Sada Kaiseki: An Alternative Discourse on Buddhism, Modernity, and Nationalism in the Early Meiji Period

Abstract

Accounts of Japanese Buddhist attitudes about modernization, in general, argue that most religious institutions accepted without strong resistance the Meiji government’s policy of separating Buddhism from kami cults and the ensuing persecution of Buddhism and traditional forms of combinatory religiosity. 1 By doing so, Buddhist institutions renounced their autonomy and chose a path of almost complete subservience to the state. This implied their acceptance of modern Western culture (including conceptualizations of religion and related practices) and the consequent transformation – if not outright rejection – of traditional Buddhist teachings and practices, beginning with the close ties between Buddhism and the imperial court dating from at least Shōtoku Taishi’s age (the seventh century). Overall, subservience to the modern Japanese state meant, in practice, the acceptance and legitimization of social, economic, and international policies that, because of their authoritarian and imperialistic nature, were essentially at odds with the Buddhist teachings. 2 Within this context, most authors also maintain that Buddhism in Japan has, for most of its history, been organically related to state institutions. This sweeping generalization does not do justice to the complexities of the interactions between Buddhist organizations and state institutions throughout Japanese history; in addition, it fails to recognize important aspects of Buddhist autonomy vis-à-vis the state, together with Buddhism’s transgressive potential in Japan – which includes criticism of state policies formulated by Buddhists from explicitly Buddhist standpoints. 3 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.