Zen and Religious Prejudice

8/13/2019 Zen and Religious Prejudice

1/27

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1996 23/12

Zen and the Art of Religious PrejudiceEfforts to Reform a Tradition of Social Discrimination

William BODIFORD

Since the so-called Machida affair, the St Zen school has become embroiled in controversies over traditional institutional practices that foster prejudicial attitudes and social discrimination. In response to public denunciations by the Buraku Liberation League, the St school founded a Human Rights Division charged with eliminating discriminatory practices and reforming Sts public image. Evidence of discriminatory language, necrologies, posthumous names, talismans, and ritual practices within St has been publicized and steps taken to eliminate them. This is the larger context within which St scholars, including advocates of Critical Buddhism (which has attracted wide attention outside of

Japan) have sought to repudiate Buddhist teachings (such as original awakening) that they identify as fostering social discrimination.

The signicance of continuing dialogue in this context was demon-strated in the manner in which the Buraku peoples problem in Japan came to be rightly understood. In WCRP III a delegate from[Japan] completely denied the existence of discrimination against the Buraku people [i.e., outcastes], but with continuing study of the problem, the same delegate at WCRP IV frankly admitted thefact of [his] being in the camp of discriminating agents.

Proceedings of the Fourth World Conference on Religion and Peace (T AYLOR and GEBHARDT1986, p. 232).

STANDING BEFOREa large international audience in Nairobi, Kenya, at the Fourth World Conference on Religion and Peace in 1984, one

* I would like to express my gratitude to the Northeast Council of the Association of Asian Studies, which provided nancial support that enabled me to vis it the St Administrative Headquarters in Tokyo, and to the staff of the St Central Division for theProtection and Promotion of Human Rights ( Jinken ygo suishin honbu ^ D uZ H ,especially Yugi Sgen and Nakano Jsai, who answered questions, explained recent develop-

ments, and provided me with copies of many essential sources.


2/27

delegate from Japan, Machida Muneo , ; & , made a startling pub-lic confession. In a carefully arranged ritual, Machida acknowledgedhis guilt in covering up and thereby perpetuating social discrimina-tion against Japanese outcaste groups. Five years earlier in Princeton,New Jersey, during the previous World Conference on Religion andPeace in 1979, Machida had convinced his fellow delegates in theConferences Human Rights Commission to remove any mention of the plight of outcastes in Japan from the text of their nal report. 1 At the earlier conference Machida had denied that discriminationagainst members of identiable outcaste groups still occurred in Japan and said that any suggestion other wise would insult Japansnational honor. 2 In Kenya, Machida not only apologized and reversedhis earlier stand, he also insured that problems of social discrimina-tion in Japans established religions would occupy a prominent posi-tion in the world conferences agenda (T OMONAGA 1989, pp. 21418;T AYLOR and GEBHARDT1986, pp. v, 16973, 20712, 232).

Machida Muneos dramatic about-face represents more than onemans change of heart. In 1979 Machida was the president of theBuddhist Federation of Japan and the secretary general of the StZen school, the largest single Buddhist denomination in Japan. Whennews of his denials at Princeton were reported in Japan it produced a

1 The nal text of the ndings of the WCRPIII Commission on Religion and HumanDignity, Responsibility, and Rights included the following passage: We should all be deeply concerned with the plight of people such as the so-called untouchables. We ask all religiouspeople of those societies where untouchability still lingers to look deep inside their own

hearts and eradicate this evil practice (H OMER 1980, p. 115). According to TOMONAGA Kenz(1989, p. 214), the original text of this nding read as follows (my translation from the Japanese): We should all be deeply concerned with the plight of people such as the Buraku-min of Japan and the Untouchables of India. Only after Machida protested at least threetimes was the text revised to eliminate all direct and indirect reference to Japan. The fulltext of Machidas subsequent apology was published by the St School (M ACHIDA 1984).

2 According to reports in the Buddhist newspaper Chgai nipp _ (11 October1979) Machida rst told the members of the commission: In Japan today an outcaste prob-lem (buraku mondai ) does not exist. As a Japanese I know this very well. There are somegroups who use outcaste problem or outcaste liberation as a pretext to create uproars,

but the actual situation within Japan is that no one encounters discrimination. The govern-ment does not engage in discrimination. No one else engages in discrimination. It is just that until a hundred years ago during the feudal period such discrimination existed to a cer-tain extent, so that some biased emotions persist. But no one actually practices discrimina-tion. Therefore, this passage must be removed. It is a matter of Japanese national honor(reprinted in S TSH SHMUCH, ed., 1982, pp. 23). Machida repeated these assertions insubsequent protests and insisted that not just mention of Japan but also all words associated with outcastes in Japan, such as buraku or burakumin, must be deleted. As noted by W AGATSUMA and DE V OS (1967, p. 374), A major coping technique of Japanese society inrespect to the general problem of discrimination concerning this group is avoidance or tacit

denial that any problem exists.

2 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/12


3/27

restorm of protest among outcaste groupsthe members of whichare now commonly referred to by the euphemisms buraku H % orburakumin H % W .3 They clearly perceived that Machidas cover-up would not only help perpetuate the widespread but largely hiddensocial discrimination in Japanese society, but also would help legiti-mate similar attempts at denial by cloaking them in nationalist rhetoric. The chair of the Buraku Liberation League (Buraku KaihDmei H % m | h ), Matsui Hisayoshi m , immediately wrote aprotest letter demanding to know how Machida, as a religious personand representative of Japanese Buddhism, could deny the reality of outcaste discrimination in the name of protecting Japans nationalhonor. The St leadership was horried at this new public relationsproblem. They issued public apologies, admitted the errors of Machidas actions, and insisted that the St school did not condoneany form of social discrimination. Discriminatory practices ended,they claimed, with the Taish period (19121926); incriminatingstatements found in St publications were dismissed as old informa-tion that was no longer used. In response the Buraku LiberationLeague organized a series of their trademark Confess and Denounce(kakunin kydan = ) Assemblies.

Confess and Denounce Assemblies resemble public trials in whichthe perpetrators of incorrect actions are interrogated repeatedly, theirdefenses and explanations are denounced , concrete evidence of theharm caused by such action is presented, until eventually the subjectsof interrogation are forced to publicly confess their own prejudices.4Over the course of the next four years Machida and other St lead-ers were interrogated at ve assemblies (two in 1981, two in 1982, andone in 1983). At these very public events (one of which occurred withinthe National Diet Building), the St leadership soon realized that simple apologies and denials of discriminatory practices only made abad public relations problem worse. Confess and Denounce Assemblies

3 After the Emancipation Edict of 1872 ofcially abolished the legal basis of outcaste sta-tus a wide variety of names have been used to designate outcasts and the ghettos into which

they were segregated. All such terms have acquired negative social connotations. As notedby DE V OS and W AGATSUMA : It is a mark of the covert nature of the Japanese outcaste prob-lem that terms tend to become pejorative once they gain general usage (1966b, p. 5). Inearlier times the term buraku simply meant village or hamlet. After 1872 outcaste ham-lets came to be known as tokushu buraku (special villages, i.e., ghettos) or mikaih buraku (pre-liberation villages/ghettos), or simply buraku , while the residents of the ghettos andtheir descendants were called burakumin (citizens of the buraku ). These are the terms that have gained general currency among Western scholars. See K OBAYASHI et al., 1991, pp.27782 s.v. buraku.

4 Regarding the practice of Confess and Denounce Assemblies, see T OTTEN and

W AGATSUMA 1966, p. 44.

BODIFORD: Zen and the Art of Religious Prejudice 3


4/27

immediately publicized the St schools deep and ongoing involve-ment in a wide variety of discriminatory practices. Liberation Leaguespokesmen asserted that some St Zen temples in Japan kept necrologies (kakoch [ y ) in which the ancestors of outcaste mem-bers of their congregations were clearly identied, sometimes by derogatory Buddhist titles that imply meanings such as beasts orless than human. Indeed, St priests routinely allowed access tothese memorial registers by private investigators, who perform back-ground checks to insure that prospective marriage partners or company executives do not come from outcaste families. Liberation Leaguemembers searched through the published writings of St Zen mas-ters throughout history, pointing out discriminatory remarks directedagainst outcastes, women, the physically impaired, and foreigners.Secret ritual manuals published by the St Zen Headquarters asrecently as 1973 were found to contain many expressions of caste prej-udice, such as instructions on how Zen clerics can maintain ritualpurity while dealing with outcastes (STSH SHMUCH 1983, pp.512, 56365; SUGIMOTO 1982, pp. 123, 12528). Each new assembly produced more negative publicity. St leaders were forced toacknowledge active and ongoing participation in discriminatory prac-tices. Finally, at the fth (and last) Confess and Denounce Assembly, which occurred at St Zen main headquarters in Tokyo, Machidaread a statement in which he acknowledged his personal prejudices,admitted the injustice of heretofore accepted St practices, andpledged to dedicate the St school to the elimination of all forms of social discrimination (TOMONAGA 1989, pp. 21418).

It was these Liberation League attacks on St Zens tradition of institutional discrimination and Machidas pledge to end it that set the stage for his subsequent public performance in Kenya. Thus,Machidas confession and apology at the 1984 World Conference onReligion and Peace embodied far more than mere personal drama: it symbolized a turning point in ongoing efforts by the St Zen schoolto redene its traditions and to nd an appropriate religious role inmodern Japan.

During the past century St Zen, like all Buddhist institutions in Japan, has witnessed tumultuous changes. Its population of clerics haschanged from (at least ofcially) 100% celibate monks to more than90% married priests who manage Zen temples as family business. ItsZen nuns, who formerly had no ecclesiastical status and no voice inmatters of religious training, now function as fully certied St Zenmasters, charged with the leadership of their own Zen monasteries.

Wives, who were once taboo, now can become religious teachers who



5/27

sometimes assist their husband priests in the performance of Zen ritu-als, and, more often than not, play a role in local Sto Zen temple

affairs more important than that of their husbands (K AWAHASHI1995;R EADER 1985; UCHINO 1983). Land reforms ordered by the postwarOccupation authorities deprived St temples of 82% of their landsand of all the income those lands had generated. Demographicchanges accompanying Japans postwar industrial resurgence havefurther threatened St Zens economic well-being. Today the vast majority of St Zen temples remain in the countryside, in small rural villages, but more than 70% of the Japanese population lives in large

urban centers. Recent generations have literally left rural Zen templesbehind as irrelevant to the needs of modern urban life (M ORIOKA 1975, pp. 104105).

The St Zen leadership remained largely passive in the face of these historic changes, merely reacting to events. For example, they stubbornly ignored the increasingly vocal demands of wives and nunsuntil the shortage of male clerics during the Second World Warforced them to acknowledge the importance of women in St Zen

religious life. Even in the postwar period they resisted any efforts tomodernize traditional methods of Zen training, religious ideals, andritual practices to better reect new social realities. They continue todene St orthodoxy in terms of celibate monasticism ( shukke shugi m B ) in spite of the fact that the school operates only thirty-onemonasteries compared to nearly 15,000 temples, the vast majority of which function as the private homes of married priests and their wivesand children. Although this summary oversimplies both the nature

of the criticisms and the complex interplay between St religiouspraxis (zazen ) and Sts broader social mission, in the eyes of many younger clerics and critics St Zen leadership has seemed hide-bound and conservative, trapped in a past that no longer exists andmore concerned with maintaining their own positions of institutionalpower than addressing the religious realities of modern Japan.

Until now. Ironically, the public humiliation of Machida and hispledge to eliminate institutional prejudice presented reform-minded

St Zen clerics with an opportunity to seize the initiative. As the anti-discrimination campaign gained momentum it discredited the oldergeneration of St leaders who had allied themselves with prewarnotions of social hierarchy and class privilege, while helping empowerthe younger generation of St Zen activists in their attempt to makethe sect face current issues of social and political injustice. As a result of these developments in 1982 the St Zen administrative headquar-ters created a Central Division for the Protection and Promotion of

Human Rights (Jinken Ygo Suishin Honbu^ D uZ H

, here-



6/27

after cited as Human Rights Division), with its own publishing armand the ability to convene its own academic conferences. Other

groups, such as the one for Contemporary St Teachings (GendaiKygaku Kenky Sent), are also staffed with reform-minded, intellec-tual St Zen priests.

Riding the bandwagon of ending discrimination, younger Stleaders in these two divisions and elsewhere have attempted not just to redene the social policy agenda for St Zen Headquarters, but also to change the direction of academic research at St Zen educa-tional institutionsmost notably Komazawa University, one of Japansleading centers for the academic study of Buddhism. They have invit-ed leading Buddhist scholars to academic conferences on social issuesand published their ndings in several new series of books, with seriestitles such as: Religion and Discrimination (Shky to sabetsu ; o , 9 vols.), Discrimination and Human Rights (Sabetsu to jinken o ^ , 7 vols.), Religion and Human Rights (Shky to jinken ; o ^ , 3 vols.), and [St] Doctrines and Discrimination(Kygaku to sabetsu o , 2 vols.).5 Signicantly, these reformefforts concern more than just social policy. The wave of self-criticismand self-examination prompted by the Machida affair has gone so faras to challenge many hallowed Buddhist traditions. Indeed, some StZen scholars, advocating what they call Critical Buddhism (hihan Bukky | [ ), have begun questioning basic tenets of JapaneseBuddhism. While calls for a new Critical Buddhism have promptedmuch interest among American scholars of East Asian Buddhism, lit-tle attention has been paid to the particular St context of social dis-crimination and current reform campaigns from which they arose. 6Like most aspects of Japanese religious life there is more (and less) toCritical Buddhism than is readily apparent on the surface. Theremainder of this article will attempt to correct this imbalance by


5 To date the Religion and Discrimination series includes A RAI 1985; H AYASHI 1985;K OMORI 1985; S AKURAI 1987; STSH JINKEN Y GO SUISHIN HONBU 1988a, 1988b, 1993a;T AMAMURO 1985, 1986. The Religion and Human Rights series includes IGETA 1993;STSH JINKEN Y GO SUISHIN HONBU 1993b; TSUYUNO1993. And the [St] Doctrines andDiscrimination series includes K ASUGA 1994 and ISHIKAWA 1995. Because all the titles in theDiscrimination and Human Rights series are out of print I was unable to consult them.

6 The American Academy of Religion 1993 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., includeda panel sponsored by the Buddhism Section and Japanese Religions Group titled CriticalBuddhism ( hihan Bukky ): Issues and Responses to a New Methodological Movement.Papers examining various doctrinal assertions of Critical Buddhism were presented by Steven Heine, Jamie Hubbard, Dan Lusthaus, and Nobuyoshi Yamabe, with responses by Paul Swanson and Matsumoto Shir. Surprisingly, only the oral remarks of Swanson andMatsumoto explicitly raised the issue of social discrimination. For published assessments of

Critical Buddhism, see GREGORY 1994, HEINE 1994, and S WANSON1993.


7/27

examining rst the historical evidence for discriminatory practicesengaged in by St Zen temples, and then the recent efforts of the

St Zen establishment to correct these abuses. In conclusion it willreexamine the role of Critical Buddhism within these larger issuesand question the meaning of reform for modern St Zen.

Social Discrimination in St Zen

Since the Machida affair St spokesmen have insisted publicly that

the types of social discrimination found in St rituals and templepractices are rooted in the medieval institutional regulations imposedby the Tokugawa regime, not in the religious attitudes, religious prac-tices, or religious mission of St Zen itself. In other words, the legacy of governmental policies imposed on St temples from the outsideare responsible for perpetuating the prejudice and abuses foundinside St Zen today. This position is at least partially correct. From1635 (when the tera-uke system began) until 1871 (the year that

legal enforcement of outcaste segregation ofcially ended), nearly allBuddhist temples, not just St, were legally obligated to functionessentially as part of the police arm of the government in supervisinglocal populations. Buddhist temples operated as the rst-line troopscharged with enforcing the governments absolute prohibition of Christianity and suppression of heterodox Buddhist sects. This sys-tem aligned the religious authority of Buddhist temples with many of the worst features of government oppression.

Under what we now refer to as the temple registration ( tera-uke ) sys-tem, local Buddhist temples recorded local censuses and kept the taxrolls.7 The government required every villager to register with andsupport a local Buddhist temple, which in turn was required to regis-ter with and support a hierarchy of regional temples, which too wereregistered with and supported the government. The primary purposeof temple registration was to certify that no local families wereChristians or members of Buddhist groups deemed subversive by the

government. But Buddhist temples also certied the identity, genea-logy, residence, occupation, property, and tax obligations of all villagefamilies. They recorded all births and enjoyed a virtual monopoly onfunerals. Regulations required every local family to renew their regis-tration at the same temple every year without fail. After around 1700, when this system became well established, members of any given family


7 The information in these paragraphs is based on the research of T AMAMURO Fumio

(1980; especially as summarized in T AMAMURO

1985 and 1986).


8/27

normally could not change temple afliation, move to a different location, nor assume a new occupation. Temple registration played a

major role in the implementation of the rigid class distinctions that were legally enforced by the Tokugawa regime. For these reasons,temple records often contain detailed information concerning thesocial status and occupation of local village families.

For the religious and economic life of local temples, necrologies(kakoch ) were (and remain today) especially important. These deathregistries provide essential information for scheduling the series of Buddhist memorial services that must be performed over a period of years after a funeral. For many rural village temples these regularly scheduled memorial services provide the main source of income. According to Tokugawa-period regulations former Christians andtheir descendants down to the fth generation (which, if this systemhad continued, would be alive today) could not be registered in thestandard temple necrologies, but had to be recorded separately in abook known as off the registry (ch hazure y ; K OBAYASHI 1987,pp. 17375; T AMAMURO1985, pp. 3840). In many cases the families of outcastes, criminals, homeless people, lepers, and the disabled werealso recorded separately. In effect, temples could designate whichfamilies should be segregated by necrologies, and in so doing coulddetermine which families should be subject to segregation in religiousrituals and in the affairs of village life. Naturally, this power to desig-nate social status gave rise to many abuses. Many temple schools (tera- koya { % ), for example, taught students basic literacy by havingthem copy out documents that, among other provisions, promised topunish any families that failed to donate to the local temple, that failed to observe all regularly scheduled memorial rites, or that daredto have a funeral performed at another temple. Signicantly, thethreatened punishments included not just notifying the authoritiesbut also striking the familys name from the standard necrology (T AMAMURO1985, pp. 3458).

Segregation of entries was not the only way that temple recordsreected the rigid social distinctions of Tokugawa society. Even nameswithin the standard necrologies did not enjoy equal status. It is impor-tant to note that temple necrologies usually record not just the family name of the deceased and the time of death but also a series of post-humous Buddhist titles. Japanese Buddhist funeral rites usually entaila prior Buddhist ordination (which can be conducted posthumously)during which the deceased receives an ordination name. In a necrology ordination names are usually prexed by several types of honorary Buddhist titles and followed by a religious designation (such as master,



9/27

monk, nun, devotee, etc.). In general, the higher the social status of the deceased the more elaborate the titles and the more exalted the

religious designations are. Conversely, the ordination names of peopleof lower social status might be recorded without any honorary titlesand with lesser religious designations. Sometimes certain titles corre-spond to particular occupations or residential areas. Among similarnames and titles, ones written with more complex Chinese graphs rep-resent higher status (K OBAYASHI 1987, pp. 17796; STSH JINKEN Y GO SUISHIN HONBU 1994b). Because of the complexities of the titlesand the use of obscure Buddhist terminology the exact correlationbetween occupations, social status, and the entries in any given tem-ples necrology usually is clear only to the resident priests at that par-ticular temple. Thus the Buddhist titles in necrologies often functionalmost as a secret social code, incomprehensible to the average Japanese.

Occasionally necrology entries are more explicitly discriminatory (for detailed lists of examples, see K OBAYASHI1987, pp. 249342). Thesimplest method is to indent entries for people of outcaste status. Orthe Chinese graphs used to write the names might be written in anunusual fashion. Brush strokes were omitted (e.g., shin for G , en for , rei for ) or extra strokes added (e.g., mon , , or for ). Lexical elements indicating servant or leather might be insertedinto seemingly innocuous Chinese graphs (e.g., mon , zen ).Outcastes might simply be labeled as sendara , the Japanesetransliteration of the Sanskrit word ca^la , which refers to those whoare beneath any caste classication. More often the term sendara wasabbreviated as senda ( , , , m ) or simply indicated by useof homonymic graphs for the syllable sen ( Z , 3 , 6 ). Unfortunately for the image of Zen temples, a favorite code word for sen was thegraph used to write the zen of Zen Buddhism, in both standard ( , or 7 ) and variant forms ( , ). Sometimes the religious designationplainly states beast (chiku T , , U ; occasionally abbreviated asgen ), servant (boku , , ), leather worker (kaku , u ), or otheroccupations associated with outcaste status. Similar derogatory code words were carved on family tombstones, leaving a permanent publicrecord of the prior social status of those families.

When St leaders identify discriminator y practices remainingfrom Tokugawa government policies, they are referring to the sensi-tive family information contained in temple necrologies. The most widespread and persistent form of outcaste rejection in Japan contin-ues to be the marriage taboo. It is routine for courtships to be blocked,proposed marriages called off, and accomplished marriages annulled



10/27

once outcaste status is discovered.8 Because Japanese of outcaste statuspose no special identifying physical characteristics, their family histo-

ries provide the only clues by which the families of their prospectivemarriage partners can judge social acceptability. Necrologies, naturally,are primary sources for the investigation of family histories and aretherefore primary targets of the Buraku Liberation League. Beforethe Machida affair Japanese Buddhist temples of all persuasions openly cooperated with private investigators seeking information on heredi-tary family status. Continued St involvement in this practice wasconrmed in 1984, just as St leaders thought the Machida affair

resolved, when it was disclosed that a St temple in Hiroshima hadaided the marriage of a parishioner by writing a letter in 1981 statingthat her family were not outcastes even though they lived near aghetto. This disclosure highlighted for all to see the ongoing role of St institutions in perpetuating social discrimination against peopleof outcaste background (T OMONAGA 1989, 3, pp. 22122). The BurakuLiberation League organized seven new Confess and Denounce Assemblies to publicize the St Schools failure to implement mean-

ingful reform following the Machida affair (STSH JINKEN Y GOSUISHIN HONBU 1994a, pp. 4445).Prompted by this and similar incidents, the St Human Rights

Division regards the elimination of discriminatory necrologies as itsnumber one priority. Over a ten-year period it sent three-man teamsto conduct on-site investigations of the necrologies and tombstones at every single St temple in Japan. It has compiled a list of temples with outcaste parishioners, with discriminatory necrologies or tomb-

stones, and with other problematic documents. It has offered to con-sult with the families named in these records to nd acceptablereplacement ordination names and titles that are free of discriminatory connotations. And it has provided new necrologies, new memorialtablets (ihai R 5 ), and new tombstones at no charge to the local tem-ples or parishioners. As of 1995 about half of the objectionable docu-ments and tombstones have been replaced. Ofcials at the HumanRights Division assured me that the old records are not destroyed but

preserved where only authorized historians can gain access to them.Moreover, the Human Rights Division has sent every temple labels withthe word Secret (etsuran kinshi 1 8 ) in large graphs to paste onall necrologies, and has provided them with signs saying No StatusInvestigations (mimoto chsa okotowari X PYo ) to post inentryways and ofces (STSH JINKEN Y GO SUISHIN HONBU 1994b).


8 For a discussion of the social factors behind the persistence of this taboo see D E V OSand W AGATSUMA 1966a; W AGATSUMA and DE V OS 1967.


11/27

Interestingly, the results of the temple survey published by theHuman Rights Division contradict the ndings reported in Buraku

Liberation League sources. TOMONAGA Kenz, the author of a recent survey of liberation issues (1989, p. 221) reports, for example, that asof January 1983 discriminatory necrologies had been identied in5,649 St temples, 254 Tendai temples, 1,771 Jdosh temples, and40 Kyasan Shingonsh temples, while discriminatory tombstoneshad been found at 1,911 St temples, 10 Tendai temples, 231 Jdo-sh temples, and 102 Kyasan Shingon temples. In short, Tomonagaclaims that more discriminatory necrologies and tombstones arefound at St temples than at temples of any other Buddhist denomi-nation in Japan, even though most outcaste families are not afliated with St. In contrast, the Human Rights Division reports that as of 1994 discriminatory necrologies and tombstones have been identiedthrough on-site investigations at a total of only 235 St temples. Accurate statistics are impossible to nd because of the understand-able inclination of liberation spokesmen to repeat the highest pub-lished gures and of local temple clerics to conceal evidence, evenfrom representatives of their own denominations headquarters(K OBAYASHI1987, p. 16).

While efforts to eliminate prejudicial necrologies represent a posi-tive step, the St schools identication of discrimination with histor-ical developments foreign to the schools basic religious message isproblematic. First, St religious teachings cannot be so easily separatedfrom their institutional homes, which not only promoted St teach-ings but also implemented Tokugawa-period policies. After all, thenetwork of rural temples that constitute the economic backbone of modern St also are a Tokugawa-period legacy. Parishioners feel at least as much, if not more, loyalty to local temple traditions as toabstract St doctrines. The St schools attempts to disassociateitself from its history, if carried to its logical extremes, implies a rejec-tion of its local temple base. A Liberation League spokesman pointedout this startling implication at yet another Confess and Denounce Assembly in June 1993. When a St representative argued that theSt school regrets how the political pressures of past policies forcedthem to deviate from fundamental Buddhist teachings, the LiberationLeague spokesman asked: Doesnt the process of repudiating thelong historical development of Japanese St in the name of return-ing to original teaching require the dissolution ( kaitai m ) of theentire St denomination? (S TSH JINKEN Y GO SUISHIN HONBU1993b, p. 18b).

Second, the Human Rights Divisions identication of discrimina-



12/27

tion problems with the historical traditions of local temples has alien-ated many of the same rural priests whom they have tried to reach with their reform message. In anonymous conversations it is difcult to nd St priests at small temples who have kind words for thereform activities of the St Headquarters or its Human RightsDivision. They resent attempts by the centralized bureaucracy to dic-

tate local policies. While no one would speak for the record, commonly


Figure 1. Hinin ind no kirikami

as found in a necrology from a St temple.


13/27

voiced complaints include:the Human Rights Division

does not publicize what isgood about Japanese Bud-dhism, but only criticizesthe past; they treat commonclerics as if they are theenemy; they try to forcepriests to repeat the sameslogans and use the same

politically correct vocabu-lary, not to solve the prob-lems but just to satisfy theirown appetite for power. 9One priest even comparedthe clerics working in theSt Headquarters to cor-porate salary men and

government tax collectors bereft of any religious vocation. In thecourse of these conversations, admittedly an unscientic sample, it became clear that many local priests regard temple necrologies as reli-gious documents, not as social issues, and certainly not as items subject to review or criticism by outsiders. In their eyes necrologies are theprivate treasure of local temples, essential for performing the cycle of ancestral rites that directly address the religious needs of templepatrons.

Third, the history of social discrimination in St Zen, and in Japanese Buddhism as a whole, did not begin with Tokugawa govern-ment policies. If government policies alone set the pattern for subse-quent forms of social discrimination, then one might reasonably expect to nd similar types of discrimination nationwide whereverSt temples exist in proximity to outcaste ghettos. Instead, wide vari-ation seems to be the rule. Likewise, even before the 1635 implemen-tation of the temple registration system St Zen teachers already had

developed special funeral rituals for people of non-human ( hinin ^ , i.e., outcaste) status as well as for victims of mental illness, lep-rosy, and other socially unaccepted diseases. Secret initiation docu-ments, generally known as Hinin ind no kirikami (the earliest known example of which is dated 1611; see gure 1), describe the


9 Lest any of my colleagues within Japanese St attempt to identify these statements with shared acquaintances, let me state for the record that I heard each of these complaintsfrom several different sources, usually from priests who reside in different prefectures and

who do not know each other.

Figure 2. Special talisman for protection from deceased outcastes.


14/27

details of these rites.10 Instead of being directed toward the salvationof the deceased, as in other St funeral procedures, these rites were

designed to sever all karmic connections between the deceased andlocal people. Special talismans were attached to the corpse and to theentrance of his/her dwelling negating relations to parents, family, andother humans in all directions (see gure 2). In this way the deceased would be prevented from returning as a ghost to haunt those who were responsible for the discrimination. Such documents commonly state that the proper spiritual rites ( ind ) will be conducted in thefuture only after the deceased attains true human status (I SHIKAWA

1984, pp. 15358; HIROSE 1988, pp. 61720). Procedures for such ritu-als were published by the St school as recently as 1973 (SUGIMOTO1982, pp. 12528).

The legalized social distinctions of the Tokugawa period derived at least in part from preexisting notions of social status, many of which were reinforced by Buddhist teachings in general and by St Zenteachings in particular. Social discrimination against slaves, lepers,criminals, strangers, residents of undesirable areas, etc., has a long his-

tory in Japan. While scholars no longer believe that the origins of out-caste groups can be explained solely in terms of religious impurity (such as that resulting from the violation of taboos on animal butcher-ing), appeals to religious sentiments certainly served to rationalizepreexisting prejudices.11 Buddhist doctrines of karmic retribution, inparticular, suggest that disadvantaged people deserve their miserablefates. Chapter 28 of the Lotus Stra , for example, warns that whoeverslanders the scripture will be stricken with leprosy, or will be reborn

blind or with harelips, at noses, deformed limbs, body odor, impuri-ties, and so forth, for many lives (Taish edition 9.62a). Likewise, theGreat Perfection of Wisdom Treatise states that karmic retribution for previous sins prevents victims of leprosywho as a group have sufferedsome of the most severe social discriminationfrom ever being cured( Daichidoron J E , T 25.479a).

St documents and recorded sermons frequently cite similarkarmic notions not only to justify existing social distinctions but also

to assert that outcastes, the disabled, and other people deemed use-less to society cannot possibly attain awakening. The blind cannot


10 Regarding the variety and transmission of initiation documents in St Zen, seeBODIFORD 1993, pp. 15162.

11 For an excellent summary of current academic theories on the origins of outcastegroups with bibliographical citations see K OBAYASHIet al. 1991, pp. 28287, s.v. Buraku nokigensetsu. For Western-language histories of outcastes, see N AGAHARA 1979; NINOMIYA 1933; PRICE 1966; and S ABOURET 1983. Regarding Japanese notions of ritual impurity, seeN AMIHIRA 1985.


15/27

read the scriptures; the deaf cannot listen to sermons; the mute can-not chant; cripples cannot sit in a proper meditation posture. And as

explained in the last four lines of a verse commonly cited in publishedSt sermons, known as the Ten Fates Preached by the Buddha(Bussetsu jrai M Y Z ), all of these afictions are the victims ownfault:

Short lifespans come from butchering animals ( tanmei ji sessh rai 1 f N Z ).

Ugliness and sickness come from ritual impurities (byshin ji fuj rai X # Z ).

Poverty and desperation come from miserly thoughts ( hinky ji kendon rai l Z ).

Being crippled and blind come from violating the Buddhist precepts ( genm ji hakai rai | & w Z ).

(STSH JINKEN Y GO SUISHIN HONBU 1988a, p. 4)

During the late Tokugawa and Meiji periods the ideas expressed inthis verse were well known even among uneducated Japanese. It wasnot a coincidence that Shimazaki Tson (18721943) used the wordhakai from the last line of this verse as the title of his pioneeringnovel published with his own money in 1906about the life of anoutcaste who attempted to pass in ordinary society (SHIMAZAKI1974).

Based on teachings such as the above, Japanese often interpretedthe notion of karma in fatalistic terms linked to cultural taboos andnotions of ritual pollution (N AMIHIRA 1985). The ritual impurity that Japanese associate with blood, especially menstrual blood, was merged with karmic notions to justify a wide variety of misogynic Zen rituals. Women were taught that menstrual blood pollutes the earth andoffends the spirits. Because of this evil karma they are doomed to aspecial Buddhist Blood Hell, from which only St Zen monks cansave them. Women must rely on the St Zen monks to provide them with a special talisman, a specially consecrated copy of theMenstruation Hell Scripture (Ketsubonky ! , an apocrypha; see gure 3) to savethem from this unpleasant fate (B ODIFORD 1993, pp. 206207; T AKEMI1983).

These misogynic interpretations of karma, which are common toall forms of Japanese Buddhism, did not disappear with Japans mod-ernization. To cite just one example, fear of karmic retribution hashelped propel explosive growth in Buddhist pacication rites foraborted fetuses ( mizuko kuy v { ). Advertisements by Buddhist (and non-Buddhist) temples that perform mizuko kuy services com-monly emphasize the torments suffered by the aborted child in ways



16/27

designed to exploit the guilty con-science of the mother. They explain

that the aborted fetuses will eventu-ally return to this world to seek veng eance on the moth er whorefused them birth, an unpleasant fate that can be avoided only by per-forming mizuko kuy services underthe direction of Buddhist priests(L A FLEUR 1992, pp. 16076; W ER -

BLOWSKY 1991, pp. 31923). Untilrecently Buddhist clerics, whetherSt or not, have rarely questionedsuch misogynic interpretations of karma. They have appearedrepeatedly in Zen sermons andZen literature down to the present day. Instructions for mizuko kuy

rites appeared in the standard StZen ritual manual until pressurefrom the Machida affair forced itsrevision in 1988 (STSH SHMU-CH K YGAKUB U 1988; also seeS AKURAI1987; and STSH SHMU-CH 1992, pp. 16263). Distributionof the Menstruation Hell Scripture to women continued until the same year.

The St Human Rights Divisionregards the reform of contempo-rary St teachings as its second

major goal (after the elimination of discriminatory necrologies). Its1988 revision of the St ritual manual (i.e., the Gyji kihan y ) was only one example of its efforts toward this end. They orderedrecalls of at least ve other St publications, including one volumeof the Complete St Scriptures (Stsh zensho g ; 6 ), that werefound to teach discriminatory doctrines. But the history of St dis-crimination was not denied or covered up. They issued new editionsof the recalled texts with the original discriminatory passages left inplace exactly as they were in the original. The new editions, however,contained new introductions with formal apologies for the paincaused by such doctrines and explanations of why these St doc-trines violate what the Human Rights Division has identied as funda-


Figure 3. Cover for the Menstruation Hell Scripture formerly distributed at

St temples.


17/27

mental Buddhist principles.Charms formerly issued by St

temples to counter female pollu-tion have been banned (seegure 4). Ritual prayers on behalf of aborted fetuses (mizuko ), theruler (i.e., tenn y ), and thespirits of the glorious war heroes( eirei ) have been publicly repudiated. In 1993 the former

St monk Uchiyama Gud(18781911), who had beenstripped of clerical status and exe-cuted for his anti-imperial propa-ganda, was ofcially rehabilitated(i.e., readmitted to clerical status).In 1992 the St Headquarterspublished an ofcial acknowledge-

ment of guilt for its role in sup-porting military conquest and anapology for the activities of Stmissionaries in occupied territo-ries, especially Korea. Major Sttemples now perform annualmemorial rites on behalf of the victims of St religious discrimi-nation and Japanese military aggression (STSH JINKEN Y GOSUISHIN HONBU 1994a).

Of course the St Headquartersand the Human Rights Divisionlack any direct means to controlthe religious activities of individ-ual St temples. Indeed, as men-tioned above, their efforts toimpose what is perceived at thelocal level as little more thanarticial political correctness hasresulted in widespread animosity among village clerics. Public state-ments that the Buraku LiberationLeague wields too much inuence


Figure 4. Talisman to ward offfemale pollution.


18/27

are on the rise, as are anti-outcaste incidents at St institutions (e.g.,defamatory grafti at Komazawa University). At the same time, advo-

cates of radical change express frustration at the Human Right Divisions emphasis on words rather than actions. Critics within bothSt and the outcaste groups view many of the St statements onbehalf of human rights as little more than cynical attempts to appeaseleft-wing pressure groups without fundamentally altering the conservative power structure that dominates the St hierarchy. Leaders of the Human Rights Division freely acknowledge that they perceivetheir goal as the reform of St doctrines and clerical attitudes, not

the alteration of long-standing economic and institutional arrange-ments. The inherent tensions between the social conservatism of Stinstitutions and the reform of St social attitudes are not likely to dis-appear any time soon.

The Human Rights Division organizes two main forms of outreachdirected toward local clerics. First, they sponsor regional seminars to which they invite local priests, Buraku Liberation League spokesmen,and St educators. These seminars provide forums for the frank air-

ing of local concerns and differences. Second, they sponsor academicconferences to reexamine and reform the education and training of St Zen clerics. Leaders of the Human Rights Division believe that the attitudes of the younger generation of new priests will be easiest tochange if they can modify the ways that fundamental Buddhist notions, such as the doctrine of karmic retribution, have been taught within the St Zen tradition. This reexamination of Buddhist doc-trine has proceeded along two related but different lines of inquiry.

The rst approach is historical and social, focusing on the adaptationof Buddhist teachings to the ideological agendas of Japans rulingclass. The second approach is doctrinal and philological, focusing onthe correct understanding of doctrines such as karma that emerged inIndic religion and developed in Chinese, Korean, and JapaneseBuddhism. It is this second approach that has generated the most excitement and the most controversy.

Human Rights and Critical Buddhism

Since the Machida affair several St Buddhist scholars, principally H AKAMAYA Noriaki (1989, 1990, 1992) and M ATSUMOTO Shir (1989),have asked: Is there some fault in the traditional Japanese understand-ing of Buddhism that allowed Buddhist institutions to promote socialdiscrimination? Is there some fault that allowed social discriminationto arise in the rst place? Not surprisingly, these scholars have



19/27

answered in the afrmative. And they have not been shy in promotingtheir conclusions. In a series of books and articles published since the

late 1980s they have argued that Japanese Buddhist thought is not true Buddhism. They have likewise denied the Buddhist label to tradi-tional Japanese Zen. By this they are not denying Zens historical unity with wider Buddhist traditions nor the fact that Zen proponents view themselves as Buddhists. The problem, as they see it, is that Zen hasfailed in its responsibility to clarify through critical investigation what is and what is not true Buddhism, glorifying instead such fuzzy notions as direct intuition (chokkan ? ), no thought and no imagi-

nation (munen mus [ [ ` ), no mind (mushin [ D ), and non-reliance on words ( fury monji # C k ). These Zen ideals have allfunctioned in the service of authoritarian ideologies by suppressingthe possibility of objective critiques. The proponents of this Zen isnot Buddhism interpretation have termed their scholarly enterpriseCritical Buddhism (hihan Bukky ).

While it was the hyperbole of Critical Buddhism that earned it itsinitial notoriety, its true signicance lies in the fact that it represents

the rst time that Japanese Buddhist scholars have applied the samephilological rigor normally reserved for Indian and Tibetan Bud-dhism to their own native Japanese Buddhist traditions. Until now, Japanese Buddhist scholars who chose to write about the Buddhism of their own country have limited themselves mainly to issues of institu-tional history or pious reiterations of their own sectarian doctrines.Those interested in the critical investigation of doctrinal issues havefocused mainly on Indian Buddhism, where their ndings are lesslikely to threaten the status quo. As IENAGA Sabur observed morethan thirty years ago, the afliation of Japanese Buddhist universities with sectarian authorities, places severe limitations, conscious orunconscious, on academic freedom (1965, pp. 3031; see also Y UASA 1982). Investigations of the validity of the teachings of JapaneseBuddhism have been taboo, something not suitable for polite academicdiscussion.

Hakamaya and Matsumoto began their academic careers withresearch on Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, then used the doctrinalconcepts they had studied to critique Japanese Buddhism (for anexcellent overview, see S WANSON1993). Signicantly, they have not lim-ited their critiques to formal dogma, but have widened them toinclude Japanese class consciousness and social discrimination, theemperor system, the lack of open public debate in Japanese life,nativist theories of Japanese culture, Japanese attitudes toward nature,and the animistic basis of Shinto religious practices. In short, they



20/27

have used nonsectarian Buddhist theory to problematize the rolesplayed by Japanese Buddhism across a wide spectrum of cultural phe-

nomena. On rst glance Critical Buddhism seems to have changedthe rules of Japanese academic discourse.On second glance, one must conclude that things are not always

what they seem. Viewed within the context of the St legacy of socialdiscrimination, Critical Buddhism assumes a different visage. Its acad-emic assertions can be seen to shield St Zen from charges of pro-moting social oppression and portraying Dgen (12001253), therevered founder of the school, as a friend of the oppressed. To under-

stand how Critical Buddhism serves sectarian aims one must examineits interpretation of Dgen and how this interpretation functions todefend the faith.

Advocates of Critical Buddhism (principally Hakamaya) argue that previous St understandings of Dgens teachings, especially thoseinterpretations based on the seventy-ve fascicle version of DgensShbgenz Q , are wrong. Hakamaya portrays Dgen as one of the very few Japanese Buddhists who actually understood the true

principles of Buddhism and critiqued the kinds of false doctrines(such as hongaku shis ) that foster social discrimination. Dgens cri-tiques appear primarily in his later (and, Hakamaya would say, moremature) works, such as an unnished twelve-fascicle series of essays.Hakamaya argues that this twelve-fascicle series must be interpretedon its own terms as an independent work that supersedes Dgens ear-lier Shbgenz . It is because subsequent St teachers ignored this work that they fell into the same errors as other Japanese Buddhists(see HEINE 1994).

It is only natural for members of a religious tradition to look totheir spiritual roots for answers to current problems, so one can hardly fault the efforts of St scholars to nd in Dgens teachings elementsrelevant to the issue of social discrimination. Even if he accomplishednothing else, Hakamaya certainly breathed new life into tradition-bound Dgen studies. He generated a restorm of reactions, openednew avenues of inquiry, and raised important new issues. But at thesame time it is possible to question, as Peter GREGORY did in a differ-ent context, whether Matsumotos and Hakamayas criticism is criti-cal enough (1994, p. 195). As Gregory points out, Critical Buddhismdisplays little critical awareness of its own historical context or of the ways that it serves sectarian ideology (p. 153). This point becomes very clear on reading transcripts of Confess and Denounce Assembliesorganized by the Buraku Liberation League against St. Leaguespokesmen attack not just individual acts of discrimination but also



21/27

basic St social attitudes, charging that the roots of later St institu-tional abuses must be traced back to Dgen. In their view the St

founder lacked the social vision of other contemporaneous Buddhist leaders: Hnen (11331212), who preached to all classes of society,including outcastes; Shinran (11731263), who ministered to butch-ers; Nichiren (12221282), who referred to himself as a son of asendara ; Eison (12011290) and Nish (12171303), who organizedcampaigns to help lepers and people of nonhuman ( hinin ) status.Liberation League spokesmen ask what Dgen did for outcastes.Traditional St biographies of Dgen always stress his relationships

with aristocrats and upper-level warriors. Dgens writings mentionsendara (e.g., KUBO, ed. 19691970, 2, p. 682), but only in the con-text of quotations from Buddhist scriptures; Dgen lets it pass without comment. Dgen never mentions preaching to outcastes, working torelieve their suffering, or denouncing the social discrimination they face. To make matters worse, in some published editions of Dgens writings the term sendara is glossed with the pejorative Japanese wordfor outcastes, eta (which is now taboo in polite society). Liberation

League spokesmen cite this evidence to suggest that from its begin-ning the entire social culture of St Zen rests on an acceptance of anoppressive structure of class privilege.

Immediately following the Machida affair St leaders lacked aneffective response to this line of attack. Today they turn to the asser-tions of Critical Buddhism in an effort to frame the argument in morefavorable terms. They will say, for example, that other Buddhist lead-ers may have had closer contact with lower-level social groups, but they failed to fundamentally critique the false doctrines that harmedoutcastes. Dgen might have lacked the opportunity or inuence tohelp outcaste communities of his time, but he repudiated the kinds of false Buddhism that continue to harm outcastes today. Dgen has not always been properly understood, but his true teachings support thesocial equality that outcastes seek (e.g., STSH JINKEN Y GO SUISHINHONBU 1993b, pp. 914).12

In this way Critical Buddhism joins the long history of St sectarianstudies (shgaku ; ) in presenting an idealized image of Dgen (or,


12 It is not surprising that Hakamaya was one of the rst St scholars sent by the head-quarters to lecture at the Buraku Liberation League Research Center, where in 1985 hespoke about the origins of social discrimination in Japanese Buddhism (S TSH JINKEN Y GO SUISHIN HONBU, ed. 1994a, p. 44). It should be noted, however, that Hakamaya andMatsumoto cannot be held responsible for the ways that St leaders have used the inter-pretations of Critical Buddhism for sectarian purposes, many of which they no doubt disap-prove. Recently it has been reported that Hakamaya renounced his St ordination becauseof friction over this and other issues.


22/27

better, Dgen Zen) unconnected to St institutions or even to tradi-tional St teachings about Dgen. This idealized Dgen stands out-

side of his own historical context and social setting, beyond criticism.Individual St teachers or individual St temples might be wrong,but the essence of St (i.e., Dgen) is always right. Instead of provid-ing an agenda for the modern social reform of institutional Bud-dhism (HEINE 1994, p. 68), Critical Buddhism provides a convenient shield for the forces of institutional conservatism. To the extent that its critiques of Japanese Buddhism and Japanese culture continue toserve this type of sectarian agenda, Critical Buddhism remains

trapped in the Dgen-centric mini-world of St sectarian studies.Unless Critical Buddhism can escape Dgens ideological gravity it isdoubtful if after the initial excitement it will have much lastinginuence. That would be a major disappointment. For while thenature of St institutional reform involves many debatable issues,there is no doubt that the truly critical study of Japanese Buddhism by Japanese (and Western) scholars is sorely needed.

REFERENCES

A RAIKen 1985 Meiji ik no shky tsei g P u ; j . Shky to sabetsu

; o 2. Tokyo: Stsh Shmuch.BODIFORD, William M.

1993 St Zen in Medieval Japan . Studies in East Asian Buddhism 8.

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.BURAKUMONDAI K ENKYSHOH % , ed.1978 Burakushi no kenky: Zen kindaihen H % t u 2 C .

Kyoto: Buraku Mondai Kenkysho.1989 Buraku kaihshi: Netsu to hikari H % m t o M , vol. 3. Osaka:

Buraku Mondai Kenkysho.DE V OS, George and Hiroshi W AGATSUMA

1966a Group solidarity and individual mobility. In DE V OS and W AGA -TSUMA , eds., pp. 24157.

1966b Introduction. In D E V OS and W AGATSUMA , eds.DE V OS, George and Hiroshi W AGATSUMA , eds.

1966 Japans Invisible Race: Caste in Culture and Personality . Berkeley:University of California Press.

GREGORY , Peter N.1994 Tsung-mi and the problem of Hongaku shis. Komazawa

Daigaku Zen kenkysho nenp 5: 200151 (from back).



23/27

H AKAMAYA Noriaki $ 1989 Hongaku shis hihan ` | . Tokyo: Daiz Shuppan.

1990 Hihan Bukky | [ . Tokyo: Daiz Shuppan.1992 Dgen to Bukky o [ . Tokyo: Daiz Shuppan.

H AYASHIChikara n j1985 Watakushi to buraku to shky o H % o ; . Shky to sabetsu 4.

Tokyo: Stsh Shmuch.HEINE, Steven

1994 Critical Buddhism (Hihan Bukky ) and the debate concerningthe 75-fascicle and 12-fascicleShbgenz texts. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 21: 3772.

HIROSE Rykb d e1988 Zensh chih tenkaishi no kenky 7 ; G t u . Tokyo:

Yoshikawa Kbunkan.HOMER , Jack A., ed.

1980 Religion in the Struggle for World Community: Unabridged Proceedings of the Third World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP III), Prince-

ton, New Jersey, 29 August to 7 September 1979 . New York: WCRP.IENAGA Sabur1965 Japans modernization and Buddhism. Contemporary Religions in

Japan 6/1: 141.IGETA Midori m

1993 Josei to jinken: Kokusaika, Stsh, shmuch, josei o ^ ! 5 , g ; , ; Y z , . Shky to jinken ; o ^ 1. Tokyo:Stsh Shmuch.

ISHIKAWA Rikizan j [1984 Chsei Stsh kirikami no bunrui shiron, 4: Stsh ni okeru

sabetsu kirikami hassei no yurai ni tsuite _ g ; u _ { 4g ; rPW n u rkJm . Komazawa Daigaku Bukky gakubu ronsh 15: 15369.

1995 Dgen gaku no ima u . Kygaku to sabetsu2. Tokyo:Stsh Shmuch.

K ASUGA Yhr

1994 Hana wa aijaku ni chiri, kusa wa kiken ni ouru T v ( r _ , u vm r L . Kygaku to sabetsu 1. Tokyo: Stsh Shmuch.

K AWAHASHI, Noriko1995 Jizoku (priests wives) in St Zen Buddhism: An ambiguous

category. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 22: 16183.K OBAYASHIDaiji n

1987 Sabetsu kaimy no rekishi w e u t . Tokyo: Ysankaku.



24/27

K OBAYASHIShigeru n w et al., eds.1991 Burakushi ygo jiten H % t B . Revised edition. Tokyo:

Kashiwa Shob. (original in 1985)K OMORI Tatsukuni I P 1985 Shutaiteki Bukkysha no michi [ u . Shky to sabetsu 3.

Tokyo: Stsh Shmuch.L A FLEUR , William R.

1992 Liquid Life: Abortion and Buddhism in Japan . Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

M ACHIDA Muneo , ; &1984 Daisankai sekai shkysha heiwa kaigi ni okeru sabetsu hatsugen ni

tsuite 3n ; r l rPW n rkJm . Tokyo:Stsh Shmuch.

M ATSUMOTO Shir t 1989 Engi to k: Nyoraiz shis hihan | o W ` | . Tokyo:

Daiz Shuppan.1994 Zen shis no hihanteki kenky 7 ` u | . Tokyo: Daiz

Shuppan.MIYOSHIShichir X Y s

1980 Hisabetsu buraku no keisei to tenkai H % u o . Tokyo:Kashiwa Shob.

MORIOKA , Kiyomi1975 Religion in Changing Japanese Society . Tokyo: University of Tokyo

Press.

MURAKOSHI, H. and I. R. Y OSHINO1977 The Invisible Visible Minority . Osaka: Buraku Kaih Kenkysho.

N AGAHARA , Keiji1979 The medieval origins of the eta-hinin . Yamamura Kz, trans.,

Journal of Japanese Studies 5/2: 385403.N AMIHIRA Emiko # r {

1985 Kegare . Minzoku Shky Series. Tokyo: Tkyd.

N ARAMOTOTatsuya d

, ed.1954 Buraku no rekishi to kaih und H % u t o m { . Kyoto:Buraku Mondai Kenkysho.

NINOMIYA , Shigeaki1933 An inquiry concerning the origin, development, and present

situation of the eta in relation to the history of social classes in Japan. Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan 2d series, 10:47154.



25/27

NORBECK , Edward1966 Little-known minority groups of Japan. In DE V OS and W AGA -

TSUMA , eds., pp. 18399.KUBO Dsh J , ed.19691970 Dgen zenji zensh , 6 T . Tokyo: Chikuma Shob.

NISHI Shgi 1987 Jinken mondai to shkysha no shimei ^ o ; u q f .

Sabetsu to jinken 6. Tokyo: Stsh Shmuch.PRICE, John

1966 A history of the outcaste: Untouchability in Japan. In DE V OSand W AGATSUMA , eds., pp. 630.

R EADER , Ian1985 Transformations and changes in the teachings of the St Zen

Buddhist sect. Japanese Religions 14/1: 2848.1986 Zazenless Zen? The position of zazen in institutional Zen

Buddhism. Japanese Religions 14/3: 727.S ABOURET, Jean-Franois

1983 Lautre Japon: Les burakumin . Paris: La Dcouverte-Maspero.S AKURAIShy C m D

1987 Shky girei to sabetsu: Gyji kihan kaitei ni tsuite ; o C y Dy rkJm . Shky to sabetsu 6. Tokyo: StshShmuch.

SHIMAZAKI, Tson1974 The Broken Commandment , trans. Kenneth Strong (originally

Hakai & w , 1906). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

STSH JINKEN Y GO SUISHIN HONBU g ; ^ D uZ H , ed.1988a Ashiki gron kokufuku no tame ni A ^S % B R ufr . Shky

to sabetsu 7. Tokyo: Stsh Shmuch.1988b Zenmon shskun o yomu A 7 R r B . Shky to sabetsu 8.

Tokyo: Stsh Shmuch.1993a G ni tsuite: Dgen zenji no ningenkan to buraku kaih

A% BrkJm , u ^ D? o H % m . Shky to sabetsu 9.Tokyo: Stsh Shmuch.

1993b Tochigi-ken shmusho kannai jshoku sabetsu hatsugen jiken nitsuite ; Y 5 W4 n rkJm . Jinken jnaru 16.

1993c Stsh kaigai kaiky dendshi kaish ni tsuite Ag ; } ) t Bn 9 rkJm . Shky to jinken 3. Tokyo: StshShmuch.

1994a (1992) Jinken, sabetsu mondai ni kakawaru Stsh no kihonteki kadai ^ , r F g ; u _ W . Revised edition. Tokyo:Stsh Shmuch.



26/27

1994b Sabetsu kaimy no kaisei ni tsuite w e u y rkJm . Tokyo:Stsh Shmuch.

STSH SHMUCHg ;; Y z

, ed.1982 Buraku kaih dmei no mshiire ni taisuru Stsh no kaitsho H % m | h u M ^ r ` g ; u n g . Tokyo: StshShmuch.

1983 Stsh zensho g ; 6 . Vol. 18, Shi B k . Tokyo: StshShmuch. (originally published in 1938; revised edition 1973)

1992 Sabetsugo o kangaeru gaidobukku B N . Tokyo:Stsh Shmuch.

STSH SHMUCH K YGAKUBUg ;; Y z H , ed.1988 (Shwa shtei) Stsh gyji kihan ( @ ) g ; y .

Tokyo: Stsh Shmuch.SUGIMOTO Shunry p P

1982 Ztei Tj shitsunai kirikami narabi ni sanwa no kenky u zr Z u . Tokyo: Stsh Shmuch. (1938; revisededition 1973)

S WANSON, Paul L.1993 Zen is not Buddhism: Recent Japanese critiques of Buddha-nature. Numen 40: 11549.

T AKEMI, Momoko1983 Menstruation sutra belief in Japan. Japanese Journal of Religious

Studies 10: 22946.T AMAMUROFumio * k

1980 Edo bakufu no shky tsei s 1 , u ; j . Nihonjin no kd to shis ^ u { o ` 16. Tokyo: Hyronsha.

1985 Edoki no shky tsei s k u ; j . Shky to sabetsu 1. Tokyo:Stsh Shmuch.

1986 Edoki no shky tsei 2 . Shky to sabetsu 5. Tokyo: StshShmuch.

T AYLOR , John B. and Gnther G EBHARDT, eds.1986 Religions for Human Dignity and World Peace: Unabridged

Proceedings of the Fourth World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP IV), Nairobi, Kenya, 23-31 August, 1984 . Geneva: WCRP.TOMONAGA Kenz X

1989 Gendai no buraku mondai u H % . In BURAKU MONDAIK ENKYSHO1989, pp. 154312.

TOTTEN, George O. and Hiroshi W AGATSUMA 1966 Emancipation: Growth and transformation of a political move-

ment. In D E V OS and W AGATSUMA , eds., pp. 3367.



27/27

TSUYUNOShinji G 1993 Jibun no jinsei, jibun ga shuyaku: Shin-chan no hanseiki _ u ^ ,

_ R

G hu z. Shky to jinken 2. Tokyo: StshShmuch.

UCHINO, Kumiko1983 The status elevation process of St sect nuns in modern Japan.

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 10: 17794. W AGATSUMA , Hiroshi and George D E V OS

1966 The ecology of special buraku. In DE V OS and W AGATSUMA , eds.,pp. 11228.

1967 The outcaste tradition in modern Japan: A problem in socialself-identity. In Aspects of Social Change in Modern Japan , R. P.Dore, ed., pp. 373407. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

W ERBLOWSKY , R. J. Zwi1991 Mizuko kuy : Notulae on the most important New Religion of

Japan. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 18: 295354. Y UASA Yasuo _

1982 Nihon shisshi ni okeru Bukky kenky no arikata o megutte ` t r W [ uH Vjm . Ty gakujutsu kenky 21/1: 1941.


Zen and Religious Prejudice

Documents

Transcript of Zen and Religious Prejudice