League sought to create a Buddha land in this world through the conjunction of individual ethical transformation and fundamental social reform.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2012), “A Blueprint for Buddhist Revolution: The Radical Buddhism of Seno'o Girō (1889–1961) and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism,” ''Japanese Journal of Religious Studies'' 39, no. 2: 333–51; Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 203–43.</ref>
 
The YLRB developed into a nationwide movement whose increasingly socialist and internationalist program joined Buddhist reform to labor, tenant, antiwar, and antifascist activism. Seno'o combined structural criticism of capitalism with an insistence upon ethical transformation, arguing that Buddhism must confront the material and institutional causes of suffering without reducing liberation to economic change alone. This combination made the YLRB the most sustained attempt in prewar Japan to construct an organized radical Buddhist movement. It also brought the League under increasing police scrutiny. Seno'o was arrested in December 1936 under the Peace Preservation Law and publicly recanted his former political position in 1937; a nationwide roundup later that year effectively destroyed the organization.<ref>Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎, “Shakai henkaku tojō no shinkō Bukkyō” 社会変革途上の新興仏教 [Revitalized Buddhism on the Road to Social Transformation] (1933), repr. in ''Seno'o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集 (1975), 325–88; Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 203–43; [Matsune/state sources for repression].</ref>


=== Ichikawa Hakugen ===
=== Ichikawa Hakugen ===
{{Main|Ichikawa Hakugen}}
{{Main|Ichikawa Hakugen}}


Writing in the postwar period, the Rinzai Zen priest and philosopher Ichikawa Hakugen (市川白弦, 1902–1986) became the foremost internal critic of what he termed "Imperial-Way Zen" (皇道禅 ''kōdō Zen''), the wartime alignment of Japanese Zen institutions, and of Nishida-school philosophy, with state militarism and emperor-centered ideology. A professor at Hanazono University in Kyoto, Ichikawa devoted much of his postwar career to documenting Buddhist institutional complicity in Japanese imperialism, including his own wartime compromises, while developing a systematic "Buddhist-Anarchist-Communism" that grounded anarchist politics and communist economics in the Prajñāpāramitā concept of emptiness (空 ''kū''). In his major study ''Bukkyōsha no sensō sekinin'' (『仏教徒の戦争責任』, ''The War Responsibility of Buddhists'', 1970), Ichikawa isolated twelve specific doctrinal and cultural factors that he held responsible for hindering the emergence of a fully developed Japanese Buddhist socialism, including the traditionally close, mutually supportive relations between Buddhism and the state, the doctrine of karma as a rationalization of social inequality, Confucian-derived ethics of hierarchy and harmony, the doctrine of no-self as an obstacle to reflection on rights and justice, the Buddhist self-identification as the "Middle Way," which he held had fostered a conformist, compromising disposition ill-suited to political dissent, and the Zen and Pure Land privileging of "peace of mind" (安心 ''anshin'') over justice.<ref>Ichikawa Hakugen (市川白弦) (1970). 『仏教徒の戦争責任』 [The War Responsibility of Buddhists]. Shunjūsha, pp. 150–154; see also Shields (2014), "Zen and the Art of Treason", pp. 209–210; Shields (2023), "A Century of Critical Buddhism", p. 284; Brons, Lajos (2022). ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism''. punctum books, p. 155.</ref> Shields groups these twelve factors into two broad categories, deeply embedded features of Japanese and East Asian culture more generally (such as institutional conservatism and ancestor worship), and specifically Mahāyāna doctrines subject to a wide range of interpretation, and argues, against a purely doctrinal reading of Buddhist wartime complicity, that the former category bears the greater share of responsibility, since doctrine always remains open to reinterpretation in a way that deeply ingrained cultural practice does not.<ref>Shields (2014), "Zen and the Art of Treason", p. 210.</ref> Ichikawa's work remains the central reference point for postwar Japanese Buddhist self-criticism and directly prefigures, both in method and in target, the "Critical Buddhism" movement discussed below.
A different form of radical Buddhist critique emerged after Japan's defeat in 1945 in the work of the Rinzai Zen priest and scholar Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦 (1902–1986). Having himself participated in the intellectual world of wartime Japanese Zen, Ichikawa devoted much of his postwar work to examining Buddhism's responsibility for Japanese militarism and imperialism. Rather than explaining Buddhist support for the war simply through state coercion or individual failure, he asked how Buddhist doctrines, institutions, and historical relations with political authority had facilitated accommodation with established power. His critique focused especially on “Imperial-Way Zen” (''kōdō Zen'' 皇道禅), while also recovering suppressed currents of Buddhist socialism represented by figures such as Takagi Kenmyō and Uchiyama Gudō.<ref>Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦, ''Bukkyōsha no sensō sekinin'' 仏教者の戦争責任 [The War Responsibility of Buddhists] (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1970); Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), [pages].</ref>
 
Ichikawa's critique was also reconstructive. Drawing upon socialism, Marxism, anarchism, and postwar peace activism, he sought forms of Buddhism capable of resisting rather than sanctifying established power and insisted that Buddhist doctrines themselves be subjected to critical scrutiny when they served to naturalize hierarchy or obscure injustice. This combination of social criticism and Buddhist self-criticism also anticipates important concerns of the later movement known as Critical Buddhism (''Hihan Bukkyō'' 批判仏教), although the relationship is better understood as a critical affinity than as a direct intellectual succession.<ref>Ichikawa Hakugen, “Nihon ni okeru Bukkyō shakaishugi no mondai” 日本における仏教社会主義の問題 [The Problem of Buddhist Socialism in Japan], repr. in ''Ichikawa Hakugen chosakushū'' 市川白弦著作集, vol. 3, ''Bukkyō no sensō sekinin'' 仏教の戦争責任 (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1993), [pages]; Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'' (State University of New York Press), 281–304.</ref>


=== Critical Buddhism ===
=== Critical Buddhism ===
{{Main|Critical Buddhism}}
A later form of radical Buddhist self-criticism emerged in the 1980s around the Sōtō scholars Hakamaya Noriaki 袴谷憲昭 and Matsumoto Shirō 松本史朗. The movement known as Critical Buddhism (''Hihan Bukkyō'' 批判仏教) subjected influential strands of East Asian Buddhist thought—particularly ''tathāgatagarbha'' (buddha-nature) and ''hongaku'' 本覚 (original enlightenment) thought—to sustained criticism. Hakamaya and Matsumoto argued that doctrines positing an underlying, universal ground of enlightenment departed from the critical, relational, and non-substantialist dimensions of Buddhist teaching and might contribute to forms of social accommodation rather than resistance. Hakamaya captured the movement's provocative stance in the proposition that “Buddhism is criticism” (''Bukkyō wa hihan de aru'' 仏教は批判である). Critical Buddhism was neither a continuation of prewar Buddhist socialism and anarchism nor a reproduction of Ichikawa Hakugen's political project. Nevertheless, its insistence that Buddhist doctrines themselves be subjected to criticism—and its concern that appeals to harmony, nonduality, and original enlightenment could obscure discrimination and social injustice—places it within a broader genealogy of modern Japanese Buddhist self-criticism.<ref>Hakamaya Noriaki 袴谷憲昭, ''Hihan Bukkyō'' 批判仏教 [Critical Buddhism] (Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1990); Matsumoto Shirō 松本史朗, ''Engi to kū: Nyoraizō shisō hihan'' 縁起と空――如来蔵思想批判 [Dependent Origination and Emptiness: A Critique of Tathāgatagarbha Thought] (Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1989); Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'' (State University of New York Press), 281–304.</ref>
=== The Legacy of Radical Buddhism in Japan ===
Radical Buddhism never constituted a continuous movement or a major current within modern Japanese Buddhism. The Eastern Socialist Party disappeared almost immediately; Takagi Kenmyō and Uchiyama Gudō fell victim to state repression; and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism was dismantled in 1937. Nor did these movements establish an enduring institutional lineage after 1945. Their historical significance lies instead in recurrent attempts to ask whether Buddhist teachings could provide resources not merely for individual ethical reform or social welfare but for fundamental criticism and transformation of existing political and economic structures.


Although chronologically and institutionally distinct from the prewar radicals discussed above, "Critical Buddhism" (批判仏教 ''hihan Bukkyō'') represents the most theoretically ambitious postwar development of the same underlying project, an attempt to hold Buddhist doctrine accountable to standards of social justice, and is treated by the Radical Buddhism Project as a direct intellectual heir to this earlier tradition. The movement was launched in the late 1980s by two Sōtō Zen-affiliated scholars, Hakamaya Noriaki (袴谷憲昭) and Matsumoto Shirō (松本史朗), whose work was galvanized in part by a 1979 incident in which Machida Muneo (町田宗夫), then secretary-general of the Sōtō sect, publicly denied that any social discrimination existed in Japan, in direct response to a draft World Conference on Religion and Peace statement of concern for the ''burakumin''.<ref>Shields (2011). ''Critical Buddhism: Engaging with Modern Japanese Buddhist Thought''. Ashgate, p. 1.</ref> Hakamaya and Matsumoto argued that authentic Buddhism was, at its core, ''critica'', a commitment to rational, discriminating analysis rooted in the doctrine of dependent origination (''pratītya-samutpāda''), and that this criticalism had been progressively displaced across the history of East Asian Buddhism, and above all within Zen, by ''topica'', an aesthetic monism of harmony, holism, and "original enlightenment" (本覚 ''hongaku'') thought that the Critical Buddhists trace to the controversial doctrine of the womb or matrix of Buddhahood (''tathāgatagarbha'').<ref>Shields (2023), "A Century of Critical Buddhism", pp. 283–285.</ref> On this basis, they mounted a sweeping and highly polemical attack on prominent modern Japanese thinkers, including D. T. Suzuki, Nishida Kitarō, and Nishitani Keiji (西谷啓治) of the Kyoto School, and even on their own Sōtō sect, arguing that Zen's ethical failures during the wartime period were less an aberration than the natural culmination of ''topica''s neglect of critical, discriminating ethics.<ref>Shields (2023), "A Century of Critical Buddhism", pp. 282–283.</ref> Scholars including Paul Swanson have distinguished three levels at which the Critical Buddhist analysis of Zen operates: a Buddhological critique of the historical misuse of doctrines such as Buddha-nature; a sectarian critique of Sōtō Zen's own departure from the teachings of its founder, Dōgen (道元, 1200–1253); and a social critique linking both to Buddhist institutional apathy or collaboration under Japanese wartime nationalism.<ref>Shields (2023), "A Century of Critical Buddhism", p. 283.</ref>
One explanation for the historical marginality of these experiments was offered by the comparative political scientist George O. Totten. Writing in 1960, Totten contrasted Japanese socialism with the avowedly Buddhist socialism of Burma, arguing that Japanese socialism emerged from competing Christian, secular, Marxist, and Buddhist currents rather than from a widely shared Buddhist social idiom. Influential Japanese Marxists such as Sano Manabu 佐野学 regarded religion largely as a private matter destined to disappear, while attempts to bring Buddhism and Marxism into constructive engagement remained minority currents within the prewar left. Totten's comparison highlights an important feature of Japanese radical Buddhism: the relationship between Buddhism and socialism was neither assumed nor uncontested, but repeatedly had to be constructed.<ref>Totten, George O. (1960), “Buddhism and Socialism in Japan and Burma,” ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2, no. 3: 293–304, 295–96, 302–3.</ref>


Although Critical Buddhism has no direct organizational lineage to the prewar Buddhist socialists and anarchists discussed above, Shields argues that it belongs to a recognizable genealogy of "critical" Japanese Buddhism stretching back through the New Buddhist Fellowship and, especially, Seno'o Girō's Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism, both of which anticipated the Critical Buddhists' rejection of "topicalist" harmony and quietism, if from an explicitly socialist rather than a primarily doctrinal or philosophical standpoint.<ref>Shields (2023), "A Century of Critical Buddhism", pp. 286, 297–298.</ref> Critics have nonetheless noted the limitations of Critical Buddhism as a vehicle for radical social critique in its own right: unlike Seno'o or the New Buddhists, Hakamaya and Matsumoto offer little sustained analysis of political economy, and Shields has proposed supplementing their "criticalism" with the historical-materialist ideology critique of Karl Mannheim and Karl Marx, and with the Nichiren-derived utopian tradition running from Tarui Tōkichi through Seno'o Girō, in order to give Critical Buddhism's largely individualistic, liberal-humanist framework a more thoroughly structural or "materialist" account of Buddhist social praxis.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2014). "From Topos to Utopia: Critical Buddhism, Globalization, and Ideology Criticism". In: Kalmanson, Leah, & Shields, James Mark (Eds.), ''Buddhist Responses to Globalization'': 51–77. Lexington Books, pp. 63–72.</ref>
The forms that relationship took varied considerably. Tarui Tōkichi drew upon Buddhist and other Asian ethical concepts in formulating an indigenous socialism; Takagi derived socialism from Jōdo Shinshū faith; Uchiyama brought Buddhist equality into conversation with anarchist communism; and Seno'o combined Buddhist ethical transformation with increasingly Marxist social analysis. Ichikawa Hakugen subsequently turned radical criticism back upon Buddhism itself, while Critical Buddhism extended this self-critical impulse in a different, primarily doctrinal direction. These projects constitute neither a single tradition nor variations on a common political ideology. Rather, they represent historically distinct efforts to rethink the relationship between Buddhism, power, equality, and social transformation.<ref>Brons, Lajos (2022), ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism'' (punctum books); Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press); Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'' (State University of New York Press), 281–304.</ref>


=== The Legacy of Radical Buddhism in Japan ===
== Selected Literature in English ==
 
* Brons, Lajos (2022). ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism''. punctum books. {{annotation|A wide-ranging philosophical history of Buddhist utopianism, with substantial treatment of Meiji and Taishō Buddhist reform and radicalism, including several figures and currents less prominent in the existing English-language literature.}}
 
* Ives, Christopher (2009). ''Imperial-Way Zen: Ichikawa Hakugen's Critique and Lingering Questions for Buddhist Ethics''. University of Hawai'i Press. {{annotation|The principal English-language study of Ichikawa Hakugen and his critique of Zen's accommodation to Japanese nationalism and militarism.}}
 
* Ketelaar, James Edward (1990). ''Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution''. Princeton University Press. {{annotation|A major study of the early Meiji persecution of Buddhism and the subsequent reconstruction of Buddhist identity and institutions, providing essential background for the emergence of Buddhist modernism and reform.}}
 
* Large, Stephen S. (1987). “Buddhism, Socialism, and Protest in Prewar Japan: The Career of Seno'o Girō”. ''Modern Asian Studies'' 21.1: 153–171. {{annotation|An influential early English-language study of Seno'o Girō and his political development, based substantially on his published diary.}}
 
* Shields, James Mark (2011). ''Critical Buddhism: Engaging with Modern Japanese Buddhist Thought''. Ashgate. {{annotation|A book-length study of Critical Buddhism, particularly the thought of Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō and its relationship to modern Japanese Buddhist philosophy.}}
 
* Shields, James Mark (2014). “From Topos to Utopia: Critical Buddhism, Globalization, and Ideology Criticism”. In: Kalmanson, Leah, & Shields, James Mark (Eds.), ''Buddhist Responses to Globalization'': 51–77. Lexington Books. {{annotation|Examines Critical Buddhism through ideology criticism and explores its relationship to materialist and utopian forms of Buddhist praxis.}}


The comparative political scientist George O. Totten, writing in 1960, offered an early and still-instructive explanation for why prewar Japanese radical Buddhism remained comparatively marginal by contrast with, for instance, the avowedly Buddhist socialism of the Burmese Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League: whereas Burmese socialists were, in his formulation, "nationalists first and socialists second," reconciling an already unifying national faith with imported Marxist categories, Japanese socialists had been "socialists first and nationalists second" from the movement's 1890s origins, arriving at their social consciousness through a variety of competing and often mutually hostile paths (Christian, secular-Marxist, and Buddhist) that left the movement chronically fragmented by schism rather than unified around a shared religious idiom.<ref>Totten, George O. (1960). "Buddhism and Socialism in Japan and Burma". ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2.3: 293–304, pp. 295–296.</ref> Totten further notes that early Japanese Marxist theorists such as the Communist theoretician Sano Manabu (佐野学) explicitly regarded religion as a private affair to be dissolved rather than harnessed, while such attempts as were made to bridge Buddhism and Marxism, for instance by the philosopher Miki Kiyoshi's (三木清) circle around the journal ''Shinkō Kagaku no Hata no Moto ni'' (新興科学の旗のもとに, "Under the Banner of the New Science") and by the Youth League itself, remained a minority position within the broader prewar Japanese left.<ref>Totten (1960), "Buddhism and Socialism", pp. 302–303.</ref> Together with Ichikawa Hakugen's later, structurally similar critique, this comparative account underscores a recurring theme of the Radical Buddhism Project's Japan entries: that Japanese radical Buddhism arose less from any inherent affinity between Buddhist doctrine and left-wing politics than from the deliberate, always contested, and frequently short-lived efforts of individual monastics and lay activists to force such an affinity into being against the weight of institutional conservatism and rival, secular currents on the Japanese left.
* Shields, James Mark (2014). “Zen and the Art of Treason: Radical Buddhism in Meiji Era (1868–1912) Japan”. ''Politics, Religion & Ideology'' 15.2: 205–223. {{annotation|Examines Tarui Tōkichi, Takagi Kenmyō, and Uchiyama Gudō as distinct experiments in Meiji radical Buddhism.}}


The broader legacy of prewar radical Buddhism in Japan is, in consequence, more often one of rupture than continuity: the High Treason Incident of 1910–1911 and the suppression of the Youth League in 1936–1937 together account for the near-total absence of any organized Buddhist political dissent in Japan between the early 1910s and 1945. Postwar developments, including Ichikawa's critique of wartime complicity, the participation of some Buddhist clergy in the antiwar Beheiren (ベ平連) movement of the 1960s and 1970s, the emergence of Critical Buddhism, and the Marxist social-policy scholar [[Kohashi Shoichi|Kōhashi Shōichi]]'s (孝橋正一) 1968 attempt to rehabilitate the Youth League's Buddhist socialism from outside Buddhist institutions altogether, as an unrealized dialectical synthesis of Buddhist compassion and social-scientific method, are best understood as a delayed reckoning with, rather than a direct organizational continuation of, this earlier radical tradition.
* Shields, James Mark (2016). “Opium Eaters: Buddhism as Revolutionary Politics”. In: Kawanami, Hiroko (Ed.), ''Buddhism and the Political Process'': 213–232. Palgrave Macmillan. {{annotation|Places modern Japanese radical Buddhism in a broader history of Buddhist relations with political authority and compares Seno'o Girō with B. R. Ambedkar.}}


== Literature in English ==
* Shields, James Mark (2016). “Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan”. ''Journal of Religion in Japan'' 5: 3–21. {{annotation|Examines the later appropriation of peasant revolts and ''gimin'' narratives as historical models of Buddhist and religiously inflected resistance.}}


* Shields, James Mark (2023). "A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan". In: Scott, Robert H., & McRae, James (Eds.), ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'': 281–304. State University of New York Press. {{annotation|A concise genealogy of Critical Buddhism tracing the movement back through the New Buddhist Fellowship and Seno'o Girō's Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism, situating Hakamaya Noriaki's and Matsumoto Shirō's critique of "topicalism" within a longer twentieth-century history of Japanese Buddhist social criticism.}}
* Shields, James Mark (2017). ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan''. Oxford University Press. {{annotation|A synthetic history of progressive and radical Buddhism in modern Japan, with extensive treatment of Meiji Buddhist reform, Tarui Tōkichi, Takagi Kenmyō, Uchiyama Gudō, Seno'o Girō, and Ichikawa Hakugen.}}


* Brons, Lajos (2022). ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism''. punctum books. {{annotation|A freely available (CC BY-NC-SA), wide-ranging philosophical history of Buddhist utopianism that devotes a substantial chapter to Meiji- and Taishō-era Japanese Buddhist realism and reform, adding detail on lesser-known New Buddhist Fellowship figures (Tanaka Jirōku, Watanabe Kaikyoku, Inoue Shūten) and on the depoliticized, coded forms (Itō Shōshin's ''muga-ai'', Miyazawa Kenji's agrarian Tolstoyanism) that Buddhist social concern took in the years between the High Treason Incident and Seno'o Girō's Youth League.}}
* Shields, James Mark (2017). “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’”. ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96. {{annotation|Examines the New Buddhist Fellowship's ''genseshugi'' (this-worldliness) and the philosophical and religious background to later progressive and radical Buddhism.}}


* Shields, James Mark (2017). ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan''. Oxford University Press. {{annotation|The single most comprehensive English-language study of Meiji-through-Shōwa progressive and radical Buddhism in Japan, with detailed chapters on Tarui Tōkichi, Uchiyama Gudō, Takagi Kenmyō, and Seno'o Girō among others; the foundational secondary source for this entry.}}
* Shields, James Mark (2023). “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan”. In: Scott, Robert H., & McRae, James (Eds.), ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'': 281–304. State University of New York Press. {{annotation|Places contemporary Critical Buddhism within a longer genealogy of twentieth-century Japanese Buddhist criticism.}}


* Shields, James Mark (2017). "Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the 'Religious Secular'". ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96. {{annotation|An open-access study of the New Buddhist Fellowship's "pantheistic" and this-worldly (''genseshugi'') theology, arguing that the movement collapsed rather than reinforced conventional boundaries between the religious and the secular.}}
* Totten, George O. (1960). “Buddhism and Socialism in Japan and Burma”. ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2.3: 293–304. {{annotation|An early comparative analysis of the differing relationships among Buddhism, socialism, and nationalism in Japan and Burma.}}


* Shields, James Mark (2016). "Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan". ''Journal of Religion in Japan'' 5: 3–21. {{annotation|An open-access study arguing that Edo-period peasant rebellions and martyr (''gimin'') narratives supplied "root paradigms" later drawn upon by Meiji and Taishō radical Buddhists.}}
* Victoria, Brian (1997). ''Zen at War''. Weatherhill. {{annotation|An influential and controversial study of Japanese Zen and militarism that also helped draw English-language attention to Uchiyama Gudō.}}


* Shields, James Mark (2016). "Opium Eaters: Buddhism as Revolutionary Politics". In: Kawanami, Hiroko (Ed.), ''Buddhism and the Political Process'': 213–232. Palgrave Macmillan. {{annotation|Situates Japanese Buddhist-state "symbiosis" within a comparative framework and develops an extended reading of Seno'o Girō's and B. R. Ambedkar's respective fusions of Buddhism and Marxism.}}


* Shields, James Mark (2014). "Zen and the Art of Treason: Radical Buddhism in Meiji Era (1868–1912) Japan". ''Politics, Religion & Ideology'' 15.2: 205–223. {{annotation|An open-access study of Tarui Tōkichi, Takagi Kenmyō, and Uchiyama Gudō as three distinct case studies in Meiji-era radical Buddhism, including extensive discussion of Ichikawa Hakugen's twelve-factor analysis of Buddhism's structural resistance to socialism.}}
== Selected Literature in Japanese ==


* Shields, James Mark (2014). "From Topos to Utopia: Critical Buddhism, Globalization, and Ideology Criticism". In: Kalmanson, Leah, & Shields, James Mark (Eds.), ''Buddhist Responses to Globalization'': 51–77. Lexington Books. {{annotation|Reads Critical Buddhism through Karl Mannheim's sociology of ideology and utopia, arguing for a supplementary "materialist" account of Buddhist praxis rooted partly in the Nichiren-derived utopianism of Seno'o Girō.}}
* Daitō Satoshi 大東仁. ''Taigyaku no sō Takagi Kenmyō no shinjitsu: Shinshū sōryo to Taigyaku jiken'' 大逆の僧高木顕明の真実――真宗僧侶と大逆事件 [The Truth about Takagi Kenmyō, the High-Treason Priest: Shin Buddhist Priests and the High Treason Incident]. Nagoya: Fūbaisha, 2011. {{annotation|A substantial study of Takagi Kenmyō and his involvement in the High Treason Incident.}}


* Shields, James Mark (2011). ''Critical Buddhism: Engaging with Modern Japanese Buddhist Thought''. Ashgate. {{annotation|The first book-length English-language study of the Critical Buddhism movement, situating Hakamaya Noriaki's and Matsumoto Shirō's critique of "topicalism" within modern Japanese and comparative Western philosophy.}}
* Hishiki Masaharu 菱木政晴. ''Gokuraku no ninju: Takagi Kenmyō “Yo ga shakaishugi” o yomu'' 極楽の人数――高木顕明『余が社会主義』を読む [The People of the Pure Land: Reading Takagi Kenmyō's “My Socialism”]. Tokyo: Hakutakusha, 2012. {{annotation|A sustained interpretation of Takagi's Buddhist socialism centered on “My Socialism,” the key primary text for his thought.}}


* Ives, Christopher (2009). ''Imperial-Way Zen: Ichikawa Hakugen's Critique and Lingering Questions for Buddhist Ethics''. University of Hawai'i Press. {{annotation|The standard English-language study of Ichikawa Hakugen, situating his critique of wartime Zen nationalism within broader questions of Buddhist social ethics.}}
* Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦. ''Bukkyōsha no sensō sekinin'' 仏教者の戦争責任 [The War Responsibility of Buddhists]. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1970. {{annotation|Ichikawa's foundational postwar critique of Buddhist complicity in Japanese militarism and the structural conditions that made it possible.}}


* Victoria, Brian (1997). ''Zen at War''. Weatherhill. {{annotation|An influential, if occasionally disputed in points of detail, account of Japanese Zen institutional complicity with militarism and nationalism, framing Uchiyama Gudō as the principal wartime-era exception.}}
* Inagaki Masami 稲垣真美. ''Budda o seoite gaitō e: Seno'o Girō to Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei'' 仏陀を背負いて街頭へ――妹尾義郎と新興仏教青年同盟 [Carrying the Buddha on His Back into the Streets: Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1974. {{annotation|The foundational Japanese-language biography of Seno'o and history of the YLRB, based extensively on Seno'o's diary and papers.}}


* Large, Stephen S. (1987). "Buddhism, Socialism, and Protest in Prewar Japan: The Career of Seno'o Girō". ''Modern Asian Studies'' 21.1: 153–171. {{annotation|The foundational English-language political biography of Seno'o Girō, drawing extensively on his diary to trace his path from Nichirenist patriot to popular-front activist and prisoner of the state.}}
* Izumi Keiki 泉惠機. “Takagi Kenmyō ni kansuru kenkyū: Shiryō oyobi ryakunenpu ni tsuite” 高木顕明に関する研究――資料及び略年譜について [Research on Takagi Kenmyō: Sources and a Brief Chronology]. ''Shinshū Sōgō Kenkyūjo kenkyū kiyō'' 真宗総合研究所研究紀要 14 (1997): 103–36. {{annotation|An important archival and chronological study of Takagi incorporating previously neglected Ōtani-ha materials.}}


* Ketelaar, James Edward (1990). ''Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution''. Princeton University Press. {{annotation|The standard English-language account of the ''haibutsu kishaku'' persecution and the subsequent reconstruction of Buddhist institutional identity in early Meiji Japan.}}
* Kashiwahara Yūsen 柏原祐泉. ''Nihon Bukkyōshi: Kindai'' 日本仏教史――近代 [A History of Japanese Buddhism: The Modern Period]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1990. {{annotation|A standard scholarly history of Japanese Buddhism from the Meiji Restoration through the modern period.}}


* Totten, George O. (1960). "Buddhism and Socialism in Japan and Burma". ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2.3: 293–304. {{annotation|An early comparative study contrasting the marginality of Buddhist socialism in Japan, where socialists were "socialists first and nationalists second," with its centrality to Burmese nationalism, offering a still-useful structural explanation for the fragmentation of prewar Japanese radical Buddhism.}}
* Komatsu Yutaka 小松裕. “Tarui Tōkichi to Tōyō Shakaitō” 樽井藤吉と東洋社会党 [Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party]. ''Ōsaka jiken kenkyū'' 大阪事件研究 5 (1986): 14–19. {{annotation|A focused study of Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party.}}


== Literature in Japanese ==
* Kunba Hiroshi 訓覇浩. “Takagi Kenmyō o fukken, kenshō suru to wa” 高木顕明を復権、顕彰するとは [What Does It Mean to Rehabilitate and Commemorate Takagi Kenmyō?]. ''Shoki shakaishugi kenkyū'' 初期社会主義研究 22 (2010): 126–37. {{annotation|Examines Takagi's postwar rehabilitation and the contemporary significance of his commemoration.}}


* Sanada Yoshiaki (眞田芳憲) (2016). 「大逆事件と禅僧内山愚童の「仏教社会主義」とその行動の軌跡」 [The High Treason Incident and the Zen Priest Uchiyama Gudō's "Buddhist Socialism"]. 『中央学術研究所紀要』45: 2–68. {{annotation|A wide-ranging, freely accessible study combining a sourced biography of Uchiyama Gudō with discussion of his fellow priestly co-defendants Takagi Kenmyō and Mineo Setsudō in the High Treason Incident.}}
* Kurokawa Teizaburō 黒川貞三郎. “‘Tōyō Shakaitō’ ron” 「東洋社会党」論 [On the Eastern Socialist Party]. ''Seikei kenkyū'' 政経研究 28.3 (1991): 39–42. {{annotation|Reconsiders the political and ideological character of Tarui Tōkichi's Eastern Socialist Party and its relationship to early Japanese socialism.}}


* Ichikawa Hakugen (市川白弦) (1970). 『仏教徒の戦争責任』 [The War Responsibility of Buddhists]. Shunjūsha. {{annotation|Ichikawa's foundational postwar study of Buddhist institutional complicity in Japanese militarism, including the twelve-factor analysis of Buddhism's structural resistance to socialism discussed in the "Ichikawa Hakugen" subsection above; a dedicated original-text archive entry for the relevant chapter is planned.}}
* Matsune Takashi 松根鷹. ''Seno'o Girō to “Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei”'' 妹尾義郎と「新興仏教青年同盟」 [Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism]. Tokyo: San'ichi Shobō, 1975. {{annotation|An important early reconstruction of Seno'o and the YLRB, especially valuable for the League's organization, repression, and final years.}}


* Inagaki Masami (稲垣真美) (1974). 『仏陀を背負いて街頭へ―妹尾義郎と新興仏教青年同盟』 [Carrying the Buddha on Their Backs into the Streets: Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism]. Iwanami Shoten. {{annotation|The foundational Japanese-language biography of Seno'o Girō and history of the Youth League, based on his diary and papers.}}
* Sanada Yoshiaki 眞田芳憲. “Taigyaku jiken to zensō Uchiyama Gudō no ‘Bukkyō shakaishugi’ to sono kōdō no kiseki” 大逆事件と禅僧内山愚童の「仏教社会主義」とその行動の軌跡 [The High Treason Incident and the Zen Priest Uchiyama Gudō's “Buddhist Socialism” and the Course of His Activities]. ''Chūō Gakujutsu Kenkyūjo kiyō'' 中央学術研究所紀要 45 (2016): 2–61. {{annotation|A detailed study of Uchiyama's Buddhist socialism, political activity, and prosecution in the High Treason Incident.}}


* Yoshida Kyūichi (吉田久一) (1992). 『日本近代仏教史研究』 [Studies in the History of Modern Japanese Buddhism]. Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. {{annotation|A major synthetic history of Meiji-through-Shōwa Japanese Buddhism, including detailed treatment of the New Buddhist Fellowship and its "this-worldly" (''genseshugi'') orientation.}}
* Tanaka Sōgorō 田中惣五郎. ''Tōyō Shakaitō kō'' 東洋社会党考 [A Study of the Eastern Socialist Party]. Tokyo: Ichigensha, 1930. {{annotation|The foundational study of Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party.}}


* Kashiwahara Yūsen (柏原祐泉) (1990). 『日本仏教史―近代』 [A History of Japanese Buddhism: The Modern Period]. Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. {{annotation|A standard scholarly survey of institutional Buddhism in modern Japan, from the Meiji persecution through the Buddhist Enlightenment and into the twentieth century.}}
* 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, including Buddhist reform and socially engaged currents.}}


== How to Cite This Article ==
== How to Cite This Article ==
<!-- AUTHORSHIP CHANGE LOG
<!-- AUTHORSHIP CHANGE LOG
First version, 4 August 2026. Main: Brons, Lajos. Other: (none).
First version, 4 August 2026. Main: Brons, Lajos. Other: (none).
Substantially revised and expanded, September 2026. Main: Shields, James Mark. Other: Brons, Lajos.
-->
-->
Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Japan". ''Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Japan</nowiki>.
Shields, James Mark, and Lajos Brons ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). “Japan”. ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Japan</nowiki>.


== Notes ==
== Notes ==

Latest revision as of 01:05, 27 October 2026

Japan provides one of the richest historical settings for the study of radical Buddhism. From its early institutional development in Japan, Buddhism developed complex and often mutually supportive relationships with political authority, including the imperial court, the powerful religious institutions of the medieval period, and the Tokugawa shogunate. These relationships never eliminated conflict or dissent, however, and Japanese history also supplied later Buddhist radicals with memories and models of religiously inflected resistance, including peasant uprisings and traditions of the self-sacrificing “righteous person” (gimin 義民).[1]

The political and intellectual upheavals accompanying the Meiji Restoration of 1868 transformed this relationship. Following the brief but severe persecution of Buddhism known as haibutsu kishaku 廃仏毀釈, Buddhist clergy and lay intellectuals pursued a variety of projects to reconstruct Buddhism as compatible with a modernizing nation-state, modern science, new forms of scholarship, and changing conceptions of religion and ethics. Within and against this broader field of Buddhist reform there emerged, from the 1880s through the early Shōwa period, a much smaller and internally diverse current in which activists brought Buddhist ideas into constructive engagement with socialism, anarchism, and eventually Marxism. This entry uses “radical Buddhism” primarily for these attempts to connect Buddhist thought and practice with fundamental transformations of existing social, economic, and political relations.[2]

Radical Buddhism in this narrower sense never became a dominant current within modern Japanese Buddhism. Its most explicitly left-wing prewar expressions were repeatedly subjected to state repression, most dramatically in the High Treason Incident of 1910–1911 and the destruction of Seno'o Girō's Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism in 1936–1937. Yet the questions these movements raised—about Buddhism's relationship to social inequality, capitalism, nationalism, war, and political authority—reappeared in different forms after 1945. The postwar critique of Buddhist complicity in Japanese militarism associated especially with Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦, and the later Critical Buddhism (Hihan Bukkyō 批判仏教) movement, are therefore treated here not as straightforward organizational continuations of prewar radical Buddhism but as later forms of Buddhist social and doctrinal criticism that can be situated within a broader genealogy of modern Japanese critical Buddhism.[3]

Buddhism in Japan

[edit]

Buddhism entered Japan from the Asian mainland in the sixth century CE and over the following centuries became deeply embedded in the country's political, economic, and cultural institutions. By the medieval period, major monasteries and temple networks controlled substantial landholdings and exercised considerable political influence. Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄 famously analyzed religious institutions as one component of the system of powerful elite blocs (kenmon 権門) through which court aristocrats, warriors, and major religious institutions constituted the medieval ruling order. The period also witnessed the development of influential Buddhist movements associated with figures such as Hōnen 法然, Shinran 親鸞, Dōgen 道元, and Nichiren 日蓮. Although some came into conflict with established religious and political authorities, Buddhist institutions generally developed through complex relationships of both autonomy and cooperation with political power rather than sustained opposition to it.[4] Under the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1868), these relationships acquired an extensive administrative form. Through temple registration (terauke 寺請) and hereditary temple-parishioner relationships (danka 檀家), Buddhist temples participated in the registration of households and regulation of religious affiliation while providing funerary and memorial services increasingly central to ordinary religious life.[5]

The Meiji Restoration of 1868 profoundly disrupted this institutional settlement. The government-mandated separation of Buddhism and Shinto (shinbutsu bunri 神仏分離) was accompanied in many regions by anti-Buddhist violence and destruction conventionally known as haibutsu kishaku 廃仏毀釈, stripping Buddhist institutions of much of their former status and property and forcing Buddhist leaders to reconsider the tradition's place within the new nation-state.[6] Responses ranged from renewed observance of the Buddhist precepts (kairitsu 戒律), associated with figures such as Fukuda Gyōkai 福田行誡 and Shaku Unshō 釈雲照, to participation in government-sponsored projects such as the Great Teaching (Daikyō 大教) campaign. A subsequent generation of scholar-priests and lay intellectuals—including Hara Tanzan 原坦山, Shimaji Mokurai 島地黙雷, Murakami Senshō 村上専精, Inoue Enryō 井上圓了, Shaku Sōen 釈宗演, and Kiyozawa Manshi 清沢満之—engaged modern science, philosophy, historical scholarship, and changing conceptions of religion. Historical-critical scholarship could pose particularly difficult questions for inherited authority: Murakami, for example, became associated with Daijō hibussetsuron 大乗非仏説論, the thesis that Mahāyāna scriptures were not directly taught by the historical Buddha. Modern Japanese Buddhist thought also intersected increasingly with academic philosophy, including the work of Nishida Kitarō 西田幾多郎 and the later Kyoto School.[7]

By the 1930s and during the Asia-Pacific War, major Buddhist institutions accommodated themselves in varying degrees to the Japanese imperial state and its war effort. The extent and implications of this accommodation became an important subject of postwar Buddhist self-criticism, although sustained institutional reckoning developed only gradually. Ichikawa Hakugen's analysis of Buddhist war responsibility and “Imperial-Way Zen” (kōdō Zen 皇道禅) became one of the most searching examples of this critique. He examined not only particular instances of wartime collaboration but also the doctrinal, ethical, and institutional tendencies that had facilitated Buddhist accommodation to political authority.[8] These developments form an important counterpoint to the much smaller traditions of progressive and radical Buddhism discussed below.

Radical Buddhism in Japan

[edit]

The Radical Buddhism Project uses “radical Buddhism” in modern Japan primarily for attempts to bring Buddhist thought and practice into sustained engagement with projects for fundamental social, economic, or political transformation, particularly socialism, anarchism, and Marxism. Radical Buddhism was historically distinct from, although deeply indebted to, the broader currents of Buddhist reform and modernism described above, and its emergence cannot be traced to a single continuous tradition. Premodern revolts should therefore not be understood retrospectively as instances of “radical Buddhism.” They did, however, provide historical memories and symbolic models through which later activists could imagine religiously grounded resistance to established authority. The Ikkō-ikki 一向一揆 of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for example, brought together religious communities, peasants, local warriors, and other groups associated with the Honganji branch of Jōdo Shinshū in episodes of armed resistance and regional self-government. Their aims and social composition varied considerably and cannot simply be assimilated to modern socialism or anarchism.[9]

Of more demonstrable importance to modern radicals were Edo-period narratives of the self-sacrificing “righteous person” (gimin 義民), especially village representatives remembered for suffering or dying after petitioning authorities on behalf of oppressed peasants. The semi-legendary Sakura Sōgorō 佐倉惣五郎 (1605–1653) became an especially powerful exemplar, while Ōshio Heihachirō 大塩平八郎 (1793–1837), the Osaka samurai scholar and former official who led an 1837 rebellion during a period of severe famine, provided another model of principled resistance to corrupt authority.[10] Their significance lies less in direct institutional or doctrinal continuity than in later appropriation. Such figures supplied what Shields describes as “root paradigms” of self-sacrificing resistance through which modern activists could interpret new conflicts involving poverty, capitalism, state authority, and social injustice. Uchiyama Gudō 内山愚童, for example, explicitly invoked earlier traditions of peasant resistance while articulating a thoroughly modern Buddhist anarchism.[11] These appropriations did not make the earlier rebels socialists or anarchists retrospectively; rather, they allowed modern radicals to understand their political commitments through indigenous historical resources as well as newly imported ideas.

The Eastern Socialist Party

[edit]

One of the earliest attempts in modern Japan to articulate a socialist political program through Buddhist and other East Asian concepts was the short-lived Eastern Socialist Party (Tōyō Shakaitō 東洋社会党), founded by Tarui Tōkichi 樽井藤吉 (1850–1922) in May 1882. Established amid the political ferment of the Freedom and People's Rights movement, the party was prohibited by the government the following month. Tarui nevertheless continued his efforts to revive it and circulated revised party regulations in January 1883, activity for which he was sentenced to a year in prison.[12]

Tarui's draft party regulations reveal an eclectic attempt to formulate socialism through concepts drawn from Asian religious and ethical traditions rather than simply reproduce contemporary European socialist theory. Its first three principles made “affection” (shin'ai 親愛) the standard of words and actions, affirmed the “equality of self and other” (jita byōdō 自他平等), and identified the “greatest welfare” (saidai fukuri 最大福利) of society as the party's goal. Subsequent provisions proposed measures intended to overcome divisions between rich and poor, including forms of communal ownership.[13]

Whether the Eastern Socialist Party should be regarded as “socialist” in the same sense as the socialist movements that developed in Japan around the turn of the twentieth century has long been debated. Some later commentators emphasized its distance from European socialist theory and situated it instead within the Freedom and People's Rights movement, agrarian demands for economic justice, and older East Asian ethical traditions.[14] For the history of radical Buddhism, however, this ambiguity is itself significant. Tarui's experiment illustrates an enduring problem for later Buddhist socialists: whether socialism should be understood as a largely imported body of political and economic theory to which Buddhism might be added, or whether egalitarian and communal elements within Buddhist and other Asian traditions could themselves provide resources for constructing a distinctively local form of socialism.[15]

The New Buddhist Fellowship

[edit]
➣ Main article: The New Buddhist Fellowship

The most sustained collective expression of Meiji Buddhist modernism emerged in the Shin Bukkyō Dōshikai 新仏教同志会 (New Buddhist Fellowship), established in 1899 as the Bukkyō Seito Dōshikai 仏教清徒同志会 and renamed in 1903. Its members included Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡辺海旭, Takashima Beihō 高嶋米峰, Sugimura Sojinkan 杉村楚人冠, and Katō Genchi 加藤玄智, many of whom had studied with figures such as Murakami Senshō and Inoue Enryō. Through their journal, Shin Bukkyō 新仏教 (New Buddhism), they attacked “old Buddhism” (kyū Bukkyō 旧仏教) as sectarian, ritualistic, superstitious, and institutionally corrupt. Their 1900 declaration called for a “sound Buddhist faith,” free investigation of Buddhism and other religions, the eradication of superstition, freedom from traditional religious institutions and ceremonies, opposition to state interference in religion, and the fundamental reform of society.[16]

Central to New Buddhism was genseshugi 現世主義 (this-worldliness), which located the significance of Buddhist practice within present human and social existence rather than another world. Although most New Buddhists rejected revolutionary socialism and materialism, their insistence that Buddhism address contemporary society brought some members increasingly close to the emerging socialist movement. Watanabe developed forms of Buddhist social welfare and mutual aid, while Inoue Shūten 井上秀天 articulated an explicitly Buddhist critique of war, nationalism, and imperial aggression. The New Buddhist Fellowship thus occupied an important intermediate position between Meiji Buddhist modernism and radical Buddhism: it transformed the modernist reconstruction of Buddhist belief into a more explicitly social project without developing a common program for structural political and economic transformation.[17]

Takagi Kenmyō

[edit]
➣ Main article: Takagi Kenmyo

Takagi Kenmyō 高木顕明 (1864–1914), a priest of the Ōtani branch of Jōdo Shinshū, represents one of the earliest sustained attempts in modern Japan to articulate an explicitly socialist Buddhism. In 1899 he became resident priest of Jōsenji 浄泉寺 in Shingū, Wakayama Prefecture, where encounters with poverty, discrimination against burakumin 部落民, and social inequality contributed to his involvement with the socialist and antiwar movements. In his 1904 essay “Yo ga shakaishugi” 余が社会主義 [My Socialism], Takagi explicitly distinguished his socialism from that of Marx and contemporary Japanese socialists, grounding it instead in his own Buddhist faith and practice. He understood socialism as a form of jissen 実践 (practice) beginning with personal spiritual transformation, while interpreting Namu Amida Butsu 南無阿弥陀仏 and the Pure Land tradition through the ideals of equality, peace, and compassion. Takagi declared Buddhism to be “the mother of the common people and the enemy of the nobility” and described the Pure Land as a realm in which socialism was already practiced. His Buddhist socialism thus joined social reform to the transformation of the practitioner, while providing a religious basis for his opposition to social inequality and the Russo-Japanese War.[18]

Uchiyama Gudō

[edit]
➣ Main article: Uchiyama Gudo

Uchiyama Gudō 内山愚童 (1874–1911), a Sōtō Zen priest and abbot of Rinsenji 林泉寺 near Hakone, developed one of the most explicitly anarchist forms of radical Buddhism in Meiji Japan. Explaining his embrace of socialism, Uchiyama recalled that as a Buddhist missionary he taught that all beings possess buddha-nature, that within the Dharma there is equality without high or low, and that all beings are children of the Buddha; he came to see these teachings as fundamentally compatible with socialism. His radicalism joined this Buddhist egalitarianism to a critique of private property, economic inequality, imperial authority, and militarism. Unlike Takagi Kenmyō, whose Buddhist socialism remained largely reformist, Uchiyama increasingly identified the social and political structures producing inequality as themselves objects of transformation. Using a clandestine printing press at Rinsenji, he produced and circulated socialist and anarchist writings calling upon ordinary people to free themselves from the political, economic, and religious beliefs sustaining the existing social order.[19]

Uchiyama was arrested in May 1909 for violating publication laws after police discovered his clandestine printing operation at Rinsenji; during their search, police claimed to have found materials for making explosives. Already imprisoned, he was subsequently implicated in the High Treason Incident (Taigyaku jiken 大逆事件), convicted of participating in the alleged conspiracy against Emperor Meiji, and executed on January 24, 1911. Although Uchiyama advocated revolutionary change and did not categorically reject violence, the extent of his involvement in an actual assassination plot remains disputed. The Sōtō establishment stripped him of his clerical status in 1910 and strongly repudiated his ideas; in 1993 the denomination reversed its earlier action and restored his status, acknowledging that its treatment of Uchiyama had reflected the sect's alignment with the emperor-centered political establishment.[20]

From the High Treason Incident to the YLRB

[edit]

The High Treason Incident of 1910–1911 marked a severe rupture in the development of explicitly radical Buddhism in Japan. The execution of Uchiyama Gudō and imprisonment of Takagi Kenmyō formed part of a broader suppression of socialist and anarchist activity, making open attempts to combine Buddhism with revolutionary socialism or anarchism exceptionally difficult. Buddhist social experimentation nevertheless continued in less overtly political forms. Itō Shōshin 伊藤証信 (1876–1963), for example, developed the ideal of muga-ai 無我愛 (selfless love), combining religious and ethical transformation, pacifism, and communal social practice while deliberately distinguishing his movement from socialism. His Muga-ai movement, begun in 1905, survived the repression of the late Meiji period and reemerged during the Taishō era alongside other experiments in Buddhist, Tolstoyan, agrarian, and communal reform.[21]

The relative openness of the Taishō period (1912–1926) nevertheless transformed the context in which Buddhist social thought operated. Socialist ideas circulated more widely, while Buddhist thinkers confronted questions of poverty, capitalism, labor, and the social responsibilities of religion. There was no continuous “radical Buddhist” movement linking the Meiji radicals to their successors: responses ranged from anti-socialist apologetics to social welfare, utopian experiments, and selective engagement with socialism and Marxism. Seno'o Girō's emergence from the quite different world of reformist and nationalist Nichiren Buddhism illustrates both this discontinuity and the persistence of the underlying social questions. By 1926 he was criticizing nationalist readings of Nichiren, and by 1929 he was arguing that a revitalized Nichirenism must stand with the public and engage the socialist struggle against capitalism. These developments prepared the ground for the founding of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei 新興仏教青年同盟) in 1931.[22]

Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism

[edit]
➣ Main article: Senoo Giro

Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎 (1889–1961) emerged from the reformist but strongly nationalist Nichirenshugi 日蓮主義 movement before moving increasingly toward socialism during the 1920s. By the end of the decade, his encounters with poverty and social conflict, criticism of established Buddhist institutions, and engagement with socialist and Marxist thought had led him to identify capitalism itself as a major source of suffering. On April 5, 1931, Seno'o and a small group of young activists founded the Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei 新興仏教青年同盟 (Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism, YLRB). Rejecting existing Buddhist sects as corrupt and capitalism as incompatible with the Buddhist spirit, the League sought to create a Buddha land in this world through the conjunction of individual ethical transformation and fundamental social reform.[23]

The YLRB developed into a nationwide movement whose increasingly socialist and internationalist program joined Buddhist reform to labor, tenant, antiwar, and antifascist activism. Seno'o combined structural criticism of capitalism with an insistence upon ethical transformation, arguing that Buddhism must confront the material and institutional causes of suffering without reducing liberation to economic change alone. This combination made the YLRB the most sustained attempt in prewar Japan to construct an organized radical Buddhist movement. It also brought the League under increasing police scrutiny. Seno'o was arrested in December 1936 under the Peace Preservation Law and publicly recanted his former political position in 1937; a nationwide roundup later that year effectively destroyed the organization.[24]

Ichikawa Hakugen

[edit]
➣ Main article: Ichikawa Hakugen

A different form of radical Buddhist critique emerged after Japan's defeat in 1945 in the work of the Rinzai Zen priest and scholar Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦 (1902–1986). Having himself participated in the intellectual world of wartime Japanese Zen, Ichikawa devoted much of his postwar work to examining Buddhism's responsibility for Japanese militarism and imperialism. Rather than explaining Buddhist support for the war simply through state coercion or individual failure, he asked how Buddhist doctrines, institutions, and historical relations with political authority had facilitated accommodation with established power. His critique focused especially on “Imperial-Way Zen” (kōdō Zen 皇道禅), while also recovering suppressed currents of Buddhist socialism represented by figures such as Takagi Kenmyō and Uchiyama Gudō.[25]

Ichikawa's critique was also reconstructive. Drawing upon socialism, Marxism, anarchism, and postwar peace activism, he sought forms of Buddhism capable of resisting rather than sanctifying established power and insisted that Buddhist doctrines themselves be subjected to critical scrutiny when they served to naturalize hierarchy or obscure injustice. This combination of social criticism and Buddhist self-criticism also anticipates important concerns of the later movement known as Critical Buddhism (Hihan Bukkyō 批判仏教), although the relationship is better understood as a critical affinity than as a direct intellectual succession.[26]

Critical Buddhism

[edit]
➣ Main article: Critical Buddhism

A later form of radical Buddhist self-criticism emerged in the 1980s around the Sōtō scholars Hakamaya Noriaki 袴谷憲昭 and Matsumoto Shirō 松本史朗. The movement known as Critical Buddhism (Hihan Bukkyō 批判仏教) subjected influential strands of East Asian Buddhist thought—particularly tathāgatagarbha (buddha-nature) and hongaku 本覚 (original enlightenment) thought—to sustained criticism. Hakamaya and Matsumoto argued that doctrines positing an underlying, universal ground of enlightenment departed from the critical, relational, and non-substantialist dimensions of Buddhist teaching and might contribute to forms of social accommodation rather than resistance. Hakamaya captured the movement's provocative stance in the proposition that “Buddhism is criticism” (Bukkyō wa hihan de aru 仏教は批判である). Critical Buddhism was neither a continuation of prewar Buddhist socialism and anarchism nor a reproduction of Ichikawa Hakugen's political project. Nevertheless, its insistence that Buddhist doctrines themselves be subjected to criticism—and its concern that appeals to harmony, nonduality, and original enlightenment could obscure discrimination and social injustice—places it within a broader genealogy of modern Japanese Buddhist self-criticism.[27]

The Legacy of Radical Buddhism in Japan

[edit]

Radical Buddhism never constituted a continuous movement or a major current within modern Japanese Buddhism. The Eastern Socialist Party disappeared almost immediately; Takagi Kenmyō and Uchiyama Gudō fell victim to state repression; and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism was dismantled in 1937. Nor did these movements establish an enduring institutional lineage after 1945. Their historical significance lies instead in recurrent attempts to ask whether Buddhist teachings could provide resources not merely for individual ethical reform or social welfare but for fundamental criticism and transformation of existing political and economic structures.

One explanation for the historical marginality of these experiments was offered by the comparative political scientist George O. Totten. Writing in 1960, Totten contrasted Japanese socialism with the avowedly Buddhist socialism of Burma, arguing that Japanese socialism emerged from competing Christian, secular, Marxist, and Buddhist currents rather than from a widely shared Buddhist social idiom. Influential Japanese Marxists such as Sano Manabu 佐野学 regarded religion largely as a private matter destined to disappear, while attempts to bring Buddhism and Marxism into constructive engagement remained minority currents within the prewar left. Totten's comparison highlights an important feature of Japanese radical Buddhism: the relationship between Buddhism and socialism was neither assumed nor uncontested, but repeatedly had to be constructed.[28]

The forms that relationship took varied considerably. Tarui Tōkichi drew upon Buddhist and other Asian ethical concepts in formulating an indigenous socialism; Takagi derived socialism from Jōdo Shinshū faith; Uchiyama brought Buddhist equality into conversation with anarchist communism; and Seno'o combined Buddhist ethical transformation with increasingly Marxist social analysis. Ichikawa Hakugen subsequently turned radical criticism back upon Buddhism itself, while Critical Buddhism extended this self-critical impulse in a different, primarily doctrinal direction. These projects constitute neither a single tradition nor variations on a common political ideology. Rather, they represent historically distinct efforts to rethink the relationship between Buddhism, power, equality, and social transformation.[29]

Selected Literature in English

[edit]
  • Brons, Lajos (2022). A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism. punctum books. [A wide-ranging philosophical history of Buddhist utopianism, with substantial treatment of Meiji and Taishō Buddhist reform and radicalism, including several figures and currents less prominent in the existing English-language literature.]
  • Ives, Christopher (2009). Imperial-Way Zen: Ichikawa Hakugen's Critique and Lingering Questions for Buddhist Ethics. University of Hawai'i Press. [The principal English-language study of Ichikawa Hakugen and his critique of Zen's accommodation to Japanese nationalism and militarism.]
  • Ketelaar, James Edward (1990). Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution. Princeton University Press. [A major study of the early Meiji persecution of Buddhism and the subsequent reconstruction of Buddhist identity and institutions, providing essential background for the emergence of Buddhist modernism and reform.]
  • Large, Stephen S. (1987). “Buddhism, Socialism, and Protest in Prewar Japan: The Career of Seno'o Girō”. Modern Asian Studies 21.1: 153–171. [An influential early English-language study of Seno'o Girō and his political development, based substantially on his published diary.]
  • Shields, James Mark (2011). Critical Buddhism: Engaging with Modern Japanese Buddhist Thought. Ashgate. [A book-length study of Critical Buddhism, particularly the thought of Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō and its relationship to modern Japanese Buddhist philosophy.]
  • Shields, James Mark (2014). “From Topos to Utopia: Critical Buddhism, Globalization, and Ideology Criticism”. In: Kalmanson, Leah, & Shields, James Mark (Eds.), Buddhist Responses to Globalization: 51–77. Lexington Books. [Examines Critical Buddhism through ideology criticism and explores its relationship to materialist and utopian forms of Buddhist praxis.]
  • Shields, James Mark (2014). “Zen and the Art of Treason: Radical Buddhism in Meiji Era (1868–1912) Japan”. Politics, Religion & Ideology 15.2: 205–223. [Examines Tarui Tōkichi, Takagi Kenmyō, and Uchiyama Gudō as distinct experiments in Meiji radical Buddhism.]
  • Shields, James Mark (2016). “Opium Eaters: Buddhism as Revolutionary Politics”. In: Kawanami, Hiroko (Ed.), Buddhism and the Political Process: 213–232. Palgrave Macmillan. [Places modern Japanese radical Buddhism in a broader history of Buddhist relations with political authority and compares Seno'o Girō with B. R. Ambedkar.]
  • Shields, James Mark (2016). “Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan”. Journal of Religion in Japan 5: 3–21. [Examines the later appropriation of peasant revolts and gimin narratives as historical models of Buddhist and religiously inflected resistance.]
  • Shields, James Mark (2017). Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan. Oxford University Press. [A synthetic history of progressive and radical Buddhism in modern Japan, with extensive treatment of Meiji Buddhist reform, Tarui Tōkichi, Takagi Kenmyō, Uchiyama Gudō, Seno'o Girō, and Ichikawa Hakugen.]
  • Shields, James Mark (2017). “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’”. Japan Review 30: 79–96. [Examines the New Buddhist Fellowship's genseshugi (this-worldliness) and the philosophical and religious background to later progressive and radical Buddhism.]
  • Shields, James Mark (2023). “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan”. In: Scott, Robert H., & McRae, James (Eds.), Introduction to Buddhist East Asia: 281–304. State University of New York Press. [Places contemporary Critical Buddhism within a longer genealogy of twentieth-century Japanese Buddhist criticism.]
  • Totten, George O. (1960). “Buddhism and Socialism in Japan and Burma”. Comparative Studies in Society and History 2.3: 293–304. [An early comparative analysis of the differing relationships among Buddhism, socialism, and nationalism in Japan and Burma.]
  • Victoria, Brian (1997). Zen at War. Weatherhill. [An influential and controversial study of Japanese Zen and militarism that also helped draw English-language attention to Uchiyama Gudō.]


Selected Literature in Japanese

[edit]
  • Daitō Satoshi 大東仁. Taigyaku no sō Takagi Kenmyō no shinjitsu: Shinshū sōryo to Taigyaku jiken 大逆の僧高木顕明の真実――真宗僧侶と大逆事件 [The Truth about Takagi Kenmyō, the High-Treason Priest: Shin Buddhist Priests and the High Treason Incident]. Nagoya: Fūbaisha, 2011. [A substantial study of Takagi Kenmyō and his involvement in the High Treason Incident.]
  • Hishiki Masaharu 菱木政晴. Gokuraku no ninju: Takagi Kenmyō “Yo ga shakaishugi” o yomu 極楽の人数――高木顕明『余が社会主義』を読む [The People of the Pure Land: Reading Takagi Kenmyō's “My Socialism”]. Tokyo: Hakutakusha, 2012. [A sustained interpretation of Takagi's Buddhist socialism centered on “My Socialism,” the key primary text for his thought.]
  • Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦. Bukkyōsha no sensō sekinin 仏教者の戦争責任 [The War Responsibility of Buddhists]. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1970. [Ichikawa's foundational postwar critique of Buddhist complicity in Japanese militarism and the structural conditions that made it possible.]
  • Inagaki Masami 稲垣真美. Budda o seoite gaitō e: Seno'o Girō to Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei 仏陀を背負いて街頭へ――妹尾義郎と新興仏教青年同盟 [Carrying the Buddha on His Back into the Streets: Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1974. [The foundational Japanese-language biography of Seno'o and history of the YLRB, based extensively on Seno'o's diary and papers.]
  • Izumi Keiki 泉惠機. “Takagi Kenmyō ni kansuru kenkyū: Shiryō oyobi ryakunenpu ni tsuite” 高木顕明に関する研究――資料及び略年譜について [Research on Takagi Kenmyō: Sources and a Brief Chronology]. Shinshū Sōgō Kenkyūjo kenkyū kiyō 真宗総合研究所研究紀要 14 (1997): 103–36. [An important archival and chronological study of Takagi incorporating previously neglected Ōtani-ha materials.]
  • Kashiwahara Yūsen 柏原祐泉. Nihon Bukkyōshi: Kindai 日本仏教史――近代 [A History of Japanese Buddhism: The Modern Period]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1990. [A standard scholarly history of Japanese Buddhism from the Meiji Restoration through the modern period.]
  • Komatsu Yutaka 小松裕. “Tarui Tōkichi to Tōyō Shakaitō” 樽井藤吉と東洋社会党 [Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party]. Ōsaka jiken kenkyū 大阪事件研究 5 (1986): 14–19. [A focused study of Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party.]
  • Kunba Hiroshi 訓覇浩. “Takagi Kenmyō o fukken, kenshō suru to wa” 高木顕明を復権、顕彰するとは [What Does It Mean to Rehabilitate and Commemorate Takagi Kenmyō?]. Shoki shakaishugi kenkyū 初期社会主義研究 22 (2010): 126–37. [Examines Takagi's postwar rehabilitation and the contemporary significance of his commemoration.]
  • Kurokawa Teizaburō 黒川貞三郎. “‘Tōyō Shakaitō’ ron” 「東洋社会党」論 [On the Eastern Socialist Party]. Seikei kenkyū 政経研究 28.3 (1991): 39–42. [Reconsiders the political and ideological character of Tarui Tōkichi's Eastern Socialist Party and its relationship to early Japanese socialism.]
  • Matsune Takashi 松根鷹. Seno'o Girō to “Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei” 妹尾義郎と「新興仏教青年同盟」 [Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism]. Tokyo: San'ichi Shobō, 1975. [An important early reconstruction of Seno'o and the YLRB, especially valuable for the League's organization, repression, and final years.]
  • Sanada Yoshiaki 眞田芳憲. “Taigyaku jiken to zensō Uchiyama Gudō no ‘Bukkyō shakaishugi’ to sono kōdō no kiseki” 大逆事件と禅僧内山愚童の「仏教社会主義」とその行動の軌跡 [The High Treason Incident and the Zen Priest Uchiyama Gudō's “Buddhist Socialism” and the Course of His Activities]. Chūō Gakujutsu Kenkyūjo kiyō 中央学術研究所紀要 45 (2016): 2–61. [A detailed study of Uchiyama's Buddhist socialism, political activity, and prosecution in the High Treason Incident.]
  • Tanaka Sōgorō 田中惣五郎. Tōyō Shakaitō kō 東洋社会党考 [A Study of the Eastern Socialist Party]. Tokyo: Ichigensha, 1930. [The foundational study of Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party.]
  • 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. [A major synthetic study of modern Japanese Buddhism, including Buddhist reform and socially engaged currents.]

How to Cite This Article

[edit]

Shields, James Mark, and Lajos Brons (2026). “Japan”. The Radical Buddhism Project. Version of 27 October 2026. http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Japan.

Notes

[edit]
  1. ↑ Shields, James Mark (2016), “Opium Eaters: Buddhism as Revolutionary Politics,” in Hiroko Kawanami, ed., Buddhism and the Political Process (Palgrave Macmillan), 213–32, 214–15; Shields, James Mark (2016), “Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan,” Journal of Religion in Japan 5: 3–21.
  2. ↑ Shields, James Mark (2017), Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan (Oxford University Press); Shields, James Mark (2014), “Zen and the Art of Treason: Radical Buddhism in Meiji Era (1868–1912) Japan,” Politics, Religion & Ideology 15, no. 2: 205–23.
  3. ↑ Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., Introduction to Buddhist East Asia (State University of New York Press), 281–304.
  4. ↑ Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄, “The Imperial Law and the Buddhist Law,” trans. Jacqueline I. Stone, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23, nos. 3–4 (1996): 271–85; Shields, James Mark (2016), “Opium Eaters: Buddhism as Revolutionary Politics,” 215.
  5. ↑ Tamamuro Fumio 圭室文雄 (2001), “Local Society and the Temple-Parishioner Relationship within the Bakufu's Governance Structure,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 28, nos. 3–4: 261–92.
  6. ↑ Ketelaar, James Edward (1990), Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution (Princeton University Press); 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, 108–9.
  7. ↑ Shields (2012), “Awakening between Science,” 108–21.
  8. ↑ Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦, Bukkyōsha no sensō sekinin 仏教者の戦争責任 [The War Responsibility of Buddhists] (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1970); Ives, Christopher (2009), Imperial-Way Zen: Ichikawa Hakugen's Critique and Lingering Questions for Buddhist Ethics (University of Hawai‘i Press); Shields (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” 282–84.
  9. ↑ Shields, James Mark (2016), “Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan,” Journal of Religion in Japan 5: 3–21, 6–7.
  10. ↑ Shields (2016), “Peasant Revolts,” 7–9.
  11. ↑ Shields (2016), “Peasant Revolts,” 4–5, 11.
  12. ↑ Tanaka Sōgorō 田中惣五郎, Tōyō Shakaitō kō 東洋社会党考 [A Study of the Eastern Socialist Party] (Tokyo: Ichigensha, 1930); Komatsu Yutaka 小松裕, “Tarui Tōkichi to Tōyō Shakaitō” 樽井藤吉と東洋社会党 [Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party], Ōsaka jiken kenkyū 大阪事件研究 5 (July 1986): 14–19; Shields, James Mark (2019), “Carrying Buddha into the Streets: Buddhist Socialist Thought in Modern Japan,” in Gereon Kopf, ed., The Dao Companion to Japanese Buddhist Philosophy, 255–85, 256–60.
  13. ↑ Tarui Tōkichi 樽井藤吉, “Tōyō Shakaitō tōsoku sōan” 東洋社会党党則草案 [Draft Regulations of the Eastern Socialist Party], in Nihon shakai undō shisō shi 日本社会運動思想史, ed. Itoya Hisao 絲屋寿雄 and Kishimoto Eitarō 岸本英太郎, vol. 2 (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1968), 125–29; Shields (2019), “Carrying Buddha into the Streets,” 256–59.
  14. ↑ Kurokawa Teizaburō 黒川貞三郎, “‘Tōyō Shakaitō’ ron” 「東洋社会党」論 [On the Eastern Socialist Party], Seikei kenkyū 政経研究 28, no. 3 (1991): 39–42.
  15. ↑ Shields (2019), “Carrying Buddha into the Streets,” 255–60.
  16. ↑ “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), 91–100.
  17. ↑ Shields (2017), Against Harmony, 99–128; Shields, James Mark (2017), “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’,” Japan Review 30: 79–96.
  18. ↑ Takagi Kenmyō 高木顕明, “Yo ga shakaishugi” 余が社会主義 [My Socialism] (1904); Hishiki Masaharu 菱木政晴 (2012), Gokuraku no ninzu: Takagi Kenmyō “Yo ga shakaishugi” o yomu 極楽の人数――高木顕明『余が社会主義』を読む (Tokyo: Hakutakusha); Shields, James Mark (2017), Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan (Oxford University Press), 145–52.
  19. ↑ Shields, James Mark (2017), Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan (Oxford University Press), 153–62; Sanada Yoshiaki 眞田芳憲 (2016), “Taigyaku jiken to zensō Uchiyama Gudō no ‘Bukkyō shakaishugi’ to sono kōdō no kiseki: Zensō Gudō no teikō no shūkyōteki rinri to sekinin” 大逆事件と禅僧内山愚童の「仏教社会主義」とその行動の軌跡――禅僧愚童の抵抗の宗教的倫理と責任 [The High Treason Incident and Zen Priest Uchiyama Gudō's “Buddhist Socialism” and the Course of His Activities: The Religious Ethics and Responsibility of Gudō's Resistance], Chūō Gakujutsu Kenkyūjo kiyō 中央学術研究所紀要 45: 2–61, 20–21.
  20. ↑ Shields (2017), Against Harmony, 153–56; Sanada (2016), “Taigyaku jiken to zensō Uchiyama Gudō,” 32–39; Sanada Yoshiaki 眞田芳憲 (2018), “Taigyaku jiken” to zensō Uchiyama Gudō no teikō 〈大逆事件〉と禅僧内山愚童の抵抗 (Tokyo: Kōsei Shuppansha).
  21. ↑ Shields, James Mark (2017), Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan (Oxford University Press), 163–80; Brons, Lajos (2022), A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism (punctum books), 77–80.
  22. ↑ Shields (2017), Against Harmony, 181–205, 213–16.
  23. ↑ Shields, James Mark (2012), “A Blueprint for Buddhist Revolution: The Radical Buddhism of Seno'o Girō (1889–1961) and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 39, no. 2: 333–51; Shields, James Mark (2017), Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan (Oxford University Press), 203–43.
  24. ↑ Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎, “Shakai henkaku tojō no shinkō Bukkyō” 社会変革途上の新興仏教 [Revitalized Buddhism on the Road to Social Transformation] (1933), repr. in Seno'o Girō shūkyō ronshū 妹尾義郎宗教論集 (1975), 325–88; Shields (2017), Against Harmony, 203–43; [Matsune/state sources for repression].
  25. ↑ Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦, Bukkyōsha no sensō sekinin 仏教者の戦争責任 [The War Responsibility of Buddhists] (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1970); Shields, James Mark (2017), Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan (Oxford University Press), [pages].
  26. ↑ Ichikawa Hakugen, “Nihon ni okeru Bukkyō shakaishugi no mondai” 日本における仏教社会主義の問題 [The Problem of Buddhist Socialism in Japan], repr. in Ichikawa Hakugen chosakushū 市川白弦著作集, vol. 3, Bukkyō no sensō sekinin 仏教の戦争責任 (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1993), [pages]; Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., Introduction to Buddhist East Asia (State University of New York Press), 281–304.
  27. ↑ Hakamaya Noriaki 袴谷憲昭, Hihan Bukkyō 批判仏教 [Critical Buddhism] (Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1990); Matsumoto Shirō 松本史朗, Engi to kū: Nyoraizō shisō hihan 縁起と空――如来蔵思想批判 [Dependent Origination and Emptiness: A Critique of Tathāgatagarbha Thought] (Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1989); Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., Introduction to Buddhist East Asia (State University of New York Press), 281–304.
  28. ↑ Totten, George O. (1960), “Buddhism and Socialism in Japan and Burma,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 2, no. 3: 293–304, 295–96, 302–3.
  29. ↑ Brons, Lajos (2022), A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism (punctum books); Shields, James Mark (2017), Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan (Oxford University Press); Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., Introduction to Buddhist East Asia (State University of New York Press), 281–304.
Retrieved from "https://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/index.php?title=Japan&oldid=1311"