Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download S t Zen in Meiji Japan: The Life and Times of Nishiari
Document related concepts
Pratītyasamutpāda wikipedia , lookup
Buddhist texts wikipedia , lookup
Dhyāna in Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Buddhist philosophy wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism and violence wikipedia , lookup
Buddhist influences on print technology wikipedia , lookup
Buddhist art wikipedia , lookup
Early Buddhist schools wikipedia , lookup
Buddhist ethics wikipedia , lookup
Enlightenment in Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism in Thailand wikipedia , lookup
History of Buddhism in Cambodia wikipedia , lookup
History of Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Persecution of Buddhists wikipedia , lookup
D. T. Suzuki wikipedia , lookup
Greco-Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Dalit Buddhist movement wikipedia , lookup
Women in Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
History of Buddhism in India wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism and psychology wikipedia , lookup
Pre-sectarian Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism and sexual orientation wikipedia , lookup
Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent wikipedia , lookup
Silk Road transmission of Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism in Myanmar wikipedia , lookup
Zen scriptures wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism in Vietnam wikipedia , lookup
Triratna Buddhist Community wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
StZeninMeijiJapan: TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan athesisinBuddhistStudiesforUCBerkeley, withaprefacefortheAmericanSangha by JiryuMarkRutschmanByler December,2014 WƌĞĨĂĐĞĨŽƌƚŚĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶĞŶ^ĂŶŐŚĂ Howdiditcometothis?HowdidtheBuddhismofShakyamuni’sdisciplesbecomethe ChanofHuinengandtheZenofDgen–andhowdidWesternersthentransformDgen’sZen intothenovelwaysofpracticeandteachingfoundataplacelikeSanFranciscoZenCenter? I’vebeenlongpuzzledbythisquestion–especiallythelastpart,ofhowweendedupwiththis –and,likemany,I’veassumedthattheanswerliessomewhereintheWest.Wemodernized Zeninthemanywaysthatwehave,andweWesternizedZeninthemanywaysthatwehave. IngeneralthebooksonWesternBuddhismgivethatimpression,andthereiscertainlysome truthtoit. ButasIbegantostudytheJapaneseZenofthelastcenturyandahalf,IrealizedthatI’d beenaskingthewrongquestion.ShunrySuzuki,forexample,didnotbringtheZenofDgen toSanFrancisco,hebroughttheZenofearlytwentiethcenturyJapan.Inparticular,hebrought theZenofascholarmonknamedKishizawaIan,whomhecalledhis“master”andwithwhom hestudiedfortwentyfiveyears.SotherightwaytounderstandtheWestern“transformation” ofBuddhismisnottomeasureitagainstDgen’smonasticismbutinsteadtoask:howhavewe turnedearlytwentiethcenturyJapaneseZenintoourcontemporaryWesternpractice? IsaythisbecausewhatIdiscoveredinmystudyisobviousbutimportant:theworldof SuzukiRoshi’sZentraininghadverylittletodowiththeworldofDgenZenji’sZenandChan training.TheZenworldthatSuzukiRoshitrainedin–aworldhesharedgenerallywithpeople likeKishizawaIanandKdSawakiandHakuunYasutaniandTaizanMaezumiandJshSasaki –wasnotonlycenturiesremovedfromDgen’smonasticismbutwasinfactaworldthathad alreadybeeninfluencedbytheWest,hadalreadybeenmodernizedandtosomedegree adaptedtoWesternsensibilitiesandepistemologies. Inotherwords,muchofthetransformationofZenthatIhaveassumedtookplaceinthe WestinthemidtolatetwentiethcenturyinfacttookplaceinJapansomewhatearlier. Specifically,ittookplaceoverthecourseoftheMeijiPeriod(18681912),atimeofintense turmoilandchangeinJapanasthenationscrambledtodealwiththeinfluxofWestern “modern”values,thought,technologies,andinstitutions,andrushedtocarveoutaplacefor itselfwithinthat.IpictureWesternmodernityasanenormoustrainhurtlingdownthetrack towardsJapanintheperiod;thecountrycouldeitherhoponandoutfitasuitable(ifsecond class)carforitself,oritcouldbecrushedlikeatwigonthetracks.Muchofthedebateand transformationacrossallaspectsofJapanesesocietyatthetime–fromeducationand governmenttocultureandreligion–canIthinkbeunderstoodthroughthisimage.Thesame imagecanalsoilluminateJapan’sturntowardsincreasingmilitarizationandimperialisminthe earlytomidtwentiethcentury:themoodthen,too,was“hoponorbecrushed,”colonizeor becolonized. TheBuddhistleadersoftheMeijiPeriodhadtorespondnotonlytogovernment pressure–likeorderstoclarifytheboundariesanddoctrinesoftheirrespectivesects,orthe decriminalizationofpriests’marrying–buttheywerealsochallengedbythevigorousandvital laycentered“NewBuddhist”movementthatwasspringingupwithinandaroundthe institutions,pushingtheminavariouswaystomodernizeandbecomemoreWesternfriendly. IseenowthatthedebatesandstrugglesbornofthesetensionswithinJapanese BuddhismintheMeijiPeriodhaveatleastasmuchtodowithgettinguswherewearetodayin AmericanZenasdoanyoftheinsights,adaptations,anddeparturesfromtraditionenactedby thefoundersandshapersofAmericanZen.Thisisthebasicinsightthathasexcitedmeabout theperiodandthathasdrivenmetostudyit. ____ ThisprojectbeganwithasuggestionfromCharliePokorny,myfriendandelderbrother inDharma,thatIconsiderstudyingKishizawaIan,thegreatscholarmonkoftheearly twentiethcenturyandlongtimeteachertoSuzukiRoshi.SuzukiRoshihadafewteachers, includinghistransmissionmasterGyokujunSoon,butitbecomesclearinhisrecordedlectures andinDavidChadwick’saccountofhislifethathisgreatestinfluenceisverylikelyKishizawa Ian.AsIbegantopokearoundsomeJapanesesourcesforinformationonKishizawa,Iwas amazedtodiscoverthathewasinfactaninfluentialfigureinmodernStZen,amonkand scholarofsomeprestigeandtheauthorofawellknownandmassivetwentyfourvolume commentaryonShbgenzcalledtheCompleteLecturesonShbgenz(Shbgenzzenk ↓⌅㭥ޘ䅋).Iwasstunnedthatateacherthisprodigiousandinfluentialwouldbevirtually unknownandlargelyunacknowledgedbymostofusinthelineageofSuzukiRoshi. AsIbegantostudymore,however,IrealizedthatKishizawa,asimportantafigureashe is,workedlargelyintheshadowofhisteacher,ascholarmonknamedNishiariBokusan. Nishiariissometimescalledthe“fatherofmodernSt”andhisown(muchshorter) Shbgenzcommentaryisthefirstandwithoutquestionthemostinfluentialofthemodern sectarianworksonDgen.TounderstandSuzukiRoshiandcontemporaryAmericanZen,Ihad feltthatIneededtounderstandKishizawa;tounderstandKishizawa,though,itseemedIhadto looktoNishiariBokusan.Thisdoesnotregressinfinitely(although,asthecircularlineage documentsshow,itkindofdoes)–Nishiariwasadevoteddiscipleofeventuallyprominent teachers,buthisworkwasbynomeanssimplyderivativefromtheirs. AsmyeyesopenedtotheimportanceofNishiari,Inoticedthatthoughhetooremains largelyunacknowledgedinAmericanZencircles,heisabitbetterknownthanKishizawa.I noticed,forinstance,thatMelWeitsmanandKazTanahashihadrecentlycompleteda translationofhiscommentsonGenjkan,publishedinMichaelWenger’sbookDogen’s Genjokoan:ThreeCommentaries(2011).Ialsobegantofindafewoddreferencestohislife andworkinbookslikeRichardJaffe’sgroundbreakingNeitherMonknorLayman,Kim’sEihei Dgen:MysticalRealist,Heine’scollectionDgen:TextualandHistoricalStudies,andPaul Jaffe’stranslationofYasutani’sGenjokoancommentary,FlowersFall.Still,Icouldfindvery littleinEnglishaboutNishiari’slifeandevenlessabouthisinfluenceonourcontemporary understandingofDgen’smeaning. WhileIstillhopedtoexploretheworkofKishizawa,aswellasthatofOkaStan, anotherstudentofNishiari’sandamentortoKishizawa,itseemedclearthatIneededtostart withNishiariBokusan.IhadhopedinthisprojecttoincludesometranslationsfromNishiari’s work,andhadnarroweditdownparticularlytohislecturesonaprecepttext(theBussoshden zenkaish⾆↓ۣ⾵ᡂ䡄)bytheeighteenthcenturyscholarmonkBanjinDtan(another majorStfigurelargelyunacknowledgedinAmericanZen!).Ifirstwantedtotellthestoryof Nishairi’slife,however,andasIworkedonthebackgroundofMeijiBuddhism,andofMeiji St,thatIfeltwouldbenecessarytocontextualizeit,IrealizedthatIhadbittenofmuchmore thanIcouldchew.Includingatranslationwiththispaperprovedtoomuchtomanage,asdida studyofNishiari’sapproachtoDgen. Whatisleftthen,islessastudythanastory:astoryofthetumultofMeijiBuddhism, thebirthofthemodernStsect,andthelifeofamannamedNishiariBokusan.It’sastoryI hadtowriteinacademicese,butIhopethatyoucanreadthroughtoapictureofthetime,and thatyoumaycometosharemysenseofappreciationanddebttothemanyMeijiPeriodvoices thatshapedmodernStZen. ______ Thisproject,aswellasthetwoyearsofgraduatestudyatUCBerkeleythatitrepresents, wouldhavebeenimpossiblewithoutthesupportofbeingstoonumeroustoname.Iwill nonethelessnameafew. Asnotedabove,IamindebtedtoCharliePokornyforhisinitialpushintothisareaof study.MyownZenteacherSojunMelWeitsmanencouragedmeinthisregard,andIam gratefulforhisworkonNishiariandespeciallyforhisongoingteachingandsupport.Hehas beenvitalinkeepingmeconnectedwiththebasicsourceofmyenergyforDharmastudy. IwouldnothavebegunthisprojectorbeenabletopursueacademicBuddhistStudiesat allwithoutthedeepandunwarrantedsupportofProf.RobertSharf,sometimeschairofthe GroupinBuddhistStudiesatUCBerkeley.Hiswillingnesstosponsormeasastudentunderthe umbrellaoftheGroup,andtoworkwithmeonmyfledglingAsianlanguageskillsandmy“Zen modernist”assumptionsaboutBuddhism,hasbeenoftremendousbenefit.Hisinfluencehas definedthisphaseofmylife.ManyknowProf.SharfinZencirclesforhissharplycritical(and veryuseful)workonthenotionof“religiousexperience”asthehallmarkofZen,butthosewho knowhimonlythroughhiswritingmaynotknowhispersonalwarmthandgenuinesympathy (inallsensesoftheword)forthoseofuswhopracticetheformsofZenandworktodevelop themodernAmericanZeninstitutions.Ishouldacknowledgetoothatwithouttheexampleand adviceofmylongtimeDharmafriendEricGreene,alsoastudentofProf.Sharf’s,itnever wouldhaveoccurredtomethatUCBerkeleycouldbeanoptionformeorthatProf.Sharf wouldevergivemethetimeofday. Prof.Sharfmentoredmeoverthecourseofmydegreeandofthisproject,butasI beganworkinearnestonthewritingIwasalsoabletoenlistthesupportofProf.MarkBlum, chairofJapaneseBuddhistStudiesatUCBerkeley,andProf.RichardJaffeofDukeUniversity. Prof.BlumspecializesinthePureLandtraditionsandisascholarofenormousrange–hehas writtenonmodernandpremodernJapaneseBuddhismandisthetranslatoroftheNirvana SutrafromtheChinese.Iamverygratefulforhissupport,andespeciallyforhisgenerosityin designingagraduateseminaronMeijiBuddhismlargelytosupportmeinmyresearch.Prof. Jaffe,whohashimselflivedandpracticedattheSanFranciscoZenCenter,hasdonethemost workofanyscholarinEnglishonStZenintheMeijiPeriod,andhisbookNeitherMonkNor Laymanwasnotonlyveryusefulformepersonallyinmypaststruggleswiththeidealofclerical celibacy,butalsoopenedmyeyestoimportanceoftheMeijiPeriod.Iamenormouslygrateful forhistime,insights,andencouragementinthisproject,andhiswillingnesstositonmythesis committeedespitehisfullschedule. Byanamazingcoincidence,twoofthepostdoctoralfellowsinJapaneseBuddhismatUC BerkeleyovermytimetherehavebeenexpertsinthemodernhistoryofStZen,andwhile mytimewithbothofthemwastoolimited,Ibenefittedenormouslyfromconversationswith DominickScarangelloandMichaelaMross. DespitealloftheacademicsupportIhavereceived,Iamcertainthatthisprojectis wrackedbymistakes,oversights,gaps,andoutrightmisinformation,allofwhichisentirelymy owndoing. ThatIhavebeenabletoundertakethisperiodofacademicstudywhileremainingin residenceatGreenGulchFarmZenCenterhasbeenanincrediblegift,andIamgratefultoallof theSanFranciscoZenCentercommunityforsupportingmyabsencefromtheworkandpractice lifeduringthistime.IamparticularlygratefultothesupportofAbbessEijunCuttsandRobert Thomas,inhisroleasPresidentofSanFranciscoZenCenter,whowentoutonalimbin allowingmetocontinueresidencywhileIstudiedfulltime. Finally,IneedtoexpressmygratitudetomyboysFrankandDustyforthejoyand sustainingenergytheybringintomylife,andespeciallytomywifeSaraforherunflagging supportofme,spiritually,emotionally,andquitepracticallyasmystudiesleftmeattimesan absentfather,spouse,andhousemate. Thisproject,flawedasitis,isdedicatedtothememoryofAbbotMygenSteveStücky. Hispresenceandfaithinmehasbeenagreatblessinginmylife,andhisencouragementofmy studiespavedthewayforthiswork.Maymyliferevealhiscompassion. Whateverscantmeritthisstudymaygenerateisturnedoverandofferedforthebenefit oflivingbeings. JiryuMarkRutschmanByler GreenDragonTemple December2014 StZeninMeijiJapan: TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan by MarkRicardoRutschmanByler Athesissubmittedinpartialsatisfactionofthe requirementsforthedegreeof MasterofArts in AsianStudies inthe GraduateDivision ofthe UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley Committeeincharge: ProfessorRobertSharf,UCBerkeley ProfessorRichardJaffe,DukeUniversity ProfessorMarkBlum,UCBerkeley Fall2014 MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan ŝŶŵĞŵŽƌLJŽĨ SteveStücky DaitsMygen㏻᫂║ 19462013 pg.i MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan CONTENTS Introduction SectionI:BuddhisminMeijiJapan PartI:TheMeijiPersecutionofBuddhism TokugawaPeriodRoots SeparationandEradication:ShinbutsuBunriandHaibutsuKishaku TheDecriminalizationofClericalMarriage TheGreatTeachingAcademy PartII:TheMeijiReinventionofBuddhism NewBuddhism TheChristianInfluence:BuddhistSocialWorkandLayBuddhism SectarianismandTranssectarianism WesternAcademics,SectarianStudies,andtheBuddhistUniversities BuddhismandNationalismintheMeiji SectionII:StZeninMeijiJapan TwoTemples,OneSect:EiheijiandSjiji StandardizingStandards:TheTjGyjiKihan(1889) StandardizingDoctrine:TheStKykaiShushgi(1890) DgenfortheMeiji:TheGenze(1905) pg.ii MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan SectionIII:TheLifeofNishiariBokusan PartI:EarlyLifeandZenTraining ChildhoodandOrdinationunderKinry(18211839) TrainingwithEtsuon(18391841) TrainingintheCapitalandAscendingthroughtheRanks(18411849) TrainingwiththeGenzkaGettanZenry(18491862) SsanjiAbbacy(18621871) TrainingandEnlightenmentwithMorotakeEkid(18521855) PartII:NishiariandtheMeijiBuddhistPersecutionandReinvention EvangelizingfortheState(18721874) ReformingtheSangha NishiarionClericalMarriageandBuddhistCosmology NishiarionClericalDress NishiariandAlcohol(“PrajñWater”) NishiariandtheRenewalofStDoctrinalStudy PartIII:LaterLife Relics,Deities,Icons:Hkji(18741877)andKasuisai(18771892) BetweenElections:Denshinji(18921901) AtthePinnacleoftheSect(19011905) FinalYears(19051910) Appendix:ThePublishedWorksofNishiariBokusan WorksCited pg.iii MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.1 INTRODUCTION ThoughwellknowninJapaneseZencirclesasafatherofthemodernStSect(Stsh ᭪Ὕ᐀),littlehasbeenwritteninEnglishabouttheeminentclericNishiariBokusanす᭷✕ᒣ (18211910).NishiarirosetoprominenceinthesectduringtheMeiji᫂period(18681912), atimeofgreatupheavalinJapaneseBuddhismandtheperiodoftheinstitutionalbirthofthe StSect.Atthepeakofhiscareer,NishiariservedasabbotoftheStheadtempleSjiji⥲ ᣢᑎand,foratime,aschiefabbotofthesect(Stshkanch᭪Ὕ᐀⟶㛗),andhemadea lastingmarkonStdoctrinalstudies,especiallythroughhisstudiesoftheShbgenz(ṇἲ ║ⶶ,“TreasuryoftheTrueDharmaEye”)ofJapaneseStpatriarchEiheiDgen(Ọᖹ㐨ඖ, 12001253). IaiminthethreesectionsofthispapertopresentthelifeandcareerofNishiari BokusaninitscontextofMeijiBuddhismand,specifically,MeijiSt.InSectionOneIpresent anaccountofthegeneralsituationofBuddhismintheMeiji,drawingfromarangeofexcellent Englishlanguagescholarshiponthetopic.InSectionTwoIrelyonamorescatteredsetof secondarysources,largelyinEnglishbutwherenecessaryinJapanese,topiecetogetheran accountofthemajorelementsofStZenintheMeiji,anaccountthat—despiteafew importantcontributions—hasyettobecoherentlyorcomprehensivelypresentedinEnglish.In SectionThreeIturntothelifeofNishiariBokusan.Limitingmyselftoabiographicaltreatment andleavingadoctrinalanalysisofhisinfluentialworksliketheShbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║ⶶၨ ㏔foranothertimeortoabetterqualifiedscholar,inthissectionIdrawespeciallyfrom JapanesebiographicalsourcestointroducethelifeandcareerofthismajorStfigure. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.2 SECTIONI BuddhisminMeijiJapan WhileMeijiBuddhismwasslowtobecomeestablishedasalegitimatetopicforBuddhist scholars,inrecentdecadesithasreceivedconsiderableattention.AccordingtoJaffeandMohr, themostimportantscholarinthedevelopmentofthefieldwasIkedaEishunụ⏣ⱥಇ,whose groundbreaking1976work,Meijinoshinbukkyund᫂ࡢ᪂ᩃ㐠ື,wasbuiltuponby scholarslikeKashiwaharaYsen᯽ཎ♸Ἠ,TamamuroFumioᆂᐊᩥ㞝,andYoshidaKyichiྜྷ ⏣ஂ୍(JaffeandMohr1998,1–2).ToJaffeandMohr’s1998listmustcertainlybeaddeda numberofmorerecentworksintheburgeoningfield,likethatofSuekiFumihikoᮎᮌᩥ⨾ኈ. ThoughthefoundationalstudiesofMeijiBuddhismhavenaturallybeeninJapanese,significant Englishlanguagescholarshiponthetopichasalsobeentricklingoutsincethe1980s.Whileitis farfromexhaustive,theEnglishlanguagescholarshipismatureenoughtoprovidethebasisfor asolidoverviewofthetopic,especiallywhenconsideredinconjunctionwiththearrayof generalhistoricalstudiesoftheperiod,amongwhichJansen(2000)andGluck(1985)standout. InthisoverviewIwillleanheavilyontheworksofStaggs(1979),Grapard(1984),Thelle(1987), Hardacre(1989),Ikeda(1998),Mohr(1998),Jaffe(2001),Snodgrass(2003),andBlum(2011). Thetwoworksthatmostneatlyservemypurpose,andwhicharecitedextensivelyinthepages tofollow,areCollcutt(1986)and,byfarthemostcitedsourceinalloftheEnglishlanguage treatments,Ketelaar(1990). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.3 PartI:TheMeijiPersecutionofBuddhism dŽŬƵŐĂǁĂWĞƌŝŽĚZŽŽƚƐ TounderstandthebasisoftheantiBuddhistpoliciesthatcharacterizetheearlyMeiji government’sattitudetowardsBuddhism,itisusefultolookbacktothesituationofBuddhism intheTokugawaᚨᕝperiod(16001868).Therehasinthescholarshipofthelastdecades beenabacklashagainstthetendencyofearlierhistoriansandBuddhologiststouncritically accepttheMeijiaccountofTokugawaBuddhism,anaccountwhichtakestheantiBuddhist measuresoftheMeijiasanecessaryandpurificatoryresponsetothecorruptionand degradationoftheTokugawaBuddhistclergyandinstitutions.1An1871promulgationbythe MinistryofthePeople(MimbushẸ㒊┬)isemblematicofthisrhetoric,whichwasnotlimited tothegovernmentorantiBuddhistintellectualsbutwasreproducedevenbytheBuddhist institutionsthemselves:“Priestswhohavelongbeenbastionsofdecadence…arethemselves responsibleforthedestructionofBuddhism”(Ketelaar1990,43).Atypicalexampleofthe widespread,uncriticalreproductionofthisdiscourseinthescholarshipisKishimoto’sJapanese ReligionintheMeijiEra,atextwhichiscoloredthroughoutbythenarrativeoftheregenerative benefitoftheMeijipersecution;onesection,inthechapteron“ReligionintheTokugawa,”is tellinglytitled“BuddhistSpiritualStagnation”(Kishimoto1956,10–13). ButtojoinrecentscholarsinwithholdingjudgmentonthemoralcharacterofTokugawa periodclergyisbynomeanstodenythatthedeepinterpenetrationoftheTokugawa 1 Ketelaarishighlycritical,forexample,ofthe“disappointingregularity”withwhicharemadesuch “decidedlymoralisticconclusions”basedon“anidealizedconceptionofBuddhism.”Hecitesas emblematictheessaysofTsujiZennosuke㎷ၿஅຓontheearlymoderndeclineofBuddhismandhis assessmentsofthepersecutionas“purifying”(Ketelaar1990,11–13).Collcuttisabitmoremoderatein hisassessment,admittingthatitis“impossibletodenythatinstitutionalBuddhismintheTokugawa periodhadlostmuchofitsearliervitality,”butarguingthatthewidespreadpopularityofBuddhist festivals,pilgrimages,etc.,andthevigoroffigureslikeHakuinⓑ㞃(16861768),Bankei┙⌛(1622 1693),andJiunSonjaឿ㞼ᑛ⪅(17181804),provideacriticalcounterpointtothesimplisticdecline narratives(Collcutt1986,146n).AmongtherecentEnglishlanguageworks,Victoria’sstandsoutasleast criticaloftheseclaims,sympatheticallycitingharshassessmentsofTokugawaBuddhismbyAnesaki Masaharuጜᓮṇ(18731949),RobertBellah,andJosephKitagawa(Victoria2006,4).Mohr,onthe otherhand,inausefultreatmentofZenintheTokugawaperiod,finds,“surprisinglyforareputedly moribundtradition,”considerabledynamismanddiversitywithinandbetweenBuddhistsects(Mohr 1994,363). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.4 governmentandBuddhistinstitutionscreatedanexceedinglycomfortableclimatefor Buddhism.Whetherornotthatcomfortbredwidespreaddecadenceandcorruption,it certainlydidfostersignificantantiBuddhistsentiment,particularlyamongthesamuraiclass. TheclearestandstrongestaspectofthisproblematicinterpenetrationofChurchandStatewas thedankaseido᷄ᐙไᗘ,asysteminwhichthegovernment,largelyasameanstoresist Christianity,mandatedthateachhouseholdinthecountryregisterwith(andfinancially support)aBuddhisttemple.2Flushwiththefundsextractedfromthesemandatory relationships,theBuddhistinstitutionscouldinturnprovidesignificantfinancialservicestothe government.3WhileBuddhismwasdominantpolitically,servingineffectas“areligiousarmof thesystemofpoliticalcontrols,”andthoughitretainedsignificantpopularsupportthroughout theperiod,intellectuallyBuddhismwas“onthedefensivethroughouttheTokugawaperiod”in thefaceofattacksfromincreasinglypowerfulantiBuddhiststreamsofConfucian,Shint,and NationalLearning(kokugakuᅜᏛ)thought,aswellasWesternstudies(Collcutt1986,144– 145).Furthermore,whiletheTokugawagovernmentneverlostitsdependenceontheBuddhist establishment,itwassensitivetotheincreasinglyantiBuddhistclimateandbeganinthelater partoftheeratocallforrestrictionsonBuddhistexpansionandauthority.Heedingthesecalls, respondingtolocalsentiment,andservingtheirownConfucian,Shint,orNativistinclinations, administratorsinvariousregionsbeganasearlyasthemidseventeenthcenturytoenactlocal antiBuddhistpurgesofvaryingintensityandefficacy.Thesepersecutionsprovidedthebasis, andinsomecaseseventhepersonnel,forthenationalantiBuddhistprojectthatwouldfollow inthefirstdaysoftheMeijiRestorationof1868.4 ThesedeeprootsintheTokugawaperiodoftheMeijiantiBuddhistprogram,andthe commonTokugawaandMeijigovernmentobjectivesofcentralizationandcontroloftheclergy, leadMohrtoarguefora“shroudedcontinuity”betweentheTokugawaandMeijiregimes.He arguesthat“theselfproclaimed‘new’Meijigovernmenthadthesamegoalasthedeposed Bakufu”and“merelywentontoenforc[e]moreradicallypoliciesthathadbeenpursuedfor twohundredandfiftyyears.”HeseesthemostextremeantiBuddhistmeasuresoftheearly MeijinotasmarkingaturningpointinthedynamicsbetweenthegovernmentandtheBuddhist institutions,butsimplyasshortsightedandpoliticallyimmatureattemptsbytheMeiji 2 Forahistoricaloverviewofthedankaseido,seeHur2007andMarcure1985. 3 ThefinancialsupportoftheTokugawagovernmentbyBuddhisttempleswasevidenttotheperiod’s verylastdays,aswiththecaseoftheHigashiHonganjiᮾᮏ㢪ᑎgivingmoneyandmanpowertothe bakufuarmiesaslateas1867.Thissortoffinancialassistancefromtemplestothegovernment continuedintotheMeiji.SeeKetelaar1990,71–72. 4 ThemostimportantoftheTokugawaperiodBuddhistpurgeswereinthedomainsofMito Ỉᡞ and Satsuma ⸃ᦶ,butthecrackdownsinthedomainsofChsh 㛗ᕞ,Okayama ᒸᒣ,Aizu ὠ,and Tsuwano ὠ㔝werealsosignificantbothforlocalBuddhistsandinthedevelopmentofnationalanti Buddhistpolicies.CollcuttandKetelaardiscusstheseprecursorpurgesindetail(Collcutt1986,146–151; Ketelaar1990,43–86). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.5 governmenttofollowTokugawaeraprecedent,albeitnewlycouchedintermsof“nation”and nationalidentity(Mohr1998,167–168). WhileKetelaarisoverallmuchmorecommittedthanMohrtoassertingthe discontinuityandnoveltyoftheMeijiperiod,hetooseessomecontinuitiesinantiBuddhist strategies.HeoutlinesafourpartprocessbywhichthelocaleradicationofBuddhismwas attemptedintheMitoDomaininthemidseventeenththroughmidnineteenthcenturies,and arguesthatitsstructurewasparadigmatic,soontobereplicatednotonlybyotherdomainsbut alsointhenationalproject.HisanalysisbelowthusservesnotjusttodescribetheMito persecutionbutalsothenationalstrategy: TheinstitutionalizationofantiBuddhistpolicyduringtheMeijiera involvesafourfoldprocess:(1)theestablishmentofagovernment officevestedwithcomprehensiveauthorityover“religious affairs”;(2)theconductingofaprecisesurveytodeterminethe imminentpoliticalandeconomiccontoursoftheinstitutionsin question;(3)thedecimationofBuddhisttemples,rites,and priestlypracticesandevenoftheBuddhistpriesthooditself;and (4)theconstructionofasystemtosuppressBuddhism’s differences,particularlythoseofitsformsevocativeofthe carnivalesque.5(Ketelaar1990,54) ^ĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ShinbutsuBunriĂŶĚHaibutsuKishaku Theterm“eradication”aptlydescribesMeijiantiBuddhistpolicy;itispreciselythe senseoftheMeijieraslogan“abolishBuddhismanddestroyShakyamuni”(haibutsukishakuᗫ ẋ㔘),anddoeslikelyexpresstheexperienceofthoseonbothsidesofthe“eradication”of 5 Inusingtheterm“carnivalesque,”ashedoesthroughouthisstudy,Ketelaarisexplicitlydrawingonthe workofMikhailBakhtintoexpressthevolatile,uncontrolled,liberativepotentialitythatstandsin oppositiontoattemptsto,inBakhtin’swords,“absolutizethegivenconditionsofexistenceandthe socialorder.”DemonstratingthatnotonlyShugendಟ㦂㐨,divination,exorcism,etc.,butalsopublic nudity,eroticliterature,dramaticlampoons,standupcomedy,andothernonreligiouscustomsand entertainmentswerebannedbytheMeijiregime,Ketelaararguesconvincinglythatitisthe carnivalesquequalityitself,ratherthanBuddhistinstitutionalpowerorBuddhismperse,thatwasthe realthreatthattheMeijiregimewasintenttoeradicate.By“theconstructionofasystemtosuppress Buddhism’sdifference,”Ketelaarisreferringtothefabricationoftraditions,festivals,observances, spaces,etc.toreplacetheirBuddhistcounterpartswhileservingmoreneatlytheneedsoftheState ideology,afabricationculminatedinthesocalledStateShint.SeeKetelaar1990,50–54. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.6 anygiventemple.Theinitial,officialgovernmentpolicy,though,wasostensiblynotof eradicationbutofseparation,namelythe“separationofShintandBuddhism”(shinbutsu bunri⚄ศ㞳).6Separationisalogicalinitialstepinanyprocessoferadication,however,and itisnosurprisethattheedictsoutliningthepolicyofshinbutsubunri,issuedinthefirstmonth ofthenewMeijigovernmentin1868,werewidelyperceivedasaharbingerofandlicensefor eradication.ItwasabundantlyclearthatBuddhismwastobecategorizedamongthe“ancient evils”(kyrainorshᪧ᮶ࣀ㝄⩦)whichthefoundingdocumentoftheMeijiwasintenton eradicating(Ketelaar1990,86).7Itisalsolikelythattheofficialsresponsiblefortheseparation edicts,thestaffofthenewlyformedOfficeofRites(jingijimukyoku⚄♲ົᒁ,later,Ministry ofRitesjingikan⚄♲ᐁ),were,asreformShintistsandhardlineNativistsexperiencedinthe localantiBuddhistcampaignsoftheTokugawaperiod,didintendandhopeto“eradicate”the “ancientevil”ofBuddhism.AsCollcuttsuggests,though,thenewregimewassensitivetothe possibilitythatanovertpolicyoferadication“mighthaveprovokedfurtherlocaloppositionand contributedtoincreasedpoliticalinstability”(Collcutt1986,151).Theostensiblyneutral languageof“separation,”then,shouldnotbeunderstoodasexpressinganauthentically moderateagenda.Maskingthemorebasiceffortto“eradicate,”therhetoricof“separation”is aninstanceofthekindofdiscourseanalyzedbyKetelaarinhisdescriptionoftheparadigmatic Mitopersecution,inwhichtemplesarenot“destroyed”but“managed”(shobunฎศ)or “amalgamated”(gappeiྜే),andinwhichtheforcedlaicizationofpriestsisnotaviolencebut a“returntofarming”(kinᖐ㎰)ora“returntothesecular”(genzoku㑏)(Ketelaar1990, 49). Furthermore,this“separation”ofShintandBuddhism(oreventhe“eradication”of Buddhism)requiredwhatprovedtobeanevenmoreradicalproject,theirrespectivedefinition. ShintandBuddhismhadbeenintertwiningforwelloverathousandyears,iftheyhadever reallybeendistinctatall,andtopullthemaparttheyhadtobedefined.Grapard’s groundbreaking1984article,centeredaroundastudyofthetypical“syncreticcultcenter”of TnomineከṊᓠ,islargelydevotedtodemonstratingtheprofoundextentofBuddhistShint syncretism(anditscollectivesyncretismwithDaoismandConfucianism),suggestingthatitgoes asdeepasdoes“theSinoJapaneseinteractionsoneseesoccurringattheleveloftheJapanese language,”andaccordinglyarguingthattheMeijiera“disruptionoftheShintBuddhist 6 Grapardprefersthemoreviolentconnotationsof“dissociation”to“separation”forbunri;hefurther arguesforthemoreliteralEnglishrenderingofshinbutsuas“ShintandBuddhistdivinities”ratherthan themorecommon“ShintandBuddhism,”insistingonacrucialdistinctionbetweenShintdivinities andtheShintreligioussystem(Grapard1984,241). 7 Thefullpassage,Article4oftheMeijiCharterOath,isᪧ᮶ࣀ㝄⩦ࣤ◚ࣜኳᆅࣀබ㐨ࢽᇶࢡ࣊ࢩ. Jansentranslatesit,“Evilcustomsofthepastshallbebrokenoffandeverythingbaseduponthejust lawsofNature”(Jansen2000,338).Victoriarendersit“Allabsurdusagesoftheoldregimeshallbe abolishedandallmeasuresconductedinconformitywiththerighteouswayofheavenandearth” (Victoria2006,4–5). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.7 discoursewasinfactadenialofculturalhistory”andthesubstitutionofthathistorywith “culturallies”(Grapard1984,242–245).Ketelaardescribesthedifficultiesofthesurveyorsin theSatsumadomainpurge,whoreliedonthe“formofviolence”of“arbitrarylinguistic discriminations”—like“temple”(teraᑎ)versus“shrine”(jinja⚄♫)—todetermineagiven site’sstatusasShintorBuddhist,andheshowshowevensuchemblematic“Shint”symbols likethetorii㫽ᒃgatewayandtheshimenawaᶆ⦖ropewere,priortotheseparation,partsof a“commonreligiouslexicon”(Ketelaar1990,57–59).Anotherexampleofthedeepproblemof “separation,”andthesuperficialfixesappliedtoitbygovernmentagents,isintherenamingof syncreticdivinitiesfromthe“Buddhistsounding”tothe“Shintsounding.”InwhatKetelaar calls“enunciatorygymnastics,”forinstance,thepopularguardiandeity(ofBuddhistorigin) Fudsonືᑛwas,atNaritaᡂ⏣,transformedintoa“Japanesekami”simplybyimposinga rereadingofthesamecharactersasUgokazunomikoto(Ketelaar1990,75). Tonotetheconceptualincoherenceoftheseparationedicts,though,andevento suggest(asdoesKetelaar),8thattheirgreatestlegacywasnotintheirdamagetopersonsand propertiessomuchasintheradicalredefinitionstheycatalyzed,isbynomeanstosuggestthat theseparationedictsweremererhetoric:theviolenceagainstBuddhistsandBuddhist institutionscameswiftandsevere.ThecentralinstitutionsoftheMeijigovernmentwerestill relativelyweak,andlocalautonomyensuredsignificantgeographicvariationinthe enforcementoftheseparationprogram,butneverthelessavastnumberoftemples,statues, texts,andartifactsweredestroyed,andhugenumbersofclericswereforciblylaicized.Grapard istypicalofmanycommentatorsinfacingthelackofquantitativedataonthedamagewith recoursetolocutionslike“innumerable”and“beyondimagination”:“innumerablestatues, paintings,scriptures,ritualimplements,andbuildingsweredestroyed,sold,stolen,burnt,or coveredwithexcrement”;“thedestructionofsyncreticartandtreatisesisbeyondimagination” (Grapard1984,245).Collcuttisexceptionalintherigorwithwhichhepursuesquantitative data,butinhiswellinformedassertionthata“fullaccounting…willprobablyneverbemade” wefallbackagainonthevaguely“innumerable.”Hefinds“dramatic”butonlypiecemeal regionaldataonthephysicaldamageoftheseparationedicts,citinglocalstatisticslikethe completeabsenceoftemplesinSatsumaby1872,theToyamaᐩᒣreductiontoeighttemples fromaprepersecutionnumberofover1,600,andtheTosaᅵబeradicationof439of615 temples(whichincludedthelaicizationoftheirmonks).Collcuttthuslacksconfidenceinanyof thepre1872nationalstatisticsthatarecitedinthescholarship,buthedoesfindreliable numbersforthe18721876timeframe,andshowsthatthedrasticreductionoftemplesand 8 “Theenduringlegacyofthepersecutionyearsisnottobefoundinthetensofthousandsofdestroyed andconfiscatedtemples,inthetonsofbellsmelteddownforcannon,orintheuncountednumbersof headlessstatuesthatcanstillbefounddiscardedalongtheroadsidesofruralJapan.Rather,itisinthe newlycreatedsystemsofreligiouseducation,theconstructionofBuddhistandShinthistories,andthe postpersecutionlegislationofpreciselegalandpoliticalcontoursofallsectarianinstitutionsthatthe antiBuddhistmovementleftitsdeepesttraces.”(Ketelaar1990,76) MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.8 clericscontinuedthroughthatperiod:“Accordingtocensusdata,nearly18,000templeswere closedbetween1872and1876alone.Morethan56,000monksand5,000nuns,togetherwith theirfamiliesandmanyoftheirdisciples,werereturnedtolaylife.”Thesestatisticsdisprove thenotionthattheeradicationeffortwas“asissometimessuggested,asporadicorshortlived phenomenon”(Collcutt1986,156–163). dŚĞĞĐƌŝŵŝŶĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨůĞƌŝĐĂůDĂƌƌŝĂŐĞ CloselyassociatedwiththephysicalviolenceagainstBuddhistpropertieswasthe disestablishmentofBuddhistinstitutions,thenewgovernment’sefforttodivestthemofthe socialstatusandlegalprivilegestheyhadlongenjoyed.ThisdisestablishmentofBuddhism fromitsprivilegedpositionwasasignificantreorderingofnationalhierarchies.Forexample, wherepriorto1869nolaypersonofanyrankcouldbeonhorsebackorinacarriageon Buddhisttemplegrounds,after1869thissortofinsubordinationtoBuddhismwaslegally permissible(Ketelaar1990,68).Broadermeasureslikeuniversalconscriptionandcompulsory educationalsohadasignificantimpactinreducingthestatusandprivilegeofBuddhist institutions.Inshort,earlyintheMeijiperiodthegovernment“eliminat[ed]allstatusprivileges fortheclergy”and“dissolv[ed]manyoftheinstitutionalarrangementsthathadgoverned relationsbetweenreligiousinstitutionsandthestate”duringtheTokugawaperiod(Jaffe1998, 45).Thesedisestablishmenteffortswentsofarastolimitnotonlyinstitutionalpowerbutalso popularBuddhistpractices,andsweepingrestrictionsoroutrightbanswereinstitutedon Buddhistceremonies,ordinations,festivals,andpilgrimage. Perhapsthemostsignificantandlastingmeasuretowardsthedisestablishmentof BuddhismwerethemeasuresthatremovedtheStatefromitsinvolvementinandenforcement ofBuddhistclericaldiscipline.Jaffehasgiventhistopicconsiderableattentionandremainsthe authorityonit:9 Onecruciallaw,promulgatedin1872,decriminalizedavarietyof clericalpracticesthathadbeenillegalaccordingtoBakufu regulationsformuchoftheEdoperiod.Theregulation,commonly referredtoduringtheMeijiperiodasthenikujikisaitai⫗㣗ጔᖏ law,endedallpenaltiesforclericswhoviolatedstateandclerical standardsofdeportmentbyeatingmeat,marrying,lettingtheir hairgrow,orabandoningclericaldress.Althoughmany governmentofficialsviewedtheregulationasanimportant componentofanoverallpolicytomodernizeJapanesesocietyby 9 SeeJaffe1998;Jaffe2001. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.9 abolishingtheoldEdostatussystem(mibunseido㌟ศไᗘ),the headsofalmosteveryBuddhistdenominationconstruedthe measureasanotherattempttodestroyBuddhismbyundermining theireffortstoendtheclericalcorruptionandlaxitythathad invitedtherecentviolentpersecutionofBuddhism.Thechanges ingovernmentpoliciestowardpreceptenforcementsparkeda vitriolicdebateamongclerics,concernedlaypeople,government officials,andthelaityoverthepracticeofnikujikisaitaiandthe rolethatthestateshouldplayinguaranteeingcompliancewith theBuddhistprecepts.FortherestoftheMeijieratheheadsof establishedBuddhistdenominationsgropedforsomewayto respondtothelegalchangesinstitutedbyMeijigovernment leadersandtomaintainorderwithintheirdenominations.(Jaffe 1998,46) Itshouldbeemphasizedthatwhiletherewerecertainlyinstancesofforcedlaicization overthecourseoftheMeijipersecutionofBuddhism,thenikujikisaitailawdidnotconstitutea forced,masslaicizationbythegovernment,butwasonitsfacemerelyanassertionofthewell knownWesternprincipleoftheseparationofChurchandState.TechnicallytheStatewasnot mandatinganything,butwassimplysteppingbackfromitspreviousandproblematicroleasan authorizedenforcerofclericaldiscipline.Decriminalizinganactisnottomandateit,andthere isnothingaboutthenikujikisaitailawthatpreventedclergyfrommaintainingtheformally establishedanddisseminatedcelibacyrequirementoftheirrespectivesects.Asthesectarian leadershipsthemselvesargueddesperatelyforanumberofyearsafterthe1872 decriminalizationorder,clericswereinfactstillaccountabletotheirsects’regulations.Given thelackofpoweronthepartofthesectarianleaders,however,coupledwiththelonghistory ofclericalrulebendingandmarriage,rankandfileclergyhadlittlemotivationtoheedtheir pleas.Thesetwofactorswillbeexploredbelow. Firstly,thecodificationofsectarianboundariesintheMeiji,whilegivinganappearance ofhomogeneityandunitywithintheStateapproved“sects,”maskedintensediversityand factionalismwithinthesects.Asdiscussedelsewhereinthispaper,ineverysectjustbelowthe surfaceofsectarianunitywerecompetinglineagesandbranchesandcompetingresponsesto thechangesoftheMeiji.Thisdiversityandtensionwithineachsectcomplicatedthe administrationofcentralizedcontroloverthesects’branchesandlineages.Hadthenominal sectarianheadsheldgenuine,practicalauthorityovertherankandfileprovincialclergy,they couldhavecompelledthemtoconformwiththeclericalrulesthat(inmostcases)already clearlyforbademarriage.Eveninthefaceoflatergovernmentassertionsthatclericsdid remainresponsibletoclericalrules,however,thesectarianleadershipsprovedsimplytooweak tomaintainclericaldiscipline.Withnoeffectivecentraladministrationofthesects,andinthe absenceofgovernmentenforcement,clericaldisciplinenaturallycollapsed. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.10 Whatthisaccountneglects,however,isasecondandperhapsmoreimportantpoint:at thetimeofthenikujikisaitailaw,“marriage”amongtheclergy,albeitsecretoratleastnon public,waslongestablishedandwidespread.Itisdifficulttoquantifythemarriedclergyand templefamiliespriortothedecriminalization,butitisawellattestedphenomenonthroughout JapaneseBuddhisthistory.10Jaffenotes,forexample,abundantevidenceofclericalfornication asearlyastheNaraዉⰋperiod(710794),andshowsthatthepracticeoftempleinheritance bythesonofacleric“wascommonenoughthatduringtheHeianperiod[ᖹᏳ,7941185]the rightsofabloodchildtoadeceasedcleric’spropertywerelegallyrecognized”(Jaffe2001,11). IntheTokugawaperiod,too,theinstitutionwaswidespread;JaffecitesTamamurotonotethat “atleastasfarasmanyoftheKogiShingon[ྂ⩏┿ゝ]clergyareconcerned,duringtheEdo periodtheirwayoflifedifferedlittlefromthatofthelaity,”andheconcurswithFaure’s conclusionthat“marriageandfamilialinheritanceoftempleswerecommonplace,particularly amongthoseclericswhostaffedclantemplesandshrinetemples”(Jaffe2001,34).Itshould thereforenotbeassumedthatthenewgovernmentpolicycausedclericspreviouslycommitted tocelibacytoreconsidertheirvows.Rather,theeffectwastopushthoseclericsalready involvedinfamilylifetoexplorethebenefitsofdoingsoopenly,takingadvantageofthe opportunity,forexample,toasserttherightsoftheirfamilies.Thedecriminalizationofclerical marriagewasawatershedeventforBuddhismintheMeiji,then,notbecauseitestablisheda newpracticebutinlargepartbecauseitforcedapublicdebateamongsectarianleaders,rank andfileclerics,andparishioners.Jaffedescribesthisdebateinsomedetail,andshowsthatthe issuesitraisedofsectarianandclericalidentityremaintothisdayunresolved. dŚĞ'ƌĞĂƚdĞĂĐŚŝŶŐĐĂĚĞŵLJ ShintwastosomeextentabeneficiaryoftheearlyMeijiantiBuddhistpolicies.Shint clergy,forexample,longsecondtotheirBuddhistcounterparts,nowenjoyedahigherstatus thanBuddhistsdid(Collcutt1986,152).AnothermajorinstitutionalbenefitforShintwasits adoptionoffuneraryresponsibilities,bothinthecourtandamongthepopulace,whichhad longbeenthedomainofBuddhism.Thesedutiesheldconsiderablesocialandeconomicvalue, andShintistsprovedwillingtogotogreatlengthstoassumethem,aneffortthatrequired nothingshortofafundamentalrevisionoftraditionalnormsandtaboos.Asaresult,inthe courtandthroughoutthecountrymemorialtabletsweretransferredfromBuddhistsanctuaries andtemplestoShintsites,givingShintclergytheaffiliationsandfinancialsupportofthose successorsobligedtotheirancestors’care.11 10 ClericalfamiliesseemalsotohavebeenmuchmoreprevalantinIndianBuddhisthistorythanis generallyassumed.SeeClarke2014. 11 SeeCollcutt1986,159;Ketelaar1990,44–45,60. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.11 TocharacterizetheactionsoftheearlyMeijigovernmentasthesimpleelevationof ShintattheexpenseofBuddhism,however,ortosuggestthattheseparationofShintand Buddhismwasunambivalently“goodforShint,”isincorrect.Forone,inlightofthethorough interpenetrationofBuddhismandShinthistorically,asnotedabove,thenewlydefined “Shint”towhichthebenefitsofStatesponsorshipwouldaccruewasaShintrestrictedbyits forcedalienationfromBuddhism.Secondly,manyoftheedictsregulatingBuddhism,eventhe mostextremeones,werenotinfactaimedatBuddhismbutratheratabroadrangeofcultural practicesdeemedhazardoustotheState,andthusaffectedShintaswell.12 ThisinclusionofShintwithinbroadrestrictionsonreligiousor“carnivalesque” practicesspeakstothefactthatthedominantNativistfactionintheMeijigovernment,despite itswillingnesstouseShinttopushanationalistagenda,wasnotinterestedinbuildingthe Stateonareligiousbasis,Shintorotherwise.13WhattheNativistssoughtwasnota governmentintheserviceofestablishedreligionbutratheraunifying,nationalideologywhich wascompletelyunderthecontroloftheStateandtotallysubordinatedtoitsagenda.Itis obviousthatBuddhismwasdeemedinappropriatetothistask,butitmustalsobeemphasized thatneithercould“religious”Shintprovideit.Indeed,thereligiousShintistsinthe government,whohadenvisionedapurifiedShintreligionasthebasisofthenewState,were soontodiscoverthisfactdirectly,findingthemselvespurgedfromtheleadership.14 Thispurgeculminatedinthe1872reorganizationoftheMinistryofRitesastheMinistry ofDoctrine(Kybushoᩍ㒊┬).ThecentraltaskofthisnewMinistryofDoctrine,nowstaffed exclusivelywithNativistsandlessconcernedwiththecreationof“rites”underaphilosophyof “unityofritesandrule”(saiseiitchi⚍ᨻ୍⮴)asmuchaswith“doctrine”underarubricof “unityofdoctrineandrule”(seikyitchiᨻᩍ୍⮴),wastocompletethecreationofthenew Stateideology,thequasiShint“GreatTeaching”(daikyᩍ)(Ketelaar1990,87–121).This GreatTeachingwouldmakeuseofawidearrayofresources,includingShintandBuddhist institutionsandpersonnel,intheefforttoresistChristianityandtounifythecitizenryaround anemperorcenterednationalidentity. WhiletheaimoftheGreatTeachingprogramwasclear,however,thedoctrinalcontent oftheGreatTeachingwasratherlessso.TheMinistryofDoctrinefirstexplainedtheGreat Teachingundertherubricofthe“ThreeStandardsofInstruction”(sanjkysoku୕᮲ᩍ๎): 12 SeeKetelaar1990,69. 13 Ketelaarelaborates:“FromtheperspectiveoftheenlightenmentthinkersoftheMeijiera,‘faith’ (shin)wasclearlyviewedasdisruptive,deceptive,anddevolutionary.Itwascrucialforthosewhowould ruletopreventthestateideologicalsystemfrombeingdictatedsolelybyconcernsfortheconceptionof ‘divinity.’”SeeKetelaar1990,67. 14 Thesewerethe“RestorationShintists”(fukkoShintshaྂ⚄㐨⪅)(Ketelaar1990,66).The detailsoftheShintStaterelationsintheMeijiislargelyoutofthescopeofthisoverview,butistreated extensivelyinHardacre’sexcellentmonograph(Hardacre1989). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.12 “(1)complywiththecommandstoreverethekamiandlovethenation;(2)illuminatethe principleofheavenandthewayofman;(3)servetheemperorandfaithfullymaintainthewill ofthecourt”(Ketelaar1990,106).15Thesethreestandardsprovedsovagueandbroadthatthe governmentstruggledtomaintaincontroloftheirinterpretation.Aproclamationwasdeemed necessaryin1872,forinstance,toclarifythattheclergymustrefrainfrom“individualor Buddhisticinterpretations”and“lectur[ing]withhiddenmeanings”(Ketelaar1990,123).In furtherattemptstoclarifytheGreatTeaching,whichwerelikewisenotentirelysuccessful,the Ministryin1873producedfirstelevenandthenseventeenadditional“themes”(kendaiව㢟) forteaching,alongwithastreamofpronouncementsonthedetailsoftheStatedoctrine. TodisseminatethisGreatTeaching,thegovernmentenlistedtheShintandBuddhist clergyalike,aswellasotherfigureswithlocalreachandinfluence(likepublicentertainers)into asystemofdoctrinalinstructors(kydshokuᩍᑟ⫋).Thesedoctrinalinstructors,inwhat KetelaarcallsanattempttomakeadefactoStatepriesthood,weretobetrainedinanetwork ofprefecturalandvillageacademiesoverseenbyanationalheadquarters(Ketelaar1990,99). Buddhistswereinitiallyenthusiasticabouttheopportunityprovidedbythedoctrinalinstructor system,seeinginittheopportunitytoreturntothegoodgracesoftheState.Thesectsactively lobbiedthegovernmentfortherighttobeincludedinthesystem,andonceitwasestablished theyeagerlyenrolledtheirclergyasdoctrinalinstructors.FourthousandShintpriestsand threethousandBuddhistpriestswereinitiallylicensedundertheMinistry,andby1880there weremorethan103,000certifieddoctrinalInstructors,over81,000ofwhomweremembersof Buddhistssects.16 Itwassoonclear,however,thattheGreatTeachingAcademywasnottheopportunity theBuddhistinstitutionshadhoped.InwhatKetelaarcallsa“trueideologicalcoupdegrace,” theGreatAcademyinTkywasinstalledatZjji,theancestralBuddhisttempleofthe Tokugawafamily(Ketelaar1990,122).AsCollcuttdescribesit: Thefirstbatchof300Buddhistssoonfoundthattheywerebeing subjectedtoShintindoctrinationandusedasShint propagandists.TheywereobligedtowearthestiffcapsofShint priestsontheirshavenheadsandtosayprayersandmake offeringsbeforetheshrine.AlthoughBuddhistswerethus involvedinthedisseminationofwhatwastobeanewnational 15 ୍ࠊᩗ⚄ឡᅜࣀ᪨ࣤయࢫ࣊࢟ ୍ࠊኳ⌮ே㐨ࣤ᫂ࢽࢫ࣊࢟ ୍ࠊⓚୖࣤዊᡝࢩᮅ᪨ࣤ㑂Ᏺࢭࢩ࣒࣊࢟ Collcuttcallsthemthe“ThreeInjunctions”andrendersthem:“Reverethekamiandlovethecountry. Clarifyheavenlyreasonandthewayofhumanity.Reveretheemperorandrespectcourtdirectives.” SeeCollcutt1986,155. 16 SeeKetelaar1990,105;Collcutt1986,154. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.13 religion,thisstatecreedmadenoprovisionfortheteachingof Buddhism.(Collcutt1986,155–156) Notonlywasthere“noprovisionfortheteachingofBuddhism,”infacttheteachingof Buddhismwasbythispointcompletelybannedinthecountry.17 TheincorporationofBuddhismintothedoctrinalinstructorsystemwasthusnotasign ofcooperationwiththegovernmentsomuchasitrepresentedcooptationbythegovernment. Itdidnotmarkareversaloftheshinbutsubunripolicyortheendofhaibutsukishaku,asshown abovebyCollcutt’sfindingsthatthepersecutionofBuddhismcontinuedfullborethroughthe periodof18721876,preciselytheyearsofBuddhistinvolvementintheGreatTeaching.Tobe sure,someintheBuddhistestablishmentcontinuedtogoalongwiththeprogram;Mohr,for example,discussesthecaseofTeizanSokuichi㰓୕༶୍(18051892)asevidenceof“the willingnessofsomeoftheleadingStrepresentativestosupportthegovernment’s indoctrinationpolicy,”atleastthrough1875,andasSectionThreewillshow,NishiariBokusanis anotherexampleofanapparentlywillingadvocateoftheproject(Mohr1998,177–178). Others,however,formedagrowingresistancetothedoctrinalinstructionsystem.Themost prominentamongthesewastheJdoShinshpriestShimajiMokuraiᓥᆅ㯲㞾(18381911), whopubliclycritiquedtheThreeStandards,arguedfortheseparationofChurchandState,and ultimatelyconvincedtheShinsecttowithdrawfromtheGreatTeachingAcademy.Withoutthe supportoftheBuddhistestablishment,theprojectcollapsed;fourmonthsaftertheShinsect withdrewin1875theGreatTeachingAcademyclosed,andtwoyearslatertheMinistryof Doctrinewasdissolved. Thoughthepositionofdoctrinalinstructorlasteduntil1884,thedissolutionofthe MinistryofDoctrinein1877marksasignificanttransitionpoint:Nativist“religion”hadfailedto gaintractionassuch.BlumnotesthattheGreatTeachingwas“widelyseenasmorepolitical thanreligious”andKetelaarsumsupthefailurebysayingthat“Nativismwastooreligiousto rule,andBuddhismwastoointegratedintosocialfabrictobediscarded.”18Article28ofthe 1889MeijiConstitutiongranted“FreedomofReligion”(shinkynojiyಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤),andwhile this“freedom”mayhavebeensocircumscribedastoberenderedfunctionallymeaningless,it diddecisivelymarktheendofthemajorperiodofantiBuddhistpolicy.AsKetelaarsays,“by thecloseofthe19thcenturytheearlierhistorical,nationalistic,andsocioeconomicattacks uponBuddhismhadindeedbeenlargelyputtorest”(Ketelaar1990,171). 17 ThiscriminalizationofBuddhistteachingwasaresultofthepolicythatforbadeanypublicteaching outsidetheumbrellaoftheGreatTeachingAcademy.Ketelaaracknowledgesthattherewaslittle enforcementofthisprohibitiononBuddhistteaching(Ketelaar1990,122). 18 SeeBlum2011,15;Ketelaar1990,130. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.14 PartII:TheMeijiReinventionofBuddhism ScholarsdifferintheirassessmentsoftheimportanceofMeijiBuddhistdevelopments, withsome,likeMohr,arguingfora“shroudedcontinuity”betweenTokugawaandMeiji Buddhismandothers,likeKetelaar,emphasizingthemarkeddiscontinuitybetweenthepre andpostMeijiinstitutions.Thereisnoquestion,however,thatthetumultoftheMeijiinspired arangeofBuddhistresponses,someofwhichhavecometocharacterizeJapaneseBuddhism downtothepresent.ThechallengestowhichBuddhismwasforcedtorespondwerevarious. Fromthegovernment,BuddhistsmetnotonlythepersecutionoftheearlyMeiji,thelossof statusandpropertydiscussedintheprevioussection,butalsototransformativepolicies regulatingtheorganizationandidentityofthesects.Outsideofthegovernment,too,Nativist, reformShintist,andConfuciancriticschallengedtheBuddhistestablishment.Exposureto Westernreligion,science,andtheWesternUniversityfollowingthesocalled“opening”of JapantotheWestwasalsosignificant,andWesternacademicfieldslikephilosophyand religiousstudiesinspiredandchallengedMeijiBuddhistthinkers.Specifically,positivisticand textualcriticalmethodsofWesternOrientalismandBuddhologyimpactedthestudyof Buddhismbothwithinandwithoutofthesectarianinstitutions,andtheWesternBuddhological focuson“original”BuddhismledtotheJapanese“discovery”ofIndianBuddhismandforceda reassessmentoftheprimacyoftheMahayana.Finally,asBlumemphasizes,pressurecame fromreformmovementswithintheBuddhistinstitutionsthemselves,asdifferentindividuals andfactionsstruggledtoassertconflictingresponsestothenewrealitiestheyfaced(Blum 2011,3). EĞǁƵĚĚŚŝƐŵ ThemostprogressivemovesofMeijiBuddhismareoftengroupedundertherubricof “NewBuddhism”(shinbukky᪂ᩍ).SnodgrassdefinesNewBuddhismas: aphilosophical,rationalized,andsociallycommitted interpretationofBuddhismthatemergedfromtherestructuring ofBuddhismanditsroleinJapanesesocietynecessitatedbythe religiouspolicyofearlyMeijigovernment.Shinbukkywasthe NewBuddhismofJapanesemodernity,formedinanintellectual climateinwhichtheWestwasrecognizedasbothmodeland measureofmodernity;shapedandpromotedinreferencetothe West.(Snodgrass2003,115). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.15 Shefurtherwrites: FollowingtheleadandmethodsofWesternOrientalist scholarship,aBuddhistphilosophywasisolatedfromtheritual, mythology,andfolkbeliefofactualpractice.ThisNewBuddhism wasanoninstitutionallaypracticeaccessiblethroughthe vernacularlanguage.Itwasnonsectarian,‘progressive, democratic,spiritual,socialandrational,’anindigenous alternativetotheWesternmaterialistphilosophyandProtestant ChristianitytowhichmanyWesterneducatedJapaneseofthis generationhadturned.(Snodgrass2003,129–130) Victoriaemphasizesthat“NewBuddhism”doesnotdesignateaspecificschoolof thoughtbutmorebroadlythemodernizingelementswithinBuddhismoftheMeiji,andnotes that“becauseitwasamovement,notanorganization,therewereoftenconflicting,even opposingviewsastowhatchangesshouldbemade”totheinstitutions(Victoria2006,198n). AsitwasadeliberateresponsetotheWest,astrongnationaliststreamranthroughtheNew Buddhistmovement,whichcametoholdnotonlythatBuddhismwasthequintessenceof JapanbutalsothatonlyinJapanwasBuddhismtrulyfulfilled.ThisperfectedBuddhismof JapanwasofferedbyNewBuddhistsastherightreligionfortheWest:itwouldbecompatible withscienceandregenerativeforWesternphilosophy,andwouldbeabletosupportamoral orderwhileavoidingtheproblemsofanincreasinglyuntenabletheism. ManyNewBuddhistsvisitedtheWest,andevenattendedWesternuniversities,and theytrieddiligentlytopresentJapanandJapaneseBuddhismintermstheWestwouldfind relevantandcompelling.TheJapaneseBuddhistdelegationtotheWorldParliamentof Religionsin1893inChicagoepitomizedtheWesternfacingcharacterofNewBuddhism, branded“EasternBuddhism”forexport.19Snodgrassdescribestheoverlappingagendasofthe parliamentarians:internationallytheyhopedtowinrespectforJapan,domesticallytheyhoped toprovetheutilityofBuddhismtonationalinterests,andtotheBuddhistestablishmentthey hopedtodemonstratethesuperiorityofthe“NewBuddhist”approach.Itcouldbearguedthat theyweresuccessfulonallofthesepoints.AnumberofusefulEnglishlanguagetreatments discusstheJapaneseBuddhistpresenceattheWorldParliamentofReligions;amongthem Snodgrassisthemostcomprehensive.20 Therearesubstantial(thoughbynomeansoverwhelming)Englishlanguagetreatments 19 “EasternBuddhism”wascoinedasachallengetotheWesternacademictaxonomyofBuddhist schoolsas“Southern”or“Northern,”andrepresentedanattempttoassertboththeunityofEastAsian BuddhismanditslegitimacytoaWesternacademicculturewhichhaddefineditasmeredegeneration fromPalitextualoriginsandnorms.SeeSnodgrass2003,198–199.Theparliamentariansincluded ShakuSenandAshitsuJitsunen. 20 SeealsoKetelaar1990,136–173;Fader1982;Kitagawa1993. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.16 ofthelifeandworkofprominentNewBuddhistslikeSuzuki“D.T.”Daisetsu㕥ᮌᣋ(1870 1966),ShakuSen㔘᐀₇(18601919),KiyozawaManshiΎἑ‶அ(18631903),Inoue Enryୖ(18581919),uchiSeiranෆ㟷ᕖ(18451918),andMurakamiSenshᮧୖ ᑓ⢭(18511929).21WhilerevealinganimportantpieceofthepictureofMeijiBuddhism, however,thefocusonthesefigurescanmasktheimportanceofconservativeelementsinthe Buddhistinstitutions,the“OldBuddhism”(kybukkyᪧᩍ)impliedintheprojectof“New Buddhism”andcomprisedofinstitutionalleadersandthetensofthousandsofordinaryclergy whostaffedlocaltemples.Wecannotspeakof“MeijiBuddhism”withoutrecognizingawide variationonacontinuumofprogressiveandconservative,andwecannotunderstandits developmentwithoutstudyingthedynamicsbetweentheseelements.Sawada,whocriticizes theWesternscholarshipinparticularforitsemphasisontheNewBuddhistsattheexclusionof theconservativeinstitutions,alsotakesanuancedviewofthedistinctmodesofconservatism, arguingthetendencytodesignateagivenMeijiBuddhistfigureortrend“conservative”without consideringtheircomplexity(Sawada1998,142–143).AsDavis,Jaffe,Mohrandothershave noted,institutionalBuddhismintheMeijiremainsunderstudied.22 ItisundeniablethattheMeijiperiodbroughtsignificantchangetoBuddhismandthe Buddhistinstitutions;asKetelaarputsit,theBuddhismsof1871and1889are“inmanysenses, twodifferententities,”inthat“Buddhismhadmanagedtotransformitselffrombeing perceivedasoneoftheplethoraof‘ancientevils’intooneoftheessentialrepositoriesofthe trueessenceof‘Japaneseculture’”(Ketelaar1990,86).Itispossible,however,toquestionthe extentoftherealeffecttheBuddhistmodernizershadoninstitutionalBuddhism.Sharfand othershavesuggestedthatdespitetheiradvocacyofarevolutioninBuddhistunderstanding, theprogressiveBuddhistintellectualsinfactdidnotmakemuchofamarkontheBuddhist institutions(Sharf1995a,141).Mohrlikewisearguesforthe“shroudedcontinuity”ofthe contentofinstitutionalBuddhistteachingsandpracticesthroughtheupsetsofNewBuddhism andthepoliticalandorganizationalchangesthatcharacterizetheperiod(Mohr1998).While BlumdoesexploresomeaspectsoftheshiftingunderstandingofdoctrineledbyKiyozawa Manshiandothers,andsuggeststhattheredeepinfluencedidinfactopenupnewconceptual avenues,hisappreciationoftheimpactofthesethinkersisalsomoderatedbyhis understandingthat“theofficialdoctrinesofsectarianBuddhismbecamecentraltoeachsect’s identity,andintheMeiji,Taish,andearlyShwaperiodsthosedoctrineswerenot substantiallychangedfromhowtheyhadbeendefinedintheGenrokuperiod(16881704)” (Blum2011,21,30–31).Weshouldbecareful,thesescholarssuggest,nottooverstatethe impactofNewBuddhismontheBuddhistestablishment. 21 See,forafewexamples,Fasan2012;Kiyozawa1984;Blum2011;BessermanandSteger1991; Ketelaar1990;Staggs1979;Josephson2006;Snodgrass2009. 22 SeeDavis1992,170–171;JaffeandMohr1998,1–4. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.17 dŚĞŚƌŝƐƚŝĂŶ/ŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞ͗ƵĚĚŚŝƐƚ^ŽĐŝĂůtŽƌŬĂŶĚ>ĂLJƵĚĚŚŝƐŵ ChristianityloomedlargeasafoilfortheMeijigovernment’snationalisticpolicies,and neitherthepersecutionofBuddhism,thecreationofStateShint,northeBuddhistreformsof theperiodcanbeunderstoodwithoutreferencetothespecterofChristianity.23Ingeneral ChristianitywasperceivedbyBuddhistreformersasathreattoBuddhism,especiallytoa BuddhismthathadbeenweakenedbycenturiesofTokugawaperiodcorruption. Itis,however,alsopossibletodiscernanincreasingtendencyin BuddhistcirclestoimitateChristianactivities.Christianity becamenotonlyachallenge,butamodel. ItseemedtobeacommonconclusioninBuddhistcirclesthat BuddhismwassuperioronthedoctrinallevelbutthatChristianity couldofferguidanceconcerningmethodsofpropagation,charity, education,andorganization.InthewordsofShakuSen,they shouldlearnfromChristians‘thenecessityofcomingintocontact withthepeople.’(Thelle1987,197–198) TheNewBuddhistsconsciouslyassociatedthemselveswiththeProtestantReformation, amovementtheystudied“fervently”;thisassociationwentsofarastoleadtotheepithet “JapaneseLuther”forMizutaniJinkai(Ỉ㇂ோᾏ,18361896),aprominentNewBuddhistand founderoftheflagshipShinBukkyjournal(1888).Eventheterms“old”and“new”inky bukkyandshinbukkyimpliedtheReformation:kykyᪧᩍwasapopularnameforRoman Catholicismandshinky᪂ᩍforProtestantism:“itcanbeconcludedthattheveryconceptof aNewBuddhismwasformedbythepopularimageoftheReformation,themodelforreligious renewalthatinvolvedaradicalrejectionoftheold.”24Theyalsoobservedandimitatedother aspectsandmodesofChristianteachingthattheyperceived,inHeine’swords,assuccessfulin “allowingthelaycommunitygreateraccesstosalvifictruth.”Observingtheappealto laypeopleoftheRomanCatholicemphasisontheredemptivepowerofconfession,for example,uchiSeiranreproducedit.25AlsodulynotedandimitatedwastheProtestant relianceonthesingle,authoritativetextoftheBible(ascontrastedwiththevastBuddhist canon),andlearningthispowerofwhatKetelaarcalls“textualunity,”theycomposeddoctrinal summariesandcatechisms.SnodgrassaddsthattheliberalProtestantexamplealsounderlay the“scientific”NewBuddhistoppositiontofolkbeliefsandpracticesandtothesupernatural (Snodgrass2003,149). PerhapsthetwomostimportantareasinwhichMeijiBuddhistsimitatedChristianswere 23 ThefullextentoftheinfluenceofChristianityonMeijiBuddhismandBuddhistreformersisacomplex issuetreatedindetailinThelle’sexcellentmonograph(Thelle1987). 24 SeeThelle1987,195–196,306n. 25 SeethediscussionbelowoftheShushgi ಟド⩏. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.18 intheirturntowardscharitableworksandtheirreevaluationoftheroleandpracticeofthe laity.WhileitisarguablethatthereisanauthenticpremodernBuddhisttraditionofsocial welfarework,themovementinMeijiBuddhismtoengageinsocialwelfarewasclearlya responsetotheperceivedsuccessofChristianity.26Thissensewaswidespreadevenby contemporaryobservers,astheBuddhistobserverwhonotedbluntly,“Whatispresentlybeing doneofcharitableworkinsocietyisforthemostpartduetotheinfluenceofChristianity” (Thelle1987,198).Indoingso,Buddhistssoughtinparttofendoffacentralcritiqueof BuddhismthatisasoldastheEastAsiantraditionitself:thesocioeconomicuselessnessof priestsandtemples. KetelaaroutlinestherangeofBuddhistcharitableworksintheMeiji: Eachofthesectsbecameengagedinlongtermprojectsforthe aidofthedestituteaswellasinshorttermreliefintimesof famine,disaster,oreconomichardship.Numeroushospitalsand clinicswereconstructedalongwithcenterstotrain“Buddhist doctorsandnurses”tostaffthem.Schoolsfortheblindand physicallydisabledsoonfollowed,aswellashostelsfortheaged andinfirm.Speciallectureswereconductedamongprisoners; rehabilitationcenterswereestablishedtoaidthoserecently released.Socialmovements,oradvertisingcampaigns,coveringa widevarietyofissuesincludingpublichealth,temperance,anti abortion,andanticapitalpunishment,andextendingeventothe preventionofcrueltytoanimals.Initially,thesewerelargely domesticactions;internationalprojects,however,werealso launched.DuringmassivestarvationanddeathbycholerainIndia in18961897,evenkumaShigenobu,thenForeignMinister, followedtheBuddhisttranssectarianorganizations’leadin sendinglargeamountsoffoodandmedicinetothestrickenareas. (Ketelaar1990,132–133) Theeffortto“contactthepeople”througharevivalandreimaginationoftheroleoflay (zaikeᅾᐙorkojiᒃኈ)BuddhistsisastrongtrendintheMeijithatwithoutquestiontook inspirationfromChristianmodels.Othermotivationsalsooperated,however.Ikeda,for example,notesthattheincreasedpressureonBuddhistinstitutionstoengagecreativelywith laypeoplewasrelatedtothesensethat“afterbeingreleasedfromthebondageoftheold templeregistrationsystem,”theyhadgainedtheprivilegeof“independentlychoosingtheir ownfaith”(Ikeda1998,33).Whatevertheirmotivations,theroleoflaypeopleinthis movementisnotable;importantlayBuddhistactivistslikeuchiSeiranmadeanenormous 26 OnpremodernBuddhist“socialwelfare”work,see,forexample,JohnNelson(Nelson2013,70–86). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.19 impactontheBuddhistestablishment.27AnothergiantoflayBuddhismwasInoueEnryୖ (18581919),aJdoShinshclericwhofeltsonegativelyabouttheclergythathe renouncedhisclericalstatusinordertobetterpromoteBuddhism,andtaughteventhat Buddhismmightbebetterrealizedwiththeeliminationofthepriesthoodaltogether(Staggs 1979,177–178;Snodgrass2003,148).28 ItwasnotonlylaypeoplewhoadvocatedforalayorientedBuddhism;manyeminent clerics,too,likeHaraTanzanཎᆠᒣ(18191892),FukudaGykai⚟⏣⾜ㄕ(18091888),Shaku Unsh㔚㞼↷(18271909),ShimajiMokurai,andAshitsuJitsuzen⸼ὠᐿ(18501921), activelypromotedthemovement,lendingitcriticalinstitutionalmomentum(Snodgrass2003, 126).Someactiveclerics,likeTanakaChigaku⏣୰ᬛᏥ(18611939)andKawaguchiEkaiἙཱྀ ្ᾏ(18661945),evenwentasfartojointhelaymanInoueinproposingtheabolitionofthe priesthooditself.TheRinzaiZenmonkNakaharaTj୰ཎ㒭ᕞ(betterknownasNantenb༡ ኳᲬ,18391925)offeredanationalisticrationalfortheimportanceoftheconcertedeffortto reachlaypeople:“Monks,too,areimportant,butifonedoesnotfirsttakecareoflaypeople andstrengthenJapanwithZen,shouldtherebeacrisisleadingtowarwithforeigncountries, Japanwillloseagainstthehairywhiteforeignersbecauseofthenumberofourcitizens,our economicpower,andourphysicalsize”(Mohr1998,199).TheNewBuddhistclericandWorld ParliamentarianShakuSen,dedicatedtocontinuing“histeacher’spracticeofwelcominglay practitionersintothemonastery,”putoffassuminganabbacyformanyyearsafterhis1906 returnfrominternationaltravelssothathecouldinstead“devotehisfullenergiestoteaching Zentolaymen”(Sharf1995a,113). ThisturntowardthelaityintheMeijiperiodledtheproliferationofofficialand unofficiallaysocieties(kessha⤖♫)andteachingassemblies(kykaiᩍ)dedicatedto supportingandservingtheirneeds.Ikedahasworkedextensivelyontheseorganizationsand arguesthat“teachingassembliesandlaysocietiesthatwereformedduring[theearlyMeiji] playedaleadingroleinestablishingthestructureofthemodernBuddhistinstitutionalsystem.” Theselayorganizationsemergedas“thesmallestorganizationalelementspreservingthe popularfaiththatsupportedthefoundationsofthetwelvesectsandthirtysevenbranches” andservedanimportantfunctioninthemanagementandpreservationofthesectsduringthis 27 SeeSectionTwo,forexample,onuchi’sformativeroleinthedraftingoftheShushgiಟド⩏,atext thatwouldthereafterdefineStorthodoxyforclergyandpriestsalike. 28 IamindebtedtoRichardJaffeforadvisingmeoftheanticlericalstanceofTanakaandKawaguchi. Ketelaar’sworkwouldsuggestthattheStclericTakadaDken㧗⏣㐨ぢ(18581923)shouldbe includedinthislist;Sawada,however,takesissuewiththesuggestionthatTakadaadvocatedthe eliminationofthepriesthood,acknowledgingthatTakadadidlionizelayBuddhismbutarguingthathe was“farfromdoingawaywiththedistinctionbetweenlaypractitionersandclergy.”SeeSawada2004, 181–183;Ketelaar1990,184–185. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.20 periodofinstitutionalreorganizationandupset.29 ^ĞĐƚĂƌŝĂŶŝƐŵĂŶĚdƌĂŶƐƐĞĐƚĂƌŝĂŶŝƐŵ AnimportantcharacteristicofNewBuddhismwasitsassertionthatthemanyschools andnationalitiesofBuddhisminfactconstitutedasinglereligion,transsectarianand transnational,thatwasperfectlysuitedfortheage.ThisuniversalBuddhismwasnotlimitedto anyparticularculturalexpressionandyetitwasexpressedquintessentiallyinJapanese Buddhism.ThiswasSuzukiDaisetsu’s“EasternBuddhism,”definedexplicitlyforWestern consumptionasacounterpointtothe“Northern”and“Southern”BuddhismsofWestern Buddhology,anditwasthe“UnitedBuddhism”(tsbukky㏻ᩍ)oftheStclericTakada Dken㧗⏣㐨ぢ(18581923),whichwouldreturnBuddhismtoitsessential,noninstitutional simplicityafteritslongandunfortunatedevolutionintocomplexity.30Thesearchfor precedentsforthistranssectarianBuddhismledmodernizerstotextsliketheAwakeningof FaithintheMahayana(Daijkishinron㉳ಙㄽ),aboutwhichD.T.Suzuki’spatronPaul Caruswrote,it“followsnoneofthesectariandoctrines,buttakesanidealpositionuponwhich alltrueBuddhistsmaystanduponacommonground”(Ketelaar1990,186–187).Another centraltextforthemovementwastheEssentialsoftheEightSects(Hasshkyඵ᐀⥘せ)of Gynen(จ↛,12401321),atextthatorganizedBuddhistdoctrinesinthetraditionofthe doctrinalclassificationsystemsofChineseBuddhism(Ch.panjiao;J.hankyุᩍ),butinaway thatresistedthe“hierarchicaldetermination”inherentinthosesystemsandinstead“soughtto maintaintheplurivocalnatureoftheBuddha’steaching,”thatis,toassert“theappropriateness ofeachteachingandthesuperiorityofnone”(Ketelaar1990,177–184).Animportantfunction ofthetranssectarianmovementwastoprovideavenueforBuddhiststomultiplytheir influencebyengagingwiththegovernmentasaunitedfront;thisuseoftranssectarian Buddhistorganizationslikethenationalist“AllianceofUnitedSectsforEthicalStandards” (Shoshdtokukaimei,ㅖ᐀ྠᚨ┕)willbenotedbelow. Themovementtowardsatranssectarian“UnitedBuddhism”isespeciallynoteworthyin lightoftheparalleldevelopment,drivenbytheMeijigovernment,toformalizeeachsect’s organizationalstructureandtocodifyitsdoctrinesandpractices.Therewerecertainly sectarianboundariesinpreMeijiJapaneseBuddhism:Sharfmentionsthesectarian standpointsofHnenἲ↛(11331212)andEk្ග(16661734),forexample,inthisregard, andMohrdiscussesintensesectarianismintheTokugawaperiod(Mohr1994;Sharf2002b). TherigidmodernJapanesesectariancategories,however,owemuchtothemandatory codificationofsectarianboundariesintheMeijiperiod.AsKetelaarputsit,“Theonce 29 SeeIkeda1998,11. 30 SeeKetelaar1990,174–212;Snodgrass2003,198–221. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.21 amorphousdivisionbetweenspecific‘sects’(sh᐀)and‘schools’(haὴ)was,duringthis periodandforthefirsttime,solidifiedandconstitutedasalegallybindinghierarchyof difference”(Ketelaar1990,76).31 Thisclarificationofsectariandifferenceswasspurredbygovernmentattemptsinthe 1870sand1880stobringanorderedandmanageablestructuretothediversityofBuddhist sectsandbranches.Thesepoliciesincludedthemandatesthateachsectestablishasinglehead temple(honzanᮏᒣ),asingleheadabbot(kanch㤋㛗),andthesubmissionof“sectarian prescriptions”(shsei᐀ไ)and“templeregulations”(jihᑎἲ)forgovernmentapproval. Ikedashowsthatthechiefabbotpositionwasprimaryinenabling“thefomationand appellationofthemodernBuddhistsects,”andthatthesectarianprescriptionsandtemple regulationsthenfollowedtodefineanddistinguishthesectsandto“situatethegroupswithin themodernlegalframework.”Attemptsearlyinthe1870stodivideBuddhismintoonlyseven sectsproveduntenable,andbytheendofthedecadetherearrangement,separation,and amalgamationoffactionshadresultedintwelverecognizedsectsandthirtysevenindependent branches.32Whilethesectarianchiefabbotpositionhadbeeninitiallyconceivedasawayto supporttheGreatTeachingAcademysystem,whichhadregistereda“chiefabbotofdoctrinal instructors”(kydshokukanchᩍᑟ⫋㤋㛗)foreachsect,thepositionoutlivedthedoctrinal instructionsystemitself.Evenafterthe1884abolitionoftheGreatTeachingsystem,thechief abbotsretainedthestatusof“semigovernmentofficials,”empoweredwith“fullauthorityover thesectorbranch”and,bygovernmentproclamation,consideredofequalstatustoother imperiallyappointedofficials.Ineffect,by1884thegovernment,thoughithadmadealasting markinthereorganizationofthesects,hadrealizeditsinabilitytomanagethesectsdirectly, andhaddelegatedoversightoftheBuddhistinstitutionstothechiefabbots,whoenjoyed broadandmoreorlessindependentauthorityovertheactivitiesoftheirsects.33 31 BuddhistscholarswhohavebeeninsensitivetotheessentiallymoderncharacteroftherigidJapanese sectarianboundarieshavetendedtomisinterpretthehistoricalrecord.Sharf,forexample,has demonstratedhowassumptionsofthehistoricityofJapanesesectariancategorieshascloudedthefield ofChineseBuddhistStudies(Sharf2002a;Sharf2002b).Notonlyaretheserigidcategories inappropriateinassessingChineseorIndianBuddhism,Mohrarguesthattheyobscureeventhenature oftheJapanesesectsthemselves,tendingto“obliteratethedirectexchangeofideasbetween individualsbelongingtodifferenttraditionsandtopassoverdiscrepanciesfoundwithinasingle denomination”(Mohr1998,204). 32 TheinitialsevensectscombinedSt,Rinzai⮫῭,andbaku㯤᷑intoasingleZensect,which,as notedbelowinSectionTwo,provedunworkable.Bytheendofthedecadethetwelverecognizedsects were:Tendaiኳྎ,Shingon┿ゝ,Jdoίᅵ,Rinzai,St,baku,Shin┿,Nichiren᪥ⶈ,Ji,Yz Nembutsu⼥㏻ᛕ,Hossoἲ┦,andKegon⳹ཝ. 33 SeeIkeda1998,13–18. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.22 tĞƐƚĞƌŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐƐ͕^ĞĐƚĂƌŝĂŶ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƵĚĚŚŝƐƚhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚŝĞƐ TheincreasingexposureofJapantoWesternscienceandacademicinstitutionsand methodologiesalsoimpactedthedevelopmentofBuddhismovertheMeijiperiod. First,itisfirstimportanttonotetheimpactofWesternscienceonBuddhists’ understandingofcosmology.LopezandSnodgrassremindusthatthenotionofthe compatibilityofBuddhismandscienceisaproductoftheMeiji,aconsciousrejectionoflong anddeeplyheldBuddhistcosmologicalviews.NewBuddhists,whohadtheireyesonan increasinglysecular,rationalistWest,sawthediscourseofBuddhistscientificcompatibilityasa powerfulwaytodistinguishBuddhismfromChristianityintheappealtoWesternintellectuals. NotonlydidtheseNewBuddhistsseeBuddhistcosmologyasanobstacletobeingtaken seriouslybytheWest,asSnodgrasspointsout,theirrationalityandincompatibilitywithscience ofBuddhismhadbecomeafocalpointofdomesticantiBuddhistrhetoricaswell.Thus reformerslikeShimajiMokuraiandInoueEnryarguedagainstpointsofBuddhistcosmological orthodoxy,liketheliteralexistenceofMt.Sumeru,refutingtheworkofclericslikeFumonEnts ᬑ㛛㏻(1755–1834)inwhatremainedanactivedebateintheMeiji(Lopez2008,46–51).34 Secondly,theexposureofJapaneseBuddhiststothespecificWesternacademicfieldsof Orientalism,religiousstudies,andBuddhologyalsohaddeepramifications.Amongthemost importantofthesewastheinfluxintoJapanofnonChineseBuddhisttexts,andalongwith themthephilologicaltoolsthatwouldallowtheJapaneseforthefirsttimetointerpretthem. InlightoftheseIndiantexts,andthenormativeforcewithwhichWesternBuddhologyhad endowedthem,attheturnofthetwentiethcenturythelongstandingJapaneseBuddhistbias againsttheHnaynabegantodropawayandscholarslikeAnesakiMasaharuጜᓮṇ(1873 1949)andMurakamiSenshbegantoarguethattheMahynahadnotbeentaughtbythe historicalBuddha(Blum2011,28).Morebroadly,theverynotionof“religiousstudies”and textualcriticalmethodologies—andeven,asJosephsonargues,thecategoryof“religion”itself —wasaresultofthiscontactwithWesternacademics.35Inthisperiod,“religioningeneral,and Buddhisminparticular,wasbeingconstitutedasadiscipline,asafieldforscientificinquiry,” andanewpictureemergedofBuddhismas“somethingthatcanbeobjectifiedforpurposesof analysisinthepublicsphere”(Blum2011,37;Ketelaar1990,172). WhilethecontactwithWesternphilosophy,textualstudies,Orientalism,and BuddhologyimpactedthewaythatJapaneseBuddhistslookedatandstudiedtheirtraditions,it alsoshapedtheinstitutionsinwhichtheydidso.Withtheintent“totrainthepriestsnecessary 34 NishiariBokusan,too,wasalignedwiththeorthodoxSumerucenteredBuddhistcosmology;see SectionThree. 35 Ontheemergenceofthecategoryof“religion”intheMeiji,seeJosephson2012. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.23 totheproductionofa‘modernBuddhism,’”theBuddhistinstitutionsexpandedexisting TokugawaperiodseminariesandacademiesintothegreatuniversitiesoftheMeiji.These includedthemanyuniversitiesoftheNishiHonganjiすᮏ㢪ᑎ,includingtheDaigakurinᏛᯘ (1868);theDaigakuryᏛᑅ(1882)oftheHigashiHonganjiᮾᮏ㢪ᑎ;theShingonsh Daigaku┿ゝ᐀Ꮫ(1886);and,theStsect’sDaigakurinSenmonHonkᏛᯘᑓ㛛ᮏᰯ (1882).36Sectariananddoctrinalhistoryinfluencedbythetranssectarianapproachconstituted amajoraspectofthecurriculumintheBuddhistuniversities,buttherewasalsoinstructionin history,religiousstudies,philosophy,andotherWesternacademicfields(Ketelaar1990,134, 179–181). IshikawaaddsanimportantcaveattotheriseoftheBuddhistuniversities: TheacademicstudyofBuddhisminpostTokugawaJapanquickly incorporatedthetextualstudiesandmethodsofWestern Buddhologyandmadegreatstridesindevelopingmodern Buddhistresearch.Thedoctrinalandsectarianstudiesofthe sectarianBuddhistorganizations,however,continuedtolanguish. (Ishikawa1998,88) Blumdefinesthissectarianstudies(shgaku᐀Ꮫ)as“theacademicstudyofscripturesbased onestablishedsectarianinterpretationthatcontinued(andcontinues)asalegacyofEdoperiod orthodoxdoctrine”(Blum2011,18).37Thisdistinctionbetweensectarianstudiesandacademic research,therecontextualizingofBuddhisthistoryanddoctrineintheuniversitysetting,raised acriticaldistinctionbetweenwhatAnesakidescribedas“studentsofreligionandreligionists,” andledtoseriousquestionsaboutsectariancontrolofthestudyandinterpretationof Buddhism(Ketelaar1990,172).ScholarclericslikeNishiariBokusanwereforcedtowork creativelyinthistension,tryingtocatchupwiththeuniversitieswithoutcedinggroundto them.BlumoffersKiyozawaManshi’sdistinctionbetweenshgakuandshgi᐀⩏asone attempttoschematizethedifference:forKiyozawa,a“coretruthofaBuddhistschool establishedbyitsfounder”couldbemaintainedasshgiandsubjecttotheorthodoxiesofthe institutionalleadership,whilethe“traditionofcriticalinquiry”or“theprocessofhow individualsmadesenseofthiscreedlikeshgi”wasshgaku,therubricunderwhichcouldbe toleratedsomemeasureofintellectualdiversityandcriticalmethodology(Blum2011,34). 36 TheStsect’sDaigakurinSenmonHonkwastheprecursorofthemodernStflagshipKomazawa University.ItwasestablishedontheprecinctsoftheSendanrin ᰽᷄ᯘ aseminaryonthegroundsof Kichijjiྜྷ⚈ᑎinEdo,foundedin1592.ItbecameStshDaigakurin(1904)andStshDaigaku (1905)beforemovingin1913andtakingitscurrentnameKomazawaDaigaku(1925).SeeHeine2003, 174,189n;Reader1985,35–36. 37 IshiinotesthatinSt,thetermusedpriorto1932forsectarianstudieswas“sectvehicle”shj᐀ (Ishii2012,226). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.24 ƵĚĚŚŝƐŵĂŶĚEĂƚŝŽŶĂůŝƐŵŝŶƚŚĞDĞŝũŝ Thereisabroadconsensusinthescholarshipthatnationalisticandmilitaristicrhetoric andactivismsuffusedtheBuddhistestablishmentfromtheearlyMeijithroughtheearlyShwa period(19261989),spanningtheSatsumaRebellion(1877),the(First)SinoJapaneseWar (18941895),theRussoJapaneseWar(19041905),andtheFifteenYearWar(19311945).This postureoftheBuddhistestablishment,whileintensifyingthroughtheTaishṇperiod (19121926)andpeakingintheearlyShwaperiod,unquestionablyhasitsrootsintheMeiji. FromthefirststirringsofMeijiantiBuddhistpolicy,therewasaconcertedattemptonthepart oftheBuddhistinstitutionstoregaintheirlostfavorwiththeState,andageneraltrendinthe publicstatementsofBuddhistleaderswastoasserttheperfectalignmentofthegoalsof BuddhismwiththegoalsoftheemperorandtheMeijigovernment.TheseferventBuddhist assertionsof“theunityofimperialandBuddhistlaw”(bbuppichinyo⋤ἲἲ୍ዴ)were closelyrelatedtotherhetoricofJapaneseBuddhismasboththeessenceofJapanandthe evolutionarypinnacleofworldreligioushistory,andtotheparalleldiscourseofinnateJapanese militarysuperioritybasedontheyamatodamashii㨦andbushidṊኈ㐨.38Statements, ceremonies,pledges,andmaterialcontributionsinsupportoftheJapanesemilitaryand imperialistprojectsbyBuddhistleaderswerethenorm,andmanywentasfarastoenlist outrightinthearmy.BrianVictoriaisamongthemostactivescholarsonthistheme,andhis controversialbooksonthetopicarelargelycompilationsofthemoststrikingofthese expressions.39 Theemergingroleofthe“United”ortranssectarianvisionofBuddhismintheMeijihas beennotedabove,anditshouldbeemphasizedagainthatthefunctionofthemanyMeijipan BuddhistorganizationswasnotmerelytoprofessdoctrinalunityortoassertNewBuddhist inclinationsbuttoexpressandmanifesttheunityoftheBuddhistinstitutionsintheirloyaltyto theemperor.TheMeijierasawamultitudeofBuddhistnationalistorganizationsand publicationsexpressingjustthat,aswellasrobustBuddhistparticipationinbroadernationalist 38 Onbbuppichinyo⋤ἲἲ୍ዴ,see,forexample,Ives2009.OnJapaneseBuddhismasthe essenceofJapanandpinnacleofreligiousevolution,see,forexample,Snodgrass2003.ForBuddhism andthebushidṊኈ㐨discourse,see,forexample,Sharf1995a. 39 SeeVictoria2006;Victoria2003.OthertreatmentsincludeIves(Ives2009,13–53)andDavis(Davis 1992,174–175).WhileVictoria’simportantworkhasraisedtheprominenceoftheissueinthe scholarshipandalsowithintheBuddhistestablishment,ithasalsobeenthesubjectofsignificant critique.Some,likethatofSat(SatandKirchner2008;SatandKirchner2010)ismarredbya defensiveandapologetictone,whileothers,likethatofIves(Ives2009,102–107)andFaure(Faure 2010,216–217)aremorelevelheaded. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.25 organizations.40Manyoftheseorganizationsweretranssectarianandcomprisedofboth laypeopleandclergy,andtheysharedanemphasisonpatriotism,militarism,anddefenseof theState.ThisflourishingofpanBuddhistorganizations,Victorianotes,was“unprecedented,” as“underthepreviousTokugawaregimeallintrasectarianBuddhistorganizationshadbeen banned”(Victoria6).Twoofthemostimportantoftheseorganizationsarediscussedbelow. Thefirst,the1868“AllianceofUnitedSectsforEthicalStandards”(Shoshdtoku kaimei)attemptedtowinthesympathyofthenewgovernmentbyassertingtheirloyaltytothe principleoftheinseparabilityofimperialandBuddhistlaw(bbuppichinyo)anda commitmenttoaidintheexpulsionofChristianity.41Whilesomeelementsofthegovernment seemedtoappreciatethethought,itdidnotproveeffectiveinforestallingthemomentumof theantiBuddhisthaibutsukishaku.42TheearlyMeijigovernmentdid,though,inwhatKetelaar calls“theonlypublicapprobationaccordedBuddhistatthistime”placepragmatismabove rhetoricandacceptedtheofferfromtheBuddhistinstitutionstoservetheStateinthe colonizationofthenorthernterritories(moderndayHokkaid)andinthepacificationof condemnedprisonlaborersstationedthere.Thesects,graspingatwhateverscrapstheycould findfromtheMeijigovernment’stable,tookontaskwithgusto,puttingsubstantialmaterial andpersonnelresourcesintotheevangelizationcolonizationeffort.43 In1889,aftertheearlyMeijiantiBuddhistsurgehadabated,uchiSeiranandothers likeShimajiMokuraiandInoueEnryformedthe“FederationforVeneratingtheEmperorand RepayingtheBuddha”(Sonnhobutsudaiddanᑛⓚዊྠᅋ)inconjunctionwiththe publicationofatreatisebyuchientitled,“ATreatiseonVeneratingtheEmperorandRepaying theBuddha”(Sonnhobutsuronᑛⓚዊㄽ).Victoriasaysofthisorganizationthatit “representedtheorganizationalbirthofaBuddhistformofJapanesenationalismthatwas exclusionistandaggressivelyantiChristianincharacter,”lendingsupporttotheimperialistand militaristicprojectwhilereassertingthestatusofBuddhismasthefoundationofJapan.44 ThisproimperialistBuddhisttrendcontinuedthroughouttheMeiji,forinstanceinthe WartimeConferenceofReligionists(senjishkykakondankaiᡓ᐀ᩍᐙ᠓ㄯ)of1904,in 40 See,forexample,Ives2009,22. 41 SeeKetelaar1990,73;Ives2009,21. 42 Inanexampleofgovernmentmoderation,NishiHonganji,astrongsupporteroftheorganization, receivedaprivatecommuniqueinthefallof1868fromgovernmentofficialsdistancingthemselvesfrom thepersecutionandattributingitto“foulmouthedrebelsclaimingtospeakfortheimperialcourt.”See Victoria2006,6;Ketelaar1990,12–13. 43 SeeKetelaar1990,68–69,248n.ImportantworkonMeijiBuddhistmissionizingincolonialKoreahas beendonebyHur(whofocussesonStsectinvolvement)andKim(Hur1999;H.I.Kim2012).Nishiari BokusanhadconnectionswithShoshdtokukaimei,andheplayedanimportantroleinthe evangelizationofHokkaid;seeSectionThree. 44 SeeIves2009,22;Victoria2006,18. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.26 whichBuddhistsjoinedShint,Confucian,andChristianleaderstoproclaim“thattheRusso JapaneseWarwasbeingwagedfor‘eternalpeace’”;andinthegovernmentsponsored “ConferenceoftheThreeReligions”(Sankykaid୕ᩍྠ)of1912inwhichBuddhist institutionsagainassertedtheirunitywithimperialgoals.45TheBuddhistestablishmentalso tooktheopportunityinthefinalyearsoftheMeijiperiodtoreassertitsloyaltytothestateby unequivocallycondemningthe“HighTreasonIncident”(taigyakujiken㏫௳),analleged (andpossiblyfabricated)assassinationattemptontheemperorwhichresultedinapolitical crackdown.SeveralBuddhistclergywereconvictedintheincident,andoneoftheonlypublicly leftistandantiwarBuddhistsofthetime,UchiyamaGudෆᒣហ❺(18741911)oftheSt sect,wasexecutedforit.Buddhistinstitutions,layleaders,andscholarsunanimouslylenttheir fullsupporttothegovernmentaroundtheincident,distancingthemselvesfromtheaccusedso thoroughlyastoerasethemfromtheclericalranks.46TheStsectwentsofarastocall Uchiyama’sinvolvementthe“mostseriouscrimeinthesect’slastonethousandyears”(Victoria 2006,50).47 Despitebroadagreementinthescholarshipaboutthepervasivenessofnationalisticand militaristicideologyinMeijiBuddhism,thereisalsoconsiderabledebateabouttheextentof anygivenindividual’s“actual”supportforthewars.Whilethedetailsofthesedisagreements vary,MohrindicatesacommonthreadindivergentreadingsofMeijiBuddhists,namelythe difficultyinproperlycontextualizinganygivenstatement.ObjectingtoSharf’scharacterization ofNantenb,amajorMeijiRinzaiZenfigure,as“astaunchnationalistandpartisanofthe Japanesemilitary,”MohrnotesthatwhileNantenb’sinvocation,forexample,of“the JapaneseSpirit”(yamatodamashii)“instantlyevokesdarkassociationswiththemilitary dictatorshipoftheShwaera,”forapersonlikeNantenb“raisedduringtheTokugawaperiod andsteepedintheprincipleofbushid,however,itwasprobablyasordinaryasthephrases ‘theAmericanSpirit,’or‘l’espiritfrançais’intoday’sworld”(Mohr1998,199).Evenwhensuch “darkassociations”arewarranted,however,thequestionremainsoftheextenttowhichthey reflectanindividual’spositionaboveandbeyond“thenationalmood”andtheconstraintsof theauthorizeddiscourse.48 45 SeeIves2009,21;Victoria2006,53. 46 Uchiyama,forexample,wasnotrestoredtotheStclericalranksuntilover80yearsafterhisdeath, inalongposthumousannouncementissuedin1993(Victoria2006,46). 47 Forgooddiscussionsoftheincident,andUchiyama’sroleinit,seeIshikawa1998;Victoria2006,38– 54;andIves2009,24–25. 48 InmyownreadingofNishiariBokusan,forexample,Ihavefeltthisproblemacutely.Whileitseems clearthatheisastaunchnationalist,itishardifnotimpossibletoteaseouthispersonalopinionsfrom thenationalmood,indeedthenationallanguageofimperialism,thatpervadesthewritingsofthetime. Howareanindividual’sopinionscodedwithinaverynarrowsphereofacceptablespeech,andcanthose codesbecrackedoutsideofthecontextoftheirdelivery?Theseproblemsseemtounderliethewide divergenceinscholars’andsectarians’interpretationsofthemotivationsofMeijiBuddhistfigures. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.27 Thisinterpretivedivergenceismostpronounced,andmostemotional,inthedebates aroundSuzukiDaisetsu,theassessmentofwhosewartimepositionhasbecomesomethingofa cottageindustry.ThevastnessofSuzuki’sworkseemstoenableanyscholartofindmaterial thatalignswiththeirargument,butitalsoseverelyhindersadefinitiveassessmentofhis perspectiveabouttheimperialistfervorofwartimeJapan.Ultimately,itisclearthatthereare bothhighlynationalisticandmilitaristicinstancesofhiswritingaswellasmuchmore moderatedones.Howoneassessesthese,inlightofthebaselinerhetoricalnoiseofthetime, seemsarathersubjectivematterandlendsitselfoverwelltotheagendasofanygiven scholar.49 ItisarguablethatformuchifnotallofBuddhisthistorythebenefitstotheStateof sponsoringBuddhismhavebeenexploitedbytheBuddhistinstitutions.Selfservingnotionsof aBuddhismfortheprotectionoftheState,andoftheunityofimperialandBuddhistlaw,has rootsearlyintheChineseandJapaneseBuddhisttraditions.50Itisthereforedoubtfulthatthe JapaneseBuddhistestablishmentsupportforearlytwentiethcenturyJapaneseimperialism constitutesaparticularly“modern”orevennoteworthyphenomenon.Ives,forexample, arguesthatsuchmovesarealittlemorethanmoderninstanceofthetimehonoreddiscourse of“Buddhismfortheprotectionoftherealm”(gokokubukkyㆤᅜᩍ)(Ives2009,101–127). AsSharfputsitinhisattempttocontextualizetheissue,the“mastersofold”ora“medieval Zenabbot”wouldnotnecessarily“havetakenwhatwebelievetobethemoralhighgroundon theissueofJapaneseimperialistaggressionduringthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury.The realquestion,asIseeit,iswhywewouldexpecthimto”(Sharf1995b,51).Justas establishmentBuddhistsupportforJapaneseimperialismdoesnotstandoutinBuddhist history,itisalsonotexceptionalwithinMeijiJapaneseculture:nationalistsentiment(orat leastrhetoric)extendedthroughoutvirtuallyeverysecularandreligiousinstitutionandlocalein Japan.AusefulcaseinpointofhowdeeplysuchsentimentpervadedMeijiJapanmaybefound inThelle’saccountofnationalismduringtheSinoJapaneseWar(189495): “[E]ventheJapaneseSocietyofFriends(Quakers),forwhom pacifismhadbeenacentralconcern,supportedthewarby allowingitsmemberstojointhearmy.WhentheAmerican FriendscriticizedtheirJapanesecolleaguesandexpelledfour studentsfromtheirschoolforabandoningpacifism,theywere accusedoffailingtocombineloveofone’sfellowmenwithlove 49 VictoriaandSathavefoughtsomeofthisoutinthepagesofTheEasternBuddhist(SatandKirchner 2008;Victoria2010;SatandKirchner2010),andVictoriahasgottenthelastwords(fornow)inThe AsiaPacificJournal(Victoria2013a;Victoria2013b).Sharf,Kirita,andothershavealsoweighedin (Sharf1995a;Sharf1995a;Kirita1995). 50 ForahistoryofthethemeinChinasee,forexample,Hirata1995,4–8;forJapan,seeIves2009,107– 111. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan ofone’scountry.Theconflictfinallyendedwithasplitwithinthe SocietyofFriends,andtheAmericanQuakerswithdrewtheir supportoftheJapaneseworkofthesociety.”(Thelle1987,171) WhileImaintainthatBuddhistnationalismremainsanimportantandinteresting objectofstudy,ImustagreewithSharfthatitisonlywhenthesecontextsof BuddhisthistoryandJapanesenationalismareignoredthattheissuecanbemet withthekindofsurpriseandindignationthatcharacterizes,forinstance, Victoria’swork. pg.28 MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.29 SECTIONII StZeninMeijiJapan TheStsectwasamongthelargestoftheMeijireligiousorganizations,with14,310 templesand12,467abbotsin1882,anditwaswellrepresentedinthepanBuddhist developmentsoftheMeiji(Jaffe1998,78).TheroleofStfigureslikeuchiSeiran,Takada Dken,andothersinthegeneraldevelopmentsinMeijiBuddhismhavebeenbrieflynotedin SectionOne.Butwhilesimilarpressuresandtrendsaffectedeachsect,theirresponses differed,andamorenarrowtreatmentoftheStMeijisituationinparticularwillbenecessary tocompletethepictureofthecontextinwhichNishiariBokusanlivedandoperated.Inwhat follows,IwilldrawonaselectionofthescatteredEnglishandJapaneselanguagesourceson thetopictooutlineafewofthemajordevelopmentswithintheStinstitutionintheMeiji. ThefactthatthetermStsh(Ch.CaodongZong ᭪Ὕ᐀)isattestedasfarbackas SongᏵChina(9601279)mightleadonetoimaginethatitrepresentsacontinuousinstitution oratleastadiscreteanddistinctsetofpractices,doctrines,andinstitutionalforms.Thebirth oftheStshasaunifiedinstitutionalentity,however,isaproductoftheMeijiera—Foulk datesitsbirthspecificallyto1874,theyearofitslegalincorporationasareligiousentityin Japan.51Whatisnowtakentobeaunifiedsectwaspriortothatperiodaloosesetof individuals,lineagerelationships,andtempleaffiliationsdispersedacrossdiverseregionsand sharinglittlemorethantherhetoricofacommonancestor,Dgen.AsingularStshdidnot emergefromthatdiversityuntiltheearlyMeijiperiod,atimeatwhichallthesectsand branchesofBuddhismwereintheirownwaysscramblingtonegotiatetherapidlychanging politicalandsociallandscapeandtorespondtoincreasingdemandsforunification, standardization,andcentralizationacrossallaspectsofsociety. ThepressureexertedbytheMeijigovernmenttoclarifysectarianidentitieshasbeen notedinSectionOne,andithasbeennotedthatthepressurestowardsbothsectarianismand transsectarianismpulledonthesectsintheMeiji.AsJaffeputsit,theMeijigovernment demanded,asitdidofallsects,thattheStleadership codifyaninstitutionalstructure,sectlaw,andanoverarching formalStidentity.Elidingtheregional,sectarian,and 51 DigitalDictionaryofBuddhism,“᭪Ὕ᐀,”articlebyGriffithFoulk. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.30 hierarchicalvariationsinpracticethathadexistedinthepast,the Stleadersadopteduniformrulesandinstitutional arrangementsforallmembersofthedenomination(Jaffe1998, 78). Therewasindeedmuchto“elide.”Whiletheimpulsetocentralizeandstandardizemadesense fromthepointofviewofthegovernmentandwasconsistentwithitseffortstocentralizeand standardizeallsocialinstitutions,andwhilefurthermoresuchorganizationcertainlyfacilitated thegovernment’sabilitytomanagereligionandsociety,itposedasignificantproblemsforthe “sects”themselves,whichwereforcedtodefine,oreventoinvent,homogenousanddiscrete entitieswherenosuchthingshadnecessarilyexisted.Theconstructionofasingularand homogenousStsectintheMeijiwasinthissenseasproblematic—andasmuchafacetof whatGrapardhascalleda“culturallie”—aswasthebroaderprojectoftheseparationand clarificationofShintandBuddhisminshinbutsubunri.52 TodefinetheStsectposedthetwinchallengesof,ontheonehand,distinguishing itselfamongthematrixofZenandBuddhistbranches,and,ontheother,unifyingitsinternal lineagesandbranches,especiallytheEiheijiỌᖹᑎandSjiji⥲ᣢᑎtemplebranches.53This processresultedintheinstitutionalbirthofthesectsastheyareknowninthemodernperiod, butitisimportanttoemphasizethatthisbirthwasnotamatterofpullingapreexistentand unified“Stsh”fromalargermatrix,butratherofhackingoutaspecialidentitywithin Buddhismandfabricatingaunityacrosstemplesandbranches.ThoughtheStsh endeavoredtoexpressitselfastheintrinsicnatureunderlyingthesevariouslineagesand temples,itisperhapsbetterconceivedasahastilyconstructedumbrellaoverthem. Admittedly,thisaccountofthe“birth”ofStrisksoverstatingthenoveltyofMeiji Buddhistsectarianism.Indeed,thereisampleevidenceforBuddhistsectarianisminthe Tokugawaperiod,andeveninSongorTang ၈(618907)China.54JustasShintandBuddhism wereinsomegeneralsense“distinguishable”inthepremodernperiod—aBuddhistmonk,for example,thoughtofhimselfasaBuddhistmonk—sotooitismisleadingtosuggestthatthe distinctionbetweenZenandotherschoolsofBuddhism,orbetweentheRinzai,St,and 52 ForGrapardonshinbutsubunriasa“culturallie,”seeSectionOneandGrapard1984,242–245. 53 MichaelaMrosshaskindlyremindedmethatwhiletheEiheijiandSjijibranchesdidconstitutethe mainfaultlineofMeiji(andTokugawa,andcontemporary)St,itisimportantnottotakethese branchesasmonoliths;eachwasitselfcomprisedofdynamicandconflictingfactions. 54 Asnoted,withrespecttoChineseBuddhisthistory,Sharfandothershavearguedthatitisgenerally misleadingtoapplymodernsectariancategories,anditiscertainthatatleastintheTangtherewere notinstitutionalizedsectsaswewouldunderstandthemtoday(Sharf2002a;Sharf2002b).The scholarship,however,bynomeanssuggeststhattherewerenotChineseBuddhistmonkswhoidentified themselveswithoragainsttherhetoricofcertainschoolsofteaching.Foroneexample,seeSchlütter onthevociferousLinjiCaodong(RinzaiSt)disputesintwelfthcenturyChina(Schlütter2008). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.31 baku㯤᷑schools,isentirelyaproductoftheMeijiperiod.Mohr,forexample,who,as noted,convincinglyarguesfora“shroudedcontinuity”betweenTokugawaandMeijiBuddhism, hasspecificallyexploredthedeepsectarianismofRinzai,St,andbakuintheTokugawa period(Mohr1994;Mohr1998).TheinstitutionalsectariandevelopmentsintheMeijiare indisputable,however,and,asalsonotedabove,Ketelaarputsitsuccinctly,“Theonce amorphousdivisionbetweenspecific‘sects’(sh᐀)and‘schools’(haὴ)was,duringthis periodandforthefirsttime,solidifiedandconstitutedasalegallybindinghierarchyof difference”(Ketelaar1990,76). InthestudyoftheStsectintheMeiji,then,aswiththestudyofBuddhisminthe Meijimorebroadly,thisquestionofcontinuityorchangeloomslarge.WhiletheShushgiಟド ⩏andtheGyjikihan⾜ᣢ㌶⠊,forexample,exploredbelow,arenotableexpressionsofthe standardizationofdoctrineandpracticeintheStsect,Jafferemindsusthatthequestionof allegiancetothesenewlycentralizedstandardsoverlocaltraditionshasyettobeinvestigated (Jaffe1998,78).Furthermore,ithasyettobeestablishedhowradicaladeparturefrompast precedentwasthenewlyestablishedStorthodoxyandorthopraxis.Stsectarianscertainly argueforacontinuityofdoctrineandpractice,anditiscommonplacetohear,forexample,that themonasticformsofmodernStarepreciselythosepracticedinthethirteenthcentury.55 Whilesuchclaimsmustbetakenskeptically,afullaccountofthemodernizationofSt,and theextenttowhichitcanbeseenasruptureorcontinuity,remainstobewritten. _____ AsdiscussedinSectionOne,thefirstandmostimportantmandatefromtheMeiji governmenttoclarifysectarianboundariesandunifydiversebrancheswastheestablishment ofthe“chiefabbot”(kanch)system,aprocessthatbeganin1872withtheestablishmentof theposition“chiefabbotofdoctrinalinstructors”(kydshokukanch)toservetheGreat TeachingAcademy.IkedatranslatesanannouncementfromtheMinistryofDoctrine (Kybush)fromthesixthmonthofthatyear: Everytempleineachjurisdictionmustbenotified,inaccordance withthestipulationsprovidedontheattachedsheet,ofthefact thathereaftereachsectwillhaveonechiefdoctrinalinstructor,[a measuretaken]forthepurposeofregulatingtherespectivesects andbranches.(Ikeda1998,13–14) 55 ArecentmovieaboutthelifeofDgenisanextremeexampleofthispervasiveelementofmodern Strhetoric(Takakashi2009). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.32 ThisfirstiterationofthekanchpolicyrecognizedonlysevenBuddhistsects,mandatinga singlechiefabbottopresideoverthe“Zensect,”butthisattempttocombineallthebranches ofRinzai,St,andbakuintoasingleinstitutionprovedunworkable.Therefore,“on22 February1874[theMinistryofDoctrine]reversedthispolicy,disbandingthenew,unified‘Zen sect’andallowingtheRinzaiandStorganizationstoregisterseparately,”and“[o]nlythendid theRinzaiandSttraditionsappointtheirownchiefabbotandreorganizethemselvesinto modernsectarianinstitutions"(Ikeda1998,14).56 This1874birthoftheStshasalegalinstitutiondidnotmarkacompletionbutrather abeginningofaprocessofselfdefinition,centralization,andstandardizationinthesect.Some elementsofthisprocessasitunfoldedthroughouttheMeijiwillbediscussedinthissectionas follows: 1)Thedevelopmentofthetenuousinstitutionalrelationshipbetweenthehead templesEiheijiỌᖹᑎandSjiji⥲ᣢᑎ,especiallytheircollaborationaroundtwo majortextualprojects,namely, 2)theTjgyjikihanὝୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊ritualmanualforclerics(1889),and 3)thelayorientedStkykaishushgi᭪Ὕᩍಟド⩏catechism(1890), whichcametodefineorthodoxyforlayandclericalike.Finally, 4)thenewemphasisonthestudyoftheShbgenz,andtheemergenceofthe genze║ⶶformatforitsexegesis. dǁŽdĞŵƉůĞƐ͕KŶĞ^ĞĐƚ͗ŝŚĞŝũŝĂŶĚ^ƃũŝũŝ ApartfromtherenewedneedtodistinguishitselffromtheotherZensects,themajor taskoftheearlyMeijiStinstitutionwastounifyitsinternaldivisionsandhomogenizeits diversetemples.Asnoted,thestrongestinternaldivisionwithinthefieldofStaffiliated templeswasthedivisionbetweentheEiheijiandSjijibranches.Sinceearlyintheseventeenth centurythetwotempleshadbeenaffirmedbytheemperorandshogunasdualheadtemples (honzanᮏᒣ)oftheStsect,theresultofwhatMrosshasnotedwasadeliberatestrategy appliedacrossBuddhistsectsbytheshogunTokugawaIeyasuᚨᕝᐙᗣ(15431616)to preventtheaccumulationofpowerinthehandsofanysingleheadtemple(Mross2009).This arrangementwasconvenientforthegovernment,butitlednaturallytopowerstruggles betweenthetwotemples,andconflictsbetweenEiheijiandSjijiwerecontinuousthroughthe 56 ThebakusectremainedalegalbranchoftheRinzaisectuntilan1876orderrecognizedittooas institutionallyindependent. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.33 TokugawaperiodandcontinuedinfullforceintotheMeiji.Bodiforddescribesthetemples’ relationshipsuccinctly: “Throughout[theTokugawa]period,SjijiandEiheijiwererivals inthetruesenseoftheword.IneachofthemajorSt controversiesoftheTokugawaperiod—onquestionsrangingfrom DharmasuccessiontothepropermannerofwearingtheBuddhist robe—EiheijiandSjijistakedoutopposingpositionsonthe issues”(Bodiford1993,81–82).57 Whateverthecontentofagivendispute,theunderlyinginstitutionaldynamicwasclear: thevastmajorityofSttemples,theeconomicandinstitutionalbaseofthesect,werebranch temples(matsujiᮎᑎ)ofSjiji,whereasthedoctrinalandpatriarchalcenterofthesect, claimingexclusiveaccesstothesect’sJapanesefounderDgen,layatEiheiji.58 Thisoldrivalrywas,inMohr’swords,“reawakened”atthestartoftheMeijierain1868, whenEiheijiofficialsproposedtothenewgovernmentareformationoftheStorganization thatwouldestablishEiheijiasthesingleheadtemple(shonzan⥲ᮏᒣ)(Mohr1998,174– 175).ThereisnodoubtthattheselfservingEiheijiproposalof1868didintensifythe conflictualdynamicbetweentheheadtemples,butitshouldnotbeinferredthattherivalry wasinanywaydormantimmediatelypriortoit.Indeed,themostrecentactivedispute betweenthetwoheadtemples(“thethreerobecontroversy”)hadbeennominallysettledonly in1861,justsevenyearsprior,andaccordingtoRiggs,“tensionscontinuedoverthisissue”until atleast1872(DianeElizabethRiggs2010,253–256). Thegovernment,afterrealizingthedepthofSjiji’soppositiontotheideaofpromoting Eiheijitosoleheadtemplestatus,ultimatelyrejectedthe1868Eiheijiproposalandtooksteps toforcethetemplestocooperatewithoneanother.Thefirstoftheseattemptswasan1870 imperialordertoappointa“firstindependentabbotofSjiji”(Sjijidokujisse⥲ᣢᑎ⋊ఫ୍ 57 See,forexample,DavidRiggsandBodifordonthesuccessioncontroversies(DavidERiggs2002,131– 176;Bodiford1991)andDianeRiggsontherobecontroversies(DianeElizabethRiggs2010). 58 Bodifordreportsthatcirca1750,Eiheijibranchtemplesconstitutedamere1,300ofthe17,500St temples,therestofwhichwereSjijibranchtemples(Bodiford2012a,208).TheascensionofSjijias the“institutionalcenter”oftheStsecthasrootsinthe14thcentury,particularlytheeffortsofGasan Jsekiᓚᒣ㡥☒(12761366),andisdetailedbyBodiford(Bodiford1993,95–139).Thisdynamicof institutionalanddoctrinalcentersissometimesdescribedintermsofSjijibeingtheheadofSt templelineagesandEiheijibeingtheheadofallStDharmalineages,aclaimthatseemstolevelthe fieldbutwhichBodifordrightlyfindsincoherent,astheideaofa“headtemple”(Eiheiji)of“lineages”is aconfusionofterms(Bodiford2012a,209).BodifordarguescompellinglythatEiheiji’ssuccessin maintainingitsstatusasequaltoSjijiatthetopoftheinstitutiondespitehavingvirtuallynoaffiliated templeshasbeentheresultofpersistentandaggressivecampaignstopreservethe“memory”ofDgen andtoidentifyitselfasthemaincaretakerofhislegacy(Bodiford2012a). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.34 ୡ),whichachieved“asemblanceofasolution…toacknowledgetheclaimsofSjijifor independence”(Mohr1998,174–175).Themoresignificantstep,however,wasagovernment mandatedcompactbetweenthetwotemplessignedin1872statingthattheirpastdifferences anddisputeswouldberesolvedinaccordancewiththeteachingsofbothDgen,thefounderof Eiheiji,andKeizanJkin⍧ᒣ⤂⍲(12681325),thefounderofSjiji(Bodiford1993,82). Intheseveralyearsfollowingthe1872compact,thetwotemplescollaboratedona numberofthings.Thesectopenedadministrativeheadquarters(shmuch᐀ົᘍ)inTky in1872,aninstitutionwhich,Readernotes,“servedatfirstsimplyasacoordinatingcenter throughwhichthesectcouldkeepabreastofpoliticaldevelopmentsandalsodisseminate information,but,inthemannerofallbureaucracies,grewintoapowerfulanddominating organatthecoreofSt,becomingthedrivingforcebehinditsmodernevolution.”Afirstsect wideassembly(kaigi㆟)forcentralizeddecisionmakingwassubsequentlyheldunderthe auspicesoftheshmuchin1875.59Bodiford’slistofthepostcompactcooperativeendeavors includes,“rulesfortheoperationoftemples”(jih)(1876),sponsorshipof“aformalSt church(kykaiᩍ)…[as]anattempttobypasstherigidhierarchyoftemplefactions”(1876), theadoptionofaritualcalendarwhichforthefirsttimeelevatedKeizan(andtherebySjiji) (1877),aStshconstitutionthat,amongotherthings,“definedtherelationshipbetween headandbranchtemples”(1882),andtheregistrationwiththegovernmentofthesect’s unified“governingorganizationandadministrativerules(shsei)”(1885)(Bodiford1993,81– 82).Perhapsmostimportantofallwerethejointeditingandauthorizingofthestandardized ritualmanual,theTjgyjokihan(1889);and,secondly,thecatechismStkykaishushgi (1892),affirmedbyjointSjijiandEiheijiedictastheorthodoxsummaryofthesect’steachings (shkynotaii ᐀ᩍࣀព)(Watanabe1983,137).Thisclusteroffoundationaldevelopments intheStshdeservesmorestudythanithasreceivedintheEnglishlanguageliterature. The1885administrativerules(shsei)areespeciallyinterestingamongthesebecauseof theirroleintherelationsbetweenEiheijiandSjiji.Theserulesweredraftedandregisteredin responsetoan1884governmentorderinwhichtheCouncilofState(Dajkanኴᨻᐁ),aspart ofabolishingthe“failed”doctrinalinstructorsystem,and“relinquish[ing]anyremnantsof directcentralgovernmentcontrolofwhatwerenowdeemedinternalsectarianaffairs,” mandatedthateachsectsubmit“sectarianprescriptions”(shsei)and“templerules”(jih)for authorizationbytheMinistryofDomesticAffairs(Naimushෆົ┬)(Jaffe1998,61).60Though 59 SeeReader1985,35–36.Readersuggeststhatthis“sectcouncil…reflect[ed]thedevelopmentof democratictrendswithinJapanbroughtaboutbythenewcontactswithWesternculture.” 60 Jaffetranslatesshseias“denominationwideregulations”andcommentsonthetermsfurther: “Shseiarethefundamentalrulestobefollowedwithinaparticulardenomination.Jiharethebasic regulationstobefollowedattheindividualtemplesofthedenomination.Inpractice,however,the regulationsissuedbyvariousdenominationsrarelydistinguishthetwotypesofstatutes.”The Naimushoversawthe“ShrineandTempleBureau”(Shajikyoku♫ᑎᒁ),whichwasassigned MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.35 thismandateledto“internaldifficultyintheattempttobalancetheneedsofdifferent branches,”itwastakenonenthusiastically.Afurtherorderin1885raisedthestakesby stipulatingthatthesenewdocumentswouldsupplantallpreviouslyauthorizedsectarian prescriptionsandtemplerules(Ikeda1998,27). The1885shseisubmittedbytheStsectisaninterestingdocumentonseveral counts,andisdiscussedindetailbyKawaguchi.61“Otherpower”(tarikiຊ)languageinthe fourthsection,forinstance,“OutlineofthePrinciplesandTeachingsoftheStSect”(Stsh shkytaii᭪Ὕ᐀᐀ᩍព)setoffconsiderablecontroversyintheputatively“selfpower” (jiriki⮬ຊ)sect.62IntermsoftheviabilityofthecoalitionbetweenEiheijiandSjiji,though, the1885shseiwascriticalinthatitincludedthetermsoftheir1872truce.Thisensuredthat whentensionsflaredupbetweenpartisansofthetemples,whatBodifordcallsthe“forceof law”thatthetrucehadacquiredbyitsregistrywiththegovernmentcouldkeeptheinstitution frombeingtornapart. Thefragileunityofthetwoheadtempleswasespeciallychallengedintheyears1892 1894,thepeakoftheSjijiindependencemovementandatimeofsuchgreatdiscordthat MichaelaMross,oneofthefewWesternscholarstohaveworkedontheconflict,hascalledit “probablythedeepestcrisisinthehistoryoftheStschool.”ShesuggeststhatSjijiinthose yearsinfactcameextremelyclosetorealizingitsgoalofindependence(Mross2009).Two majorcatalystsfortheSjijiindependencemovementwerethe1885poachingfortheEiheiji abbacyofaSjijibranchtempleabbot,TakiyaTakush℧㇂⌶᐀(18361897),andthe1891 electiontosucceedhim,inwhichapriestwhoservedatSjijiitself,MoritaGoy᳃⏣ᝅ⏤ (18341915),63defeatedNishiariBokusan,whosesupporterscontestedtheresultsanddecried theelectionasillegitimate.64SjijipartisanscomplainedthattheelectionofMorita,likethatof Takiya,“deprivedSjijiofitsbestpersonnelwhilegivingEiheijitoomuchauthorityoverSjiji branchtemples”(Bodiford1993,83).Competingassociationsrepresentingthetwotemples sprungupinthelate1880sandin1892aSjijifactionpersuadedtheSjijiabbotAzegami Baisen␁ୖᴝ(18251901)todeclareSjiji’sindependence,withdrawingrecognitionof managementofsectarianaffairsuponthe1877eliminationoftheMinistryofDoctrine(Kybush).See Jaffe1998,61,61n. 61 SeeKawaguchi2002,638–651. 62 SeeLobreglio2009,86–87;Ikeda1998,36–37;andScarangello2012,297–304. 63 RiggsnotesthatMorita“heldseveralhighleveladministrativepositionsatbothEiheijiandSjiji.”She citeshisworkontheTjgyjikihan(seebelow)asevidencethat,borrowingthephrasefromBodiford, he“workedhardtocalmrelationsbetweenthesetwoheadtemples”(DianeElizabethRiggs2010,258; Bodiford1993,83).ForalistofhispostsatEiheijiandSjiji,seeZGD,1229b. 64 SeeSectionThreebelow;thehagiographiesofNishiariclaimthatNishiarilostonlybecauseballotson whichthedifficultcharacterboku✕weremiswrittenwereinvalidated.(SeeforexampleNBZ,31). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.36 Eiheijianditsbranchtemplesandnullifyingallpastagreementsbetweenthetemples.65This declarationcouldnotstand,however,inlightoftheMinistryofHomeAffairs’rulingthatthe 1885shsei,andbyextensionthetermsofthe1872truce,werelegallybinding.Azegamiwas thereupondismissedbythegovernmentfromhisconcurrentpostaspresidentoftheSt headquarters(shmuch),andNishiariandMoritawereorderedtosharethepost.The interventionofthegovernmentandthedemotionofAzegamifurtherrileduptheadvocatesof Sjiji’sindependence,andby1893thethreatofasplinteringwassoacutethattheMinistry intervenedagain,thistimeforcingAzegamitoresigntheSjijiabbacy.In1894,inasymbolic showofreconciliationandunity,theEiheijiabbotMoritaalsoresigned.Shortlythereafter,new Stshregulationswereestablishedtoclarifytheabbatialelectionprocessandtoaffirmthe temples’unity,andAzegamiandMoritabothresumedtheirheadtempleabbacies.Bodiford writes: Atthistime,Stleadersproclaimedthecompromisedoctrines of“twoheadtemples,onesect”and“twopatriarchs,one essence.”Officially,anyindependentvenerationofSjijiorEiheiji wastoserveasvenerationofboth.Likewise,anydifferences betweenthedoctrinesweretobeviewedasalternate expressionsofthesamereligiousteaching.(Bodiford1993,82– 84) ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŝnjŝŶŐ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͗dŚĞTjGyjiKihan;ϭϴϴϵͿ AmajoraspectofthecollaborationbetweenEiheijiandSjiji,asnoted,wasthe compositionoftheTjgyjikihan Ὕୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊(“TheStandardObservancesofthe FollowersofTzan”),atextthatmadegreatstridestowardstheunificationand homogenizationoftheStsect.66ThereisnoEnglishaccountoftheTjgyjikihanasaMeiji 65 Azegami,whotrainedalongsideNishiariBokusanunderGettanZenry ᭶₺㱟andpreceededhim asSjijiabbot,ismajorfigureinMeijiStinstitutionalhistory.Forabriefbiography,seeZGD7a. 66 ThetermIhavehesitantlytranslated“followersofTzan,”TjὝୖ,isusedcommonlyinearlyMeiji writingtorefertoSt᭪Ὕ,andallEnglishtranslationsofthetermthatIhavecomeacrosssimply renderit“St.”IobjecttothisprimarilybecauseIfinditincoherentforanEnglishtranslationto renderoneJapanesewordwithanotherJapaneseword.Ialso,suspect,however,thatthoseusingthe termintheMeijiweremakingaconsciousdecisiontoavoidthetermSt.WhilethecharacterTὝis universallyunderstoodtorefertoDongshanLiangjie ὝᒣⰋ௴(807–869,J.TzanRykai),Kawaguchi describesearlyMeijidebatesonthequestionofwhethertheS᭪characterreferstothesixthancestor Huineng្⬟(638–713,J.En),knownalsobytheplacenameCaoxi᭪⁇(J.Skei),ortoalater MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.37 eradocument;evenFoulk,whohascommentedonandtranslatedalatereditionofthetextin full,doeslittletosituateitsrootsintheMeijiortodescribeitasexpressiveoftheaimsand exigenciescharacteristicofthatperiod.67TheTjgyjikihanisnotsimplyanobjectiveor commonsensecompilationfromanarrayofpriorrulestexts,however,andIbelievethatitis bestunderstoodinitsMeijicontextofStunificationandidentitycreation. Ontheheelsofthe1885Stshshsei,andatacriticalpointofcooperationbetween EiheijiandSjiji,theabbotsAzegamiBaisenofSjijiandTakiyaTakushofEiheijiannounced theircollaborationonarulestext.Watanabecitesthetextofthe1886announcement: ୍᐀୍㌤ࣀἲつࣤ☜ᐃࢭࣥࢥࢺࣤせࢫ↛ࣝࢽ⾜ἲࣁつᘧከ➃ ࢽࢩࢸႷࢽ୧୍ࣤㅮࢩ㞴ࢩ⮬ซࢯࣨᖺࣤᮇࢩࢸᨵṇつ ๎ࣤ⦅⧩ࢭࢩ࣒ྍࢩ(Watanabe1983,134) Despitetheneedtodefinetheproceduresandregulationsof‘a singlesectwithasinglebody,’thepracticesintheprocedural codesarenumerous,anditisdifficulttoquicklyorganizethem intoone.Wewillcompilerevisedstandardswithinapproximately fiveyears. TwoyearslaterthispromiseyieldedtheTjgyjikihan.Theprefacetothetextnames theeditors,allhighlevelStsectofficialswithconnectionstoSjiji,Eiheiji,orboth:Morita Goy,KitanoGenp 㔝ඖᓠ(18421933),68andtoriShungei 㬨(d.1926).69Theywere ancestor,thediscipleofDongshannamedCaoshanBenji᭪ᒣᮏᐢ(840–901,J.SzanHonjaku) (Kawaguchi2002,373–377).Ican’thelpbuttospeculatethatthechoiceofTjwasawayforaMeiji authortoskirtthecontroversyandtoavoidusingatermwhosereferentwascontested.Whileitis temptingtofurtherspeculatethatthetermTjfadedasdidtheMeijiiterationofthecontroversyover thereferentofS(Foulkmakesreferencetoamorerecentiteration),itmayinfactbelessaquestionof “Tj”fadingsomuchas“St”ascendingasthesectwasincreasinglycodifiedundertheofficial designation“Stsh.”Foulknotesthat“themembersofthistraditioninChinaarealsoreferredtoas Ὕᐙ,Ὕୖ;and Ὕୗ,”whichindicatesthatMeijiauthorshadampleprecedentfortheuseofTj (DigitalDictionaryofBuddhism,“᭪Ὕ᐀,”articlebyGriffithFoulk). 67 Foulk’stranslationiscalledStandardObservancesoftheStZenSchool,basedonthe1966revision, ShwashuteiStshgyjikihanಟゞ᭪Ὕ᐀⾜ᣢつ⠊(Foulk2010a). 68 Kitano,likeMorita,isrememberedforhishardworktowardsstabilizethesectduringtheEiheijiSjiji conflicts,andin1918hebecamethesixtyseventhabbotofEiheiji.SeeZGD,202b. 69 Referencestotoriarescarce,butScarangelloprovideshisdeathdateandidentifieshimasthethird postreconstructionabbotofSjiji.Henotesthat“despitehisimportancetoMeijiperiodSt,[he]left fewindependentlyauthoredtextstoposterity”(Scarangello2012,320).(Scarangello’sresearchhasled himtoreadthenameasK,whileIfollowareferenceinthesupplementtothe1966Shwashutei Stshgyjikihanandprefertori[Stshshmuch1988,1].) MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.38 saidtohavebeguntheirworkinthefirstmonthof1888andtohavecompleteditbythe eleventhmonthofthesameyear(Stshshmuch1889,1). Thenextyear,1889,theabbotsAzegamiandTakiyamadeanofficialdeclarationofthe orthodoxyofthetext: ᫂ᰯゞὝୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊⦅⧩ᡂࣤ࿌ࢣࢱࣝࢽ⏤ࣜ⋠ࢽஅࣤ 㡺ᕸࢭࢩ࣒᐀ෆൔ୍⯡ࢽಟ⩦ࢩࢸᚑ๓༊ࠎࣀ⾜ᣢࣤᗫṆࢩ ᫂ᘘᅄᖺ୍᭶୍᪥௨ᚋྠ୍ࢽṈࣀ㌶⠊ࣤ㑂⾜ࢫ࣊ࢩ (Tokuno2010,22) WeherebyannouncethecompletionofthecompilationofaMeiji editionoftheStandardObservancesoftheFollowersofTzanand distributeit,abolishingthevariousobservancesthathave previouslybeenordinarilypracticedbytheclergywithinthesect. Thesestandardsmustbeobservedeffectivethefirstoftheyear ofMeiji24[1891]. AsJansenhasobservedoftheMeiji“restoration”ofpoliticalandculturaltraditionsin general,heretoowecanseethat“‘tradition’itselfwasdeclaredfinalized”(Jansen2000,493). Rhetoricallyatleast,theannouncementabolishesinasinglestrokewhatwascenturiesof diversityinregionalandtemplespecificobservances,aswellasaslewofpracticestransmitted independentlyinmasterdisciplelineages,likenowlostesoterickirigamiษ⣬ andmantra practices(Watanabe1983,132).70Ithustakethisannouncementtobeamongthedefining momentsofSthistory. TheTjgyjikihanthatfromthatmomentsupercededallpriorpracticesisamanualof ritualandobservancesorganizedarounddaily,monthly,annual,andoccasionalobservances. FoulknotesthelimitationsoftheEnglishterm“ritual”inthediscussionofsuchobservances, andwhilehenotesthatgyjiistheSinoJapanesetermthat“comesclosestinsemanticrange” totheEnglishword,infactgyji“encompassesaverybroadrangeofactivitiesthatZenclergy engagein.”Theseincludesleeping,bathing,eating,andstudy—“everydayactivities”the etiquetteandproceduresforwhicharedetailedinatextliketheGyjikihanbutwouldlikely falloutsideofacasualEnglishsenseof“ritual”(Foulk2010b,23).Followingprevioustextual precedentslikeKeizan’sRulesofPurity(seebelow),alleditionsofthetexthaveincludedwhat Foulkcalls“socialritualsandbureaucraticprocedures,”likethecompositionofformal invitationsandtheappointmentofmonasticofficers,aswellasmore“religious”and“didactic” elements,likesermonsbytheabbot,consultationswiththeabbot,sittinginmeditation, chanting,andmemorialservices(Foulk2010b,15–17). ItshouldbeemphasizedthatthereislittledoctrinalcontenttotheTjgyjikihan apartfromitstersescriptsforritualexchangesandubiquitousversesfortransferringmerit(ek 70 Foragoodtreatmentofkirigami,seeIshikawa2000. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.39 ᅁྥ).Somedoctrinalstancescouldlikelybeinterpretedorinferredfromthechoreography andliturgicalprioritiesofthemonasticlifeprescribed,butthetextisnottheplacetolookto establishtheMeijiStsectunderstandingofthefunctionorefficacyofritualobservancesor thepointofmonasticlifeitself.Itisfirstandforemostatechnicalmanual,andfortheorthodox meaningoftheobservancesdescribedinthetext,onemustlookelsewhere,totheStkykai shushgi,forinstance,whichspeaksindetailabouttheefficacyoftheformulaofrepentance (sangeᠲ)ortheritualofprecepttaking(jukaiᤵᡄ). Thesourcesandeditorialvaluesofthetextaresuccinctlyexpressedinthewordsofthe Tjgyjikihanintroductionitself: ୍ ᮏつࣀᚲせࣁᚑ๓Ὕୖࣀ⾜ᣢἲᘧ༊ࠎࢽ΅ࣞࣝࣔࣀ୍ࣤ ᐃࢭࣥࢺḧࢫࣝࢽᅾࣜᨾࢽ⥘᳥ࣤᶞᯘᣦ༡グൔᇽΎつᑠ Ύつࣀ୕ࢽ㈨ࣝࢥࣀ୕つࣁὝୖ⌧⾜ࣀἲᘧࢽࢩࢸ༊ࠎࢽ΅ࣞ ࣝࣀ᰿ཎࢼࣝࢽ⏤ࣝ⪋ࢩࢸஅࣤ↷ࢫࢽ⚙ⱌΎつΎつ⍧ᒣῤ つᰯᐃΎつഛ⏝Ύつධ⾗᪥⏝Ύつᗁఫ⳽ῤつສಟⓒΎつ➼ ࣀㅖつࣤ௨ࢸࢩ᭦ࢽྛᆅ᪉ྀᯘࢽู⾜ࢫࣝつᘧ୪ᮎὴൔ୰ ࣀᘓゝୖ⏦ཬ⌧ᩥ័⩦ࣀἲࣤ㢳࣑ࢸᚓኻࣤཧ⪃ࢩᑓࣛ ᶵࢽ㐺ᛂࢫࣝ⾜ᣢἲࣤᕪᐃࢭࣜ x Theneedforthepresentstandardscomesfromourdesireto standardizethewiderangeofobservancesandceremonial practicesofpreviousfollowersofTzan.Thepresentstandards aredrawnfromtheGuidelinesfortheShjuGrove,71theRulesof PurityforSanghaHalls,72andtheSmallEiheiRulesofPurity.73 Thesethreerulestextsincludeawiderangeofobservancesand ceremonialpracticesofthefollowersofTzan,andwetookthese asourbasis.Wealsoconsultedmanyotherstandardstexts,like theRulesofPurityforChanMonasteries,74theLargeEiheiRulesof 71 ᳥ᶞᯘᣦ༡グShjurinshinanki,compiledin1674byGesshSko᭶⯚᐀⬌(16181696)andhis discipleManzanDhaku༜ᒣ㐨ⓑ(16361715)(Foulk2010b,8). 72 ൔᇽΎつSdshingi,byMenzanZuih㠃ᒣ⍞᪉(16831769),publishedin1753(Foulk2010b,8). 73 ᑠΎつ Shshingi(abbreviationofỌᖹᑠΎつEiheishshingi),writtenbyGentSokuch ⋞㏱༾୰ (1729–1807),publishedin1805(Foulk2010b,9). 74 ⚙ⱌΎつZen’enshingi/Chanyuanqinggui,compiledin1103byChangluZongze㛗⸼᐀㉐(Foulk 2010b,10).YifahasproducedafullEnglishtranslation(Yifa2002). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.40 Purity,75Keizan’sRulesofPurity,76theRevisedRulesofPurity,77 theAuxiliaryRulesofPurity,78theRulesofPurityforDailyLifein theAssembly,79theRulesofPurityfortheHuanzhuHermitage,80 andtheImperialEditionofBaizhang’sRulesofPurity.81 Moreover,weconsideredthespecificrulesandceremoniesofthe monasteriesofeachregion,thereportedopinionsofrankandfile monks,andthosecustomaryprocedureswhichareunwritten. Weexaminedtherelativemeritsof[allof]theseandselected onlythoseobservancesthataccordwiththetimes. ୍ ㅖΎつࣀ␗ྠཬࣄᮏつࣀ᥇ࣝฎࢽࢩࢸᑬࣔᚲせࣀ⟠ᡤࣁ ᮏᩥ୰ࢽᤄὀࢩཪࣁࣀ㡯ࣀᮎᑿࢽ⏤ࣤグࢩࢸᚓኻࣤ♧ࢫ (Stshshmuch1889,1–2) x Forthepresentstandardswehaveadoptedthemostessential passagesfromthesemanyanddivergentpurestandardstexts.At theendofeachpassagewenotethereason[foritsselection]and indicateitsrelativemerits. FoulkoffersathoroughintroductiontotheGyjikihansourcetextsandtheir intertwininghistories,andIwillnotreproducehisworkhere(Foulk2010b,8–22).Thegenreof “purestandards”or“rulesofpurity”(shingiΎつ)hasbeendiscussedespeciallybyYifa,who, 75 Ύつ Daishingi(abbreviationofỌᖹΎつ Eiheidaishingi),alsoknownsimplyastheỌᖹΎつ Eiheishingi,editedin1794byGentSokuchfromanearlier1667workbyKshChidග⤂ᬛᇽ“who compileditbypiecingtogethersixseparateworkspertainingtomonasticpracticethathadoriginally beenwrittenbyDgen”(Foulk2010b,9).LeightonandOkumurahavetranslatedthistextinfull (LeightonandOkumura1996). 76 ⍧ᒣΎつ Keizanshingi(abbreviationof⍧ᒣᑦΎつKeizanoshshingi),originallycomposedin 1324byKeizanandeditedbyGesshSkoandManzanDhakuin1678(Foulk2010b,15). 77 ᰯᐃΎつKteishingi/Jiaodingqinggui(abbreviationofྀᯘᰯᐃῤつ⦻せSrinkteishingi sy/Conglinjiaodingqingguizongyao),compiledin1274byJinhuaWeimian㔠⳹ᝳຮ(Foulk2010b, 16). 78 ഛ⏝ΎつBiyshingi/Beiyongqinggui(abbreviationfor⚙ᯘഛ⏝Ύつ Zenrinbiyshingi/Chanlin beiyongqinggui),completedin1286byZeshanYixian⃝ᒣᘤဒandpublishedin1311(Foulk2010b, 16). 79 ධ⾗᪥⏝ΎつNyusshunichiyshingi/Ruzhongriyongqinggui,writtenin1209byWuliangZongshou ↓㔞᐀ኖ(Foulk2010b,18). 80 ᗁఫ⳽Ύつ Genjanshingi/Huanzhuanqinggui,writtenin1317bytheZhongfenMingben୰ᓠ᫂ᮏ (12631323)(Foulk2010b,15). 81 ᩉಟⓒΎつChokushhyakujshingi/Chixiubaizhangqinggui,compiledbyDongyangDehuiᮾ㝧 ᚫ㍤between1335and1338(Foulk2010b,18–19). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.41 followingFoulkindisputingtraditionalnotionsofacharacteristically“Chan”formofmonastic life,arguesforthegenre’scontinuitywithChineseVinayatexts(Yifa2005;Foulk1993). ReadingtheGyjikihaninthiscontext,Foulktakestheperspectivethat“thetextisheirtoa longandvariedtraditionofadaptingandaugmentingrulesandproceduresforBuddhist monasticpracticethatcanbetracedallthewaybacktotheearliestChineseattemptsto interpretandimplementtheVinayatransmittedfromIndia”andarguesthat“insurveyingthe longhistoryofBuddhistmonasticpracticeinEastAsia,thecontinuitieswiththepastthatone findsintheGyjkikihanfaroutweightheinnovations”(Foulk2010b,21).Withoutdisputing thesecontinuities,itshouldbeclearthatboththeproductionandthecontentoftheTjgyji kihancanbeunderstoodintermsoftheconstructionofsectarianidentityintheMeiji,andthat scholarsofMeijiBuddhismshouldtakeseriouslythetext’sinnovations,ormoreprecisely,its omissions. OneomissioninthetexttowhichFoulkdoescallsattentionistheconspicuousabsence ofanyreference“inanyeditionoftheGyjikihan”tothetext’sdebttobakuZenstandards. Asnotedabove,bakuZen,animportfromMing᫂dynasty(1368–1644)Chinaarrivingto Japanintheseventeenthcentury,wasfirstclassifiedbytheMeijigovernmentaspartofthe Rinzaisectbeforeachievingstatusasanindependentsect.Giventhesectariansensitivitiesof thetime(sensitivitiesthathavepersistedtothepresenteditionoftheGyjikihan),itis unsurprisingthatthismajortextualsourcehasgoneunacknowledged.ThelargeMingstyle monasteryManpukujiⴙ⚟ᑎ,foundedwithhelpfromtheTokugawashogunatebyYinyuan Longqi㞏ඖ㝯⌹(15921673,J.IngenRyki),deeplyimpressedJapaneseBuddhistsatthetime, and“leadersoftheStandRinzaischoolsofZenwerestimulatedtoinitiatereformsthat resultedinthereinstatementofmanyoftheformsofcommunalmonastictrainingthathad beenlostintheinterveningcenturies.”Foulknotesthattwoofthethreeprimaryrulestexts takenasthesourcefortheGyjikihan,theShjurinshinankiandtheSdshingi,drewon Yinyuan’sManpukujiritualmanual,the1672bakuShingi㯤᷑Ύつ.82 AlongwiththisunacknowledgedsourcedetailedbyFoulk,theTjgyjikihanpreface alsoincludeswhatWatanabearguesarefalselyacknowledgedsources.Thoughinthepreface excerptedabovetheauthorsclaimthat“regional,”“reported,”and“unwritten”sourceswere consultedalongwiththeorthodoxtextualstandards,Watanabefindsveryfewunwritten customsincludedinthetext,andhedismissestheassertionthatregionalruleswereseriously consideredatall.Whateverthepreface’srhetoricofinclusion,itseemsthatmanypractices failedtomeetthestandardof“accordingwiththetimes.”83 Themoststrikingomissioninthetext,giventheoverwhelminglyfuneraryflavorof contemporaryJapaneseBuddhism,istheabsenceofanyreferencetofuneralservices. WatanabeandTokuno,bothconcernedexplicitlyaboutthemoderndevelopmentoffunerary 82 SeeFoulk2010b,19–20. 83 SeeWatanabe1983,133. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.42 ritual,explorethefactthatalthoughsomeprovisionremainedformemorialobservancesfor StpatriarchslikeDgenandKeizan,thereisnomentionatalloffuneraryrituals,layor monastic,intheTjgyjikihan(Tokuno2010;Watanabe1984).Funeralrituals,though,have undeniablydeeprootsintheZentradition.84Indeed,thisareaofritualpracticewassocentral totheBuddhismoftheTokugawaperiodthatsomeNativists“perceivedBuddhiststylefunerals tobethecentralaxisoftheBuddhistinstitutionalframeworkaswellasofitssocial organization”andthusdeliberatelytargetedthem,promotingShintritualsandinsomelocales banningBuddhistfuneralsoutright(Ketelaar1990,44–45).AsNativistvoicesdominatedthe earlyMeijigovernment,policieslimitingBuddhistfuneralsandpromotingShintoneswere alsoadoptedatthenationallevel.85TheexclusionoffuneralsfromtheTjgyjikihan,then,is bestunderstoodnotasastatementofintrinsicStsectvaluesbutasanattempttoconform totheexigenciesoftheperiod.Thattheseriteswereamongthoseaddedinthefirstrevisionof thetext,in1918,indicatesthattheyhadbeenwaitingjustbelowthesurface,andthereislittle doubtthatfuneraryobservanceshadcontinuedinpracticedespitetheirimpliedproscriptionby theirabsencefromtheTjgyjikihan. ThereareotherinstancesofalterationoftheGyjikihansourcetextsinlightofthe governmentpolicyofreligiousseparationandthenationalproscriptionsofarangeofpractices Ketelaarcalls“potentiallysubversive”or“carnivalesque.”Amongafewexamplesofferedby WatanabearetheRyten 㱟ኳ,thedharmaprotectingdeitieshonoredespeciallyintheNew Year,whoaredeemedoverlyShintandreplacedintheTjgyjikihanbyJhShichir DaigenShuriBosatsuᣍᐆ㑻ᶒಟ⸃,abodhisattvaprotectorofmonasteries introducedtoJapanbyDgen.86WatanabealsolooksattheproscriptionintheTjgyjikihan ofthetraditionalChineseceremonialpracticeofburningpapermoneyandpaperhorses,which isprohibitedonthegroundsofbeingoccult(onmyteki㝜㝧ⓗ).87Further,traditional Japaneseobservanceslikeyearendmochipounding(saimatsumochitsukiṓᮎ㣰ᦍ)andthe winter’sendbeanscattering(setsubunmakimame⠇ศᧈ㇋)weredeemed“worldlyaffairs” (zokuhἲ)andlikewiseprohibitedbytheTjgyjikihan.88 84 Foroneexampleamongmany,seetheChanyuanqinggui,amajorsourcefortheGyjikihan,which treatsmonasticandabbatialfuneralservicesindetail(Yifa2002,206–211;217–219). 85 Atthenationallevel,theprohibitionofBuddhistfuneralsonlyeverextendedtoshrineattendantsand theirfamilies(Ketelaar1990,44–45;241n1).Evenintheabsenceofabroadlegalprohibition,though, therewasclearlytremendouspressurefromtheStatetoadoptShintfunerals.SeealsoCollcutt1986, 149. 86 WatanabenotesthatlaterintheTjgyjikihantextareferenceremainstotheryten,whichhe takesasevidenceoftheunresolved,indeedirresolvable,problemforthetextasitstruggledtobalance ChineseprecedentwithMeijipoliticalreality. 87 ThetermrefersspecificallytoOnmyd 㝜㝧㐨orTsuchimikadoShintᅵᚚ㛛⚄㐨,occultsyncretic systemsproscribedearlyintheMeijiperiod. 88 SeeWatanabe1983,135–136. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.43 ForWatanabe,thesespecificalterationsandprohibitionsareemblematicofabasic stanceintheTjgyjikihanagainstpracticesdeemedmundaneornonZen.Thosearethe veryculturalpractices,however,thatweremostimportanttothelaityandindeedconstituted whattheyexpectedreligiontoprovide.InthecaseoftheTjgyjikihan,howcoulda “restoration”of“pure”StZenobservancesbeappealingtoalaityaccustomedtodealing withreligionintermsofthisworldlybenefit(genzeriyaku⌧ୡ┈)?89Eventhoughsuch practicesclearlycontinuedpostTjgyjikihan,Watanabeisstruckbytheinabilityofthetext tocompromiseonsuchpracticesortoreinterprettheminStterms.Watanabesuggeststhat latereditionsofthetextareabletostrikeamorecompellingbalance,couchingfuneral practicesandlayceremonies,forexample,intermsthatconformtoStorthodoxy.He concludesthataccommodatingtheneedsofthelaitywassimplynotanaimoftheTjgyji kihan.Instead,thetextwasfirstandforemostdedicatedtotheconsolidationofthesectas“a singlesectofasinglebranch”(isshippa୍᐀୍ὴ)and“asinglesectofasinglebody”(issh ittai ୍᐀୍㌤);thatis,itaimedfornothingmoreorlessthanthecreationofanindependent, coherent,andsingularStsh.90 ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŝnjŝŶŐŽĐƚƌŝŶĞ͗dŚĞStKykaiShushgi;ϭϴϵϬͿ Thissametensionbetweenmonasticorthodoxyandpopularneedsalsoliesattheheart oftheStkykaishushgi᭪Ὕᩍಟド⩏(“TheMeaningofPracticeandRealizationinthe StFellowship”),theotherSttextthathaslastedwellbeyondtheMeiji.91WhereastheTj gyjikihanfacesthelayclericaltensionanderrscompletelyonthesideofmaintaining monasticpurityatthecostofthelaity,theStkykaishushgifallsattheoppositeextreme, effacingbasicStmonasticpracticeinanattempttoconnectwiththeneedsofthelaity. Somewherebetweenthetwomaylieasustainablebalance,anddespitetheinabilityofeachof thesecoretextstocapturetheentiretyofwhatMeijiStneededtooffer,itwasperhapsin thestabilityofthetensionbetweenthetwothatthesectwasabletocraftanidentityand thrivethroughtheMeijiperiodandbeyond. TheStkykaishushgiisperhapsthesinglemostimportantStdocumentofthe modernperiodandwithoutquestionremainsthebestknowndoctrinalstatementinthesect. Heine,forexample,callsitthe“crucialfactorinthecontinuingpopularityofStZen,”suggests 89 Foranaccountofthekindsof“thisworldly”servicesprovidedtothelaityinTokugawaStZen,see Williams2005.Forthecentralityin“Japanesecommonreligion”of“thisworldlybenefit”seeReader andTanabe1998. 90 SeeWatanabe1983,136–138. 91 ManyEnglishtranslationsofthistextexist,includingaversionbyFoulk2001. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.44 thatitistheprimarymeansbywhichtheworkoftheStpatriarchEiheiDgenỌᖹ㐨ඖ (12001253)hasbeenknowninmoderntimes,andshowsthatleadingsectarianscholars consistentlyattributethetexttomuchofthesuccessandpopularityoftheStsectinmodern Japan(Heine2003,170–172,188n).92IkedausefullysituatestheShushgiinthecontextofthe layBuddhistmovement,callingthetexttheprimarylegacyoftheformativeperiodofteaching assembliesandlaysocietiesinMeijiSt(Ikeda1998,39).Followingthatlead,Iwillleave asidethevexedquestionsofthetext’sfidelitytoDgenor“Dgen’sintent,”andinwhat followsIwillconsiderthetextinitscontextasaMeijicompositionandshowthatitisaresultof thevariouspressurescharacteristicofMeijiBuddhism,including,amongothers,theneedto craftacompellingpathoflayunderstandinganddevotion,thepoliticalimperativestoclarify sectdoctrine,andthesenseamongBuddhistleadersthatthesuccessofChristianitywas relatedtoits“textualunity”andrepentancemechanisms. TheStsectintheearlyMeijistruggledtoeffectivelyreachlaypeople,whowere vulnerabletothegeneralantiBuddhistmoodofthetime,andwho,asnotedinSectionOne, withthecollapseofthedankasystemofmandatorytempleregistration,wereincreasinglyless ofacaptiveaudienceandmorelikethereligiousconsumersofthemodernperiod,exercising freedomtochoosebetweenthemanysectarianbrandsofanjin(Ᏻᚰ,“peaceofmind”or, morefreely,“spiritualassurance”).WhileStwasnottheonlysecttofacethischallenge,it washamperedbythestricturesofitsowntradition,asScarangellodescribes: Somesectswerefortunateenoughtohaveinheritedtheworship ofaparadigmaticBuddhapossessingextremelyinclusiveformsof corporeality,orfounderfigureswhohadenumeratedteachings thatmoreeasilyfacilitatedtheincorporationofdiversepractices andpractitionersintothesect.ModernSt’straditional resourcesmadeitdifficulttoappealtothelaityorawiderangeof diversepractices.ItsparadigmaticBuddhaembodiedanascetic ideal,andwhenplumbingthefounder’sideasforthe 92 DumoulinandKimhavealsoweighedinonthecentralityofthetextinmodernSt;seeDumoulin 2005,414;H.J.Kim2004,6,254n12).Readerwrites:“Thetextwastheproductofaparticularera…but ithascontinuedtofunctiontothisdayasthesect’sstandardteaching.Manysectpublications nowadaysarebasedontheShushgiandthegradual,preceptorientedpathitrepresentsliesatthe heartofmodernStoutlooks”(Reader1985,34).Lobreglionotesthatindeed,thefourthemesofthe Shushgiandthedualteachingsofzenkaiichinyoandshushfuni(seebelow)remaintothisday enshrinedasthecoreofStorthodoxyintheStshConstitution(Stshshken᭪Ὕ᐀᐀᠇) (Lobreglio2009,90n28).IwouldaddthatthetextitselfranksjustbelowtheprimaryworksofKeizanin themodernConstitution’slistofdefinitivetexts.AsHeinepointsout,andmyownexperience corroborates,itissignificantthatthismajortextofStZenhashadabarelydiscernableimpacton “convert”/nonAsianWesternZen(Heine2003,188). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.45 enumerationofacoherentlaysoteriologyearlyStleaders foundlittletoworkwith.Nevertheless,thepreservationof identityanduniquenessvisàvisothersectsdemandedan orientationtowardsakyamuniandtheteachingsofthemonk DgenKigen.(Scarangello2012,45) WhiletheStshheadquartershadin1876and1885alikeincludedregulationsforteachings assemblies(kykaiᩍ)andlaysocieties(kessha⤖♫)intheirformalsectarianprescriptions (shsei),andhadmadeeffortstoincreasetheirinvolvementinandoversightoftheirlaybase, Ikedahasfoundthatbetween1872and1888thevastStestablishmentofover14,300 templescouldclaimonly113officialteachingassembliesandlaysocieties(Ikeda1998,35–36). TheofficialattemptstopropagateacentralStdoctrineanddevotionalpathtothelaitywere badlyfailing. Atthesametime,layBuddhistmovements,understandingthemselvesasoutsideofthe religiousinstitutionsandtosomedegreenonreliantonclergy,werethriving.Snodgrasscalls thiszaikebukkya“noninstitutionallaypractice”andsuggeststhat,despitesomestronganti clericalandantiestablishmentrhetoric,“thethrustofthemovementshouldbeunderstoodas providinglayaccesstoBuddhismparalleltothecontinuinginstitutionalformsratherthan replacingthem”(Snodgrass2003,126).AgiantamongtheselayactivistswasuchiSeiran, someofwhoseeffortshavebeennotedabove,aStsectlaymanwhosefatherwasaSt sectmemberandwhosemotherfollowedtheJdoshinsh.uchiassertedthattheBuddhist laitywere“thesameastheirshukke[ฟᐙ]masters,”and“seriouslysuggestedthatlay BuddhismbemadethemainthrustofthereligiontoreplaceclergycenteredBuddhism.” uchi’sinvolvementinthetextthatwouldbecometheStkykaishushgibeganin 1887whenhefoundedthe“AssociationfortheSupportofSt”(Stfushkai᭪Ὕᢇ᐀). Thisumbrellaorganizationcametohaveover1,100confraternities,andby1889over80%of Stsectabbotsweremembers.uchistartedthisorganization“asaleagueandlaysociety withtheobjectiveofdesigningaclearmethodforteachinglaypersons,ataskthathadalready beenidentifiedasacentralissueinthe‘StSectRegulationsforTeachingAssemblies’enacted in1876.”93AsReaderhaspointedout,theStlayorganizationslikethefushkaiwere modelledonthestronglayorganizationsofthePureLandschools,whichactivistsnotedwere alsothesectswhichwerefaringbestin“weatheringthetrialsoftheMeijiperiod.”Healso notesthatwhiletheprimaryaimofthesocietyhadbeen“toprovidebasicguidanceforthe laity”eventually,“withtheinvolvementofleadingpriests,andinlightoftheneedforsome guidanceforpriestsaswell,thisorganization…soonbegantoinfluencetheoverallteaching notionsofthesect.”94 93 SeeIkeda1998,3539. 94 SeeReader1985,36.Hetranslatesthename“StAidSociety.” MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.46 Underuchi’sleadership,theStfushkaisponsoredthecompilation,distribution, andpublicizationofatextcalledtheTjzaikeshushgiὝୖᅾᐙಟド⩏(“Themeaningof PracticeandRealizationfortheLayFollowersofTzan”).AccordingtoHeine,uchiissaidto havepreparedforthetaskofcomposingtheShushgi,whichinvolvededitingDgendownto thesizeofashortdoctrinalsummary,byreadingthefullShbgenzseventimes;whatever thebasisofthatclaim,thereisnodoubtthatconsiderablescholarshipwentintothetext’s production.Heinefurtherwritesthat“thepublicationoftheShushgiwastheresultofa complexprocessofeditingthatactuallyevolvedoveraperiodofseventyyearsbasedon consultingfortytofiftymedievalandearlymoderncommentariesontheShbgenz,”andhe notesthetext’sdebttopriorcompilationsoflayfriendlyDgenexcerpts.95Appreciatingthe extraordinaryscholasticeffortinvolvedinthecomposition,KimfollowsKagashimaHiroyukain assigningthecreationofthetextaroleinthedevelopmentofscholarlymethodologiesinthe school: Thetaskofmakingtheworkrequiredsomeunexpectedly painstakingeffortsrelativetolinguistic,textual,andliterary studiesofShbgenz.Theseeffortsgaveanimpetusin subsequentyearstogenuinelyscholarlyandsystematic endeavorsforbasicresearch.(H.J.Kim2004,254n12) Howeverdeepthegroundingofuchi’sscholarshipandsources,however,hewasnot primarilyconcernedwithstayingconsistentwiththeoverallthrustofDgen’sworkorwith honoringtheprecedentsofDgeninterpretation.Hisclearandoverridingaimwasratherto provideaplatformforStlaypropagationandtorepresentStorthodoxyandorthopraxisas congenialtotheneedsandcapacitiesofthelaity.AsScarangellonotesinthepassagecited above,themainstreamoftraditionalStrhetoricrevolvedaroundthepracticeofzazenᗙ⚙ andmonasticconduct,pointsunlikelytogeneratemuchenthusiasminthelaycommunity. Readerdrawsonuchi’sownwritingstoillustratehisattitudeabouttheproject: [AccordingtohiscommentsontheShushgi,uchi]was convincedthatitwasessentialtofocusonareaswhichwouldnot causethelaitytoomuchdifficulty:anythingproblematicwould havetheeffectofdrivingpotentialfollowersawaytoChristianity orthePureLandsects,whichheconsideredprovidedeasyand accessibleteachingsthatwerecertaintoattractlaysupport.He thereforerejectedzazenasamajorplankintheStsect’slay teaching:althoughherecognisedthatitwasfundamentalto Dgen’sZenaswellasbeinganactivityhepersonallyregardedas 95 TheseincludeMenzanZuih'seighteenthcenturyEiheiKakunanditsearlynineteenthcentury successors,theTjShshketsuὝୖṇ᐀ジandtheEiheiShshkunỌᖹṇ᐀カbyHonshYran ᗃ⹒ᮏ⚽(d.1847).SeeHeine2003,178;ZGD,1246a. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.47 beneficial,hefeltitdemandedtoomucheffort,time,pain,and commitmentfortheaveragelaymantowanttobecomeinvolved initspractice.Itwasomittedbecauseitwasfelttobealiability towardsattractingfollowers. Indeed,thereisstrongevidencethatuchipressedforthe adoptionofanembutsustylerecitation,alongthelinesofthat usedbyPureLandsects,asthebasisforStlaypractice,onthe groundsthatitwaseasytoperform,buthadtoabandontheidea washecouldnotfindanyjustificationforsuchapracticein Dgen’swritings.However,hedidmanagetofindadequate justificationforapracticebasedonthetakingofprecepts(jukai). (Reader1985,37) ItsdeparturesfromStprecedentnotwithstanding,uchi’sTjzaikeshushgi succeededinoutlininganapproachthatresonatedwiththelayStcommunity.The immediatepopularityofthetextandthegrowinginfluenceofuchi’sStfushkaiwasnot lostontheStestablishment,whichmovedtocoopttheprocessbyincorporatingthe organizationintotheofficialsectteachingassembliesandbyadoptingtheShushgiasan officialSttext,bothofwhichwereachievedatthegeneralsectassembly(kaigi)of1889 (Ikeda1998,38–39). Afteradoptinguchi’stext,however,thesectleaderssetouttoeditit.Understanding thatthetextwouldcometodefineStorthodoxy,itscontentwasfiercelydebated.There wasnoconsensusevenatthetopofthesecthierarchy,andScarangello,forexample,has shownhowevensodeeplyembeddedaninstitutionalfigureasNishiariBokusancouldfind himselfatoddswiththeemergingorthodoxy(Scarangello2012,315–316).Justaswiththe Tjgyjikihan,thisinvolvedacategorizationofpreviouslyacceptedStdoctrinesand practicesintowhatLobregliohascalled“orthodox,”“heterodox,”or“heretical,”as“a multiplicityofbeliefsandpracticeswasreducedtoasingular,officialstatementofSt doctrine.”Involvedina“consciousdistancingbothfromtraditionalideasandpractices deemedoverlyelitist,aswellasfrompopularpracticeslongassociatedwithStthatrisked transgressingcontemporaryepistemicsensibilities,”thesectarianleadershipineditingthe Shushgideemed,forinstance,thepracticesofShakanembutsu㔘㏑ᛕandAmida nembutsu㜿ᘺ㝀ᛕheterodox,andtheworshipoftheBodhisattvaKannonほ㡢heretical.96 Lobregliodetailssomeoftheintensedebatesinthesectofhowtomoveforwardwitha statementofStdoctrine,howtodealwiththedistinctionbetweenmonasticandlay,and whichpracticesanddoctrinestodeemhereticalandwhichtodeemorthodox.Likeother commentators,heseesintheShushgiadefinitivemovetowardstheeffacingofthemonastic laydistinction,amovemostblatantinthestrikingdeletionoftheterm“laity”(zaike)fromthe 96 SeeLobreglio2009,77. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.48 titleofthetext,arevisionmadebyEiheijiabbotTakiyaTakushthatinastrokeremovedthe textfromitsoriginallaycontextandsetituptodefineorthodoxyforclericsandlaityalike.97 HealsodiscussestheestablishmentofShakyamuniandtheThreeTreasuresthemselvesover AmidaorKannonasthemainobjectofreverenceinthesect,reflectingthemodernneedsfor historicalverifiabilityandtheunderstandingofreligionsasbasedina“historicalfounder.”In additiontoeschewingpopularpracticeslikenembutsu,thetextalsoabandonedthemes deemedoverlyelitist,strikingallmentionofzazenorsatoriᝅandaffirmingtheidentityof Stas“selfpowered”(jiriki)ratherthan“otherpowered”(tariki).Inplaceofthepractices, doctrines,andobjectsofworshipthatthetextrejectedwasinstalledan“ethicscentered” manifestationofWesternscientificandProtestant“epistemicvalues.” Intheend,afterthecontestedprocessofrevision,especiallyatthehandofEiheijiabbot TakiyaTakush,“inall,abouthalfofuchi’stextwaschanged”(Reader1985,38).While Readerisrelativelycavalierabouttheimplicationsofthesechanges,suggestingthat“some morephilosophicalaspects[were]added,butthebasicsremainedthesame,”Lobreglio’smore thoroughworkisadamantattheirimportance,goingsofarastocalltherevisionsbyTakiyaa “CopernicanRevolution”inSt.98 Thefinal,authorizededitionofthetextwaspublishedastheStkykaishushgiin 1890bytheStsh,andtheorthodoxyofthenewtextforlayandclericalikewasaffirmedby ajointedictissuedin1892bytheabbotsofbothheadtemples,TakiyaandAzegami.Comingas itdidnearthepeakoftheSjijiindependencemovementof18921894,thisjointedictwasa major,ifinsufficient,showofcooperationbetweentherivaltemples. _____ TheStkykaishushgipresents“aprogressivelystructured,ethicscenteredreligious paththatfocusesuponthepracticesofrepentance,takingprecepts,vowing,andregular expressionsofgratitude”(Lobreglio2009,90).Thetextisorganizedintofivesections,largely keepingtheformofuchi’stext:a“GeneralIntroduction”(sjo⦻ᗎ)thatemphasizes impermanenceandthecertaintyofkarmicretributionasanimpetustoengageingoodaction; “RepentingandEliminatingBadKarma”(sangemetsuzai ᠲ⁛⨥);“ReceivingPreceptsand JoiningtheRanks”(jukainyiཷᡄධ);“MakingtheVowtoBenefitBeings”(hotsuganrish 97 Lobreglioalsoarguesthatgiventheevaporationofameaningfuldistinctionalreadybetweenclerical andlayintheaftermathofnikujikisaitai,theShushgi’seffacementofthedifferencebetweenthetwo canbeseenas“anattempttocraftareligiousteachingthatreflectedthisnewdefactoclericalreality” (Lobreglio2009,96) 98 SeeReader1985,38;Lobreglio2009,90–95. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.49 ⓐ㢪⏕);and“PracticingBuddhismandRepayingBlessings”(gyjihon ⾜ᣢሗᜠ).99Much couldbesaidaboutthecontentofthetext,buthereIwilllimitmyselftoanaccountofafewof itsmoststrikingfeatures. LobregliocallstheShushgia“patchwork”fromtheShbgenz,notingthatthetext’s “surfaceintegritybeliesaremarkablecollageofsentences,indeedevenphrases,thathave beenstitchedtogetherfromchronologicallyandthematicallydistinctlociinDgen'sextensive corpus”(Lobreglio2009,90).Indeed,inreadingtheShushgiwithreferencetoitsShbgenz sources,itbecomesclearthatthese“patches”areinsomecasescutsosmallthatvirtually anythingatallcouldhavebeenconstructedfromthem;theShbgenzhereisnotaroottext beingabridged,butisinsteadakindofalphabetwithwhichanearlylimitlessrangeofdoctrines couldbecomposedfromthewordsofthefounder.Heinederidestheclaim,persistingeven amongcontemporaryscholars,thattheShushgiservesasagoodsynopsisandintroductionto theShbgenz,andrecallsthewarningofuchiSeiran,whohimselfcautionedagainsttrying tounderstandtheShbgenzthroughtheShushgi(Heine2003,172,188n9). Asnoted,astrikingfeatureofthetextistheabsenceofanyreferencetozazen,or,as Lobreglionotes,theuseofthecharacterZen⚙atall.ThecentralpracticeofStinthe Shushgiisprecepts:“thewholetextoftheShushgirepresentsanalterationofthefocusof Dgen’sZen,settingoutastructured,gradualpathinwhichthetakingofBuddhistprecepts(by implicationundertheauspicesoftheStsect)hasbecomethecentralandmostvitalstage” (Reader1985,34).ThiseffacingofthepracticeofzazenfromDgen’steachingsisbasedonthe principleofzenkaiichinyo⚙ᡄ୍ዴ,theonenessofZenandprecepts,anotionfoundinDgen butforegroundedintheworkoftheinfluentialTokugawaperiodStexegeteBanjinDtanⴙ 㐨ᆠ(16981775).TheShushgiblendsthelogicofzenkaiichinyoandthedoctrineofshush funiಟド,thenondistinctionofpracticeandrealization,toasserttheidentityofprecepts withenlightenment.Thatis,thatpractice—zazen—whichisforDgenthepracticethatis nondualwithrealization,isherereplacedwiththepracticesofreceivingpreceptsandritual confession,butthisreplacementismadewithoutdisruptingtheunderlyinglogicoftheidentity ofpracticeandenlightenment.ThetextthuspreservesthelogicofDgenbutreplaceshiscore terms,creatinganoveldoctrineofpreceptritualasBuddhistawakening. 99 ChaptertitlesaredrawnfromStZenTranslationProject(Foulk).Ikedarenderssangemetsuzaias “annihilationoffaultsbyrepentance”;jukainyias“entranceintotheposition[ofaBuddha]bytaking theprecepts”;hotsuganrishas“benefitingsentientbeingsbyformulatingvows;andgyjihonas “repayinggratitudebysteadfastpractice”(Ikeda1998,39)Heinedescribesthesectionsasfollows: “understandingtheProblemoflifeanddeathandtheuniversalityofkarmicretribution”;“penitence leadingtotheeradicationofevilkarma”;“receivingthesixteenprecepts”;“benefitingothersthrougha vowofbenevolence”;and,“expressinggratitudebymeansofconstantpractice”(Heine2003,171). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.50 Alongwithprecepts,inthe“ethicscentered”approachofthetextthereisastrong emphasisonkarmaandrepentance.100ItisnotmerelytheemphasisintheShushgion repentancethatstrikesHeine,“rather,thepointisthattheShushgiemphasizesaspecificand perhapsratherextremeapproachtorepentance,thatis,thenotionoftheeradicationor eliminationofsins,transgressions,ordefilementsaccordingtothenotionof[s]angemetsuzai.” Henotesthatthispowerofamechanicalritualofrepentancetoautomaticallyeradicateevil karmaistheobjectofmuchofthecontemporarycritiqueleveledagainstmainstreamStby socalledCriticalBuddhism(hihanbukkyᢈุᩍ).Heinealsodistinguishesthisbrandof sangemetsuzaifromDgen’swellattestedsenseofamore“stern,puritanical,andunforgiving attitudeconsistentwiththeearliestZenBuddhistmonasticrules”aswellasfromthe“formless repentance”ofthePlatformSutraandthe“metanoesis”(sangedᠲ㐨)ofTanabeHajime’s postwarphilosophy.101 Wherethen,doesthis“ratherextremeapproach”torepentancecomefrom?Whileitis possibletofindinklingsoftheapproachinDgen,Heinearguesinsteadthat“uchiSeiranand otherMeijilayleaderscreatedaviewofrepentanceinShushgibasedinlargepartonthe challengeofChristianityduringtheWesternizationprocess.”Hedescribeshowthesuccesses ofbothProtestantismandRomanCatholicismwereimitatedintheconceptualizationand compositionoftheShushgi.DrawingonChristianstrategiesthat,asnotedabove,allowedthe laycommunity“greateraccesstosalvifictruth,”thetextreflectstheProtestantuseof decontextualizedBiblicalquotationinsermonsandrituals,aswellastheRomanCatholic emphasisonthe“redemptivepowerofconfession.”102 100 Heine’sanalysisoftheShushgi,drawingonsubstantialJapanesescholarshiponthetext, demonstratesthatitisprimarilydrawnfrom,andreflectstheteachingsof,thesocalled“twelvefascicle Shbgenz,”fromwhatHeinehascalledthe“latelate”periodofDgen.Thiscorrelationisparticularly strikinginthattheexistenceofthetwelvefascicleShbgenzassuchwasnotverifieduntil1930,well afterthepublicationoftheShushgi.(FormoreonHeine’speriodizationofDgen,seeHeine2006.)As thecharacterofthefasciclesofthatlateedition,however,clusteraroundissuesofkarmaand repentance,itisnotcoincidentalthatthecompilersoftheShushgiweredrawntothosefasciclein theirsearchforDgenexcerptstoexpresstheiremphasisonthesamethemes.Inlightoftheclear emphasisintheShushgifromtextsinthetwelvefascicleedition,Heineexpressesdismaythat“many commentatorscontinuetoechoafallaciousideathattheShushgicontainspassagesfromeachand everyoneoftheninetyfiveShbgenzfascicles.”SeeHeine2003,180–183,191n. 101 SeeHeine2003,173,184–186. 102 SeeHeine2003,174.RobertSharfhasremindedme,however,thatthereislikewisealongBuddhist traditionofextractinganddecontextualizingscripture,andthattoassociatesuchmovesexclusivelywith ProtestantismmaybetooverlookthatBuddhistexegeticalheritage. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.51 ƃŐĞŶĨŽƌƚŚĞDĞŝũŝ͗dŚĞGenze;ϭϵϬϱͿ WhiletheShushgiwasanoveldevelopmentthatwentfarafieldofthethemesof Shbgenzevenwhileitusedthetext’sownwords,anotherexpressionoftherenewed interestinDgenintheMeijiemergedlaterintheformoftheinstitutionalizationofthe characteristicmodernStexegeticalformatknownasthegenze║ⶶ(“[TrueDharma]Eye TreasuryAssembly”).Thegenzeconsistsofaseriesofformallectures(teishᥦၐ)delivered byaStclericwho,inaformaltemplecontextandtoanaudienceofclergy,laity,orboth, readsandcommentslinebylineonagivenfascicleofDgen’sShbgenz.Thisformatisa significantMeijidevelopmentintheStsectthatmustbeunderstoodinthecontextofthe growingidentityoftheStsectwithDgenandtheShbgenz,theriseoftheBuddhist universities,andthenascentsecularstudyofDgen. ItmustbeemphasizedthatthecommonplaceequationsofStZenwithDgenandof DgenwiththeShbgenzarebothmodernphenomena.Dgendidofcourseplayan importantroleinStidentitylongbeforetheMeijiperiod,especially,asBodifordnotes,at Eiheiji,wherehisprestigeandlegacywasactively,consciously,andselfservinglypromoted (Bodiford2012a).Theresurgenceofhisteachingandhisincreasedimportanceinthe coalescenceofStidentityintheMeijiwastheresultnotonlyofthebroadermovementto clarifyandcodifysectarianboundariesbutalso,asHeineargues,aparalleltrendofthetime towardstherenewedglorificationofthetraditionalsectfounders(Heine2003,175). ForBodiford,thecentralityofDgentotheStsectarianidentityislargelytheresultof severalhundredyearsofconcertedpublicrelationseffortsbyEiheiji,whosestatusandvery survivalinitsrivalrywithSjijidependeduponitsabilitytomaintaintheprominenceofDgen asthechiefpatriarchofthesectandtopreservethestatusofEiheijiasthe“sacredlocus”for hisveneration(Bodiford2012a).TheidentityofDgen,inturn,withtheShbgenzisa particularMeijiversionofthislongstandingEiheijitraditionofDgenpromotion,andBodiford emphaticallyremindsusthat“theDgenoftheShbgenz,theDgenwhoisheldupasa profoundreligiousphilosopher,isafairlyrecentinnovation…Instead,itistheDgenof sectarianagendas,theDgenwhostandsaboveKeizan,theDgenwhoworksmiracles,andso forth,whocommandedthememoryofearliergenerationsofJapanese”(Bodiford2012a,222). Hefurthermorenotesthat,“[s]incetheearly20thcentury,theShbgenzhasbecomethe preeminentsourceforDgen’steaching”whereas,“priortothe20thcentury,thegeneral publicknewofDgen’steachingsprimarilyonthebasisofhisrecordedsayings(gorokuㄒ㘓)” (Bodiford2012b,20,22). Infact,BodifordshowsthatpriortolastdecadesoftheTokugawaperiod,the Shbgenzwaslargelyunread.ThiswastheresultofaprocessbywhichaccesstoJapanese Sttextswasincreasinglyrestricted,valuedassecrettransmissionsratherthanpublic MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.52 teachings.Bodifordsuggeststhatthisprocessbeganasearlyasthelatefourteenthcenturyand culminatedintheearlysixteenthcentury,bywhichtime“DgenShbgenzhadbecomemore importantasasymbolofreligiousauthoritythanasareligioustext”(Bodiford1993,135). Chinesetextsremainedpubliclyavailable,formingthebasisofStsermons,butJapanese textshadbecometempletreasurestobe“hoarded,”anditwastheirpossession,ratherthan theirexegesis,thatgrantedreligiousauthority.Bodifordsummarizesthesubsequentstatusof theShbgenzintotheTokugawaperiod: EvenaftertextuallearningwasrevivedduringtheearlyTokugawa period,mostJapaneseStmonksstudiedonlywellknown ChineseBuddhistscripturesorclassicChineseZentexts. Eventually,afewscholarlymonkslikeMenzanZuih[㠃ᒣ⍞᪉, 16831769]begantostudyDgen’swritings,buttheywerethe exception.EvenwhenscholarlymonksreadDogen’swritings, theyusuallydidnotlectureonthemtotheirdisciples.Infact, from1722until1796,thegovernmentauthoritiesactually prohibitedthepublicationordisseminationofanypartofDgen’s Shbgenz.”(Bodiford2012a,220) ThefirstpublicationoftheShbgenzafterthebanwasliftedin1796wasnotcompleteduntil 1815,byEiheiji,andwithitspublicationtheShbgenzbegangraduallytogainmomentumas atextaStclericmightstudyratherthansimplycovetandrevere. TherenewedinterestintheMeijiperiodonDgen,withitsnewemphasisonthe Shbgenz,andtheviewofemergingviewofDgenasa“religiousphilosopher,”canbe understoodinthecontextoftheriseofsecularstudyofBuddhismandtheinfluenceof Westernacademicmethodologies,asdiscussedinSectionOne.Whiletheexplosionofsecular interestinDgenandtheemergenceofDgenStudiesasasecularfieldinitsownrightdates fromtheTaishperiodworkofWatsujiTetsur ㎷ဴ㑻(18891960),fromearlyintheMeiji periodWesterncriticalmethodologieswereimpactingSt,andtheStapproachtoDgen, justastheywereinfluencingsectarianstudiesacrossallofthesectsintheMeiji.Indeeditwas aStpriest,HaraTanzan,whogavethefirstuniversitylecturesonBuddhism,atTky Universityin1879(Snodgrass2003,139).He“wasconvinced,aswereothers,thatBuddhists hadtoadoptsomeofthetextualandscientificmethodsofWesternreligiousscholarshipin theirownstudyandteaching”(Collcutt1986,166).StclericslikeNishiariBokusanand TeizanSokuichi 㰓୕༶୍(18051892)were,inMohr’swords,“tryingtoraisethelevelofSt scholarship”throughtextualcriticalandexegeticalwork.Thepublicationin1879ofTeizan’s emendationofKounEj’s Ꮩ㞼ዔ(11981280)Kmyzzanmaiග᫂⸝୕markswhat Mohrcalls“thebeginningofanewwaveofpublicationsaimedatfosteringStsectarian studies(shgaku)(Mohr1998,178–179).Itisinthiscontextofsectarianscholarshipthatthe genzewasestablishedandthrived. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.53 TraditionholdsthattheoriginsofthegenzelayintheconcernfeltbytheEiheijiabbot, MoritaGoy,overtheneglectoftheShbgenzbyStscholars.Inthis1905statementfrom thefirstgenze,OkaStanୣ᐀₺(18601921)expressesthegenzeorigintradition: 㧗♽ࡣⓒ⏕ࡢၿ▱㆑ࡓࡾࠋභ௦௨ୖࡢேࠋࡢⴭࡍᡤࡢṇ ἲ║ⶶࠊ▱ぢࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋࡓవ⸾࡞ࡋࠋ⥔᪂௨ᚋࠊ᐀㛛ࡢ Ꮫᚐࠊᑓࡽኳྎ⳹ཝ➼ࡢᩍࢆᨷࡵࠊࡓṇἲ║ⶶࢆ㢳ࡳ ࡎࠊ㧗♽ࡢ᐀㢼ࠊᑗᆅࢆᡶࢃࢇࡍࠋỌᖹ⌧ⴷສ≉㈷ᛶ ᾏឿ⯪⚙ᖌஂࡋࡃஅࢆ៧࠼ࠊᖖቒ⥴ࢆᤂᅇࡏࢇḧࡍࠋ ⋠ᒣ㔝ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊ㧗♽┿๓ᑵ࠸࡚ࠊṇἲ║ⶶࢆᥦၐࡏࡋ ࡴࠋ(Fueoka 1972, 4)103 Theeminentancestor[Dgen]isawisefriendandguidetomany beings.Hesurpassestheemperorsofold.HisShbgenz revealsBuddha’swisdom,withnothingextraneous.Afterthe [Meiji]Restoration,sectarianscholarsworkedexclusivelywiththe teachingsoftheTendaiandKegonschools,ignoringthe ShbgenzsuchthatthewindsofDgen’steachingwereonthe vergeofbeinglostfromtheworld.EiheiGent,oftheimperially bestowednameZenMasterShkaiJisen,[MoritaGoy]haslong lamentedthis,wishingtorecoverthedroppedthread.Here,now, bumpkinthatIam,sincerelyfollowingtheeminentancestor [Dgen],IlectureontheShbgenz.” Ascanbeseenfromthispassage,thestudyoftheShbgenzforOka,Morita,andother leaderswasinexorablytiedtothesuccessoftheStsect.TheShbgenzhereisarallying point,atextthatcouldbeusedtoestablishacommonStsectarianidentitythatcutacross thefactions,lineages,branches,andregionstopulltogetherthediverse“St”teachingsand establishthe“asinglesectofasinglebody.” Thisfirstgenze,offeredbyOkaStanatEiheiji,spannedaseventydayperiodfromthe fifthtoseventhmonthsof1905.Thefollowingyear,thetimeallottedwasreducedtoasixty dayperiod,concludinginthesixthmonth,andthelecturersweretovaryamongdisciplesof NishiariBokusan.104AccordingtoBodiford,thisfirst“Shbgenzconference,”thoughjust anothermoveinalongpublicrelationscampaignbyEiheiji,wasanextremelysuccessfulone, indeedonewhichwouldsetthecourseformodernStteaching: EiheijinotonlypublishedDgen’sShbgenz,butalsopromoted itsstudybyStmonksandlaypeople.Beginningin1905,Eiheiji 103 ThisrenderingFueoka’stranslationfromtheClassicalJapanese(kanbun₎ᩥ).AccordingtoFueoka, theoriginaltextappearedinagenzerecordcalledJishinroku☢㔪㘓,inthefifthmonthof1905. 104 SeeKurebayashi1972;ZGD,291d. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.54 organizeditsfirstShbgenzconference(genze).Thisfirst genzewassuccessfulbeyondallexpectations.Since1905ithas becomeanannualeventatEiheiji,andovertime,itgradually changedthedirectionofStZenmonasticeducation.Inearlier generations,onlyoneZenteacher,NishiariBokusan,isknownto haveevenlecturedonhowtheShbgenzshouldbereadand understood.OneofBokusan’sdisciples,OkaStan,servedasthe firstleaderofthegenze.Stan’slecturesprovidedamodelthat couldbeemulatedbyeachoftheotherZenmonkswhocameto Eiheiji.Thismodelhasbecomethenorm,nottheexception. TodayeveryStZenteacherlecturesonDgen’sShbgenz. (Bodiford2012a,221) Attendingandpresentingtheselecturesbecomeastandardpracticeforeliteclerics.Theyalso appeartobetheprimaryvenuebywhicheminentclericslikeAkinoKd⛅㔝Ꮥ㐨(1858 1934)andKishizawaIan ᓊ⃝⥔Ᏻ(18651955)wouldcraftandexpoundtheirinterpretations ofdoctrine.WhilethegenzewastechnicallylimitedtoShbgenzexegesisandreferred originallytotheEiheijieventonly,itssensibilityandritualformatspilledoverintothe presentationofotherSttextsasitbecamethepreferredmodefordoctrinalexegesis generallyandspreadwidelythroughouttheSttemplenetwork. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.55 SECTIONIII TheLifeofNishiariBokusan NishiariBokusanす᭷✕ᒣ(18211910)isamongthepreeminentStZenclericsofthe modernperiod,bestknownforhisenormouslyinfluentialthreevolumestudyofDgen,the Shbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║ⶶၨ㏔.105Thiswork,transcriptionsbyTomiyamaSoei ᐩᒣ♽ⱥ (18761929)ofgenzestylelecturesNishiarideliveredbetween1897and1910,isthefirstand arguablythemostimportantShbgenzcommentaryinmodernSt.Withthistext,“the basicapproachtotheinterpretationoftheShbgenzwassettled”andthecoursewassetfor theStsectarianstudies(shjorshgaku)ofthetwentiethcentury,establishingan orthodoxythathasonlyrecentlybeguntobechallenged.106Whiledoctrinallyimportant,the workisalsoengagingandreadable;inthewordsofBielefeldt,it“combinesscholarshipwitha spiritedcolloquialstyleandapractical,practiceorientedapproach”and“issurelythemost popularcommentarywithintheStschooltoday”(Bielefeldt1972,11). AsScarangellonotes,however,whileNishiariis“sometimesconsideredthefatherof themodernsectariantraditionofstudyingDgen’sShbgenz,”comingtoprominenceashe didduringavitalperiodintheformationoftheStsh,heisalsoregardedasaninstitutional “fatherofthemodernStsect”(Scarangello2012,158,162).Thisreputationisdeserved:he wasaprofessorattheStDaigakurin Ꮫᯘ thatwouldbecometheStstudiesflagship universityKomazawa,abbot(kanshu㈏㤳)ofStheadtempleSjiji,recipientofanimperial name,andforatimethechiefpriest(kanch)oftheentireStsect.Furthermore,Nishiari’s studentsbecamemajorStfiguresintheirownrights.HismostprolificdiscipleandDharma heir,forexample,wasKishizawaIan,authorofthemassivetwentyfourvolumecommentary Shbgenzzenkṇἲ║ⶶㅮ,awellknownDgenspecialist(genzka║ⶶᐙ)whoseown 105 Hisnameoccasionally,andIthinkincorrectly,appearsromanizedas“NishiariBokuzan.” 106 SeeIshii2012,224–225.This“basicapproach”ischaracterizedbytheShbgenzkeiteki’semphasis onthelinesofinterpretationpresentedintheShbgenzkikigakishṇἲ║ⶶ⪺᭩ᢒ(abbr.Goshᚚ ᢒ),acommentarywritteninDgen’slifetimebySenne ヮ្(d.u.)andcompiledbySenne’sdisciple, Kyg ⥂(d.u.). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.56 studentsinturncametofillprominentpositionsattheStheadtemplesandKomazawa University.ThelistofclericsandscholarstrainedbyNishiariincludesmanyotherswhoroseto greatprominence,includingabbotsofbothSjijiandEiheiji(AkinoKdandHiokiMokusen᪥ ⨨㯲[18371920])aswellasacademicpresidentsoftheStDaigakurinandKomazawa University(TsutsugawaHgai⟄ᕝ᪉እandOkaStan).Nishiari’stremendousimpacthas accordinglyextendednotonlyoverabroadswathofJapaneseStbuttoWesternStas well.Infact,NishiariservesasakindofnexusforWesternSt:hisstudentOkaStan’sown studentSawakiKd⃝ᮌ⯆㐨(18801965)inturnhaddiscipleslikeDeshimaruTaisen ᘵᏊ Ὀ(19141982)andUchiyamaKsh ෆᒣ⯆ṇ(19121998)whohavebeentremendously influentialinthedevelopmentofEuropean,LatinAmerican,andNorthAmericanZen;Oka’s studentHashimotoEkᶫᮏᜨග(18901965)wasanimportantteacherforKatagiriDainin∦ ᱒ᚸ(19281990),founderoftheMinnesotaZenMeditationCenter;andtheJapanese missionarySuzukiShunry㕥ᮌಇ㝯(19041971),authorofthepopularZenMind,Beginner’s Mind(1970)andfounderoftheSanFranciscoZenCenter,studiedfortwentyfiveyearswith Nishiari’sheirKishizawa.EventheSanbkydanfounderYasutaniHakuunᏳ㇂ⓑ㞼(1885 1973),whoselastinginfluenceintheWestcomesespeciallythroughthelineagesofTaizen Maizumi๓ゅ༤㞝(19311995)andPhillipKapleau(19122004),forallhiseventualcritiqueof Nishiari,infactstudiedextensivelyinhisyouthwithbothNishiariandKishizawa.107 DespiteNishiari’simportancetoStZenworldwide,hehasbeenthesubjectofvery littleWesternscholarship.108ThismarksasignificantcontrastwithotherMeijiBuddhistfigures 107 PaulJaffetranslatesthefollowingpassagetoexpressYasutani’smixedfeelingsaboutNishiari: BeginningwithNishiariZenji’sKeiteki,Ihavecloselyexaminedthe commentariesontheShbgenzofmanypeopleinmoderntimes,and thoughitisrudetosayit,thereareanexceedinglylargenumberof placeswheretheyhavefailedtograspitsmeaning….Itgoeswithout sayingthatNishiariZenjiwasapriestofgreatlearningandvirtue,but evenagreenpriestlikemewillnotaffirmhiseyeofsatori….The resultingevilofhistheoreticalZenbecameasignificantsourceoflater degeneration….Soitismyearnestwish,inplaceofNishiariZenji,to correctsomedegreetheevilheleft,inordertorequitehis benevolence,andthatofhisdisciples,whichtheyextendedtomeover manyyears. (Yasutani1996,xxii). 108 ThefewtreatmentsofNishiariinEnglishlanguagescholarshiparefragmentaryandtendtobelimited tohisinvolvementinasingletextortemple.ThemostdetailedworkisbyJaffeandScarangello(Jaffe 2001;Scarangello2012);passingmentionsarefoundinNishijima,Heine,PaulJaffe,Ishii,andelsewhere (Nishijima1997;Heine2012a;Yasutani1996;Ishii2012).TheonlyfullEnglishtranslationsofhiswork are“ARefutationofClericalMarriage”byJaffeandhiscommentaryonGenjkan⌧ᡂබby WeitsmanandTanahashi(Jaffe1999;WeitsmanandTanahashi2011). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.57 likeSuzukiDaisetsu,whohavereceivedsubstantial(ifstillnotexhaustive)treatmentinWestern scholarship.AsdiscussedinSectionTwo,thoughitisnaturalthatSuzukiandotherinnovators associatedwiththeMeiji“NewBuddhism”havereceivedthelion’sshareofscholarlyattention, atthispointMeijiBuddhiststudieshaveprogressedsufficientlyevenintheWestthatthe institutional,establishmentsideofthepicturemustbegivenitsdue.JaffeandMohr,citing Davis,havesuccinctlyexpressedthisneed: IfwearetounderstandtheformationofmodernJapaneseZen, wemustbegintoresearchthethoughtandactionsoftheleaders whocontrolledtheestablishedZendenominationsandthe ordinaryclericswhoranthethousandsofZentemples.Inhis studyofBuddhismandmodernization,WinstonDavishas stressedtheimportanceoftheseclericsandtheirtemples, arguingthattotrulycomprehendthevariousBuddhistresponses tothechallengesofmodernity,wemustlookatestablished templeBuddhism,which—rumorsofitsdemiseafterthe medievalperiodnotwithstanding—remainedduringtheMeijiera the“numerically,socially,andpoliticallydominant”formof BuddhisminJapan.(JaffeandMohr1998,3) ItisinthisspiritthatastudyofNishiariiswarranted:herepresentsaconservative, institutional,evenreactionarysideofMeijiSt,andissomeonewhoseimpactonmodern JapaneseBuddhisthistoryis,inmyestimation,atleastassignificantasthatofthebetterknown Buddhistreformers.109WhileIhopethatthepresentprojectmarksafirststepinthatstudy,its limitationsaremany,andathoroughEnglishlanguagetreatmentofNishiari’slife,thought,and impactmustawaitalatertime. IncontrasttothescantreferencesinEnglish,thereisnopaucityofJapaneselanguage biographicalmaterialsonNishiari.AbibliographycomposedbymembersoftheHachinoheඵ ᡞCitysponsoredNishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲresearchgroupand appearingintheirsubstantialcommemorativevolumeNishiariBokusanZenji:Botsugo hyakunenomukaeteす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄࠼࡚(2009)(hereafterabbreviatedNBZ), listsnearlytwentydedicatedbiographicalpiecesplusanotherthirtyorsoworksthatmake substantialreferencetohim.Tothislistmustbeaddedtheautobiographicalsourcesthat informmanyofthebiographies,especiallytheKeirekidan⤒Ṕㄯ,whichappearsinthe collectionNishiariZenwaす᭷⚙ヰ(1905).Thesesourcesaregenerallyhagiographicinnature, andIhavereliedheavilyonsomeofthemcognizantofthefactthat,withacriticalbiography 109 Nishiaricanwithoutquestionbegenerallycharacterizedasastronglyconservativeinstitutionalvoice, butitisimportanttoheedthewarningsofSawadaandothers,notedinSectionTwo,againstthe tendencytodesignatesomeMeijiBuddhistfiguresas“conservative”withoutconsideringtheir complexity(Sawada1998,142–143). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.58 outsidemypresentscope,Icanofferlittlemorethanaversionofthe“authorized”accountof Nishiari.InparticularIhavemadeuseofhisdiscipleKishizawa’sreverential,anecdotal,free, andfarrangingSenshiNishiariBokusanOshඛᖌす᭷✕ᒣᑦ(1938)andthedetailed chronologycompiledbytheHachinoheMunicipalLibrary(Hachinoheshiritsutoshokanඵᡞᕷ ❧ᅗ᭩㤋)forthebookKydonomeis:NishiariBokusanZenjisonohitotonenpu㒓ᅵࡢྡൔ ࠕす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌࡑࡢேᖺ㆕ࠖ(1972)andexcerptedinfullinNBZ.Thischronologyisbased onarangeofbiographicalmaterialsandisrichindirectcitationsfromNishiari’sownworksas wellassecondarystudiesofhim,andIhavedrawnnotonlymuchofmydatafromthissource buthavealsoborrowedafewofitswellselectedcitations.110Ihavealsoincludedsomeofthe fullblownhagiographichighlightsfromtheillustratedItsuwash㐓ヰ㞟(1938)commissioned byNishiari’seponymousSaiyjiす᭷ᑎandalsoreprintedinNBZ.Giventherepetitionofmost ofthebasicbiographicalmaterialacrossmultiplesources,Ihaveingeneralelectedtocite specificsourcesonlywhendistinguishingordirectlyquotingfromthem.111 InthispaperIrefertoNishiariBokusansimply,andarbitrarily,asNishiari.Thereare, however,manyothernamesassociatedwithhim.Priortohisordinationattheageoftwelve, hewasknownalternatelyasSasamotoKazuyoshi➲ᮏྜྷandNishimuraKazuyoshiすᮧ ྜྷ.AtordinationhereceivedthenameKin’ei㔠ⱥ,thecharactersofwhichwerechangedbya subsequentteachertoread ⍲ⱥ(alsoKin’ei).Thesecondpartofhisordinationnameis Bokusan ✕ᒣ.112AsabbotoftheprestigiousprayertempleKasuisaiྍ╧ᩪ,Nishiariborrowed atemplecharactertobecomeknownasKaྍ⩝,andthenamesMuian↓Ⅽᗡ,UanRjin᭷ Ᏻ⪁ே,andUanDnin᭷Ᏻ㐨ேarealsorecordedasaliases.113Hismostformalname, attachedtosomeofhispublishedworks,ishisimperialname,JikishinJkokuZenji┤ᚰίᅜ⚙ ᖌ,conferredbytheMeijiemperorin1901attheheightofNishiari’sprestigeandpower. KishizawareportsthatthelegalnameNishiariす᭷wasselectedbyNishiarihimselfas anadult,inresponsetoaMeijigovernmentmandatethatpriestsadoptlegalfamilynames. JaffediscussestheissuesofclericalsurnamesintheMeijiinsomedetail,identifyingCouncilof 110 Forconvenience,whencitingthechronology,IwillusethepaginationoftheeditioninNBZ. 111 Anadditionalsource,andperhapsthemostcomprehensiveofalloftheworksonNishiari,is Bakumatsu/MeijinomeisNishiariBokusanZenji:sonoshgaitoshsekiᖥᮎ࣭᫂ࡢྡൔす᭷✕ᒣ ⚙ᖌ㸸ࡑࡢ⏕ᾭ㋱byYoshidaRyetsuྜྷ⏣㝯ᝋ(1976).Iwasunfortunatelyunabletoprocure thisobscureresourceuntillateinmyresearchandhavenotbeenabletomakefulluseofitforthis paper. 112 KishizawanotesanoddityofNishiari’sofficialnameintheStregistries:atthetimeofhissandai ཧෆpromotionin1845(grantinghimtheprivilegetowearanonblackkesa⿃⿸)hisnamecharacter Eiⱥwastaboobyvirtueofitsuseintheimperialhousehold.Thepromotionwasrecordedunderthe name“BokusanBokusan.”Kishizawawritesthatthisunusualcircumstancewasalsosharedbythegreat StreformedManzanDhaku༜ᒣ㐨ⓑ(16351715),whoforthesamereasonwasregisteredas “ManzanManzan.”SeeKishizawa1938,576–577. 113 SeeZGD,1148a;Jaffe2001,116. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.59 StateProclamation265,ofOctober,1872,asthemandate“thatallBuddhistclericsadopta surnameandregisteritwiththegovernmentbytheendoftheyear.”Thispolicy,whichJaffe citesMasutaniascallingtantamount“toanendtogovernmentrecognitionforordination”was metwithresistancebymostBuddhistclergy,whohadtraditionallyabandonedthesurnameat ordination.WhileJaffedescribesthereturnbysomeclericstotheirfamilynames,manychose newnames,likeShaku㔚,denotingthehistoricalBuddha’skyaClan,orinventedaname,like “thefamouspreceptadvocateFukudaGykai[⚟⏣⾜ㄕ](18091888),[who]reputedlymade theBuddhisttermfukuden[⚟⏣],‘fieldofmerit’(Sk.puyaketra)thebasisforhissurname.” JaffenotesthatthegovernmenttriedbrieflytoreininthesecreativeandoverlyBuddhistic namingdecisions,butitsattemptstodosowerelargelyineffective.114 Nishiari,everconservativewithrespecttomonasticdeportmentandtherenunciationof familyties,wasnaturallyunwillingtoreturntohisbirthnameand,likeFukudaandthemany Shakus,heassignedhimselfanewsurname.Itistemptingtospeculatethatheborrowedthe Nishiすcharacterfromhismother’sfamilynameNishimuraすᮧ,whichhehimselfcarriedfor apartofhischildhood,butIhavenotfoundthissuggestedinthebiographies.Kishizawa suggeststhatNishiaridrewthename,whichliterallymeans“isintheWest”notfromthe WesternParadiseofthePureLandSutrasasonemightassume,butratherfromtheBussoTki ♽⤫⣖ accountofthefirstcontactinChinawiththeBuddha’simage,thestoryinwhich EmperorXiaomingᏕ᫂ᖇ(r.516–528)istoldbyaministerthat“thereisintheWestasage whohascomeforthandiscalledtheBuddha.”115 114 SeeJaffe2001,73–78. 115 “す᪉᭷⪷ே⪅ฟྡ᭣.”SeeKishizawa1938,575–576.TheBussoTkiisaTiantaihistoryby Zhipanᚿ☬(1220–1275),andthesectionofthetextcitedbyKishizawaisdrawninturnfromthe EmperorXiaomingᏕ᫂ᖇ(r.516–528)sectionoftheChinesehistoricaltextHanshu₎᭩.Thesame storyistoldintheSutraofFortyTwoSections(Shijnishkyᅄ༑❶⥂): “InancienttimesEmperorXiaomingoftheLaterHanhadadreamone nightinwhichhesawaheavenlybeingwithagoldenbodyandabright haloonitsheadflyintothepalace.Hewasgreatlydelightedbythis.The followingday,theemperoraskedhisministers,“Whichheavenlybeing wasthat?”Fuyi,amanofvastlearningandexperience,said,“Ihave heardthatinIndiatherewasapersonwhohadattainedtheWay,called ‘Buddha,’whocouldflyeasily.Theheavenlybeingmustbehim.”(Cleary 2005,31) MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.60 PartI:Nishiari’sEarlyLifeandZenTraining ŚŝůĚŚŽŽĚĂŶĚKƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƵŶĚĞƌ<ŝŶƌLJƻ;ϭϴϮϭͲϭϴϯϵͿ ThemanwhocametobeknownasNishiariBokusanwasbornSasamotoKazuyoshi➲ ᮏྜྷ,onOctober23,1821,nearlyfiftyyearspriortotheendofTokugawaPeriod.Hewas bornintheharborareaofHachinoheCity ඵᡞᕷinwhatisnowAomoriPrefecture㟷᳃┴, thenorthernmostJapanesemainlandprovince.Hismother(17941879)wasoftheNishimura すᮧfamily,thesecondwifeofNishiari’swidowerfather,asmalltimetofumerchantnamed SasamotoChsabur➲ᮏ㛗ḟ㑻(d.1850).ThehagiographiesreportthatNishiariwasasan infantfoundtohaveaglowingsoybeanintheshapeoftheBodhisattvaKannonclenchedinhis fist;thisauspicioussignisconsistentwithhislifelongdevotiontoKannoninparticularamong theBodhisattvasandBuddhistdeities. BecauseNishiariwasthesecondsonofhisfatherSasamoto,andbecausethefamilyof hismotherNishimurahadnomaleheirs,attwoyearsoldNishiariwasadoptedintohis mother’sfamilyandtookupresidencewithhismaternaluncleafewmilesawayfromhis parents.116Threeyearslater,however,amaleheirwasborntotheNishimurafamilyandthe fiveyearoldNishiariwassentbackhome.HewasthereafterraisedaSasamoto,where accordingtoKishizawahewasaccordedtheprivilegesofafirstsonduetoamentaldisability onthepartofhiselderbrother(Kishizawa1938,577). Nishiari’saspirationtobecomeamonkbeganearlyinhislife.Nishiari’smotherwas affiliatedwiththeShinSectandhadfamilygravesatanearbyShintemplecalledGan’eiji㢪ᰤ ᑎ,andNishiari’saspirationtobecomeamonkissaidtohavebegunonavisittothistempleat theageofeight.Walkingaroundthetemplewithhismother,theboyNishiariaskedaboutthe depictionsofhellsandpurelandshesawadorningthetemplewalls.Hismotherrepliedthat thepicturesofthehellsshowedwheresheherselfwouldgoafterdeathunlessoneofher childrenweretobecomeamonk.Shefurtherexplainedthat,ontheotherhand,ifoneofher childrenwouldbecomeordained,thewholefamilywouldbeassuredrebirthinthepurelands pictured.Nishiariwasmovedbythissentiment,anditissaidthatfromtheageoftenhe repeatedlyimploredhisparentstogranthimpermissiontoordain. AttheageoftwelveNishiarifinallyreceivedhisparents’blessingtoordain.Withtheir blessingcametheirsternwarningthathenotbecomesimplyanordinarycountrymonk,and Nishiarihimselfwrotethatthisadmonitiontobecomeextraordinaryremainedapowerful 116 ReferencestoNishiari’sagefollowtheWestern,nottheJapanese,countingsystem. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.61 motivatorforhimthroughouthislife(NBZ,16).Withtheirblessing,Nishiarilefthomeandwas ordainedonJune21,1833.HisordinationtookplaceatthelocalSttemplewithwhichhis Sasamotofamilywasaffiliated,Chryji㛗ὶᑎ,andwasconductedbyapriestnamedKinry 㔠㱟.KinrybestoweduponNishiaritheclericalnameKin’ei㔠ⱥ.117 In1834,theyearafterhisordination,Nishiari’steacherKinrywaspromotedtothe abbacyofaprominenttempleintheregion,HkjiἲගᑎinnearbyNakuiྡஂ,wherehe becamethetwentysixthgenerationabbot.Nishiariaccompaniedhimthere,andinthewinter ofthatsameyear,KinryassignedthethirteenyearoldNishiaritofilltheroleoftemple superintendent(kansu ┘ᑎ)ofaHkjisubtemplecalledKryjiග㱟ᑎ.118 (IwillnoteherethatHkjiandKryjiremainedimportanttemplestoNishiari throughouthislife,andthatthelaterprominenceofthesetemplesseemstoowemuchtothe statureofNishiari.Forinstance,whenattheageofthirtysevenin1858Nishiaricompleteda Kannonpilgrimage,hereservedonethirdofsacredearthhehadcollectedtointeratthe KannonworshipsiteofHkji.119Subsequently,afullfortyyearsafterhisfirstresidence, NishiarireturnedtoserveasHkjiabbot,apostheheldfrom18741877.Duringthattimethe templewaspromotedinstatustoahightemplerank.120Nishiari’smostpowerfulcontribution tothetemplewashisofferingofthreeDgenrelics,andHkjitodayboastsastatueinhis honor,andalongwiththerelicsofDgenalsoclaimstohousearelicoftheBuddhahimself.As fortheHkjisubtempleKryjiwhereNishiariasateenagerhadheldhisfirstofficialpost,in 1878itsheditssubordinationtoHkjiandwasnamedanindependenttemplewithNishiarias itsfounder.NishiariinstalledthereaniconofthesyncreticShintBuddhistfireprotecting deityknownasSanshakub୕ᑻᆓ,apowerfulreligiousartifactthatledtothefurther promotionofthetempleandestablisheditasasiteforpilgrimageanddeitycultworship.121) 117 ItisinterestingtonoteherethatintheearlybiographyofthisgreatStsectarian,heshowsno specialorpersonalinclinationforthesect;theselectionofaSttempleissimplythefactofhisfather’s familyaffiliation.Thestoryofhisfirst“arousingofbodhimind”(hotsubodaishinⓎᥦᚰ),too,ashas beenseen,isnotatallcouchedinStbutonlyingenericBuddhistterms,andwassaidtohavetaken placeinaPureLandtemple. 118 ItisnotentirelyclearwhatthispositionwouldhaveentailedatasmalltempleinthelateTokugawa period.Itwaslikelyaceremonialrole,althoughitmightalsohaveentailedresponsibilitiesforthe maintenanceofthetemplesuppliesandgrounds.See,forexample,DigitalDictionaryofBuddhism,“┘ ᑎ,”articlebyGriffithFoulk&CharlesMuller. 119 TheotherpartsheinterredatthegravesitesofhisparentsandhisDharmatransmission(shihႹἲ) teacher,respectively.SeeNBZ,28. 120 Therankwasjge ᖖᜏ,atemplefor“regulargatherings”inwhichwinterandsummertrainings periodsareheldannually.SeeZGD,543a. 121 FormoreontheDgenrelicsandNishiari’srelationshiptoSanshakubanddeitycultsingeneral,see thesectionbelowonKasuisai.SeealsoFaure1991,143n3637. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.62 NishiaritrainedunderKinryforsixyears,agestwelvetoeighteen,from1833untilthe teacher’sdeathin1839afteraperiodofpartialparalysis.Thebiographiesallcelebratethe youngNishiari’sdevotiontohisteacherinundertakingatwentyonedayfastandprayerperiod beforeKannonforKinry’srecovery,thoughtheaccountsdifferwithrespecttothelengthof Kinry’sillness,andwhetherheultimatelysuccumbedafewyearsoronlyafewmonthsafter Nishiari’sausteritiesandKannondevotions. dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚƐƵŽŶ;ϭϴϯϵͲϭϴϰϭͿ SoonafterthedeathofhisordinationmasterKinry,theeighteenyearoldNishiarileft Hkji,Kryji,andtherelativebackwaterofthefarnorthoftheJapanesemainlandforan urbantemple,Shonjiᯇ㡢ᑎ,inthelargecityofSendai ྎ.Helivedtherefortwoyears, reportedlyundergoingintenseandseveretrainingunderapriestnamedEtsuonᝋ㡢.Itisalso saidthatduringthisperiodNishiaricompletedhisreadingoftheentiretyoftheChineseClassics andBuddhistcanon,aprojecthehadbegunearlyinhisteenageyears. DuringNishiari’sstayatShonjiinSendai,hewasexposedfirsthandtothedevastation oftheGreatTempFamine(Tempnodaikikinኳಖࡢ㣚㤡).Thebruntofthefaminehitin 1837and1838,butNishiari’sstoryofthefamineisdatedto1841.Thefaminewasamongthe mostsevereoftheTokugawaperiod;Jansennotesthatinsakathecrisistookthelivesoften percentofthepopulation.122Thedeathanddevastationoftheperiodmadeaprofoundimpact onNishiari,asdescribedbelowinhisownwords: వࡣኳಖ༑ᖺࡢปṓ㐼㐝ࡋ࡚⏕ᾭࡢᖾ⚟ࢆᚓࡓࡢ࡛࠶ ࡿࠋṈᖺࡢ㣚㤡ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ఱศࡶ㣗≀ࡀ㊊࡛࠶ࡿࡓ ࡵ㣹Ṛࡋࡓ⪅ࡀ↓ᩘ࡛࠶ࡘࡓࠋࡑࡢ≧ࡽࡇࢀࢆᛮࡩ ᐇ⫙⢖ࢆ⏕ࡎࡿࡢឤࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୍ᑍ㏆ᡤࢆṌ⾜ࡋ࡚ࡶഹ ༑⏫༑⏫ࡢ㛫㣹Ṛ⾜ᩢࢀࡢභேࡶࡳࡿபࡩ ࡛ࠊ࡞࡞≧ࢆᴟࡵࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ IreceivedoneofthegreatestblessingsofmylifetimewhenI experiencedthecropfailuresofTemp12(1841).Thefamineof thatyearwasextraordinary,andinthetotalscarcityoffood countlesspeoplediedofstarvation.Tothisdayitgivemechillsto thinkoftheterriblescene.Itwasindeeddevastating:eveninjust 122 SeeJansen2000,225–226.Jannetta,thoughfocusedontheHidaregion,detailsthemagnitudeof themortalitycrisis,andconcludesthatfamine,notepidemic,wasindeedtheprimaryfactor(Jannetta 1987,178–187). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan alittlestrollthroughtheneighborhood,overonlytenorfifteen blocksonewouldseefiveorsixdyingpeopleorstarvedcorpses. 㸦୰␎㸧ࡢ㣹Ṛࡸ⾜ᩢࢀࡀ㈋❓ேࡤࡾபࡩࠊỴࡋ ࡚ࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㌟⤱ᕸࢆࡲࡦ㢌㰑⏥ࡢ᷸ࢆ࠸ࡓ ࡁࠊ୰ࡣ⃝ᒣࡢ㔠㖹ࡶᡤᣢࡋࡘ㣹Ṛࡋࡓ⪅ࡀ⃝ᒣ࠶ࡘ ࡓࡢࡖࡸࠋవࡣ⏕ᚓ⮑ࡢᛶ㉁࡛࠶ࡘࡓࡀࠊṈࡢปᖺ㝿ࡋ ࡚ࠊ୍⏫୍㣹Ṛࠊ༑⏫༑⾜ᩢࢀࠊኪ⾜ࡍࢀࡤṚேࡢ㢌ࢆ ㋃ࡴபࡩ≧ࢆ┠ᧁࡋࡓࡽࠊ᭱ึࡢ୰ࡣỀࡶࡃࠊ࡞ ࢇࡔᜍࢁࡋ࠸பࡩࠊ࠸ࡣ⮑⚄ㄏࡣࢀࡘ࠶ࡘࡓ ࡀࠊẖ᪥ẖኪࡢࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࡽࠊࡘࡦࡣṚேࡢᜍࡿࡽ ࡊࡿࡇࢆᚰᗏࡽྜ㯶ࡋ࡚⮑ࡢᛶ㉁ࡀㆰࡋ࡚㣾⛬⮉ ࡞ࡘࡓࡢ࡛ࠊỴࡋ࡚Ṛேࢆᜍᛧࡏࡠࡤࡾ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ୍ษࡢ ≀㦫ࡠࡸ࠺࡞ࡘࡓࡢࡖࡸࠋࡇࢀࡣࡢୖࡢỈ⦎࡛࡞ ࡃᐿᆅ⥂㦩ࡋࡓᏥၥࡔࡽࠊ⌮❍ࡸ㆟ㄽࢆ㞳ࢀ࡚≀ᜍᛧ ࡍࡿᛕࡀⷧࡃ࡞ࡘࡓࡢࡖࡸࠋ …Itisnotatallthecasethatthesedyingorstarvedpeoplewere onlythepoor;manyofthedeadbodiesweredrapedwithsilks, withtortoiseshellcombsontheirheadsandplentyofmoneystill intheirpockets.Ihaveaninherentlycowardlynature,andwhen onewalkedatnightinthatterribleyear—withastarvedcorpse oneachblock,andwithtendyingpeopleoneverytenblocks— onewouldstepontheheadsofthedead.Seeingthisterrible situation,mycowardicegotevenworse—onemightsayIwas temptedbygodofcowardice!Butsincethiswentoneverysingle dayandnight,finallyatthebottomofmyheartIrealizedthatI mustnotbeafraidofdeadpeople.Mycowardlynaturethus changed,andIbecamequitecourageous.NotonlywasItotally unafraidofcorpses,butnothingatallsurprisedmeanymore.This wasnotthepractice[ofzazen]onthetatamimatbutwasthe realizationoftheteachingsinreallife.Transcendingtheoryand opinions,fearfulthinkingwanes. 㸦୰␎㸧వࡀᬌᖺࡲ࡛ⱞᏥࢆམࡣࡠࡢࡣṈᖺࡢปṓࡢ⥂㦩ࡀ ከᑡࡢຊ࡞ࡘ࡚ᒃࡿࡢ࡛ࠊవࡢ⥂Ṕ୰ࡣᛀࡿࡽࡊࡿ 㧗ᜠࡢ࠶ࡘࡓᖺபࡩࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ …IntomyfinalyearsIhavenotavertedfromthestudyof suffering,andthatpowercomeslargelyfromthatyearofmy pg.63 MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.64 experiencewiththeterribleharvest.InmywholelifeIhavenever forgottenthegreatblessingsofthatyear.123 dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞĂƉŝƚĂůĂŶĚƐĐĞŶĚŝŶŐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞZĂŶŬƐ;ϭϴϰϭͲϭϴϰϵͿ In1841,attheageoftwenty,Nishiariresumedhismigrationsouthward,andtowards increasinglyurbanareas,leavingthecityofSendaiforthemetropolitancapital,EdoỤᡞ (moderndayTky),whereheenrolledattheprestigiousSendanrin᰽᷄ᯘ seminaryinthe areaofKomagome㥖㎸,onthegroundsofKichijjiྜྷ⚈ᑎTemple.124Nishiariissaidtohave donebeggingrounds(takuhatsuᡸ㖊)inthecityeverydaytocoverhiseducationalexpenses, andheisdescribedasapproachinghisstudywithgreatvigor.OneprominentEdobookstore grewsousedtohisloiteringtherethattheybeganlettinghimtakehomebooksforthenight. AttheSendanrinhecontinuedhisstudynotonlyofStdoctrinebutalsoofConfucianclassics, andhewasespeciallyinfluencedbyaConfucianturnedBuddhistnamedKikuchiChikuan⳥ᆅ ➉ᗡ(18291868). Itwasin1842thatNishiariwasfirstexposedtotheShbgenz,afactthatis highlightedinallofthebiographiesgivenhislaterascensiontobecomethepreeminentDgen scholarmonkoftheperiod.Thatyear,theabbotofKichijji,aDgenscholarnamedDaitotsu Guzenズហ⚙(17861859),wasinvitedbytheabbotofShinshji┿᐀ᑎindistantEchigo Uonuma㉺ᚋ㨶tolecturethereonShbgenzoverathreemonthretreat(angoᏳᒃ). Guzenaccepted,andNishiariaccompaniedtheabbot,carryinghisbooksandluggage—saidto weighsomethinglikeonehundredfiftypounds—onthewalkingtripofsometwohundred milesfromEdotoEchigo,viatheUsuiPass☄ịᓘ,andthenbackagainatthecloseofthe retreat.AnothercontactofNishiari’swiththeShbgenzwasthroughaguestlectureron DgenattheSendanrin,BkEryᛀග្ு,whowassaidtohavebeenintheteaching lineageofBanjinDtan.TheseexposurestoDgenwereseminalinthecareerofNishiari,butit wasnotuntil1845,uponhisreturnfromasummertrainingperiodatDaijjiᑎ,that NishiarifullytookuphisstudyofDgenwiththeabbotscholarGuzen.Intheyearsthatwould followofNishiari’sdoctrinaltrainingwithGuzen,heissaidtohaveconcentratedonDgen’s nonShbgenzworksliketheDaishingiΎつ(alsoknownastheEiheiShingiỌᖹῤつ), Hkykiᐆグ,andGakudyjinshᏛ㐨⏝ᚰ㞟,andalsotohavestudiedthebroader 123 IhavedrawnthistextfromNishiari’sKeirekidan,butIhavepreservedtheplacementofthe redactionsfromtheeditedandmodernizedversioninNBZ(Nishiari1905,11–12;NBZ,19). 124 SeeSectionOneontherelationshipoftheSendanrintotheStDaigakurinandKomazawa University.KishizawanotesthattheSendanrinwasoneoftwoStseminaries,andthatitemphasized doctrinalstudieswhiletheother,atSeishji㟷ᯇᑎ,emphasizedzazen(Kishizawa1938,584). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.65 Buddhistdoctrinalbackground,namelytheHokkekachἲ⳹⛉トandtheTendaishikygiኳྎ ᅄᩍ. In1842and1843,inadvanceofNishiari’sfirstabbacy,anappointmenttoHrinji㬅ᯘ ᑎ in1843,Nishiariwasquicklypromotedthroughtherequisiteclericalranks.These promotionswerefacilitatedbyTaigenSory Ὀཝ᭪㝯,whowastheabbotofthenearby, KichijjiaffiliatedSsanji᐀ཧᑎ,andwho,likeNishiari,wasfromthesmallanddistant hometownofHachinohe.InformationisscarceonSory,butitseemsthathewasateacherof someprominencewhohadtrainedatDaijijiឿᑎbeforegoingtoEdo,hadconferredDharma transmission(shihႹἲ)uponelevendisciples,andwaspublicallyrecognizedasavirtuous monkbytheTokugawagovernment’stempleandshrineadministrator(NBZ,22).Nishiari duringhistimeattheSendanrinwasinandoutofSsanjivisitingSory,andin1842Sory appointedhim“headseat”(shuso㤳ᗙ)forathreemonthretreatatthetemple,duringwhich timethetwentyoneyearoldNishiariwascloisteredatSsanjiandassistedSoryinleadingthe training.KishizawanotesthatNishiariwasabletoacceptthepostinpartbecausehisprior teacherfromSendai,Etsuon,inavisittotheSendanrinhadgivenhisblessingforNishiarito trainwithSory,dissolvinghimofhispriorcommitmenttoreturntoSendaiafterhistimeinthe capital(Kishizawa1938,589–590). WhileNishiarididnotreceiveDharmatransmission(shih)directlyfromSory,Sory facilitatedhistransmissionbydirectingadiscipleofhisowntoperformtheceremonyfor Nishiari.InKishizawa’stelling,thisdiscipleofSory,AnsuTaizenᏳ❆Ὀ⚙,theabbotof Honnenjiᮏ↛ᑎ,alsointhevicinityofEdo,hadadifficulttemperamentandnodisciplesofhis own,andSory’sdirectinghimtoperformthetransmissionforNishiaricomesacrossas somethingofafavortoTaizen.NotonlydidSorydirectTaizentoconductthetransmissionfor Nishiari,buthethenadvisedNishiarinottotrainwithTaizenatall,buttoleavehimafter receivingthetransmission.125Whateverthecomplexrelationshipsinplay,onthetenthdayof theeighthmonthof1843,attheageoftwentytwo,NishiaricompletedDharmatransmission underTaizen.Withthis,heachievedtherankofoshᑦandbecameeligibletobemadean abbot. Anabbacywasquicktocome:soonafterhisDharmatransmissionin1843,Nishiari becamethefifteenthabbotofHrinji㬅ᯘᑎ,nearSory’stempleSsanji,fillingavacancyleft bythedeathofthepriorabbot,aclericwhohadnodisciples.Nishiarihadforsometimebeen assistingregularlyatthattemple,providingservicesforthelaityandmaintainingthetemple groundsandcemetery,andheissaidtohaveearnedtherespectandadmirationofthe parishionerseveninadvanceofhisinstallationasabbot.Heissaidhereagaintohavedone dailybeggingtosupporthimselfandthetemple,aswellastorepaydebtsthetemplehad incurredpriortohisappointment. 125 SeeKishizawa1938,591–592. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.66 BasedatHrinjifrom18431849,Nishiaricontinuedtoascendthroughtheclericalranks and,reportedly,togainawidespreadreputationinEdoasaprominentyoungscholarmonk.In 1845,asnotedabove,heperformedsandaiandgainedtheprivilegetowearnonblackkesa. ThesameyearhealsoparticipatedintheprestigioussummertrainingperiodatDaijjiᑎ inKagaຍ㈡.In1847,attwentysixyearsold,theKichijjiabbotGuzeninvitedhimtohosta threemonthretreatassembly(gkoeỤ†)atHrinji,andwhileGuzendidmuchofthe teaching,Nishiarisharedtheresponsibilityandwasaccordinglypromotedtotherankof“Great Teacher”(daioshᑦ). Thisrapidascensionasateacherwassaidtohaveledtosomeprideonthepartof Nishiari,andinhisownautobiographicalremarkshehighlightsaninstancewhen,in1849atthe ageoftwentyeight,heattemptedtovisithismotherinHachinoheonlytobehumbledbyher refusaltogranthimentryandherinsistencethathecontinuetopracticediligentlyforthesake oftherebirthsofhisfamilymembers.Thisstory,anditsretellingthroughouttheliterature, atteststoNishiari’ssenseofthefinalityof“homeleaving”(shukke). dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞGenzka'ĞƚƚĂŶĞŶƌLJƻ;ϭϴϰϵͲϭϴϲϮͿ WhileNishiariwasinvolvedwithvarioustemplesfrom1849to1862,agestwentyeight tofortyone,thistimeinhislifeisbestdefinedashisperiodoftrainingwiththeDgenscholar monk(genzka)GettanZenry ᭶₺㱟(d.1865).126Gettanwasabbotofareputedlysevere trainingmonasterycalledKaizjiᾏⶶᑎ,inOdawaraᑠ⏣ཎinwhatisnowKanagawa Prefecture.AccordingtoKishizawa,thetemplehousedjustafewmonksintrainingwhen Nishiarifirstarrived,butgrewasGettan’sreputationgraduallyspread,suchthatbythetime Nishiarilefttheregionthemonasticassemblyhadgrowntofiftyandhadincludedlater prominentStfigureslikethegreatStscholarHaraTanzan,whostayedforatleastasingle threemonthretreat,andthelongtimecolleagueofNishiariandsecondindependentSjiji 126 GettanisknownbothasGettanZenryandasZenryGettan,aswellasbythenamesShiyan⮳ ⳽andRokutanභ‣.BorninKumamoto ⇃ᮏ,Gettanfirststudiedclassicsandthenwentontotrainin TendaiatMt.HieibeforetakingupZenandtrainingwithMokushitsuRyy㯲ᐊⰋせ(17791833)and atRytakuji 㱟⃝ᑎ withateachernamedYju(?)㣴ᑑ.HereceivedshiheitherfromYjuorDaih Giseki᪉⩏☒,andhelaterbecamethethirteenthabbotofHjuinᐆ⌔㝔andthefortiethabbotof Kaizji.Inadditiontothe[Tj]hbukukakush[Ὕୖ]ἲ᭹᱁ṇcowrittenwithMokushitsuand entrustedtoNishiari(discussedbelow),GettanauthoredtheDaikaiymonᡄせᩥ(printedin VolumeThreeoftheStshzensho ᭪Ὕ᐀᭩)andtheSandkaihkyzanmaikgiཨྠዎᑌ㙾୕ ㅮ⩏.SeeZGD,708a.Anextensivecollectionofhisrecordedsayingswasrecentlypublishedasthe GettanZenryOshgoroku᭶₺㱟ᑦㄒ㘓(2012). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.67 abbot(discussedinSectionTwo),AzegamiBaisen(Kishizawa1938,598–600).Gettanwasa primarymentorforNishiari,likelyhissinglemostimportantintellectualinfluence.Though NishiariwasnotadiscipleofGettanbyordinationortransmission,itisclearthatGettan treatedhimassuch.Forexample,inhisfirstyearwithGettanin1849,theteacherchangedthe charactersofNishiari’sclericalnamefromKin’ei㔠ⱥtoKin’ei⍲ⱥ,substitutingthe pedestriancharacter“gold”withthehomophonousbutmoreobscureandelegantcharacter “gem,”onefurtherloadedbyassociationwiththenameoftheStpatriarchandSjiji founder,KeizanJkin⍧ᒣ⤂⍲(1268–1325). NishiarijoinedtherelativelyunknownGettanin1849afterleavingHrinji,Guzen,and thecapitalEdo.GiventheemphasisonShbgenzinNishiari’steachingcareer,itislikelythat Nishiari’smovetoKaizjiwasmotivatedbyhisgrowinginterestinthestudyofDgen,but thereareofcourseanynumbersofreasonshewouldhavemadethemove,includingthe possibilitiesthathehadtiredofurbanlife,feltconstrainedbyhisresponsibilitiesasanabbot accountabletoparishioners,orfelthehadexhaustedGuzen’steaching.Inanycase,the biographerspointoutthathischoicewasremarkable:leavingEdoasawellregardedalumnus oftheSendanrin,Nishiariwouldhavebeenwelcomedatmoreprominentmonasteries,likethe onehundredmonktraininghallRykaiin 㱟ᾏ㝔 inMaebashi๓ᶫ,theeightymonktraining hallShuzenjiಟ⚙ᑎinIzu ఀ㇋,orthehundredplusmonktraininghallKshji⯆⪷ᑎinUji Ᏹ.Infact,NishiarididlaterspendsignificanttimetrainingRykaiinand,toalesserextent, atShuzenji,butNishiari’sprimarychoicetotrainatthelesserknownKaizji,whereincontrast tothesemonasteriesthestudyofShbgenzwasprioritizedoverzazen,crystallizedhis identityasfirstandforemostagenzka.ThisisnottoimplythatGettanexclusivelytaught Shbgenz;duringNishiari’stenurewithhimGettanalsolecturedextensivelyon,forinstance, theSutraofPerfectEnlightenment(Engakukyᅭむ⥂). LookingbackfromthecontextofcontemporarySt,itmayseemnaturalthatan ambitiousStmonkwouldprioritizethestudyShbgenz,but,ashasbeennotedinSection Two,theidentificationofStwiththeShbgenzisinfactaMeijieradevelopment.As Kishizawanotes,Gettan’semphasisonShbgenzinthemidnineteenthcenturywasunusual forthetime(Kishizawa1938,594–596).Inthisperiodwellbeforethesurgeinpopularityofthe ShbgenzfollowingWatsujiTetsurandothers,andbeforeeventhetext’s institutionalizationinStthroughtheShushgi,genzeandthelike,teachersandstudents whospecializedinthetextwerenotinthemainstream.ThelengthstowhichNishiariissaidto havegonetohearGuzenteachingtheShbgenz,forexample,isemblematicofthis—aSt clericsincethelateMeijiwouldhavenoneedtotravelfartohearextensiveteachingson Shbgenz,butwouldfromthefirstdaysofhistrainingunderstandasamatterofcoursethat thestudyofStdoctrineistantamounttothestudyofShbgenz. FollowingalongstandingtropeinZenhagiography,thebiographieslingeronthe severityofNishiari’strainingandthepovertyanddisrepairofKaizji.Kishizawarelatesa dialoguesaidtohavetakenplacewhileNishiariandtwoothermonksstoodawaitingentryat MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.68 thetemple,inwhichGettanmadeitclearthattherewouldbenofoodforthemiftheytrained there.Nishiariandhiscompatriotsrepliedthattheywouldarrangefortheirownfood (presumablythroughthedailybeggingroundstheyweresubsequentlysaidtohavepracticed), andonlyatthatweretheyadmitted.Kishizawaalsorelatesanotherstorycelebratingthe malnutritionatKaizji,inwhichKishizawahimselfspeakstoanoldmonkwhohadtrainedthere whileNishiarihadbeentheheadofthekitchen(tenzoᗙ).Theoldmonkdescribedto Kishizawahowthericegruelatthattimehadbeensothinthattheceilingcouldbeseen reflectedinit,andthatinmisosoupforfiftymonks,Nishiariwouldputjustasinglescoopof miso.127 ItisunclearhowlongNishiariresidedwithGettanatKaizji.Thebiographiesreport thatheservedGettanfortwelveyears(18491862),sevenofwhichheservedastenzo(1851 1858).Duringthisperiod,however,Nishiarialsohadinvolvementsinothertemples.Thus whilethehagiographiesmakemuchofNishiari’smettleinpersistingwiththesevereGettanfor twelveyears,andwhileitisclearthathedidstudycloselywithhimandcompletedanumberof Kaizjiretreats,bymycalculationsitseemsthatNishiarilivedconsecutivelyatKaizjiforonly thefirstthreeofthosetwelveyears,from1849to1852.128 In1855,NishiariwasappointedtotheabbacyofNyoraijiዴ᮶ᑎinMishima୕ᓥ, whereoversawfourteenorfifteenmonksintraining.Latein1858,heassumedaconcurrent postasabbotofthenearbyEichinⱥ₻㝔.NyoraijiwasaboutfifteenmilesawayfromKaizji, andEichinwasevencloser,andthroughhistimeintheseabbaciesNishiaristayedclosely connectedwithGettan.WhenGettanheldthreemonthretreatsatKaizji,Nishiariwasableto takeupresidencetherewithhim,andduringothertimesoftheyear,despitehisotherduties, NishiariwasabletoregularlycommutetohearGettanlecture.Thebiographiesuniversally celebratethiscommutefromNyoraijitoKaizji,whichwouldbegininthedarkofmorningand finishinthedarkofnight,asademonstration,likehislongwalkin1842fromEdotoEchigoto hearGuzen,ofhisprofounddevotiontotheShbgenzandtohisteachers.Duringthissame period,Nishiarialsomaintainedcontactwithotherteachers,andheissaidin1861tohave studiedforanonandoffyearwithateachernamedBaimy ᱵⱑofShuzenjiandtohave 127 SeeKishizawa1938,596–599. 128 TheseyearsrepresenttheonlyspaninNishiari’sputativeKaizjiperiodthatheisnotshownas havingsignificantresponsibilitieselsewhere.Asdetailedbelow,thebiographiesindicatethathespent atleastthetwosummersof1853and1854trainingatRykaiin,andlikelytheinterveningandfollowing monthsaswell.Subsequently,after1855whenNishiaritookuptheabbacyofNyoraijiዴ᮶ᑎ,and throughhisconcurrentabbacyofthenearbyEichinⱥ₻㝔fromthewinterof1858until1862,hewas onlyanintermittentresidentatKaizji,livingthereduringformalthreemonthretreatperiodsbut otherwisecommutingtoattendlectures. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.69 realizedthetruthofthecosmosinhisteachingonthe“fireattheendoftheeonthatdestroys allthings”(gkatnenຕⅆὝ↛).129 AculminationofNishiari’strainingwithGettancamein1862,shortlypriortoNishiari’s returntoEdotoassumetheabbacyofSsanji᐀ཧᑎ,thetemplewhereexactlytwentyyears priorhehadservedasshusounderTaigenSory.Beforehisdeparture,GettanvisitedNishiari atNyoraijiandtheregrantedhimconfirmationofenlightenment(inkashmei༳ྍド᫂).130 KishizawacitestheversebywhichGettanconferredthiscertification: ɖ ɖ ᐩᕌᕴම୕ᓥ ɲɎ 㟋㱥ᖺྂ ⲡⰝⰝ ɑɪ Ȯɐ ɓ ඡᚄ୍㊰㞪 㝶 Ỉ ɴ ɱ ɒɲ ⳯ⴥϾὶᚨ⮬㩭 (Kishizawa1938,610) TothesoutheastofMt.FujiandthenorthwestofMishima131 Aspiritaltargrowsoldinyears,andgrassesflourish. Althoughthesinglepathoftherabbitrunsalongthewater, Novegetablefloats[there],andthevirtueisselfevident.132 WhiletheperiodofhisregularcontactwithGettancametoaclosewiththeinkaandthemove backtoEdo,Nishiaricontinuedtohavesomecontactwiththeteacher,assistinghimfor exampleat1865eventsatFukushji⚟ᫀᑎ,inthepositionofpreceptor(kaishiᡄᖌ). ^ƃƐĂŶũŝďďĂĐLJ;ϭϴϲϮͲϭϴϳϭͿ 129 ThislikelyreferstothefamousquestioninCase#4ofthekancollectionHekiganroku ☐ᕑ㘓,of whetherornotanythingremainsaftertheworlddestroyingfire.SeeZGD,306a. 130 IhavenotbeenabletoestablishtheroleofinkashmeiinlateTokugawaSt.Unlikeshih,itdoes notappeartohavebeenascriptedceremonyortoconstituteaconcretepromotionintheinstitutional ranks.Iamtemptedtospeculate,astheAmericanZenteacherJamesFordhassuggestedabout contemporarySt,thatthecertificationservedasakindof“secondDharmatransmission”intheSt sect,awaytosealamasterdisciplerelationshipwhilesidesteppingthecentralStdoctrinethat Dharmatransmissioncanbereceivedonlyonce,andfromasingleteacher.SeeZGD,55a;Ford2012. 131 ItakethislineasaroughdescriptionofthegeographicallocationofNyoraiji. 132 ThisseemsareferencetoatropeinZenliteraturethatavegetableleaffloatingdownstreamofa hermitageisevidenceofahermitwho,infrugal,lacksawakening.Ihavebeenunabletodeterminethe originalcontextofthistrope. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.70 NishiariresidedasabbotatSsanjifrom1862until1871,whenhelefttheareaofEdo againtoassumetheabbacyofHsenji㬅ᑎinKiry᱒⏕.AtSsanjiheoversawatraining hallofabouttwentymonks,includingsomewhowouldlaterrisetoprominenceinthesect,and hebeganhimselftolectureontheShbgenz.Atthattime,Nishiarifelthewasbeginningto fullytoappreciatetheteachingsofhisteacherGettan: ᑠ⏣ཎࡢ᪩ᕝ฿ࡾᾏⶶᑎࡢ᭶₺⪁ேཧࡎࡿࡇࡀ๓ᚋ༑ ᖺ࡛ࠊṈ㛫᭶₺⪁ேࡼࡾ║ⶶࡢᥦၐࢆᅇ⫈⪺ࡋࡓࡢ࡛ ࡃᮋẼᚚ㛤ᒣࡢᚚᛮྊࢆ❚ࡩࡇࡀฟ᮶ࡓࡸ࠺࡞ᚰᆅࡀ ࡋࡓࡽỤᡞṗࡘ࡚᐀ཧᑎ࡛ึࡵ࡚║ⶶࡢᥦၐࢆࡋ࡚ึᚿ ࡢᗄศ㓘ࡦࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ133 IstudiedforabouttwelveyearswithOldManGettanofKaizjiin HayakawainOdawara.DuringthattimeItwice[daily]heardhim lectureontheShbgenz,[yet]IfeltIcouldonlybarely,faintly glimpsethesublimethoughtsoftheesteemedFounder[Dgen]. UponmyreturntoEdo,[however,]whenIbegantooffer[my own]lecturesontheShbgenzatSsanji,myoriginalintention wastosomedegreefulfilled. dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŶůŝŐŚƚĞŶŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚDŽƌŽƚĂŬĞŬŝĚƃ;ϭϴϱϮͲϭϴϱϱͿ AnimportantinterludeinNishiari’strainingwithGettanwasthetimehespentwiththe prominentteacherandeventualabbotofSjiji,MorotakeEkid ㅖᕌዒᇽ(18051879).134As notedabove,Gettanwasfirstandforemostatextualscholar,andinhismonasterytherewas littleemphasisonthepracticeofsittingmeditation.Therefore,afteraboutthreeyearsat Kaizji,GettanissaidtohavesentNishiaritodeepenhistraininginzazenatMorotake’s hundredmonktraininghall,Rykaiin,someeightymilesawayinthevicinityofKyto.Inthe eighthmonthof1852,afterjoiningwithStmonksfromacrossthecountryinassistingwith majorservicesatEiheijiincelebrationofthesixhundredthanniversaryofDgen’sdeath, 133 IhavedrawnthistextdirectlyfromNishiari’sKeirekidan,butIamindebtedforitsselectiontothe editedandmodernizedversionintheNenpuinKydonomeis(Nishiari1905,15;NBZ,25). 134 Morotakeisalsoknownbyhisimperialname,KsaiJitokuZenjiᘯឿᚨ⚙ᖌ.Thefirst independentabbotofSjiji,MrossnoteshissupportoftheSjijiindependencemovement,andJaffe noteshisparticipationinthepanBuddhistorganizationShoshdtokukaimeiSeeMross2009;Yokoi 1991,462;Jaffe2001,115. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.71 NishiarimetupwithMorotakeandaccompaniedhimbacktoRykaiin,whereheproceededto trainforabouttwoandhalfyears.135 NishiariissaidtohavemadequiteanimpressiononMorotakeandthemonksat Rykaiin.Uponhisarrival,MorotakeimmediatelypromotedNishiaritoahighrankwithinthe temple(fsuᑎ).136Further,theteacherissaidtohaveentrustedthethirtythreeyearold NishiariwiththeDharmaseatinthebimonthlyquestionandanswerceremonyofshsanᑠ ཧ: ዒᇽ㛛ୗࡣⓒே௨ୖࡢಟ⾜ൔࡀ㞼㞟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋዒᇽࡣẖ᭶ ୍᪥ࠊ୍᪥ࡢᑠཨ㸦ಟᏛൔࡀၥ⟅ࡍࡿࡇ㸧ࡣᡶᏊ 㸦ᑟᖌࢆࡘࡵࡿ㐨ල㸧ࢆ⍲ⱥᑦࢃࡓࡋࠊࠕᑠཨࡣᑎ ୍௵ࡍࠖゝࡗ࡚⮬ศࡣ᪉ࡢ㛫ᖐࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ┤ᚋᮏᇽ ࡛ࡣⅆࡢฟࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࢆࡅࡓἲᡓၥ⟅ࡀ㜚ࢃࡉࢀࡓࡢ࡛࠶ ࡿࠋ⍲ⱥᑦࡢ⾜ゎ㸦ᗙ⚙ࢆᏛၥ㸧୧ࡢே᱁ࡢຊ㔞ࡀࠊಟ ⾜ൔࡢ㉁ၥᑐࡋ࡚Ⅿⅆࡢዴࡃ⇿Ⓨࡋࠊ⃭ὶࡢዴࡃὶฟࡋࡓ ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪤⍲ⱥᑦࡣ୍ᐙࡢᮏ᐀ᑗ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᙜ᪩ࡃ ࡶࡑࡢ㐨ࡀᮏᒣỌᖹᑎࡶ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࠊ⍲ⱥᑦࡣ⪁㛶 㸦Ọᖹᑎ㈏㤳ࡢᐊ㸧ୖࡗ࡚㟋ᇽ⚙ᖌ┦ぢࡋ࡚᮶ࡓࠋ137 Overahundredpracticingmonkshadflockedtofollow [Morotake]Ekid.Attheshsan(questionandanswer [ceremony]withmonksintraining)heldonthefirstandfifteenth ofeachmonth,Ekidwouldpassthehossu(thetoolusedbythe guidingteacher)toMasterKin’ei[Nishiari],saying“Ientrust shsantothefsu[Nishiari],”andreturningtotheabbot’sroom. Immediatelyafterwards,likeaneruptionofflamesandwiththeir verylivesinthebalance,Dharmacombatwouldbewagedinthe mainhall.MasterKin’eiwouldmeetthedistinctcapacityofeach individualwithhisownpracticeunderstanding(learnedinzazen), 135 Thecoreofthistrainingwasthetwosummerretreatsof1853and1854.GiventhewinterRykaiin settingfortheanecdoterecordedbelowasNishiari’senlightenmentstory,andtheexistenceofaverse byMorotakeuponNishiari’s1855departuretohisnewpostasabbotofNyraiji,itseemslikelythat NishiaristayedstraightthroughbetweenretreatsatRykaiin,ultimatelytrainingthereforatleasttwo andhalfyearsfromtheeighthmonthof1852throughatleasttothefirstmonthof1855. 136 Fusu,technicallyanassistanttothekansudescribedabove,isatempleadministrativepostthat likewiseconfersstatusandceremonialresponsibilitiesbutmayormaynotinvolvepracticalduties.See DDB,“┘ᑎ,”articlebyGriffithFoulkandCharlesMuller. 137 ThetextandparentheticalnotesarefromYoshida,Bakumatsu/MeijinomeisNishiariBokusanZenji, excerptedinNBZ(NBZ,27). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.72 explodinglikearagingfireandflowinglikeathunderingriver. AlreadyMasterKin’eiwasamongthecoreleadersofthesect. EvenasearlyasthattimehisreputationintheWaywasknown evenatthegreatheadtempleEiheiji,andhecametoenterthe roomoftheEiheijiabbotandmeetZenMasterRyd. RykaiinismostsignificantforNishiari’sbiographersasthesiteoftheanecdote recordedasNishiari’s“suddengreatenlightenment”(katsuzendaigo㇉↛ᝅ).Kishizawa tellsthestoryasfollows: ࠶ࡿࡁዒᇽ⚙ᖌᑓࢆࡐࡽࢀࠊ⣮⣮ࡋ࡚㬾ẟࢆࡤ ࡍ㞷ࢆ࠾ࡋࠊ⏣ᅾࡺࡁࠊ୍ᑻࡶࡘࡶࡗࡓ࡞ࢆ࠼ ࡾࠊ㛛ධࡿ⾜⪅ࡀࡳࡘࡅ࡚ᗙᑅࡣࡋࡾ࠾࠸ࡽࡓࢆ ࡃࡳࡁࡓࡾࠊࡲࡵࡲࡵࡋࡃⲡ㠠ࡢࡦࡶࢆ࠸࡚ࡃࢀࡓࠋඛ ᖌࡀ㊊ࢆࡩࡳධࢀࡿࠊ࠼ࡓࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⇕࠾ࡽࡓࡗ࠶࡛ ࡶࢃࡎࠊࠕ࠶ࠊ࠶ࡘ࠸ࠖࠊ࠸࠺࡚㊊ࢆࡦࡁ࠶ࡆࡿ㏵➃⾜ ⪅ࡀࡍࡤࡋࡇࡃᗞࡧฟࡋ࡚࠼࡚ࡁࡓ㞷ࢆ࠾ࡓࡓ ࡗࡇࡴࠊࡋࡹ࠺࠸࠺ኌࢆࡓ࡚࡚ࡅ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋඛᖌࡇ ࢀࢆࡳ࡚㇉↛ࡋ࡚ᝅࡋࠊ Ɏ ɺ Ɂɴɘ ᢕࢽ㞷ᅋᅋ୍ᢞ ȿɎ ࢽ ɓ ⇕୍ ɳ ᆞ᧞ⴠ ጁ㧗൞ ɱ ɖ ɻ 烁▱᪥ఱ⠇ ȿɎ ɺ ɚ ㋍ࢽಽ㖟┙୍➗୍ሙ(Kishizawa1938,605) Once[Nishiari]wassentoutonanerrandbyMaster[Morotake] Ekid.Itwassnowinglikeaflurryofgoosefeathers,andinthe ricepaddiesandcountrysidethesnowcameuptoafoothigh. Enteringthegate,[Nishiari]foundtheMaster’sattendant[to reporthisreturn],andthenhurriedtothetemplekitchentofetch atubfullofhotwater.Hecarefullyuntiedthelacesofhisstraw sandals,[but]whenmyformerteacher[Nishiari’s]foottouched theboilinghotwater,hespontaneouslycried“Aaah!Hot!”and yankedhisfootout.TheMaster’sattendantimmediatelyrushed tothegarden,collectedsomesnow,andthrewitintothehot water.Witha“shuu”sounditmeltedcompletely.Seeingthis,my formerteacher[Nishiari]suddenlygreatlyunderstood,and composedthisverse: Grabbingupthesnow,andthrowingitintothewater, Heavenandeartharecastoff,Mt.Merucollapses. Idonotknow[even]whatseasonitis! MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.73 Laughingatonce,Ikickoverthesilverdish.138 Itshouldbenotedherethatwhilethisstoryisthestandardaccount,anotherstoryalso circulatesasNishiari’srequisiteenlightenmentmoment.Thisversion,setduringhistimewith Gettan,isrecordedintheZengakuDaijitenisasfollows: ୕ࠐṓࡢࠊ㬅ᯘᑎࢆ㎡ࡋ┦ᶍ(⚄ዉᕝ┴)ᾏⶶᑎ᭶₺❳ࡢ ୗᢞࡌࠊ้ⱞཧ⚙㎪㐨ࡍࡿࡇ୍ᖺཬࡪࠋ୍᪥ࠊ⪁ ேࡢࠝᴊᄫ⥂ࠞࢆᥦၐࡍࡿࢆ⪺ࡁࠊࠕ▱ぢࣞ❧ࣞぢࠖࡢㄒ ࠸ࡓࡗ࡚ᛛ↛ࡋ࡚㛤ᝅࠋ Atthirtyyearsold,[Nishiari]leftHrinjiandthrewhimselfinto theassemblyofGettanZenryofKaizjiinSagami([inwhatis now]KanagawaPrefecture),fortwelveyearswholeheartedly endeavoringinZentrainingandthepracticeoftheWay.Oneday asheheardhisteacherlectureonthera gamastra,atthe words“seeingthroughknowingisnotseeing”139hesuddenly openedandunderstood. ItisnoteworthythattheenlightenmentstoryissostandardafeatureofZen hagiographythatitcannotbedispensedwitheveninthecaseofanorthodoxStteacherlike Nishiari,whotaughtthedoctrineof“theonenessofpracticeandenlightenment”(shushfuni) andseemedtoendeavortodeemphasizethekindofthinkingthattheenlightenmentstory genresupports.Topickanexamplefromhistranslatedwork,forinstance: Becauseenlightenmentmustnotremain,yougrinditoff completely,untilthereisnotevenaspeckofenlightenment. Whenyoureachthepointof“nostinkofenlightenment,”where thereisnotrace,youvowwithgreatdeterminationtoletthe 138 “Silverdish”(ginban㖟┙)here,especiallyinthesnowycontextoftheanecdote,invokesthephrase “fillingasilverbowlwithsnow”(ginwanniyukiwomoru㖟┊┒㞷),fromDongshan’sHkyzanmai,a Stliturgicaltext.SeeZGD,239d. 139 Thisphraseisambiguous,andastudyofthelinesintheirsutracontextisoutsidethescopeofthe presentpaper.Thephrase▱ぢ❧ぢdoesnotappearintheTaisheditionofthera gamastra, norinanyotherTaishtext.Itmaybeareferencetothefollowingsectionfromthestra,inwhichthe Buddhaaddresses nandaasfollows: ▱ぢ❧ࠋ▱༶↓᫂ᮏࠋ▱ぢ↓ࠋぢ᪁༶ᾖᵎࠋ↓₃┾ࠋ Toseethroughknowingistherootofignorance.Whenthereisnotseeing throughknowing,thereisnirva,untaintedandpure. (T945:19.124c910.TextfromSATDaizky;theCBETAtextpunctuationdiffersonthe firstphrase:▱ぢ❧▱ࠋThisfourcharacterphrasingexpressedbytheCBETA punctuationismorecompellingthanthephrasingoftheSATedition.) MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.74 absenceofenlightenmentcontinuelong,long,long,likeasingle railofironformyriadmiles.(WeitsmanandTanahashi2011,59) Indeed,KishizawainhistellingoftheenlightenmentstoryofhisteacherNishiariseems toacknowledgeanassumption,perhapsimpliedbytheaboverhetoric,thatNishiariwasnot enlightened.Asnotedabove,YasutaniHakuun,forexample,saidsooutright.Kishizawathus concludeshistellingofNishiari’senlightenmentstory,whichincludestheexchangeofseveral additionalverseswithMorotake,withthefollowing: ୡ㛫࡛ࡣࠊඛᖌᝅࡾ࡞ࡋ࠸࠺ࡀࠊ࠼ࡾ࡚Ὕᒣྂග ᫂࠶ࡾࡸ࠸࡞ࡸࢆၥࢃࡤࠊఱ⟅࠼ࢇࡍࡿࠊ㜿ࠋ (Kishizawa1938,605) Intheworlditissaidthat[Nishiari]myformerteacherwasnot enlightened,butifyouaskedtheOldBuddhaTzan[Dongshan]if hehadthebrightlight(kmy)whatwouldhesay?Hahaha. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.75 PartII:NishiariandtheMeijiBuddhistPersecutionandReinvention WhenNishiarireturnedtothecapitalin1862,astheprominentabbotofSsanjihehad accesstoelitesocietyandhadatleastsomecontactwithmembersoftherulingTokugawa family.Forexample,atamajorpreceptconvocation(jukaieᤵᡄ)heldin1865atwhichhe officiatedwithGettan,overonethousandparticipantsweresaidtohavereceivedtheprecepts, includingsuchhighlevelTokugawafamilymembersasTokugawaTenshinኳ⍻㝔(1837 1883),theordainedwidowofthethirteenthshgunTokugawaIesadaᚨᕝᐙᐃ(18241858). ThecontinuityintotheMeijiperiodofNishiari’sinevitablepoliticalinvolvements,andhis considerablepoliticalskills,areevidentinastoryfromtheBoshinᠾ㎮War(18681869)inthe tumultuousyearoftheestablishmentoftheMeijiregime.Atthattime,theabbotNishiariis saidtohaveriskedhislifetosaveaSsanjiparishioner,Murogaᐊ㈡,whohadfoughtonthe sideoftheTokugawashogunatebutlaterjoinedthegovernmentarmy.PursuedbyTokugawa loyalistsangeredathisdefection,MurogafledtoseeksanctuaryatSsanji.Nishiarisaved Muroga’slifebyconvincingthetroops—twohundredstrong,intheaccountofonehagiography (Saiyji1938,29)—tosparehim.Justasthereligiousinstitutionsstruggledtostayontheright sideofthepoliticalturmoilnationally,atthelocallevel,too,priestslikeNishiarineededto strikeabalancebetweenpastloyaltiesandthepresentpoliticalrealities. Likeallleadingmonksoftheperiod,however,Nishiari’srelationshipswiththe governmentandgovernmentpolicyranfardeeperthananylocalparishconcern.Aninfluential voiceintheStestablishment,hewasactivelyinvolvedatthetoplevelsofthesectarian leadershipinshapingtheinstitutionfortheMeiji.Ingeneral,whileNishiariresistedsomeof thereformstoBuddhismproposedandenactedbytheMeijigovernment,hejoinedthe mainstreamofBuddhistinstitutionalfiguresinassigningthebulkoftheblameforthe persecutionontheexcessesanddegenerationofBuddhiststhemselves.140Ratherthantowork againstantiBuddhistpoliciesortorejectthemasunfounded,Nishiarijoinedintheeffortto reformBuddhismsuchthatitsimaginedpreTokugawapuritywouldberegainedandthenew regimecouldrecognizeitasausefulandpowerfulpartnerinitsmodernizing,imperialist agenda.AStabbot,UedaShetsuୖ⏣⚈ᝋ,expressesthisorientationofNishiariinhis recentapologeticarticle,“NishiariBokusanandthePersecutionofBuddhism”(NishiariBokusan tohaibutsukishakuす᭷✕ᒣᗫẋ㔘).DiscussingNishiari’s1873text,“Guidelinesto ProtecttheDharma”(Gohyjinshㆤἲ⏝ᚰ㞟),hewrites: 140 AsnotedinSectionOne,thishasbeentheoverwhelmingtrendinBuddhisthistoriographyand persiststothepresent. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.76 ✕ᒣ⚙ᖌࡣࠕㆤἲ⏝ᚰ㞟ࠖࢆⴭࡋ࡚ᗫẋ㔘ࡢㄗࡾࡸᘢᐖࢆ ᣦᢈุࡋࠊṇἲࡢㆤᣢൔ㢼ࡢ㠉᪂ࢆၐ㐨ࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊ⚙ᖌࡣᓥᆅ㯲㞾➼㠉᪂ⓗ㐍Ṍὴࡢࡼ࠺ṇ㠃ᨻᗓࡢ᐀ ᩍᨻ⟇ࢆṇࡏࡋࡵࢇࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊὶᶋࡉࡋ࡞ࡀ ࡽࠊࡑࡢὶࢀࢆᨵṇࡏࡋࡵࡿᰂ㌾࡞ᡓ⾡࡛ࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (Ueda2009,53) ZenMasterBokusanwrote“GuidelinestoProtecttheDharma”to identifyandcritiquetheerrorsandharmfuleffectsofhaibutsu kishaku.Initheadvocatedforthepreservationofthetrue DharmaandthereformofSanghacustoms.Hedidnottryto rectifythegovernment’sreligiouspoliciesattheirsurface,asdid ShimajiMokuraiandhisreformist,progressivefaction,butrather employedsofttactics:alteringthestreamofeventswhileflowing alongwiththecurrentofthetimes. These“softtactics,”thoughcelebratedbyUedaascorrectiveofthereligious administrationofthewholecountryandshowingthepathforwardforgenuineBuddhist progress,seemlargelytohaveamountedtoNishiari’sfullandcongenialparticipationwiththe governmentprogram.Hewasrecognizedandpromotedbythegovernmentduringhisservice undertheGreatTeachingAcademy(Daikyin;seeSectionOne)inthe1870s,andmaintaineda highenoughprofileandacordialenoughrelationshipwiththegovernment,thatbythelate MeijihewaspersonallygrantedaZenMaster’snamebytheemperor.Thisname,Jikishin JkokuZenji┤ᚰίᅜ⚙ᖌ(“DirectMind,PurifyingtheNation”),wasconferredonhiminthe sixthmonthof1901,comingperhapsasamatterofcourseshortlyafterhiselectionaschief abbot(kanshu)ofSjiji.Thename’sdistinctlynationalisticvalenceisnoaccident,Ithink,and certainlyreflectsNishiari’scareerlongproStatestance.TherelationshipwiththeMeiji emperordidnotendwiththebestowalofthename:biographiesalsorecordvisitsbyNishiari totheimperialcourttoblesstheemperorintheNewYearin1902and1904inhispositionat thepinnacleofthesecthierarchyaschiefabbot(kanch). ǀĂŶŐĞůŝnjŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞ;ϭϴϳϮͲϭϴϳϰͿ NishiariwasinvolvedintheGreatTeachingAcademyfromitsbeginningsin1872,having inthethirdmonthofthatyearreceivedasummonstoreporttothenewlyempoweredMinistry ofDoctrine(Kybusho).Thoughheissaidtohavefirmlyrefusedthefirstrequest,hesoon complied,andattheendofthefourthmonthof1872hewasmadearepresentativeofSjijito theMinistryofDoctrine,andearlythefollowingmonthwasappointedMinistryrepresentative MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.77 oftheheadofthesect(kanchjimutoriatsukai⟶㛗ົྲྀᢅ).Whateverreservationsmay havebeenbehindhisinitialrefusaltoreporttotheMinistry,hewentontoserveit wholeheartedlyasamidlevelandthen,fromthetenthmonthof1872,asanupperlevel doctrinalinstructor(daikgiㅮ⩏)andasanexaminerforthecertificationofStsect lecturersfortheAcademy. MissionizingacrossJapan,andespeciallyinHokkaid,Nishiariwasbyallaccountsan eagerandableambassadoroftheGreatTeachingAcademyanditsproState,neoShint ideology.Nishiariisnotatallunusualinthis,asnotedinSectionOne,attheAcademy’speak therewere81,000doctrinalinstructorsactiveinJapanfromtheBuddhistinstitutionsalone.I havenotbeenabletofindthecontentofanyofNishiari’slecturesfromtheperiod,butIexpect thattheywouldmakeforaninterestingstudy.Icannotyetestablishtheextenttowhichhe stuckstrictlytothemandated“ThreeStandardsofInstruction”(sanjkysoku)andthelater “Themes”(kendai)oftheGreatTeaching,ortowhatextenthewastemptedintothe“individual orBuddhisticinterpretations”warnedagainstinthe1872governmentproclamationnotedin SectionOne. JoiningtheAcademywellbeforethecodificationofStdoctrineasexpressedinthe Shushgi,forexample,itisnotclearexactlywhatmessageNishiariwouldhavehadfortheSt laityinthecontextofAcademysponsoredlectures.LobreglionotesthattheAcademydid circulateatexttoaidStlecturers,ashortentryinan1872textcalledtheShoshsekkyygi ㅖ᐀ㄝᩍせ⩏,amanualforAcademylecturersofthevariousBuddhistsects.Followingthe trendinStthoughtatthetime,thetextexpressesapositionthatTakiya’srevisiontothe Shushgiwouldlateroverturn:anunderstandingofStaswhatLobregliocallsa“twotiered” systemwith“moredifficultandrarefiedpath”formonasticsanda“lowertieredpath”forthe “laymasseswhoseintellectualandspiritualcapabilitiesweredeemednotadequateforthe subtletiesofthemostprofoundBuddhistdoctrinesandtherigorsofzazen.”Nishiariresisted someaspectsoftheShushgiconsensus(seeScarangello2012,315–316),andonthispointtoo helikelyobjected;hislifelongemphasisonmonasticpuritywouldpointtoaninclination towardsthe“twotiered”system.TheStinstructionsissuedbytheAcademyarevague,but theydogivesomeindicationofthekindsofethicsbased,nationalisticteachingsNishiariwould havebeenexpectedtodelivertolayaudiencesintheearly1870sasheworked,necessarily, undertheauspicesoftheGreatTeachingAcademy.Lobregliodescribesthecontentofthis Academypublishedtextofunknownauthorship: Thetextexhibitsanumberofelementscharacteristictovirtually allsuchdocumentsofthisperiod:supportforanemperor centeredsystemofruleinwhichthecontinuityoftheimperial lineagewiththeancestralkami,ordeities,ofthenationis stressedandardorforcontributingtotheedificationofa benightedpopulace. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.78 Despitesuchclearcateringtothewishesofthegovernment,and itslackofindepthdoctrinalexplication,thelittlethatitdoessay aboutdoctrinalmattersisofinterest.Firstofall,thecentral doctrinaltropesfound…[inotherSttextsoftheperiod]are onceagainaffirmed:“Zen[...]takesasitsmainprinciple(shshi) ‘directlypointingtothemind,seeingintoone'snatureand becomingBuddha.’”Secondly,though,suchelevatedspiritual attainment,andthetasteofitssubtlejoy,areclearlynot conceivedassomethingopentoall.Thefactofinequalityin humancapabilitiesisdulynotedandtheStapproachtothose lessableisspelledout: “Inordertoguidethosedullwittedpeopleofaverageorbelow averageability,weteachsuchthingsaskanzenchaku (encouraginggoodandchastisingevil)andingah(retribution basedoncauseandeffect).Thisleads[them]torespectand worshipthekamiandbuddhas,humblyservetheEmperor,think fondlyabouttheirdebttothenation,liveinharmonywiththe actualconditionsoftheirlives,and[it]spreadsthebenefitsof civilizedgovernanceeverywherethroughout[theland].” (Lobreglio2009,83–84) Nishiaribeganhismissionizingwiththegovernment’sAcademyin1872inthenorthern mainland,theregionofAkita⛅⏣Prefecture,workforwhichin1874hewasbestowedbythe abbotofEiheijiamonetarycommendation.Heismostcelebrated,though,forhismissionary work,beginningin1873,ontheAcademy’scircuitinHokkaid,theremotenorthernisland underthecontroloftheMeijigovernment’snewDevelopmentCommission(Kaitakushi㛤ᣅ ).Thevalueofmissionariesincolonizationhasbeenwellknowntoimperialgovernments throughouthistory,anddespiteitsantiBuddhistrhetorictheMeijigovernmentdidnothesitate touseBuddhistmissionstogainafootholdintheircolonizingeffortsinHokkaid.Foritspart, theBuddhistinstitutionalleadership,strivingtoregainthegoodgracesofthegovernment,rose enthusiasticallytotheoccasionandthrewsubstantialmaterialandpersonnelresourcesinto theeffort.141Nishiariwasanenthusiasticparticipantinthiscollaboration,andbythethird monthof1874,attheageoffiftythree,hewaspromotedtotherankofsupervisinginstructor fortheAcademyworkinHokkaid(Hokkaidkydtorishimariᾏ㐨ᩍᑟྲྀ⥾).Hisefforts inHokkaidculminatedwithhis1881establishmentofthetempleChji୰ኸᑎinSapporoᮐ ᖠ.TheEiheijiabbotKugamiTsuunஂᡃᐦ㞼(18171884)consentedtoserveasthenominal founder(kaisan㛤ᒣ)ofthetemple,andthoughhewasimmediatelyreplacedbya“second 141 SeeSectionOne. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.79 generation”abbotoflowerstature,thetemplewasgrantedthehighstatusofdirectbranch temple(jikimatsuji┤ᮎᑎ)toEiheiji.142 Nishiari’sevangelizingprowesswasonfulldisplayduringhistimeinHokkaid,wherehe issaidtohavetaughtsevenoreighttimesaday,andareinevidencefromthedayofhisarrival. DeniedentrytotheDevelopmentCommission’sadministrativeheadquartersatSapporobya highrankingofficialnamedMatsumotoJrᯇᮏ༑㑻withpronouncedantiBuddhist leanings,Nishiariengagedhiminadebatesaidtohaveragedforseveraldays.WhenNishiariat lastprevailed,Matsumotonotonlybecameafollowerbutofferedhisfulladministrative cooperationandgrantedhimthelargetractoflandthatwouldeventuallybecomethesiteof Chji. TheextensivemissionizingandevangelismofNishiarimustbeappreciatedforits markeddistinctionfromtheWesternmodernistZenselfcharacterizationasanantievangelist teaching.143Nishiarihimselfwasanunapologeticevangelist,andJapanesesectarian biographerswritingthroughoutthetwentiethcenturyhaveunambivalentlycelebratedhis excellenceinthisregard.NorshouldhisevangelismwiththeAcademybetakensimplyasa functionofthegovernment’sdoctrinalinstructionmandate;beforeandafterhistenureasa doctrinalinstructoroftheGreatTeaching,Nishiariwasdevotedtothepropagationofthefaith amongthelaityandthroughouttheland.Tociteoneexampleamongmany,whenasabbotof Kasuisaihewasdismayedbythepeople’slackoffaith,Nishiaribecameanoutrightstreet evangelist.BuyingcartloadofBuddhistrosaries(juzuᩘ⌔),hehandedthemout indiscriminatelytoeveryonehemet,saying,“ThesebeadswillgiveyoufaithinBuddhism,bring youhappiness,andprotectyou.”144 AsnotedinSectionOneofthispaper,theGreatTeachingAcademydissolvedin1877 afterbeingdeeplyunderminedbythe1875withdrawalbytheShinsectfromtheproject.Itis unclearwhenexactlyNishiarilefttheranks—biographiesshowhewasactiveinAcademy missionizingfrom1872throughatleastlatein1874,butIfindnoreferencestoactivitybyhim underitsauspicesin1875orlater. ItshouldbenotedthatNishiari’scooperationwithMeijigovernmentpolicieslikely extendedtoadvocacyoftheexpansionistexercisesoftheJapanesemilitaryintheSino JapaneseWar(18941895)andtheRussoJapaneseWar(19041905).Thoughthe 142 KugamiTsuunwasthesixtyfirstgenerationabbotofEiheiji;alsoknownasKugamiKankeiஂᡃ⎔. SeeZGD,244c. 143 AsRichardJaffehasremindedme,itisusefultonotethatNishiari’sevangelisminHokkaid,likethat ofBuddhistmissionariesinKorea,wouldhavebeenprimarilyorientedtowardsJapanesesettlersrather thanregionalnatives.Totheextentthatthiswasso,andremainedsofortheJapaneseBuddhist missionariestotheWestaswell,itisperhapsnaturalthatWesternZenconvertsinthetwentieth centurymayhavebeenleftwiththesensethattheyhadthemselvesnotbeenevangelized,andby extensionthatthetraditionitselfwasantievangelist. 144 ᩍಙᚰࢆ࡞ࡉࢀࠊᖾ⚟ࢆ࠼ࠊ㌟ࢆᏲࡿᩘ⌔࡛ࡈࡊࡿࠋUeda2009,53. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.80 hagiographiesaremutedonthesubject,thereisnoreasontobelievethatNishiari’sapproach totheescalatingJapanesemilitarismofthetimeshouldbedistinguishedfromthe overwhelmingmajorityofBuddhistestablishmentvoices.Infact,inNishiari’sworkcanbe heardforerunnersofthekindofrhetoricthatwouldculminate,forexample,inthestatement byNishiari’s“granddisciple”SawakiKdthat“Itisthepreceptforbiddingkillingthatwields thesword”(Victoria2006,35).See,foranexampleamongmany,Nishiari’semphasisonthe principleof“killingtheonetosavemany”intheveryfirstwordsofhisintroductiontohis1903 commentsonZenprecepts,theBussoshdenzenkaishkwaష♽ṇബ⚮ᡄ㕒ㅮヰ: ྠࡌẅ⏕ᡄ࡛ࡶࠋᑠ࠸ᚰࠋ⊃࠸ᚰࢆ௨ࡘ࡚ẅ⏕ᡄࢆᣢ࡚ࡤᑠ ࡢᡄἲ࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋṈࡢᑠ౫ࡘ࡚ẅ⏕ᡄࢆ ᣢ࡚ࡤ⦲௧ࡦⓒⴙࡢᩛࡀ᮶࡚ࡶࠋ୍ேࡶẅࡍࡇࡣฟ࡞ ࠸ࠋ࡛ࡣࠋே୍ேࢆṶࡋ࡚༓ⴙேࡢⅭࡵ࡞ࡿࡇ࡞ ࢀࡤࠋẅ⏕ᡄࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡞ࡿࠋⱝࡋே୍ேࢆṶࡉࡎ⨨ ࠸࡚ࠋᐖẘࢆ༓ⴙேὶࡉࡏࡿࡸ࠺࡞࡞ࡿࠋ༷ࡘ࡚ẅ ⏕ᡄࢆ◚ࡘࡓࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ(Nishiari1903,1) Eventhough[theSmallandGreatVehicleshave]thesame preceptagainstkilling,whenthisnonkillingpreceptisobserved withasmallandnarrowmind,itistheprecepttaughtbythe SmallVehicle.Observingthenonkillingpreceptfromthat standpointoftheSmallVehicle,evenifamillionenemiescome, onecannotkillasingleone.IntheGreatVehicle,[however,]to killasingleevilpersonforthesakeoftenmillionpeopleisto observethenonkillingprecept.Ontheotherhand,tonotkilla singleevilperson,and[thereby]toallowharmtoflowtoten millionpeople,istobreakthenonkillingprecept. ZĞĨŽƌŵŝŶŐƚŚĞ^ĂŶŐŚĂ ToarguethatNishiariwasingeneralcooperativewiththegovernment’smandatesis not,however,tosuggestthatheacceptedasamatterofcoursethereformstoBuddhism proposedbythegovernment.Onthecontrary,itisclearforinstancethatasadefenderof monasticdiscipline,Nishiariwasstronglyopposedtogovernmentpoliciesthatsought effectivelytolaicizetheclergy.Ueda’spraiseforNishiari’s“softtactics”notwithstanding,on thesepointsofmonasticdeportmentNishiariwasclearinhispositions.AsUedanotesinthe passagecitedabove,Nishiari’sadvocacyfor“thereformofSanghacustoms”boreno resemblancetothekindofreformsproposedbyShimajiandotherprogressivesattemptingto MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.81 adapttheBuddhistinstitutionstothemodernworld.Nishiariinsteadwasinthemoldof traditionalistreformerslikeFukudaGykaiandShakuUnsh,whosoughtareturntoanidealof monasticdiscipline.WhatJaffesaysofFukudaappliesequallytoNishiari: FukudadidnotbelievethattherevitalizationofBuddhism dependedonabolishingpreceptsthatwereoutofstepwiththe time.ForFukuda,therenewal(isshin)ofBuddhismmeantthe restoration(fukko)ofpastpractices. JaffearguesthatNishiari’sreligiousconservatismwaspartandparcelofabroadersocial conservatism,andthatNishiari’sstaunchdefenseofBuddhistpreceptscanbeunderstoodas partofhisbasicallyreactionarystancetowardthemodernizingsocial,economic,andpolitical landscapeofJapan.Jaffewritesthat, Nishiariattributedahostofproblems—rangingfromdisloyaltyto socialdislocation—totheoverwhelmingconcentrationon materialprogressandmodernizationattheexpenseofspiritual cultivation.TheinabilityoftheBuddhistclergytokeeptheirvows wassymptomaticofamorefundamentalillthatplaguedJapan.It wasinnerdevelopment,notmaterialprogress,thatmarkedtrue ‘enlightenmentandcivilization.’145(Jaffe2001,139) HegoesontociteNishiari’santimarriagetract,Dansryosaitaironᙎൔጔᖏㄽ (1879): IamoldfashionedandtherearethingsIdonotunderstandabout ‘civilizationandenlightenment.’Shouldwhatishappeningin Japantodaybeseenasprogressordecline?Themoststriking thingsaboutthesocalledprogressofcivilizationaresuch externalmanifestationsasmachinery,tiledroofs,Western clothes,Westernliterature,andWesternlanguage.However, whenweexaminethedispositionofthosewhoareadolescentsor younger,wefindthatthosewithflippant,servile,andresentful voicesarenumerous,butthosewithasenseofintegrityare extremelyfew. Preceptviolationbytheclergy,thebusinessenterprisesofthe nobles,andexsamuraipullingrickshawsarenotconsidered contemptuous.Awomanisnotembarrassedaboutbeinga consortorgeisha,andthingshavereachedthestatewhereitis 145 Jaffe2001,123.“Civilizationandenlightenment”(Bunmeikaika ᩥ᫂㛤)isanumbrellaslogan withwhichmuchofthemodernizingmovesofMeijiJapanwerejustified,signifyingalignmentwiththe WestandtheadoptionofWesterninstitutionsandvalues. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.82 consideredfoolishtobea“virtuouswomanandagoodwife.” Deceitisanaturaloccurrence.Itisdifficulttoloanandborrow moneywithoutcollateral,evenamongfathersandsonsor brothers.Ifthistrendcontinuesforafewmoreyears,whatwill becomeofthenation,letalonetheBuddhaDharma?When comparedtothegenerationsinwhichcelibateclericswerevalued andvirtuouswomenwereadmired,isthecurrentstateofaffairs beautifulorugly,progressordecline?Ultimately,mygrieving overthedeclineoftheBuddhaDharmaresultsinmygrievingfor thenation.(Jaffe2001,139) EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝŽŶůĞƌŝĐĂůDĂƌƌŝĂŐĞĂŶĚƵĚĚŚŝƐƚŽƐŵŽůŽŐLJ Nishiari’soppositiontoclericalmarriage,anissueofgreatsignificanceinMeijiBuddhism thathasbeennotedinSectionOne,hasbeenstudiedindetailbyRichardJaffe,whoinhis2001 workpresentsasummaryandanalysisoftheDansryosaitaironandinhis1999work publishesacompletetranslationofit.Jaffedescribesthetext,writtenbyNishiariunderthe pennameUanDnin ᭷Ᏻ㐨ே,asoneofthe“majortractsopposingclericalmarriagethat werepublishedin1879.”Nishiari’saimsandeffortswerethusalignedwiththemain organizationseekingtherepealofthelaw,thepansectarian“AllianceofUnitedSectsfor EthicalStandards”(Shoshdtokukaimei)mentionedinSectionOne.Icannotestablish whetherNishiariwasaformalmemberofthegroup,buthisteacherMorotakewasamongits leadersandthereisnoquestionthatNishiarisharedthevaluesoftheorganization.TheShosh dtokukaimei“linkedadherencetotheBuddhistpreceptstotherevivificationofBuddhismand viewedthedecriminalizationofnikujikisaitaiasastumblingblocktoBuddhistreformation.”146 JaffepresentsthreeaspectsofNishiari’sargumentindefenseofclericalcelibacyinthe Dansryosaitairon:appealstocosmology,totheprotectionofthenation,andtofilialpiety. Nishiari’scosmologicalargumentisnotonlyinterestingintermsofitsattempttojustify BuddhistcelibacythroughShintcosmology—amoveintendedtoswaytheShintistswho controlledthegovernmentpolicies—butalsobecauseitspeakstoNishiari’sstaunchdefenseof aliteralunderstandingofBuddhistcosmology.DonaldLopezhaseloquentlytoldthestoryof thedebatesbetweenBuddhistcosmologistsandtheirChristianandscientificinterlocutorsin theearlymoderneraaspartofhiswelldocumentedattempttoprovethattheBuddhist modernistprincipleofBuddhism’scompatibilitywithscienceisneitherrootedintraditionnor historicallyuncontested.LopezdescribesindetailtheliteralistapproachtoBuddhist 146 SeeJaffe2001,115–116. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.83 cosmologypropoundedbyFumonEntsᬑ㛛㏻(1755–1834),andJaffealignsNishiari’s perspectiveonBuddhistcosmologysquarelywiththis“mostprolificmoderndefenderof Buddhistcosmology,”Ents.Nishiari,Jaffewrites,alongwithFukudaGykaiandShakuUnsh, “continuedtoargueforaliteralunderstandingthreerealm,SumerucenteredBuddhistcosmos andelementsofBuddhisteschatology.”Thisstandsinmarkedcontrast,forinstance,with figureslikeInoueEnrywhoinsteadadvocatedthemodernizingofBuddhismbyharmonizing itsteachingswithscienceandmodernvaluesand“arguedthattheMountMerucosmography wasaHnaynateaching,andthuswasancillarytoBuddhism;whetheritistrueornotis immaterial,althoughitremainsofhistoricalinterest.”147 JaffedescribesFukuda’suseofcosmologytojustifycelibacyasrootedinBuddhist cosmology,anargumentthattobeabletoreachbeingsinallthreerealmsofdesire,form,and nonform,Buddhistclergycannotbeentangledinthesingledesirerealmastheyareiftheyeat meatorhavesex.Nishiari’sargument,ontheotherhand,istailoredtoShint,makingan argumentthatShintcosmologyitselfisfundamentallyinaccordwiththeprincipleofcelibacy, andthatthepurityofcelibacyreflectsacosmicprinciplerecognizedbyShintandBuddhism alike.NishiariremindsreadersthatthecosmosiscreatedasexuallyinShint,andthatindeed theplungeofthecosmosintodefilementispreciselytheresultofthebeginningofsex.He claimsthatthisdoctrineofcreationfrompuritycorrespondstothetruthsunderlyingthe Buddhistuniverse,inwhichsexualdesireisabsentinthehigherrealms.Jaffeparaphrases Nishiari’sconclusion:“Therefore,ifthekamiviewedhumansexualrelationswithdisgust,how muchmoresomusttheBuddhaswhohavetranscendedthethreerealms?”148 WhilesomeconservativeMeijiclericslikeFukudaresistedthebbuppichinyo rhetoricofBuddhistStateequalityandarguedinsteadfortheprimacyofBuddhism,Nishiari wasmoreardentanationalistandaffirmedtheroleofBuddhisminprotectingthenation.In whatJaffecalls“thetruespiritofthedefenseoftheDharmaliterature,”Nishiari“yoked togetherthepurityoftheclergyandthefortunesoftherealm.”HecitesagainNishiari’sDan sryosaitairon: ThekamiandtheBuddhastakepleasureinanabundanceofpure clerics.WhenthekamiandtheBuddhasrejoicethentheir protectiongrowsstronger.Thuswecansaythatwhenpure clericsarenumerous,thosewhoprotectthenationare numerous. ThefateoftheTokugawafamilyisarecentexampleofthis.At thebeginningoftheTokugawa’sreign,theclergy’sruleswere upheld,inthemiddletherulesgraduallyslackened,andbythe endtheruleswereingreatdisorder.Thisgaverisethe“abolish 147 SeeLopez2008,47–51;Jaffe2001,133. 148 SeeJaffe2001,134. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.84 theBuddhas”movementofLordMito.Isitnotthecasethatthe vigorandweaknessofthepureclericscorrespondedwiththe prosperityanddeclineoftheTokugawafamily? Ifyouloveyournationyoushouldsupportthecelibateschools andyoushouldpraythatthosewhoupholdthepreceptswill increasedaily.Youshouldnotfavorthosewhobreakthe precepts.(Jaffe2001,135) JaffedescribesNishiari’sthirddefenseofcelibacyasarefutationoftherenewed ConfuciancritiquesinthelateTokugawaandearlyMeijiofthefundamentalunfilialityofworld abnegatingBuddhists.AsJafferemindsus,thislineofattack,andthecorrespondingBuddhist rebuttals,havealonghistoryinEastAsia,andNishiaridrawsonthistraditiontoanswerthe rehashedcritiques.Nishiariarguesthatsince“theBuddhastated,‘allsentientbeingsaremy children,’”thenthereisafraternalconnectionthatbindsallpeople.Hearguesthatsomeone whorushestotherescueofasiblingwouldnotbeconsideredunfilialevenifheneglectedhis parentsindoingso,andthattheBuddhistclergyarepreciselythosepeople,rushingtorescuea worldfullofsiblingsfromtheparamountdangerof“thethreepoisonsandthefourdevils.”149 EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝŽŶůĞƌŝĐĂůƌĞƐƐ Jaffenotesthatthedebatesonclericalmarriagetouchedonmoreminorpointsof disciplinelike“meateating,abandoningtonsure,andwearingnonclericalclothing”(Jaffe2001, xiv).ItisclearthatonvirtuallyallofthesepointsNishiarimaintainedhistraditionaliststance. Thebiographiesemphasize,forexample,aparticularmomentin1873whenNishiarithrewhis fullenergyandinfluencebehindhisoppositiontoaproposedgovernmentmandatefromthe MinistryofDoctrinethatwouldhaveforcedBuddhistclergytowearnonclericalclothing.The Ministryeventuallyrelented,andthedecisionwasinsteadtransferredtotheheadsofthe individualsectstobedecided.150 AsanadvocateoforthodoxStmonasticdress,Nishiarialsohasalittleacknowledged butimportantroleinthedevelopmentofthe“robethataccordswiththeDharma”(nyoheዴ ἲ⾰)traditionofsewingandwearingthedefinitiveBuddhistgarment,thekesa.Amongthe textsNishiarieditedandpublishedisan1896editionofaworkentitledProperDharmaAttire (Hbukukakushἲ᭹᱁ṇ),aseminaltextinthenyohemovementcompletedin1821by MokushitsuRyy㯲ᐊⰋせ(17791833)withthehelpofadisciple,GettanZenry(whowould 149 SeeJaffe2001,137–138. 150 SeeUeda2009,53. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.85 laterbecomeNishiari’steacher).RiggsdescribesthistextasdrawingfromDgen’sfascicles Kesakudoku⿃⿸ຌᚨandDen’e ബ⾰toproduce“astudythatbalancesvinayaandscriptural teachingsaboutthekesawithDgen’swritingsandotherZensources.”Shenotesthatthe work“isreveredbymodernStZenstudentsofthekesa”likeSawakiKdandHashimoto Ek,whoselecturesonthetext“inspiredagenerationofStclerics,nuns,andlaypeopleto beginsewingrobesinamannertheyrefertoasnyohe.”ThoughRyyandGettanhad completedthetextin1821,thetextwasstillunpublishedwhenGettanpassedittoNishiarifor caretaking.Nishiariwasfinallyabletoeditandpublishthemanuscriptwiththehelpofhis formerfellowstudentunderGettan,andhispredecessorasSjijiabbot,AzegamiBaisen.His 1896editionofthetextmarksthefirsttimeitwaspublished.151 EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝĂŶĚůĐŽŚŽů;͞WƌĂũŹĈtĂƚĞƌ͟Ϳ Nishiari’swellattestedfondnessforalcoholisonestrikingexceptiontohisdedicationto monasticdiscipline.WhilestrictlyspeakingtheZenpreceptsastransmittedtoNishiarididnot prohibitintoxicationbutonlythesaleofalcohol(fukoshukai㓓㓇ᡄ),giventhestrictnessof NishiarionpointsofmonasticdeportmentitissurprisingtonotethathereNishiaridiffers,at leastinpractice,fromhismostconservativereformistcolleaguesaswellashisprogressive reformistopponents. ItshouldbenotedthatatemperancemovementwasgainingpopularityinBuddhist circlesinthemidMeiji,influencedlargelybyChristianityandWesterntemperancemovements, amovementthatidentifiedalcoholasakeyelementofBuddhistdegradationandadvocated temperanceasapathtoBuddhistrenewal.AsThelleshows,theBuddhisttemperancesociety Hanseikai ┬,foundedin1886,wasenormouslyinfluential:by1895itboastedmorethan twentythousandmembers,and“mostofthesocalledNewBuddhistswereatsometime membersoftheassociation,”includinggiantslikeShimajiMokuraiandInoueEnry.The organizationgrewsoinfluentialthatitsalliesboastedthat“whatwasneworprogressiveinthe BuddhistworldhadeitherbeenstartedbyHanseikaiorinfluencedbyHanseikai.”152Notonly weretheNewBuddhistsinvolvedintemperance,but,ashasbeennoted,establishmentfigures likeFukudaandShakuUnshwereworkingwithintheinstitutionsto“restoretheprecepts,” andtheyalsosharedthegoaloftemperance.ShakuUnsh,forexample,“strictlyadheredto the250preceptsandisreputedtohaverefrainedformuchofhislaterlifefromdrinkingliquor, carryingmoney,eatingafternoon,andtakinglife”(Jaffe2001,141). 151 SeeDianeElizabethRiggs149–150,204–206,257.TherearealsoreferencestothistextastheTj hbukukakushὝୖἲ᭹᱁ṇ.SeeZGD,708a. 152 FromtheNewBuddhistjournalBukky;seeThelle1987,200. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.86 EventhemostblatantlyhagiographicofthesourcesonNishiari,however,saysplainly thathewasa“heavydrinker”.153AlatetwentiethcenturywriteuponhislifeintheSt journalDaihrinἲ㍯describestheparadoxofNishiari’sdisciplinequitesuccinctly: 㓇ࡔࡅࡣ⁛ἲዲࡁ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡽࡋ࠸ࡀࠊ⫗㣗ࠊጔᖏࠊ㧩ࢆࡋ ࡞࠸ࡢࡇࡣ↓ㄽࡢࡇࠊඵࠐṓࢆࡍࡂ࡚ࡶࠊⱝ࠸㞼Ỉࡓࡕ ࠊ⾜ືࢆࡶࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ᚊ⮬ᡄࡢ⏕άࢆཝᏲࡋࡓࠋ (Akizuki1979,147) Thoughitseemsthathewasextraordinarilyfondofsake,itgoes withoutsayingthatNishiariabstainedfrommeateating, marriage,andgrowingouthishair.Evenpasttheageofeightyhe trainedalongsidetheyoungmonks,strictlyobservingalifestyle thataccordedwiththevinayaand[Zen]precepts. AcrossvirtuallyeverysourceonNishiariareregularandconsistentreferencestohis heavydrinking.Thesebeginathisyouth:oneanecdote,recordedbyKishizawaanddatedto theperiodoftheyoungNishiari’sserviceunderhisfirstteacherKinry,hasNishiarigulping sakeatthehomeofawidowedparishioner;theanecdoteturnsonthepunthatshedrinksfor thepainofloss(awanutsurasa㐂ࢃࡠࡘࡽࡉ)andheforthepainofmillet(awanotsurasa⢖ ࡢࡘࡽࡉ),thatis,ofhavingtoeatmilletinthetempleinsteadofrice(Kishizawa1938,580– 581).Anotherstory,thisfromhistrainingatKaizjiunderGettaninhisthirties,hasNishiari andhislaterprominentfriendAzegamiBaisenregularlyslippingoutofthetakuhatsulineto drinklargeamountsofsakewhilebeggingintown.Thestorynotedabove,too,ofhissaving theparishionerMurogafromangrysoldiers,turnsonhisabilitytosharesakewiththetroop’s leader(Saiyji1938,29).Astrikinganecdoteentitled“ZenMasterBokusan’sPrajñWater” (BokusanZenjinohannyat✕ᒣ⚙ᖌࡢ⯡ⱝ),byaStabbotnamedKudTaigenᕤ⸨Ὀ ཝ,recallsadrunkenconversationswithadiscipleofNishiari’snamedTagawaYzen⏣ᕝ㞝⚙, whopraisesNishiari’shabitofmixingsakeandhotwaterinateabowl,abeverageofsomany meritsthatitiscalled“PrajñWater”(NBZ,40). ItisunfortunatelybeyondthescopeofthisstudytoreviewNishiari’slectureson Buddhistpreceptstoconsidertheextenttowhichhis“extraordinaryfondness”foralcohol impactedhisrhetoricaroundthetraditionalmonasticprohibitionsofalcohol.Acursoryreview ofhiscommentsontherelevantfukoshukaipreceptinhisBussoshdenzenkaishkwa,for example,indicatethestrongcondemnationofdrinkingthatonewouldexpectfromsuchatext. 153 ThisistheSaiyjiitsuwash,usingthetermshug㓇inreferencetoNishiariandAzegamiboth duringthetimeoftheirtrainingwithGettan(Saiyji1938,26).ItisnotinsignificantthatNishiarihereis showndrinkingwithhisfriend,anotherprominentmonk:thereisnoquestionthattheconsumptionof alcoholwaspervasiveintheBuddhistestablishmentatthetime.Athoroughaccountoftheroleof alcoholinNishiari’slifewouldneedtoconsiderthecontextofconsumptionhabitsintheregionsand templesofhistime. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.87 WhileIthussuspectthathedidnotmoderatehisrhetoricagainstalcoholinlightofhisown consumption,afullconsiderationofthistopicwillneedtoawaitanothertime. EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝĂŶĚƚŚĞZĞŶĞǁĂůŽĨ^ƃƚƃŽĐƚƌŝŶĂů^ƚƵĚLJ AsnotedinSectionOne,thegrowingemphasisondoctrinalstudyinMeijiBuddhismisa developmentthatcannotbeseparatedfromtheexposureofJapaneseBuddhiststoWestern academicfieldslikereligiousstudies,Buddhology,andOrientalism.Whilethereisaclear distinctionbetweenthesectarianprojectofshgakuandthepositivistWesternacademic approach,Nishiari’seffortstowhatMohrcalls“raisethelevelofStscholarshipinthesect,” especiallythroughrigoroustextualstudies,arguablyleftanimpactonbothmodesof scholarship(Mohr1998,178–179).ApartfromhismasterworkShbgenzkeiteki,thehigh levelofNishiari’sscholarshipisevidentinhispublicationoftextualeditionsofanumberof Tokugawaperiodtexts.154 WhileNishiarihimselfappearstohavedonerelativelylittleseminaryteaching,from 1877athisalmamatertheSendanrin,hisstudentswouldbecomemajorfiguresintheSt University,likeOkaStan,whowouldlaterbecomepresidentofKomazawaUniversity,andhis studentSawakiKd,aninfluentialKomazawaprofessor.Thislineofinfluenceextendsinto postwarscholarshipaswell,forinstanceintheworkoftwosubsequentKomazawapresidents, KagamishimaGenry 㙾ᓥඖ㝯(19231989),astudentofOka’swhobridgedthegapbetween shgakuandacademicBuddhiststudies,andKurebayashiKdᴯᯘⓡᇽ(18931987),a“a toweringfigureinpostwarsectarianstudies,”whothoughastudentprimarilyofKishizawaIan alsostudiedwithNishiari.155 ItwasnotedinSectionTwothatMoritaGoyisheldtobethefounderofthegenze, butNishiari’sroleinthedevelopmentoftheinstitutionshouldnotbeoverlooked.As Kurebayashinotes,notonlywashisdiscipleOkathefirstlecturer,butthelistofgenze lecturersthroughtheearlyShwarevealsthathisstudentsdominated,ifnotmonopolized,the lectureseat.156AsBodifordwrites,NishiariwasonlyZenteacher“tohaveevenlecturedon howtheShbgenzshouldbereadandunderstood”priortoestablishmentofthegenze (Bodiford2012a,221).Giventhis,andtheenormousroletheShbgenzkeitekihasplayedin modernStstudies,itisnotanexaggerationtosuggestthatthereisnomoderncommentator 154 SeeAppendixforalistofhistextualeditions. 155 SeeIshii2012,231;Heine2012b,44. 156 SeeKurebayashi1972;ZGD,291d. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.88 onShbgenzinthesectorintheacademywhocannottraceintheirintellectualheritagea directlinktoNishiari.157 157 Asnoted,astudyofNishiari’shermeneuticalapproachtoShbgenz,whichcentersonthe Shbgenzkikigakish(abbr.Gosh)commentarybySenneandKyg,iswelloutsidethescopeofthis paper.SomebriefattemptstosummarizeNishiari’sperspectiveontheShbgenzcanbefoundin Nishijima1997;T2009;andIt1955. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.89 PartIII:Nishiari’sLaterLife ZĞůŝĐƐ͕ĞŝƚŝĞƐ͕/ĐŽŶƐ͗,ƃŬƃũŝ;ϭϴϳϰͲϭϴϳϳͿĂŶĚ<ĂƐƵŝƐĂŝ;ϭϴϳϳͲϭϴϵϮͿ NishiarireturnedfromHokkaidtothemainlandofJapanintheninthmonthof1874to assumetheabbacyofHkji,thetempleinwhichhehadtrainedunderKinryfortyyearsprior. HeservedasresidingabbotofHkjiuntil1877,andhiselevationofthetemple’sstatusduring thattime,aswellashiscontributionstoitssubtemple,Kryji,havebeennotedaboveinthe discussionofhisearlylife. Hislongestandmoreimportantpostofthe1870sand1880s,however,beganin1877 whenattheageoffiftysixhemovedtoatemplecalledKasuisaiྍ╧ᩪinShizuoka㟼ᒸ to becomeabbot.KasuisaiintheTokugawaperiodhadservedasaregionalheadquarterstemple (srokujiൔ㘓ᑎ)withresponsibilityfortheregulationofallSttemplesinthefourprovinces oftheTkai ᮾᾏregion,anditremainedanextremelyhighstatustempleintotheMeiji, rankingjustbelowthelevelofthehonzanandoverseeinghundredsofsubordinatebranch temples.158Afullycommittedresidentabbotdespitesomeconcurrentabbacies,Nishiari residedatKasuisaiforfifteenyears,until1892,markingthelongestcontinuousstretchof residencyinhiscareer.Hiswasclearlystronglyidentifiedwiththetemple,anditisduringthat periodthatheadoptedthenameKa“OldManofKa”ྍ⩝. ThisperiodofNishiari’slifeisuniquelywelldocumentedinWesternscholarshipthanks toDominickScarangello’sworkonthesyncreticShintBuddhistcultatMt.Akiha⛅ⴥandthe roleofKasuisaiinredefiningthecultintheviolentlyantisyncreticMeijieraofshinbutsubunri. ScarangelloshowsthatinlargemeasureasaresultofNishiari’sefforts,Kasuisai—despitebeing adozenmilesoffofMt.Akihaitself—wasabletoappropriatetheMt.Akihacultofthefire protectingdeity/Buddhamanifestation(gongenᶒ⌧)Sanshakub୕ᑻᆓ.159Through 158 OnthecomplexsrokujisystemandKasuisai’splaceinthegovernmentadministrationofSt templesintheTokugawaperiod,seeScarangello2012,96–97,97n26.Kasuisaitoday—inpartdueto theeffortsofNishiari,asdiscussedbelow—isoneofthethreeprayertemples(kitdera♳⚏ᑎ)ofthe Stsect,awellknownpilgrimageandprayersiteregardedespeciallyforitsefficacyinfireprotection. LiketheotherStprayertemples,itisalsooneofthecoupleofdozenofficialStmonastictraining hallsinthecountry(senmonsdᑓ㛛ൔᇽ).SeeReaderandTanabe1998,9–10,264n33. 159 ThemountainisalsopronouncedAkiba.Scarangello,whohasdoneextensiveworkatthesite,favors thepronunciationAkihaandnotesthatAkibaistheway“itispronouncedinEasternJapan”(Scarangello 2012,51). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.90 concertedritualefforts,thecreativeuseofStdoctrine,andtheactiveevangelizationofthe laity,NishiariwasabletotransformKasuisaiintoamoresacredandmoreappropriatespotfor Mt.AkihacultworshipthanMt.Akihaitself.TheglimpseofferedofNishiariinScarangello’s workrevealsaspectsofthecharismaticmonkthataremissedindepictionsofhimassimplya monasticoriented,traditionalistscholarmonk—weseeinScarangelloaNishiariwhoisatonce apowerfulritualist,aneffectiveevangelistwithakeenappreciationoftheneedtoadapttothe concernsofthelaity,abodhisattvacultdevotee,ashrewdpoliticaloperatorandorganizer,and acreativedoctrinalinnovator. ThedramaofthecontestedsitesofMt.Akihacultdevotionthatliesatthecenterof Scarangello’sstudyisoutsidethescopeofthispaper,butitisworthpresentinginbriefbyway ofsituatingNishiari’sdoctrinalandritualeffortstolegitimateKasuisai’sclaimstothecult.In oneofcountlesssimilardeterminationsthatunfoldedinthecourseoftheimplementationof theearlyMeijipolicyofshinbutsubunri,officialsintheShizuokaregiondecidedthatthe BuddhisttempleShyji⛅ⴥᑎ,longasiteforMt.Akiha⛅ⴥ cultdevotion,shouldbe relocatedandreplacedwithaproperShintshrine.TheZenmonksofthemountainfervently contestedthisdecision,butonlymanagedtoputofftherelocationuntil1873,atwhichpoint theShintpriestsandShugendpractitionersprevailed,dismantlingShyjiandestablishing theAkihaShintShrine.Around1874thetemple’spreciousSanshakubiconswere transferredtoKasuisai,thehighestrankingZentempleinthearea.Acoupleofyearlater,in 1876,justbeforeNishiariassumedtheabbacy,Kasuisaipubliclyenshrinedtheicons, announcedthat,geographyaside,itwasthelegitimatesiteforMt.Akihacultworship,and beganconstructionofaspecialworshiphallfortheicons.Soonafterthisannouncement, however,supportersoftheoriginalMt.AkihaZentemple,Shyji,managedtogain governmentapprovaltoreopenattheiroriginalsite,atwhichtimetheyreassertedtheirlogical geographicprimacyasthesiteofMt.Akihadevotion.Asaresult,wheretherehadinitially beenasinglesiteforMt.Akihacultdevotion,therewerenowthree(Shyji,Kasuisai,andthe AkihaShintShrine);theensuingstruggleforprimacycontinuestothepresent.Theforceof Kasuisai’slastingclaimastheprimarysiteowesinlargeparttoNishiari’sactiveengagementin thefullenshrinementofthedeityatKasuisaiandhisnurturingofalayculttoSanshakubthat wouldrecognizethecentralityofKasuisai.160 NishiariwascrucialinwhatScarangellocallsthe“enmoutaining”ofKasuisai—the projectofmakingitsomehowmoreMt.AkihathanMt.Akihaitselfwas.Nishiariwenttogreat lengthstocreatea“sacredlandscape”onthegroundsofKasuisai,onewhichwouldbeworthy oftheSanshakubiconsandwhichcouldcompetewiththeinherentlysacredlandscapeofMt. Akiha.Thusin1882Nishiaricreateda“numinousboundary”or“boundedsacredspace(kekkai ⤖⏺)”aroundthemonasterybylayingtwelvepillars,eachelaboratelyconsecrated,atintervals 160 SeeScarangello2012,9–10,144,246–268. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.91 alongtheedgesofthemonastery.ScarangellotranslatesfromKishizawa’streatmentofthe process,inhissection“BoundedSacredSpace”(Kekkai⤖⏺): Duetothedeterioratedstateofthemonastery[NishiariBokusan] madeagreatvow—thateverypersonwhoenteredthegrounds ofKasuisai—evenjustonce—wouldestablishakarmicconnection withtheBuddha.ForthisreasonherecitedtheMindof CompassionDhraandtheDisasterExtinguishingDhratens ofthousandsoftimes,andafterwardscarefullyinscribedboth incantations.Next,heusedboulderstofashionrectangular pillars.Nishiariopenedholesinthetopofthepillars,insertedthe dhras,tightlypluggedtheopeningsandthenburiedthemin thecornersonallsidesofthemonastery.(Scarangello2012,255) Scarangelloalsonotesthatalongwiththis“enmountaining”ofKasuisaiwasaprocessby whichtheiconsofSanshakubreplacedthemountainandthedeityastheprimaryelements ofdevotion.Toachievethis,anysenseoftheiconasmerelysymbolic,indeedasanythingless thanBuddhaitself,wasstrippedawaycompletely.AccordingtoScarangello,Nishiarididthisby usingthedoctrineof“theequivalenceofBuddhabodies”andfurtherbydrawingonthesense of“theequanimityandimmanenceoftheBuddhasoftensuggestedinDgen’swork.”AsI understandit,thatistosaythattheiconsitselfwereunderstoodtobeSanshakub,whowas understoodtobetheBuddha;astheseBuddhamanifestationsindeityandiconwerenomore orlessthananyotherBuddhamanifestation,theiconscouldberegardedasproperand orthodoxobjectsforStveneration.161 ThisintegrationofAkihacultworshipintoStdoctrineandtheteachingsofDgen requiredsometheologicalfootwork,andNishiari,inScarangello’stelling,workedhardwith Stdoctrineto“makeroomfordevotionalcults.”ScarangelloanalyzesNishiari’stextof “spiritualassurance”forlaypeople,AnjinketsuᏳᚰジ(1890),andconcludesthatitdepartsin keywaysfromtheStconsensusexpressedintheShushgiinorderto“mak[e]roomfor devotionalpracticesthroughthe[doctrineofthe]interpenetrationofallBuddhas.”TheAnjin ketsutookaremarkablyinclusiveapproachtothecontentofrecitativepractices,includingthe threerefuges(astheShushgiadvocatedexclusively),orthesinglerefuge(inBuddha),or Bodhisattvas’names,ordhra.Nishiarithus“brokewiththeShushgi’ssoleandexclusive prioritizationofthethreerefugesfortheattainmentofspiritualassuranceandopenedup roomforBodhisattvaordeitycults.” [Nishiari]BokusandidnotmentiontheAkihadeityinparticular, butdisplayedaspecialconcernfortheproblemofpersonal devotionintheformofparticularcultsorpopularrecitations. Devotionalcultsareanissuethatisentirelyabsentfromthe 161 SeeScarangello2012,273,327. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.92 Shushgi,butwasobviouslyimportantforpropagationat Kasuisai.Bokusanhimselfisrumoredtohavebeenintensely devotedtotheBodhisattvaKannon.Incontrasttohislectureson theShbgenz,Bokusandidnotthoroughlyelaboratethe corporealinterpenetrationofalltheBuddhasinAnjinketsu.Yet, heappearstohavedeployedhisunderstandingofthe relationshipsoftheBuddhasforthepurposesofopeningup interpretivespacetoincorporateBodhisattvaorothertypesof devotionalcultsintoStspiritualassurance.Thiswouldhave alsoencompassedthevenerationoftheAkihadeityandthe inclusionofitsfirepreventing,protectivemantraintospiritual assuranceatKasuisai.162 NishiarispreadthedoctrinalunderpinningsandthedevotionalpracticesoftheKasuisai Sanshakubcultthroughtheestablishmentof“teachingassemblies,”organswhich,as discussedinSectionsOneandTwo,werecentraltoBuddhistlaypropagationandinstitutional developmentintheMeiji.Scarangello’sresearchhasuncoveredaKasuisaiteachingassembly foundedbyNishiariforMt.Akihacultdevotionasearlyas1879,buthismostprominent teachingassemblyatKasuisai,foundedin1881,wascalledtheKshkai ᩙၐ᭳.This associationofclergyandlaitywasdedicatedto“moralityandreligiouseducation,”emphasizing clericalpurity(i.e.therejectionofmeateatingandclericalmarriage)andthereassertionof fundamentalStdoctrine“tocombatthenotionofBuddhismasprimarilyabodyofancestor venerationandfuneraryrites.”ThoughcouchedinorthodoxStterms,however,Scarangello arguesthatMt.Akihacultdevotionwascentraltotheworkoftheassociation,andsuggests thatitisnocoincidencethat“the1881Kshkaiteachingassemblyconferencewasheldatthe sametimeasthepublicviewingofKasuisai’ssecretSanshakubicon(kaich㛤ᖒ),ajubilee eventintheoryheldonlyonceeverysixtyyears.”163 DuringNishiari’stenureatKasuisai,thetemplereceivedfromEiheiji’sabbotanartifact evenmorepowerfulandprestigiousthantheSanshakubicons:arelicofDgenhimself. Nishiariwasdeeplymovedtoencounterthisrarerelic,andbysomeaccountstherelic,too,was movedbythemeeting.ScarangellotranslatesKishizawaonNishiariandthisrelic: WhenNishiariBokusanwasstilltheabbotofKasuisai,hereceived afragmentofboneofSt’sfounderDgenfromEiheijiabbot Kankei.164Bokusanwascertainthatthiswastheresultofa mysteriousresonancewithDgen,andassuch,hesetupanaltar, 162 SeeScarangello2012,314–317. 163 SeeScarangello2012,141–148. 164 TheabovementionedKugamiTsuun ஂᡃᐦ㞼(18171884),thesixtyfirstgenerationabbotof Eiheiji;alsoknownasKugamiKankeiஂᡃ⎔.SeeZGD,244c. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.93 enshriningthebonefragmentnexttothemainBuddhaofthe temple.Hededicatedlymadeofferings,reveredandmade obeisancetothebonefragmentofDgen,chantingthe“Sarra WorshipIncantation”(Shariraimon⯋♩ᩥ)beforeitdayand nightwithoutfail. Onemorning,Bokusanhadjustfinishedmakingfullbody prostrationsandchantingthe“SarraWorshipIncantation”tothe relic,when,ashelifteduphisheadsomethingoccurredthat couldonlyhavebeenamutualresonancebetweenBokusanand Dgen.[Atthatmoment]therelicshatteredwithaslightdinging soundand[fromonebone]fivepiecesofrelicsappeared,giving offapowerfulradiantlight. SuchathinghadneveroccurredsinceDgen’sdeath,andforthis reasonitwastrulyanunusual,unfathomablenuminous resonance.Bokusanwasbothsurprisedandelated,andrevered Dgenallthemore.HemadeavowtopropagateShbgenz andfaithfullycontinuedmakingofferingsandworshipingthe relics.(Scarangello2012,328–329) Thepassagegoesontonotethatofthefiverelicsproducedfromthesinglerelicinthis“mutual resonance”(kanndkឤᛂ㐨)betweenDgenandNishiari,threewereeventually transferredtothetempleofNishiari’syouth,Hkji,andtworemainedatKasuisaitobelater enshrinedina“nationprotectingstupa”(gokokutㆤᅜሪ).165 165 Onthenovel,Indianstyle“nationprotectingstupa”completedatKasuisaiin1911,seeJaffe2006, 275278.ForthetransferoftherelicstoHkji,seethesectionaboveonNishiari’searlylife.Faure mentionsthethreerelicsatHkjiinhisnoteonthesevenmonasteriessaidtohouseDgenrelics,but hemakesnomentionofrelicsatKasuisai;inlightofKishizawaandScarangello,Itakethisasan oversight(seeFaure1991,143n3637).IwilladdwithrespecttotheaccountofNishiari’s“mutual resonance”withtherelicthat,asalwayswithsuchsupernaturaloccurrencesthatsuffuseBuddhist historiography,Icannothelpbuttospeculateontheprotagonists’ownexperienceoftheevent.Inthis case,asamodernwhocannothelpbuttorejectthenotionthataspiritual“mutualresonance”would spontaneouslyeffectphysicalmatter,Iwonder,forexample,whetherthisreproductionofrelicshada physicalbasis(forexample,intheirfallingoffofthealtarandshattering),orwhetheritwasadeliberate, fraudulentreproductioncarriedoutselfconsciouslybyNishiari,orwhetherthedivisionoftherelichas nofactualbasisatall,andissimplyastorytoldbydisciplesaboutfiveemptyboxes.Whateverthe irretrievable“fact”ofthematter,itisclearthatNishiari,despitetheagehelivedin,wasno“modern” monk,anditisstrikingtosenseinthisaccountthedepthofhispremodernformation(aswellasthatof Kishizawa,whodespitelivingdecadesdeeperintothetwentiethcentury,relatestheaccountentirely MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.94 ItisinterestingheretonotetherelationshipsuggestedinKishizawa’saccountbetween Nishiari’scommunionwiththerelicandhistextualstudy.ItisclearherethatforNishiari ShbgenzisworldsapartfromthephilosophicaltextlatermodernizerslikeWatsujiTetsur wouldhaveitbe.ForNishiarihere,infact,itseemsthattherealpoweroftheShbgenzis notprimarily“textual”ordoctrinalatall.Instead,thepowerofthetextispartandparcelof Dgen’spersonalreligiouspower;imbuedwithapowermoreimmediatethananyofthe particulardoctrinesitmightexpress,theShbgenzisaveritabletextual“relic”ofDgen himself.Hereagain,Nishiari’sdevotion,awe,andmysticalcommunionwiththisrelicshould dispelanylingeringnotionsofhimasamodernistStmonkcommittedonlytothecore practicesofmeditation,textualstudy,anddiscipline. AsKasuisaiunderNishiarisucceededinwinningthisrelicofDgenandestablishingitself asthebaseforSanshakubdevotion,itgrewinresourcesandinprominence,andwithit NishiaritoorosestillfurtherthroughtheStranks.Nishiariduringhistimetherewasnamed the“leaderofpropagationactivitiesinWesternShizuoka”(kydtorishimariᩍᑟྲྀ⥾)and wasaffirmedbythetwoStheadtemplestohave“seniorranking(jsekiୖᖍ)when attendingeventsatbothinstitutions”;Kasuisaiwas“designatedtheregionalofficeforsectarian affairs,”becamea“directbranchtemple”ofSjiji,andwasgrantedpermissiontoestablisha sectarianschool.Thisschool,theManshSchool(ManshGakushaᯇᏛ⯋),becamea venuefortheKshkaitofulfillitsmissionofdoctrinaleducation,andaplatformforNishiarito lectureonShbgenz.166 ĞƚǁĞĞŶůĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͗ĞŶƐŚŝŶũŝ;ϭϴϵϮͲϭϵϬϭͿ In1891,whileresidingatKasuisai,Nishiarihitabumpinhisotherwiseunobstructed ascentthroughtheStinstitution,narrowlylosinganelectiontotheabbacyoftheSthead templeEiheiji.Thoughhenevertrainedtherehimselfasayoungmonk,overthecourseofhis careerhehadofcoursehadsubstantialcontactwithEiheiji.Fiveyearsprior,forinstance,in 1886attheageofsixtyfive,hehadspentsometimethereenjoyingtheprestigiousstatusof seidすᇽ,apromotionwhichhadentitledhimtoweartheabbatialrobesofredandyellow andwhichguaranteedhimalifetimestipendfromthesect.167Asthebiographiestellit, uncritically,leavingopenthequestionofhisowngenuinesenseofthefactualbasisofthismystical resonance). 166 SeeScarangello2012,156–158. 167 Theguaranteeofalifetimestipendfromthesectfollowinghis1886promotionswasasupplementto Nishiari’sincome,butitshouldbenotedthatasNishiariassumedabbaciesandascendedtheStranks, hisfinancialcompensationlikelyalsoroseaswell.Indeed,inlookingatrecordeddonationsmadeby MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.95 however,hisfameandprestigeinthesectwerenotenoughtoovercomeamostmundaneof obstacles:withmanyballotsinvalidatedduetoorthographicerrors,heissaidtohavelostbya slimmarginonlybecauseofthedifficultyofhisnamecharacterboku✕. Whilethedifficultyofthecharacterbokumayhavefiguredintohisloss,amore compellingexplanationcomesfromMichaelaMross,whoinanunpublishedpapersuggests thatNishiari’slossshouldbeunderstoodinthecontextofthedisputesbetweenEiheijiand Sjiji,andamongSjijifactions(seeSectionOne).Nishiari’scontestationofthelegitimacyof theelection,then,wasbroadlyconnectedtothefightforSjijiindependenceandtheongoing strugglesbetweentheheadtemples,anunderstudiedandcriticalpartofStinstitutional historyintowhichwereentangledallofthemainplayersinMeijiSt,includingNishiariand thoseclosetohim,likehispeerAzegamiandhisteacherMorotake. Itistemptingtoinferthathislossoftheelectioncatalyzed,orperhapsforced,his departurefromKasuisai,butwhateverthereason,NishiariretiredfromKasuisaiattheageof seventyonein1892.HethenassumedtheabbacyofDenshinjiఏᚰᑎinShimadaᓥ⏣,about twentymilesaway.HeservedatDenshinjiuntil1901whenfinallyhewasabletowinelection toaheadtempleabbacy,thistimeofSjiji.Nishiari’stimeatDenshinjithusmarkstheperiod betweenhislossoftheelectionforEiheijiabbotandhisvictoryintheelectionforSjijiabbot. ThoughhebeganhisteachingofShbgenzasearlyashispostatSsanjiandwasinvolvedin doctrinaleducationatKasuisaithatincludedsomegenzestylelectures,mostofhisteaching ontheShbgenztookplaceafter1892whilebasedatDenshinji.Thelectureshegaveduring histimeatDenshinjiwereformativeinthecareersoflaterprominentgenzkamentioned above,likeOkaStan,KishizawaIan,TsutsugawaHgai,AkinoKd,andothers.Itisinthis periodtoothatYasutaniHakuuntrainedwithNishiariandservedashisattendant.168 ThetimeatDenshinji,betweenhisretirementfromKasuisaiandhismovetoSjiji,was averyactivetimeforNishiari.HelecturedaroundthecountryatprominentSttempleson textsliketheShbgenzandotherworksofDgen,commentarieslikeMenzanZuih’sEihei kakunỌᖹᐙカ,andtheHeartSutra(hannyashingy⯡ⱝᚰ⤒).Heledpansectarian BuddhistservicesinhishometownofHachinoheandelsewhere,andwashonoredwithamajor Nishiariin1876,1886,and1896,itcanbeinferredeitherthathewasbecomingmorecharitablewith ageorthatthesizeofhisdisposableincomewasincreasingconsiderably.Donations,increasingover theyears,arereportedtovariousassociationsforthepublicgood,likepublicworksforleveesand reconstructionfromfire,orphanages,andschools,aswellasanumberoftemples.Thathisdonations tocharitableworksarenotedatallinthebiographiesisinterestingandmustbeunderstoodintermsof theMeijiperiodBuddhistemphasisoncharity,inspiredbyChristianity,thatwasnotedinSectionOne.A studyofNishiari’sownfinances,ortheeconomicsofStintheMeijiingeneral,wouldmakeforan interestingstudybutiswelloutsidethescopeofthispaper. 168 Yasutani’spublicrejectionofNishiariwastocomemuchlater,asnotedabove.SeeYasutani1996, xxii. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.96 banquetinhonorofhisbirthdayatthesiteofhisEdoseminary,Kichijji.Hewasalsovery activeasapreceptor,holdingbacktobackpreceptconvocationsin1900,forexample,that drewoverfivehundredpeopleinEdointheninthmonthandoversevenhundredandfifty peopleinHanamakiⰼᕳthemonthfollowing.In1902aloneheissaidtohavetaughtatthirty differentlocationsforatotalofoverahundreddays.Duringthistimeofintensiveteachinghe alsofoundedthreetemples:Mantokuji‶ᚨᑎ(1893)inYokohama,whichwasmadea subtempleofKasuisai;Jgenjiᖖ⌧ᑎ(1899)nearHachinohe;andtheeponymousSaiyjiす᭷ ᑎ(1900),alsoinYokohama,asubtempleofMantokuji. In1899,attheageofseventyeight,afterlecturingatJganjiᡂ㢪ᑎ,aboutfortymiles fromhisbaseatDenshinji,hecontracteddysentery.Theillnesslastedaboutthreemonths.It issaidthatevenwhileonhissickbedhedidnotrelentinhisstudies,workingatthetimewith theGoikenketsuganjikyaku ✛ジඖᏐ⬮,a1793commentarybyGettanTsui᭶‣ὝỈ (17281803)ontheGoikenketsuofDongshanLiangjieὝᒣⰋ௴(TzanRykai,807869). Nishiariwouldin1901publishaneditionofasubcommentaryontheGoikenketsuganjikyaku (seeAppendix).Nishiari’sstudentAkinoKdreportedthatwhenhesuggestedtoNishiarithat readingtextswhileillwasnotgoodforhisbody,theteachersaid“Thereadingsideisthe readingside,theshittingsideistheshittingside,”aphrasewhichhisstudentswouldcometo calltheganjikyaku(ඖᏐ⬮,“basisoftheoriginaltext”)ofdysentery.169 Shortlyafterhisillness,NishiariwasvisitedbyJapan’sfirstfemalejournalist,Hani Motoko ⩚ோࡶᏊ(18731957),alsofromHachinohe.Basedonhervisitsandtheir conversations,shepublishedaglowingserializedarticleintheHchiShimbun ሗ▱᪂⪺ newspaperaboutNishiari’slifeandteaching,basedaroundthethemesof1)hismother’s influence;2)hislifestyle;and,3)histeachingsonthemindandspiritofZen.Thispieceseems tohaveconsiderablyinfluencedlaterbiographers.170 EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝĂƚƚŚĞWŝŶŶĂĐůĞŽĨƚŚĞ^ĞĐƚ;ϭϵϬϭͲϭϵϬϱͿ Anovicethinksofbecominganelder.Anelderthinksof becomingheadpriest.Headpriestwantstobeheadofthe council.Acouncilmemberthinksofbecomingheadofthesect. Becauseofthemanylegsoftheself,wearenotreallysettled. Wecarryourselvesforwardandthenrunafterthemyriad dharmas.Thisisdelusion. 169 ぢࡿ᪉ࡣぢࡿ᪉ࠊᨺࡿ᪉ࡣᨺࡿ᪉ࡔࠋSeeNBZ,32. 170 SeeIt2009. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.97 —NishiarionGenjkan171 Whilehisdisputedlossinthe1891electiontotheEiheijiabbacyprovedhisonlychance atthatposition,tenyearslaterin1901Nishiarididwinanelectiontotheabbacyoftheother headtemple,Sjiji,thistimebyareportedlywidemargin.Hethusbecamethethird independentabbotofSjiji,aposthehelduntil1905.172 ItwasconcurrentwithhispostasSjijiabbotthatNishiariservedatthepinnacleofthe sectasStsectchiefabbot(Stshkanch).Aspartofthetenuouscompromisebetween thebattlingheadtemples,ithadbeendeterminedthatthechiefabbacyofthesectwould alternateannuallybetweenEiheijiandSjijiabbots.Thus,beginningonthefirstoftheyearof 1902,concurrentwithhisSjijiabbacy,theeightyoneyearoldNishiariassumedofficeasthe seventhchiefabbotoftheStsect.Followingtherotation,EiheijiabbotMoritaGoystepped intothepostforthedurationof1903,andNishiariservedasecondyearagainin1904. TheSjijiabbotandStsectchiefabbotpostswerepositionsofnationalstature.As notedabove,chiefabbotshadthestatusof“semigovernmentofficials,”wereempoweredwith “fullauthorityoverthesect”and,bygovernmentproclamation,wereconsideredofequal statustootherimperiallyappointedofficials.173ThusinthisroleNishiariwasconnected,at leastnominally,withthehighestlevelsoftheMeijigovernment.Asmentionedabove,afew monthsafterhiselectiontoSjijihewasgrantedtheimperialnameJikishinJkoku,andduring hisyearsaschiefabbotheperformedatleasttwopalacevisits. Theperiodbefore,during,andafterNishiari’spostwasoneofturmoilatSjiji,aperiod inthehistoryofthetemplebetweenitsdestructionandrebuilding,duringwhichtimeitisnot entirelyclearwhatsortoftrainingormonasticpracticewaspossible.In1898afireissaidto havedestroyedmostofthetemple,andin1903itwasdecidedthatthetempleshouldmove fromNoto⬟Ⓩ,whereitwasdeemedtooclosetoEiheiji,toTsurumi㭯ぢ inthevicinityof Yokohama.AsabbotofSjijiatthetime,andgivenhisownconnectionsinYokohama(where hehadfoundedMantokujiandSaiyji),itislikelythatNishiariplayedanimportantifnot decisiveroleinthisdetermination.ThebenefitsofamovetoYokohama,asitemuchcloserto thecentersofgovernmentpowerandinternationaltravel,weretremendous;indeed,Sjiji stoodtogainsomuchfromthemovethatitistemptingtoquestionthenatureandcauseof the1898fire.SjijididnotreopeninYokohamauntil1911;theNotositeoftheoriginaltemple waseventuallyrebuiltasSjijisoin⥲ᣢᑎ♽㝔. 171 TranslationbyWeitsmanandTanahashi2011,41. 172 Ontheestablishmentofthe“independentabbacy”ofSjijiasanattemptbytheearlyMeiji governmenttosettlethediscordbetweenEiheijiandSjiji,seeSectionTwo. 173 SeeIkeda1998,13–18. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.98 Inmid1903,Nishiarisufferedastrokefromwhichhetookaboutthreemonthsto recover.ItisunclearwhetherthisleftalastingimpactonNishiari,butIsuspectthatitdid;a littlemorethanayearlater,inthesecondmonthof1905,shortlyaftercompletinghissecond yearlongtermaschiefabbotofthesect,heretiredfromSjijiandmovedafewmilesawayto Saiyji. EŝƐŚŝĂƌŝ͛Ɛ&ŝŶĂůzĞĂƌƐ;ϭϵϬϱͲϭϵϭϬͿ NishiaristayedatthenewlyfoundedSaiyjiasabbotforthefiveyearsbetweenhis retirementfromSjijiandhisdeathin1910.Atleasttwopreceptconvocationswereheld duringthisperiod,in1906and1910,buthislecturingaswellashispublishingseemstohave droppedofffollowinghisretirementfromSjiji.Itakethisprecipitousreductioninhisteaching scheduleasfurtherevidencethatheneverfullyrecoveredfromhis1903stroke.Whateverthe stateofhishealth,thereisnoquestionthatheremainedamonkofgreatprominence;his “eightyeighth”birthdaypartyin1908,forexample,boastedoverathousandpeoplein attendance,reportedlyincludingdignitariesliketheprominentNewBuddhistandmissionaryto America,ShakuSen,kumaShigenobu㝰㔜ಙ(18381922),whowouldlaterbecomethe primeministerofJapan,andmembersoftheTokugawaclan. Attwoo’clockintheafternoononthefourthdayofthetwelfthmonthof1910,atthe ageofeightynine,NishiaridiedatSaiyji.Itissaidthatbeforepassingawayhesatuprighton hismatandgesturedtohisdiscipledenJinrei⋢⏣ோ㱋tofithiskesaontohim.Nishiari thereuponpassedaway,wearingfullrobesandwiththenameoftheBodhisattvaKannonon hislips. Thedeathpoemrecordedtohisnameis: ⪁ൔ༑ ゝ➃ㄒ➃ ᮎᚋ↓ྃ ᭶෭㢼ᐮ(Saiyji1938,35) Anoldmonkofninetyyears,174 “Thespeechistothepoint,thewordsaretothepoint.”175 174 BytheJapanesereckoning,Nishiaridiedattheageofninety. 175 Gontangotan ゝ➃ㄒ➃.Literallydenotingsomethinglike“atthelimitsofwordsandspeech,”this phraseappearsintheverseintheHekiganroku(Case2)andisgenerallytakenasapositiveexpression MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan Aftertheendthereisnoverse. Themoonischillyandthewindiscold.176 pg.99 ofthepoweroflanguage.IhaveborrowedCleary’stranslationoftheline.Yokoirendersit“wordsare theexpressionoftruth”.SeeClearyandCleary1977,13;Yokoi1991,171;ZGD,368b. 176 Getsureifkan᭶෭㢼ᐮ.ThisevokesasimilarphraseinanotherverseintheHekiganroku(Case82), getsureifk᭶෭㢼㧗,whichClearyrenders,“Themooniscold,thewindishigh.”SeeClearyand Cleary1977,533;ZGD,274d. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.100 Appendix ThePublishedWorksofNishiariBokusan ListedbelowarethetitlesofNishiari’spublishedwork,muchofittranscriptionsfrom lectures.ThelistisdrawnfromtheworkoftheNishiariBokuzanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ 㢧ᙲresearchgroupinthecommemorativevolumeNishiariBokusanZenji,andmore completebibliographicinformationonthesetitlescanbefoundthere.Togiveasenseofthe rangeofNishiari’sdoctrinalinterestsandteaching,Ihavedroppedthechronologicalstructure oftheNishiariBokusanZenjibibliographyandhavearrangedthetitleslooselybythetopic implied.IhaveaddednoteswhenIhavebeenabletodetermineadditionalinformationabout thetext,andIhaveincludedpublicationdateswiththecautionthattheydonotnecessarily beararelationshiptothedateofthecompositionorlecture. DŽŶĂƐƚŝĐŽŶĚƵĐƚ AuthoredWorks x CollectionofAdmonitionsontheDefenseoftheDharma.Gohyjinshㆤἲ⏝ᚰ㞟. 1873.(SeeSectionThree.) x ATreatiseRefutingClericalMarriage.Dansryosaitaironᙎൔጔᖏㄽ.1879.(Jaffe hastranslatedandanalyzedthistext;seeSectionThree.) TextualEditions x ProperDharmaAttire.Hbukukakushἲ᭹᱁ṇ.1771896.Thefirstpublishededition ofaseminaltextbyMokushitsuRyy㯲ᐊⰋせ(17791833),completedin1821. (DianeRiggshasdiscussedthistext;seeSectionThree). 177 AlsoknownastheTjhbukukakush Ὕୖἲ᭹᱁ṇ,seeZGD708a. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.101 ƃŐĞŶŽŵŵĞŶƚĂƌŝĞƐ AuthoredWorks x TeachingsfromtheLectureSeaton[Dgen’s]Gakudyjinsh.Gakudyjinshken kunjmongeᏛ㐨⏝ᚰ㞟ㅮ⟙ᱯᣠ⪺ゎ.1884.(Icannotdeterminetherelationshipof thistexttotheGakudyjinshmonge Ꮫ㐨⏝ᚰ㞟⪺ゎbyMenzanZuih㠃ᒣ⍞᪉ [16831769].) x LectureNotesonShbgenz.Shbgenzkaikbibṇἲ║ⶶ㛤ㅮഛᛀ.1896. x PersonalCommentaryon[Menzan’s]Eiheikakun.Eiheikakunshiki Ọᖹᐙカ⚾グ. 1897. x RecordedTeachingson[Dgen’s]Gakudyjinsh.GakudyjinshteijirokuᏛ㐨⏝ ᚰ㞟ᥦ⪥㘓.1908. x Lectureson[Dgen’s]ShbgenzBendwa.Shbgenzbendwakgiṇἲ║ⶶ㐨 ヰㅮ⩏.1908. x RecordedTeachingson[Dgen’s]Fukanzazengi.Fukanzazengiteijirokuᬑᆘ⚙ᥦ ⪥㘓.1911. x AGuidetotheShbgenz[1930].Shbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║⸝ၨ㏔.10volumes. 1930.TranscriptionsbyTomiyamaSoei ᐩᒣ♽ⱥ(18761929)oflecturesonthe Shbgenz. x AnAnalysisofCommentarieson[Dgen’s]Hkyki.Hkykibenbenᑌグ㎪ࠎ. 1942. x AGuidetotheShbgenz[1965].Shbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║⸝ၨ㏔.Lectureson twentynineShbgenzfascicles,transcribedbyTomiyamaSoeiandeditedby KurebayashiKdᴯᯘⓡᇽ(18931987).Consistsoflecturesonthefollowingfascicles: o o o o o o o o o o o o o Bendwa㎪㐨ヰ Makahannyaharamitsuᦶヅ⯡ⱝἼ⨶⻤ Genjkan⌧ᡂබ Ikkamyju୍㢛᫂⌔ Sokushinzebutsu༶ᚰష Uji ᭷ SansuikyᒣỈ⥂ Shinfukatokuᚰྍᚓ Kokyྂ㙾 Kankin┳⥂ Busshషᛶ Gybutsuiigi⾜షጾ Jinz⚄㏻ MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o pg.102 Zazenshinᆘ⚮⟿ Bukkjjiషྥୖ Inmoᜂ㯟 Kaiinzanmaiᾏ༳୕ Jukiᤵグ Kannonや㡢 Arakan㜿⨶₎ Hakujushi᯽ᶞᏊ Kmyග᫂ Shinjingakud㌟ᚰᏥ㐨 Muchsetsumuክ୰ㄝክ Gaby␓㣰. Sesshinsesshㄝᚰㄝᛶ Shohjissㅖἲᐿ┦ Mujsepp↓ㄝἲ Shji⏕Ṛ TextualEditions x TheOriginalTextoftheShbgenzshiki.Shbgenzshikiehonṇἲ║ⶶ⚾グ᭯ᮏ. 1896.ThistextisaShbgenzcommentaryfromthe1770sbyZkaiZakke(1730 1788),describedbyBielefeldtas“agood,clear,‘orthodox’interpretation”(Bielefeldt 1972,10;ZGD,717a).Nishiaribasedthiseditiononoriginalmanuscriptsfromthe Tenmeiera(17811789)(SeeZGD,582a). x LecturesontheContinuingThreadofShbgenz.Shbgenzzokugenkgiṇἲ║ⶶ ⥆⤋ㅮ⩏.1896.ThistextisaseriesoflecturesonShbgenzbeginning1731by OtsudKanch எᇽႏଢ଼(d.1760)(ZGD,184d,582d) x CompilationofShbgenzWago[sh]and[Shbgenz]Byakujaketsu.Shbgenz wagoteibyakujaketsugapponṇἲ║ⶶㄒᲓ㜣㑧ジྜᮏ.1898.Aneditionoftwo textsbyMenzan:Shbgenzbyakujaketsuwrittenin1738,translatedbyRiggsas “ExposingFalseInterpretationsoftheShbgenz”anddescribedas“anattackon Tenkei’sviewsonthecompilationoftheGenz”;andMenzan’s1764Shbgenzwago sh,translatedbyRiggsas“JapaneseLanguageSelectionsfromtheShbgenz”and describedas“glossesonmostlyJapanesewordsandphrasesofGenz”(DavidERiggs 2002,255–256). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.103 ĞŶWƌĞĐĞƉƚƐ AuthoredWorks x InstructionsonSustainingtheZenPrecepts.Zenkaikunm⚙ᡄカⵚ.1902. x Lectureson[BanjinDtan’s]Bussoshdenzenkaish.Bussoshdenzenkaishkwaష ♽ṇബ⚙ᡄ㕒ㅮヰ.1903.(SeeSectionThree). x TheEssentialPointsoftheZenPrecepts.Zenkainoyketsu⚙ᡄࡢせジ.1922. x GossipBehindtheScenesofaTransmissionofPreceptsGathering,andOther[Writings]. Denkaierikanwahokaബᡄ㛩ヰ.1977. ^ƉŝƌŝƚƵĂůƐƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ;AnjinᏳᚰͿ AuthoredWorks x TheMeaningofAnjin:AlsoCalledtheMeaningofRefugeintheThreeTreasures.Ᏻᚰ ジ:୍ྡⓛ౫୕ᐆジ.Anjinketsuichimeikiesanbketsu.1889.(Scarangellohas analyzedthistext;seeSectionThree.) x TheMeaningofAnjinforFollowersofTzan.TjshintanjinketsuὝୖಙᚐᏳᚰジ. 1890(revised1905). x TheMeaningofAnjinforStSectAdherents.Stshshintanjinketsu᭪Ὕ᐀ಙᚐ Ᏻᚰジ.1933. &ŝǀĞZĂŶŬƐ;GoiͿ AuthoredWorks x LecturesontheStTeachingoftheFiveRanks.TjgoisetsukgiὝୖㄝㅮ⩏. 1897. x TalksonTzan’sTeachingoftheFiveRanks.TzangoisetsukenὝᒣㄝㅮ₇. 1901. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.104 TextualEditions x Goikenketsuganjikyakujijokattsh㢧ジඖᏐ⬮⮬ླྀⴱ⸨㞟.1901.TheGoi kenketsuganjikyakuisa1793commentarybyGettanTsui᭶‣ὝỈ(17281803,also knownas ᭶‣ⱑGettanZenby)ontheGoikenketsuofDongshanLiangjieὝᒣⰋ௴ (TzanRykai,807869).IhavebeenunabletodetermineexactlywhattheJijo kattshtextis,butthenoteintheNishiariBokusanZenjibibliographyimpliesthatitis aneditionorsubcommentary,byGettanBonch(?)᭶‣Კ,178ofTsui’s commentaryonDongshan’swork.(NBZ,231;ZGD,273d,301cd) DŝƐĐĞůůĂŶĞŽƵƐ AuthoredWorks x IdleWordsfromtheShadowoftheMountains.Saninkanwaᒣ㝜㛩ヰ.(Date unknown.) x ABriefExplanationofThreeSections(?).Sanshryakkai୕❶␎ゎ.1874. x RegulationsoftheAssociationofSanshakubConfraternities.Sanshakubksha kekisoku୕ᑻᆓㅮ♫つ๎.(1880s).ThistextisnotmentionedintheNishiari BokusanZenjibibliographybutiscitedinScarangello(Scarangello2012,314n28). x DiscourseontheTeaching(?).Migyron(?)ᚚᩍㄽ.1903.CoauthoredwithMorita Goy᳃⏣ᝅ⏤(18341919). x ACollectionofTeachings.Suikaiissokuᆶㄕ୍๎.1903. x ZenTalksofNishiari.Nishiarizenwaす᭷⚙ヰ.1905. x TheRecordedSayingsofZenMasterJikishinJkoku(NishiariBokusan).JikishinJkoku Zenjigoroku┤ᚰᅧ⚮ᖌㄒ㗴.1926. x Recordedteachingson[Keizan’s]Zazenyjinki.Zazenyjinkiteijirokuᆘ⚙⏝ᚰグᥦ⪥ 㘓.1933. TextualEditions x TeachingsoftheClock.Jishingisetsu㎮ㄝ.1877.Thisisaneditionofatextby KumagaiTsh⇃㇂ᮾὪ(d.1890). 178 IhavebeenunabletofindinformationaboutthisGettanBonch᭶‣Კ,thoughhealsoappears asaneditoroftheTsuiOshgorokuὝỈᑦㄒ㘓(StshzenshoVolume5)andispresumablya discipleoftheGoikenketsuganjikyakuauthorTsui. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.105 x Hkyzanmaikun’ydanᑌ㙾୕⸊ⷉㄯ.1886.Thisisaneditionofacommentary byGesshSko ᭶⯚᐀⬌(16181696)ontheStliturgicaltextHkyzanmaiby Dongshan. x Sandkaikun’ydanཨྠዎ⸊ⷉㄯ.1886.Thisisaneditionofacommentaryby GesshSko ᭶⯚᐀⬌(16181696)ontheStliturgicaltextSandkaibyShitouXiqian ▼㢌ᕼ㑄(SekitKisen,710–790). MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.106 WORKSCITED AkizukiRymin⛅᭶❳╀et.al.1979.“Tokush:NihonNoZensNoKotoba:Stsh:Nishiari Bokusan≉㞟࣭᪥ᮏࡢ⚙ൔࡢࡇࡤ࣭᭪Ὕ᐀࣭す᭷✕ᒣ.”Daihrin,1979(June): 147. Besserman,Perle,andManfredBSteger.1991.CrazyClouds:ZenRadicals,Rebels,and Reformers.Boston:Shambhala. Bielefeldt,Carl.1972.“ShbgenzSansuiky.”MA,Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley. Blum,MarkL.2011.“ShinBuddhismintheMeijiPeriod.”InCultivatingSpirituality:AModern ShinBuddhistAnthology,editedbyMarkLBlumandRobertRhodes,1–52.Albany:State UniversityofNewYorkPress. Bodiford,WilliamM.1991.“DharmaTransmissioninStZen:ManzanDohaku’sReform Movement.”MNMonumentaNipponica46(4):423–51. ———.1993.StZeninMedievalJapan.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress. ———.2012a.“RememberingDgen:EiheijiandDgenHagiography.”InDgen:Textualand HistoricalStudies,editedbyStevenHeine.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. ———.2012b.“TextualGenealogiesofDgen.”InDgen:TextualandHistoricalStudies,edited byStevenHeine.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Clarke,ShayneNeil.2014.FamilymattersinIndianBuddhistmonasticisms.Honolulu:University ofHawai’iPress. Cleary,J.C.2005.ApocryphalScriptures.Berkeley,Calif.:NumataCenterforBuddhist TranslationandResearch. Cleary,J.C.,andThomasF.Cleary.1977.TheBlueCliffRecord.Boulder,Colo.:Shambhala. Collcutt,Martin.1986.“Buddhism:TheThreatofEradication.”InJapaninTransition,from TokugawatoMeiji,editedbyMariusBJansenandGilbertRozman.Princeton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversityPress. Davis,Winston.1992.JapaneseReligionandSociety:ParadigmsofStructureandChange. Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress. Dumoulin,Heinrich.1992.ZenBuddhisminthe20thCentury.NewYork:Weatherhill. ———.2005.ZenBuddhism:AHistory,Japan.WorldWisdom,Inc. Fader,Larry.1982.“HistoricalandPhilosophicalImplicationsofthe1893ChicagoWorld’s ParliamentofReligions.”TheEasternBuddhist.15:122–45. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.107 Fasan,JacquesT.2012.“KiyozawaManshi(18631903)andtheSearchforAutonomyinModern Japan.”Ph.D.,Illinois:TheUniversityofChicago. Faure,Bernard.1991.TheRhetoricofImmediacy:ACulturalCritiqueofChan/ZenBuddhism. Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress. ———.2010.“Afterthoughts.”InBuddhistWarfare,editedbyMichaelKJerrysonandMark Juergensmeyer.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Ford,James.2012.“DharmaTransmissioninNorthAmericanStZen:AProgressReport.” MonkeyMind.May28,2012. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2012/05/dharmatransmissioninnorth americanStzenaprogressreport.html. Foulk,T.Griffith.1993.“Myth,Ritual,andMonasticPracticeinSungCh’anBuddhism.”In ReligionandSocietyinTangandSungChina,editedbyPatriciaBuckleyEbreyandPeter NGregory,147–208.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress. ———.2001.“TheMeaningofPracticeandVerification(Shushgi).”InStSchoolScriptures forDailyServicesandPractice(StshNikkaGongySeiten᭪Ὕ᐀᪥ㄢ⾜⪷). ———.2010a.StandardObservancesoftheStZenSchool,Vol.I.Tky:Stshshmuch. ———.2010b.StandardObservancesoftheStZenSchool,Vol.II.Tky:Stshshmuch. FueokaJish➜ᒸ⮬↷.1972.“GenzetoIshiharaToshiaki║ⶶ▼ཎಇ᫂⩝.”In Shbgenzzenkṇἲ║ⶶㅮ,byKishizawaIanᓊ⃝ᝳᏳ,Supplement#19,᭶ሗ 19:3–8.Tky:Daihrinkaku. Gluck,Carol.1985.Japan’sModernMyths:IdeologyintheLateMeijiPeriod.Princeton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversityPress. Grapard,AllanG.1984.“Japan’sIgnoredCulturalRevolution:TheSeparationofShintand BuddhistDivinitiesinMeiji(‘ShimbutsuBunri’)andaCaseStudy:Tonomine.”Historyof Religions23(3):240–65. Hachinoheshiritsutoshokanඵᡞᕷ❧ᅗ᭩㤋.1972.KydoNoMeis:NishiariBokusanZenji SonoHitotoNenpu㒓ᅵࡢྡൔࠕす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌࡑࡢேᖺ㆕ࠖ.Hachinohe: Hachinoheshiritsutoshokan. Hardacre,Helen.1989.ShintandtheState,18681988.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversity Press. Heine,Steven.2003.“AbbreviationorAberration?:TheRoleoftheShushgiinStZen.”In BuddhismintheModernWorld:AdaptationsofanAncientTradition,editedbySteven HeineandCharlesS.Prebish.OxfordUniversityPress,USA. ———.2006.DidDgenGotoChina?:WhatHeWroteandWhenHeWroteIt.NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress. ———.2012a.Dgen:TextualandHistoricalStudies.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.108 ———.2012b.“WhatIsontheOtherSide?DelusionandRealizationinDgen’s‘Genjkan.’” InDgen:TextualandHistoricalStudies,42–74.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Hirata,Seik.1995.“ZenBuddhistAttitudestoWar.”InRudeAwakeningsZen,theKyto School,&theQuestionofNationalism,editedbyJamesWHeisigandJohnCMaraldo, translatedbyThomasKirchner,3–15.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress. Hur,NamLin.1999.“TheStSectandJapaneseMilitaryImperialisminKorea.”Japanese JournalofReligiousStudies26(1/2):107–34. ———.2007.DeathandSocialOrderinTokugawaJapan:Buddhism,AntiChristianity, andtheDankaSystem.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter. Ikeda,Eishun.1998.“TeachingAssembliesandLaySocietiesintheFormationofModern SectarianBuddhism.”JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies25(1/2):11–44. Ishii,Seijun.2012.“NewTrendsinDgenStudiesinJapan.”InDgen:TextualandHistorical Studies,editedbyStevenHeine,223–35.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. IshikawaRikizan▼ᕝຊᒣ.2000.“TransmissionofKirigami(secretInitiationDocuments):A StPracticeinMedievalJapan.”InTheKanTextsandContextsinZenBuddhism, editedbyStevenHeineandDaleSWright,translatedbyKawahashiSeish,233–43. NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. ———.1998.“TheSocialResponseofBuddhiststotheModernizationofJapan:The ContrastingLivesofTwoStZenMonks.”TranslatedbyPaulL.Swanson.Japanese JournalofReligiousStudies25(1/2):87̽115. ItShjiఀ⸨ྖ.2009.“BokusanZenjitoHaniMotoko✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ⩚ோࡶᏊ.”InNishiari BokusanZenji:Botsugohyakunenomukaeteす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄࠼࡚,by NishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲ,222–25.Hachinohe:Nishiari BokusanZenjiKenshkai. ItYichiఀᮾὒ୍.1955.“NishiariBokusanNoShbgenzKanす᭷✕ᒣࡢṇἲ║ⶶほ.” RinrigakuNenp⌮Ꮫᖺሗ4:1–11. Ives,Christopher.2009.ImperialWayZen:IchikawaHakugen’sCritiqueandLingering QuestionsforBuddhistEthics.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress. Jaffe,Richard.1998.“MeijiReligiousPolicy,StZen,andtheClericalMarriageProblem.” JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies25(1/2):45–85. ———.1999.“ARefutationofClericalMarriage.”InReligionsofJapaninPractice,editedby GeorgeJTanabeandIanReader,78–86.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress. ———.2001.NeitherMonknorLayman:ClericalMarriageinModernJapaneseBuddhism. Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress. ———.2006.“BuddhistMaterialCulture,‘Indianism,’andtheConstructionofPanAsian BuddhisminPrewarJapan.”MaterialReligion2(3):266293. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.109 Jaffe,Richard,andMichelMohr.1998.“Editors’Introduction:MeijiZen.”JapaneseJournalof ReligiousStudies25(1/2):1–10.doi:10.2307/30233596. Jannetta,AnnBowman.1987.EpidemicsandMortalityinEarlyModernJapan.Princeton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversityPress. Jansen,MariusB.2000.TheMakingofModernJapan.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressof HarvardUniversityPress. Josephson,JasonAnanda.2006.“WhenBuddhismBecamea‘Religion’:Religionand SuperstitionintheWritingsofInoueEnry.”JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies33(1):143–68. ———.2012.TheInventionofReligioninJapan.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress. KawaguchiKfᕝཱྀ㧗㢼.2002.MeijizenkiStshnokenky᫂๓ᮇ᭪Ὕ᐀ࡢ◦✲. Kyto:Hzkan. Ketelaar,JamesEdward.1990.OfHereticsandMartyrsinMeijiJapan:BuddhismandIts Persecution.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress. Kim,HeeJin.2004.EiheiDgen:MysticalRealist.Boston:WisdomPublications. Kim,HwansooIlmee.2012.EmpireoftheDharma:KoreanandJapaneseBuddhism,18771912. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter. Kirita,Kiyohide.1995.“D.T.SuzukionSocietyandtheState.”InRudeAwakeningsZen,the KytoSchool,&theQuestionofNationalism,editedbyJamesWHeisigandJohnC Maraldo,translatedbyRichardSzipplandThomasKirchner,52–74.Honolulu:University ofHawai’iPress. Kishimoto,Hideo.1956.JapaneseReligionintheMeijiEra.TranslatedbyJohnF.Howes.Tky: bunsha. KishizawaIanᓊ⃝ᝳᏳ.1938.SenshiNishiariBokusanOshඛᖌす᭷✕ᒣᑦ.In Shbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║ⶶၨ㏔byNishiariBokusanす᭷✕ᒣ,579653.2004. Tky:Daihrinkaku. Kitagawa,JosephMitsuo.1993.“The1893World’sParliamentofReligionsandItsLegacy.”In MuseumofFaiths,171–89.Atlanta:ScholarsPress. KiyozawaManshi.1984.DecemberFan:TheBuddhistEssaysofManshiKiyozawa.Translatedby HanedaNobuo.Kyto:HigashiHonganji. KurebayashiKdᴯᯘⓡᇽ.1972.“Genzenorekishi║ⶶࡢṔྐ.”InShbgenzzenkṇ ἲ║ⶶㅮ,byKishizawaIanᓊ⃝ᝳᏳ,Supplement#2,᭶ሗ 2:1–4.Tky: Daihrinkaku. Leighton,TaigenDaniel,andShohakuOkumura.1996.Dgen’sPureStandardsfortheZen Community:ATranslationoftheEiheiShingi.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYork Press. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.110 Lobreglio,John.2009.“Orthodox,Heterodox,Heretical:DefiningDoctrinalBoundariesinMeiji PeriodStZen.”BochumerJahrbuchZurOstasienforschung(BochumYearbookforEast AsianStudies)33:77–103. Lopez,DonaldS.2008.Buddhism&Science:AGuideforthePerplexed.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Marcure,KennethA.1985.“TheDankaSystem.”MonumentaNipponica40(1):39–67. Mohr,Michel.1994.“ZenBuddhismduringtheTokugawaPeriod:TheChallengetoGobeyond SectarianConsciousness.”JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies21(4):341–72. ———.1998.“JapaneseZenSchoolsandtheTransitiontoMeiji:APluralityofResponsesinthe NineteenthCentury.”JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies25(1/2):167–213. Mross,Michaela.2009.“TheIndependenceMovementofSjiji:AMilestoneintheFormation ofModernStZen.”Unpublished. Muller,A.Charles,ed.DigitalDictionaryofBuddhism.<http://buddhismdict.net/ddb>. Nelson,JohnK.2013.ExperimentalBuddhism:InnovationandActivisminContemporaryJapan. Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress. NishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲ.2009.NishiariBokusanZenji:Botsugo hyakunenomukaeteす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄࠼࡚.Hachinohe:NishiariBokusan ZenjiKenshkai.Abbreviated“NBZ”. NishiariBokusanす᭷✕ᒣ.1903.BussoshdenZenkaishkwa♽ṇఏ⚙ᡄ㕒ㅮヰ.Tky: Kmeisha.http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/823469. ———.1905.Nishiarizenwaす᭷⚙ヰ.Tky:Kmeisha. http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/823426. ———.2004.Shbgenzkeitekiṇἲ║⸝ၨ㏔.3vols.TranscribedbyTomiyamaSoeiᐩᒣ♽ ⱥandeditedbyKurebayashiKdᴯᯘⓡᇽ.Tky:Daihrinkaku. Nishijima,GudoWafu.1997.“JapaneseBuddhismandtheMeijiRestoration.”Presentationto TheAmericanAcademyofReligion:AnnualMeeting1997.SanFrancisco. Reader,Ian.1985.“TransformationandChangesintheTeachingsoftheStZenBuddhist Sect.”JapaneseReligions14(1). ———.1986.“ZazenlessZen?:ThePositionofZazeninInstitutionalZenBuddhism.”Japanese Religions14(3). Reader,Ian,andGeorgeJojiTanabe.1998.PracticallyReligiousWorldlyBenefitsandthe CommonReligionofJapan.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress. Riggs,DavidE.2002.“TheRekindlingofaTradition:MenzanZuihandtheReformofJapanese StZenintheTokugawaEra.”Ph.D.,LosAngeles:UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles. Riggs,DianeElizabeth.2010.“TheCulturalandReligiousSignificanceofJapaneseBuddhist Vestments.”Ph.D.,LosAngeles:UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.111 Saiyjiす᭷ᑎ.1938.“SaiyjiItsuwashす᭷ᑎ㐓ヰ㞟.”InNishiariBokusanZenji:Botsugo HyakunenOMukaeteす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄࠼࡚,byNishiariBokusanZenji Kenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲ,14–35.2009.Hachinohe:NishiariBokusanZenji Kenshkai. Sat,KemmyTaira,andThomasKirchner.2008.“D.T.SuzukiandtheQuestionofWar.”The EasternBuddhist39(1):61–120. ———.2010.“BrianVictoriaandtheQuestionofScholarship.”TheEasternBuddhist41(2): 139–66. Sawada,JanineAnderson.1998.“PoliticalWavesintheZenSea:TheEngakuJiCircleinEarly MeijiJapan.”JapaneseJournalofReligiousStudies25(1/2):117–50. ———.2004.PracticalPursuits:Religion,Politics,andPersonalCultivationinNineteenth CenturyJapan.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress. Scarangello,DominickJohn.2012.“EmbodyingtheDeities:AStudyoftheFormationofa ModernJapaneseDeityCult.”Ph.D.,Virginia:UniversityofVirginia. Schlütter,Morten.2008.HowZenBecameZentheDisputeoverEnlightenmentandthe FormationofChanBuddhisminSongDynastyChina.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’i Press. Sharf,RobertH.1995a.“TheZenofJapaneseNationalism.”InCuratorsoftheBuddha:The StudyofBuddhismunderColonialism,editedbyDonaldSLopez,107–60.Chicago,Ill.: UniversityofChicagoPress. ———.1995b.“WhoseZen?:ZenNationalismRevisited.”InRudeAwakeningsZen,theKyto School,&theQuestionofNationalism,editedbyJamesWHeisigandJohnCMaraldo, 40–51.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress. ———.2002a.“OnEsotericBuddhisminChina.”InComingtoTermswithChineseBuddhism:A ReadingoftheTreasureStoreTreatise,263–78.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress. ———.2002b.“OnPureLandBuddhismandCh’an/PureLandSyncretisminMedievalChina.” T’oungPao88(4/5):282–331. Snodgrass,Judith.2003.PresentingJapaneseBuddhismtotheWest:Orientalism, Occidentalism,andtheColumbianExposition.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolina Press. ———.2009.“PublishingEasternBuddhism:D.T.Suzuki’sJourneytotheWest.”InCasting Faiths:ImperialismandtheTransformationofReligioninEastandSoutheastAsia, editedbyThomasDavidDuBois,46–72.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan. Stshshmuch᭪Ὕ᐀ົᒁ.1889.TjGyjiKihanὝୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊.2vols.Tky:Stsh shmuch.http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/823402. ———.1988.“StshGyjiKihan”nokaiteinitsuiteࠗ᭪Ὕ᐀⾜ᣢ㌶⠊࠘ࡢᨵゞࡘ࠸࡚. Tky:Stshshmuch. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.112 Staggs,KathleenMarie.1979.“InDefenseofJapaneseBuddhism:EssaysfromtheMeijiPeriod byInoueEnryandMurakamiSensh.”Ph.D.,NewJersey:PrincetonUniversity. TakakashiBanmei㧗ᶫᡂ.2009.Zen⚙.KadokawaPictures,Inc. Thelle,NottoR.1987.BuddhismandChristianityinJapan:FromConflicttoDialogue,1854 1899.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress. Tokuno,Takayukiᚨ㔝ᓫ⾜.2010.“MeijiTaishniokeruStshnosgitsuizenkuyhgyji kihanTjgyjiyonbunyrokuTjgyjifuginkindoshirytoshite᫂ṇᮇ࠾ ࡅࡿ᭪Ὕ᐀ࡢⴿ㏣ၿ౪㣴ἲ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊Ὕୖ⾜ᣢᅄศせ㘓Ὕୖ⾜ᣢㅕ⤒㘊ᄞࢆ ㈨ᩱࡋ࡚.”KomazawaDaigakuDaigakuinBukkygakuKenkykainenp,no.43:19– 39. TRyshinᮾ㝯┾.2009.“NishiariBokusantoShbgenzす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌࣄࠕṇἲ║ⶶࠖ.” InNishiariBokusanZenji:Botsugohyakunenomukaete.す᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄ ࠼࡚,byNishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲ,42–48.Hachinohe: NishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkai. UedaShetsuୖ⏣⚈ᝋ.2009.“NishiariBokusantohaibutsukishakuす᭷✕ᒣᗫẋ㔘.” InNishiariBokusanZenji:Botsugohyakunenomukaeteす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ:ἐᚋⓒᖺࢆ㏄ ࠼࡚,byNishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkaiす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㢧ᙲ,50–54.Hachinohe: NishiariBokusanZenjiKenshkai. Victoria,DaizenBrian.2003.ZenWarStories.London;NewYork:RoutledgeCurzon. ———.2006.ZenatWar.Lanham,Md.:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers. ———.2010.“The‘NegativeSide’ofD.T.Suzuki’sRelationshiptoWar.”TheEasternBuddhist 41(2):97–138. ———.2013a.“ZenasaCultofDeathintheWartimeWritingsofD.T.Suzuki.”TheAsiaPacific Journal11(30.5). ———.2013b.“D.T.Suzuki,ZenandtheNazis.”TheAsiaPacificJournal11(43.4). Watanabe,SheiΏ㒊ṇⱥ.1983.“TjgyjikihannitsuitenoisshitenࠕὝୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊ࠖࡘ ࠸࡚ࡢ୍どⅬ.”Shgakukenky25(March):132–38. ———.1984.“TjgyjikihannitsuitenoisshitenniὝୖ⾜ᣢ㌶⠊ࠖࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ୍どⅬ2.” Shgakukenky26(March):149–54. Weitsman,Mel,andKazuakiTanahashi,trans.2011.“CommentarybyNishiariBokusan.”In Dgen’sGenjoKoan:ThreeCommentaries.CounterpointPress. Williams,DuncanRyuken.2005.TheOtherSideofZen:ASocialHistoryofStZen:Buddhism inTokugawaJapan.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress. Yasutani,Hakuun.1996.FlowersFall:ACommentaryonDgen’sGenjokoan.TranslatedbyPaul Jaffe.Boston:ShambhalaPublications. MarkRutschmanBylerStZeninMeijiJapan:TheLifeandTimesofNishiariBokusan pg.113 Yifa.2002.TheOriginsofBuddhistMonasticCodesinChina:AnAnnotatedTranslationand StudyoftheChanyuanQinggui.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress. ———.2005.“FromtheChineseVinayaTraditiontoChanRegulations.”InGoingForth:Visions ofBuddhistVinaya:EssaysPresentedinHonorofProfessorStanleyWeinstein,editedby WilliamBodiford,124–35.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress. YokoiYhᶓ㞝ᓟ.1991.JapaneseEnglishZenBuddhistDictionary᪥ⱥ⚮ㄒ㎫.Tky: SankibBuddhistBookstore. YoshidaRyetsuྜྷ⏣㝯ᝋ.1976.Bakumatsu/MeijiNoMeisNishiariBokusanZenji:Sono ShgaitoShsekiᖥᮎ࣭᫂ࡢྡൔす᭷✕ᒣ⚙ᖌ㸸ࡑࡢ⏕ᾭ㋱.Hachinohe: Ikichishoinఀྜྷ᭩㝔. ZengakuDaijitenHensanjo⚮Ꮵ㎫⦅⧩ᡤ⦅.1993.Shinpanzengakudaijiten᪂∧⚮Ꮵ ㎫.Tky:Taishukan.Abbreviated“ZGD”.
