mohr michel - japanese zen schools and the transition to meiji

8/12/2019 Mohr Michel - Japanese Zen Schools and the Transition to Meiji

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mohr-michel-japanese-zen-schools-and-the-transition-to-meiji 1/47

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1998 25/ 1-2

Japanese Zen Schools and the Transition to Meiji A Plurality of Responses in the Nineteenth Century

Michel M o h r

This article scrutinizes the lives of specific figures affiliated with the three main Zen traditions; it presents firsthand information on their activities from the end of the Tokugawa period through the first decades of the Meiji era. Changes in the political structure and the ensuing economic or social transformations surprisingly did not fundamentally alter the way these Buddhists apprehended their respective legacies. Official pressure encouraged them to put more emphasis on the education of commoners and they shared the global trend to give more importance to lay supporters. The content of their teachings, however, primarily appears to reflect what this paper calls “the shrouded continuity” between the Tokugawa and Meiji eras. The teachers and laypersons examined here also illustrate the diversity that pervaded Meiji Buddhism despite the new government’s efforts to centralize all Buddhist institutions; they further bear testimony to the fact that the mutual influence among representatives of different traditions often

went beyond artificial sectarian boundaries.

A l t h o u g h the p o l i t ic a l tr ans f o r m ations and conf licts tha t mark ed the Meiji Restoration have received much attention, there are still

significant gaps in our knowledge of the evolution of the JapaneseZen schools during the nineteenth century. This lacuna is especiallyappare nt when we ex amine the last half- century of the T okugaw aper iod (the inter val between 1817 and 18 67)which is still often disregarded in standard Buddhist scholarship. While the study of Buddhistfigures directly involved in the political sphere and the study of institutional history are expanding, our knowledge of developments in theZen schools remains fragmentary.

A better know ledge of this tr ansitional stage of history nevertheless

appears vital to understanding the process by which today’s institutions were shaped and, above all, the way religious practice is still conceived in Japanese monasteries. My attempt to explore this area is also



168 Japanese Jour nal of Religious Studies 25/ 1-2

motivated by the wish to understand the extent to which, and the reasons why, the diversity that characterized the Tokugawa and Meiji ZenBuddhist world has been largely forgotten, or perhaps even deliber

ately concealed.Fr om the be g inning of the T okugaw a pe r iod even thoug h the

immediate priorities of the religious policies of the government sometimes changed, they remained guided by two basic objectives: centralizing and controlling the clergy. These objectives were also linked withvarious attempts to use religion to legitimize the Bakufu’s own existencethe so- called T okugawa ideology . In this respect, the self- proclaimed“new” Meiji government had the same goal as the deposed Bakufu.Ex cept for the first years of anti- Buddhist movements that went fur

ther than T okugawa campaigns, the Meiji g ove rnment merely went onenforcing more radically policies that had been pursued for two hundred fifty years and putting more emphasis on the idea of the“nation.”

This is not to deny the significance of exceptions, such as theissuance in 1872 of a law encouraging priests to eat meat and toma r r y ~ a clear atte mpt to undermine the clergy’s credibility. As hasoften been argued, the religious policies implemented by the Meijigovernment during its first years are perhaps best characterized by a

lack o f consistency and by short- sighted measures that reflected thepolitical immaturity of the new oligarchs. I would, nevertheless, suggest that it is possible to see the change of r eg ime as “a shrouded con-tinuity.

To be sure, we now begin to realize to what extent today’s historiography has been “taken in ” by the propaganda o f the pro- imperial faction, which the latter developed most effectively between the 1860sand 1890s.1The weight usually put on economic history also tends toobscure the fact that the “industrial revolution” did not necessarily

have a great impact on the way Meiji Buddhists viewed themselves.The scope of this article will be limited to presenting a cross section

of religious figures affiliated with Zen schools, particularly those whoexperienced the transition from the late Tokugawa period to the earlyMeiji and left traces o f their thought. T hough I shall concentratemainly on the way these figures apprehe nded their own t ime I shallalso prov ide some biog raphical inf or ma tion since I believe there isstill an enormous need for raw data and specific information.

I shall first present an outline of the lives and activities or three

priests, one each from the Soto, Obaku, and Rinzai denominations:

1 See in particul ar “the Me iji bias” discussed by T o t ma n (1980 pp. 558- 64).



M o h r Japanese Zen Schools 169

Teizan Sokuichi 1805- 1892) K orin Yosho 1835-1902) andT6shiiZenchii Nantenb6 1839- 1925).2This

will be rollow ed by a shor t section on the lay or actitioner Hirats uka

Raicho 1886- 1971) and her interactions with Zen teachers.Researchers at tempting to f ind sources emanating- fr om outside theclergy usually face major difficulties, so the testimony of HiratsukaRaicho represents a rare exception and allows us to learn more aboutthe life of Nantenbo. The outline review of these four figures will beunevenly balanced, since the range and the quality of the sources areof an unev en character.

The Zen teachers who experienced the transition from the Toku-eawa regime to the Meiji government responded in diverse ways to

the new challenges and their reactions s ometimes var ied or even contradicted one another within a single lineage. An example of this w ould be the Engaku- ji line, widely conside red to have been instrumental in promoting a certain awareness of the outside world. Thistendency became conspicuous with Kogaku Soen (Shaku1860- 1919) and his journey s abroad, but before him the same lineagealso cont r ibuted to a suspicious att itude toward non- Asian re ligions.For ex ample, K og ak u5s teacher, Kosen Soon (Imakita !

18lb- 1892), saw Confucianism and Shinto as compatible with Buddhism

but utterly rejected Christianity and its doctrine of creation as “absurdex planations and deluding words” (gusetsu w i I Suzuki 1992p. 100; Nakamura and Takeda 1982 p. 64).

Before we examine individual biographies, let me say a word aboutthe institutional process that led to the establishment of the threedeno mina tions know n today as Zen schools. T he so- called “Zenschool,” considered as one single homogeneous entity, actuallyappears to be largely a fabrication of early Meiji politicians. It derivesin particular from the establishment in June 1873 of a “chief abbotsystem” (kanchdsei Takenuki 1989 p. 283). The new government, willing to simplify the control over religious institutions, hadpromuleated the principle that each Buddhist sect should have a topleader, called “chief abbot of doctrinal instructors” (kydddshoku kanchd

. For a short while (between 1873 and 1874) this policy ofconsolidating the authority and reducing the intermediaries led tothe three traditions Soto, Rinzai, and Obaku being treated as a singleentity labeled the Zen Sect (Zemhic

9 _

Since writing an article on N antenbo (M o h r 19 95 ) I have discovered a numbe r o f newfacts about his life while conduc ting temple surveys. For the r eading o f N an te nbo ^ surname{azana I chose “TdslrQfo llo w ing Nakaha ra (1985, p. 12 0), a lthoug h it is also co mm on lyr ea d “T 6 j i ”




T he first chief abbot appointed accor ding to this system was TekisuiGiboku Yuri 1821- 1899). Accor ding to this system, thechief abbot was elected for one year and was replaced every 31 March.

T ekisui5s successor was his colleag ue, the Shokoku- ji abbot DokuonJoshu Og ino 1819- 1895) who was follow ed by a Sotorepresentative, the Eihei- ji abbot Kankei Mitsuun (Hosoya

later chang ed to K uga 1817-1884 ZGD p. 244c). Towardthe end of Kankei s mandate, the Shinto shrine and the lecture hall ofthe Daikyo- in burned on 31 December 1873 (Kawaguchi 1982 p. 57).In the r eor g aniza t ion tha t fo llowed, the Minis t ry of Doctr ine(Kyobusho K decided to allow the splitting of Soto and Rinzaidenominations. This event is recorded in Soto arcnives through a

notification dated 19 February 1874 while the K y obusho^ docume ntbears the date 22 February (Kawaguchi 1982, p. 57; Takenuki 1989,p. 283). At this staee the Obaku tradition was officially considered“affixed” (gdfu ) to the Rinzai school, ana it eained the status ofan independent school only in 1876 (ZGD, p. 123d).

Teizan Sokuichi and the Soto School

Our main source oi information on leizan Sokuichi (Mizuno

then Shir atori 1805- 1892)3is K awag uchi Kofu whohas published an extensive monog raph (19 82) follow ed by a thoroughstudy (1985) of T eizan’s spiritual ancestor, Fugai Ho nk o t(1779- 1847 ).4 K aw ag uchi’s meticulous w ork begins w ith a detailedbiog raphy of Teizan (pp. 9- 123) a study of his disciples (pp. 127- 95),and a description oi the temples he reconstructed (pp. 201-18). Thenex t massive section of K aw ag uchi’s book describes le iz a n’s worksand the texts he edited, adding photographic reproductions and transcr iptions of the major sources, incl uding T eizan’s sayings, Tenrai

yoroku (pp. 221- 537). T he last par t deals with T eizan and hisdisciples calligraphy (pp. 541- 95).

W itho ut K aw ag uchi5s v olume, I doub t I w ould hav e ha d access to necessary documents; to my knowledge, Kawaeuchi is practically the

3For the re ading o f T eizan’s surname I follow ed NBJ, p. 390a- b, but it may also be read

“T eisan,

4 Fugai Honk o (1779- 1847) should not be confused with the famous Soto priest andpainter Fugai Ekun kfe (1568- 1654 ), especially since Ho nk o was also a gifted calligra

pher (Kawaguchi 1993, p. 567). Concerning Honko, ms ordination name should accuratelybe w ritten Honko rather than but the s econd writing of his na me has beco me customary (Kaw aguchi 1993, p. 566). T he unconve ntional life of Ek un is depicted in Addiss1986; see also the entry in ZGD, p. 94a.




only author who deals with Teizan.5The four articles mentioned inthe bibliography Sotoshu kankei bunken mokuroku areall by him and are incorporated into this book (SBM up. 316- /).

Since Kofu is the son of Kawaeuchi Komyo the 34th abbot ofH o ji - j i le iz a n 5s temple , he was in the best pos ition to publish archival material related to his predecessor. This means, however,that he incurs the inevitable risk o f lac King distance f rom his subject.1 his is illustrated by a passage in the foreword by his father:

A mong masters in [ this temple ’s] patr iarchal history (rekidai soshi Rev erend T eizan is to be note d as the g reatreviver (daichuko of this temple and as one of theinsightful priests (tesso ) of the Meiji Soto school.

(Kawaguchi 1982 p. 5)Kawaguchi’s position as associate abbot {fukujushoku IJ o f Hoji- ji grants him guardianship of the Teizan documents and Kawaguchi displays little interest in what happened outside the walls of the Sotoschool. Kawaguchi’s scholarship is, nevertheless, amazing, and hisposition at the library of Aicm Gakuin University has probably contributed to the thoroughness of his survey. With these prefatoryremarks on the sources and their reliability, let us look at Teizan’sbiosrraphy, in particular his role during the transition from Tokugawato Meiji.

Personal Account of leizan

A ltho ug h the re is some que stion abo ut the ex act date of T eizan’sbirth,6 the Tenrai yoroku records that he was born on 27 February 1805 (second year of the Bunk a era, first month, twenty- eightday),7in the village of Inokoishi in present- day Nagoya lty(Kawaguchi 1982 p. 9). His father ’s name was Mizuno Isoshichiro

]c and T eizan lost his mother when he was seven years old(aee acc ording to the t r aditiona l count) .8 T ms probably was one

5The few exceptions are short entries in dictionaries and local histories of Nagoya, men

tioned by K awaguchi himself (1982, p. 5- 6).Co nce rning these questions of the date o f T eizan’s birth and his father ’s real name , see

K a w a g u c h i 1982, pp. 9- 12. T he name of his father is wr ongly given as Kikuta Motok ichi in NBJ , p. 390a- b.

Concerning the precise dates given here, one may recall that the lunar calendar wasabolished and the Gregorian calendar introduced only in Meiji 5, when the third day of the

twelfth month was declared to be 1 January of Meiji 6 (1873). Dates prior to 1 January 1873have therefor e been conver ted to their Wester n equiva lent.T o facilitate checking the accuracyof this conversion the Japanese nengo are given in parentheses for dates before 1873.

A ccording to the re g is te r o f Ges s nin- ji T eizan’s mother , whose posthumous




impo rt ant factor that contr ibuted to his or dinatio n at Hoji- ji w hen he was eleven.

A fter the usual years of appr entices hip, T eizan began his pilg r im

age, studying with most of the leading Soto teachers of his time. Heremained especially close to Kosen Mujaku 1775-1839)9fora number of year, following him to Nagasaki when he was appointedto Kotai- ji in 1828 ( K a w a g u c h i 1982 p. 17). This temple alreadyhad a pec uliar aura o f pre stiee since Dok uan G enk o(1630- 1698) had resided there as abbot ana it had once been thefirst- ranking (ZwYto S6to temple in Nagasaki (ZGD, p. 318b). Tounder s tand the or ig inality of Dok uan G enk o5s legacy, one has to recallthat he had been a disciple of the Chinese teacher Daozhe Chaoyuan

J. Doja Chogen, 1602- 1662 OBJ , p. 263a- b), a fo re runnerof the tradition that later came to be known as the “Obaku school.” A fter a pe r io d dur ing w hich Dok ua n coll abor ated w ith ManzanDohaku FB 163 b- l7l5 ) in appealing to the Bakufu to reformthe misuse of Dharma succession practices in Soto lineages, he cameto be reg arded by Ma nzan5s successors as 4dev iationist.5,10 T he ratherunorthodox character of Do k uan5s er udition and o f his unders tanding of Dharma succession was still certainly present in everyone’smemory when Teizan followed Kosen to Nagasaki.

T eizan’s teacher Kosen M ujaku is partic ularly know n for hisdetailed commentary Shobo genzo shoten zokucho . This

work represents a sum of tr aditional scholar ship that aims at synthesizing previous comments on D6 g en5s lifework, an endeavor comparedto the marten fur {ten In or kuroten also called furuki, a “sable ”that used to decorate crowns in ancient China. The “crown” is an allusion to the legacy of the eighteenth century and in particular to the

work of Menzan Zuiho 1683- 1769): Shobo genzo shotenroku .

A fter the de ath of Kos en Mujak u, T eizan s tudie d un de r FugraiHonko a painte r a nd lea rned teacher who is known in the

West for his Tetteki tosui a text translated into English as The Iron Flute (Senzaki and McCandless 19 64).11 T his koan collection had been f irst compile d by Fueai5s master, Genro Or y u I (Murakami

name is Kanko Myosetsu Daishi died on 12 Ja nuary 1812 (eig hth year of theB unka era, eleventh mo nth, twenty- eight day) (K a w a g u c h i 1982: 10).

Kosen died on 31 Januar y 1839 (ninth year of the T enpo era, twelfth month, seventeenth day) (K a w a g u c h i 1982, p . 17).

10 On this page of the Soto history see Mohr (1994 pp. 3 58- 63), which discusses Bo dford (1991), while Shibe focuses on the criticism directed at Dokuan (1995).T he orig inal title means “T he iron flute blown upside dow n.” Tetteki tosui is

found in Sotoshu zms/io : Juko .




1720- 1813) and Fugai added his own “capping phrases” {jakugo to the text. Finally, Senzaki Nyogen 1876—1958) chose

this text as an introduction to Zen Buddhism for ms American stu

dents, inserting' explanations and removing most of the original comments by Genr o and Fugai.12

Evidence concerning the disciple relationship that Teizan established with Fugai is provided by the sayines of Fueai, Ushakurd kokanroku I w hich co nta in two poems addressed to T eizan( K a w a g u c h i 1982 p. 17). This early influence on Teizan is relevant tounderstanding his inclination toward textual study. The imprintreceived from the scholarly mood peculiar to the style of Fueai, a lineage stemming from Tenkei Denson (1648- 1736),13 one of the

other main discordant voices in the Soto clergy, indicates that duringthe Meiji period some important Soto thinkers had inherited a tradition quite independent from the dominant Tokugawa lineages comingfr om Manzan and Me nzan.14 A lthough the interlocking of pers onalrelations and the nexus oi influences these priests received eoes farbeyond simplistic lineaee charts, it is useful to look at the traditionalschemes of succession. The following tables rely on K a w a g u c h i (1993,p. 567) and Yanagida (1989 p. 106); dates are partially taken from entries in the ZGD.

Tenkei Denson 1648-1736)

Shozan Monko d.1776)

Genro Oryu 1720-1813)

Fiigai Honk6 1779-1847)

figure 1.Fugai Honko^ lineage

12 One of Senzaki?s most remarkable utterances was, “This place belongs neither to Rinzai nor Soto, and this monk never claimed to be a teacher” (Se n z a k i 1964, p. 33). T he lifeand deeds ot Senzaki are mentioned in several publications, such as Sh i m a n o (1981), T a d A (1990), B e s s e r m a n and St e g er (1991), and Fie l d s (1992) but, to the best of my knowledge,no academic work does a systematic study oi his life.

13 . # A n abr idg ed lineasre char t f rom T enk ei to im g a i’s disciple is g iv en in K a w a g u c h i

(1993, p. 567). Kawaguchi further mentions the major figures who were affiliated with thelineag e o f Fug ai and states that “the style o f Fusrai was the do mi na nt style in the S oto schoolof Meiji” (1993 p. 568).

In that respect, I must qualify the statement made in an earlier article, where I said

that “S6t6 orthodoxy grew stronger after Menzan, and few discordant voices have appearedin that lineage since the nineteenth century” (M o h r 1994, p. 364). A lthoug h T eizan couldhardly be seen as a “discordant voice,” he cannot be considered a spokesman of Menzanand his followers, either.




Toku6 Ry6k6 1649-1709)

rDaik6Jakush6| 1660-1726)

n

K6gai Zenkoku 1671-1743)

Raishu Imoku 1691-1757)I

Dainin Kokusen 1723-1791)I1

Fukan Y€id6 1724-1787)1

Daigu Rydkan 1758-1831)

1

Daigi Kakudo n.d.)1

K6sen Mujaku 1775-1839)1

Daisen Taisho n.d.)

Teizan Sokuichi 1805-1892)

Fisrure 2. T eizan’s lineage

In respect to the marginal imprints he received, the Dharma transmission given by Daisen Taisho 7 (Horita n.d.) to Teizan in1833 adds a supplementary element to the originality of ms lineage(Kawaguchi 1993 p. 1 8). Daise n was the successor o f K osen Muja k u, a descendant in the line of Tokuo Ryoko 164 9- 17 09) ateacher known for his close relationships with Obak u priests.15 It is thesame tradition emphasizing Chinese learnine that was also transmitted to Daigu Ryokan 1758- 1831). T echnically speaking, thisbranch is called Meihoha 16 and goes back to Meiho Sotetsu

1277—135 0) a successor of K eizanJ 6kin 1268- 1325).If we now look at the transitional period of the Restoration, we seethat the Eihei- ji officials have been very pr ompt in r eacting to thepolitical shift. As early as the second month of 1868 they sent to thegovernment a “proposal for reforms in the sectarian preseciptions”

15 T okuo Ryoko consul ted Muan X ingto ng (J. Mok uan Shoto 1611- 1684),Tetsugen Doko 1630- 1682) and Duda ng Xing ying J. Dokutan Shokei1628- 1706) before be coming affiliated w ith the S oto school, as it appears in his biography:Seirai Tokuo Kb osho nenpu STZ: Shiden 2 p. 3 8 1 ).See also Y anagida(1989 pp. 99 ,106) and Y oshida (1993 pp. 186-187). Recent articles have shown the problems linked with the integration o f Tok uo within the Soto frame (Shibe 1993 and 1994).

16 For details o n this branch see ZG D p. 1218c- d and Bo d if o r d (1993, p. 100- 107)




(shusei kaikaku an w hich propos ed the a bolition of theregistrar (sdroku system established in 162917 and the reunif icationof the Soto s chool with Eihei- ji as the only head temple (sohonzan

K a w a g u c h i 1982 p. 44). This proposal naturally reawakenedthe old rivalry betwee n Soji- ji and Eihei- ji, a nd fierce oppos ition f ro m the Soji- ji side soon appeare d.

It is in this context of heightened debates that the public activity ofT eizan becomes manifes t. Des pite Soji- ji protests, the g ov er nment s ent to Eihei- ji an official notification calling for a mee ting that was todecide how to implement the proposed reforms. This “conference ofeminent priests” (sekitoku kaigi ) opened on 15 November(Meiji 1.10.2) in K yoto.18 Discussions almost broke down when Seisetsu

Sesso Miyaji then Otor i 1814- 1904) announced theproposals made by the government. He met particularly strong opposition from an Eihei- ji officer called Zesan who was then supported by the chief abbot of Eihei- ji, Gaun Dor y u I (1797- 1871).leizan was among the few priests who ravored comDromise with the government policies and agreed with the necessi ty of reforms( K a w a g u c h i 1982 p. 45). The conference nevertheless ended withoutany decision being taken. Details of these discussions are too complicated to be related here, but one of their final results was to f ind two

years later , a semblance of a solution that w ould at least take intoaccount the claims for independence made by Soji-ji. On 21 August 1870 (Meiji 3.7.25), Sengai Ekido Morotake 1805- 1879)

was appointed by imper ia l or de r (chokumei ) “first independentabbot o f S6ji- ji” (Sojiji dokuju kse KohO 1927 p. 84).

By 3 J une 1872 (Meiji 5.4.28), when the “T hree tenets of teaching”(Sanjo no kydsoku I IJ)19 were promulg ated, the Soto authorit ies

17 . . . .Tms sdroku (or furegashira ) office was first established in J apan at the time o f

A shik ag a Y os himitsu who appointe d S hun ’oku My oha 1311- 1388) to thisposition in 1379 (see C o ll c u t t 1981, pp. 119- 23). During the T okugawa period, a moreelaborate system was established. Within the Soto school it was formulated in response tothe 1612 and 1615 Bak ufu ordinances, taking the for m o f an internal Soto regulation dated1629. A ccor ding to this re gulation, it was decided that three main temples in the K an to area

w ould be at the to p o f the hie ra rc hy ( Tenka daisdroku K anto sankaji Sonei- ]i ( in K onoa a i Shimous a northw est o f present- day Ic hik aw a Chi baprefecture), Ryuon- ] i (in Ogose Musashi, Saitama pre fe ctur e), and Daichu- ji

O hir a mach i Shimo ts uke Ibaraki prefecture) (T akenuki 1989, p. 204).T he conference took place at T ennei- ji the temple of G aun Dor yu

(Murakami * 1797- 1871), the 60 th abbot o f Eihei-ji since 1848 who was then at the top of

the Soto hierarchy (K aw ag uchi 1982, pp. 44- 45). This temple is located in Kyoto, but aninquiry to the present aobot revealed that no document of that time remains.On these three tenets, see K e t e l a a r , w ho transl ates the m as “T hr ee S ta nda rds o f

Instruction” (1990, pp. 106 225).




were adv ocating “active collaboration” in diffusing the official pr opaganda ( K a w a g u c h i 1982 p. 50). A t the grassroots level, however, someof the Soto teachers who were to ex plain how these “perfectly vacuous

conce pts20 should be unders tood ha d a har d time g iv ing ser monsthat would remain consistent with their own Buddhist convictions.Basically, the “Three tenets of teaching” were only advocating reverence for the kami, the country, and the emperor and the court, withthe vague suggestion that the teacher should “illuminate the principleof heaven and the way of man.” Their content was so meager that theyhad to be supplemented in 1873 by “Seventeen themes” containingmore detailed slogans appealing to the sense of civic responsibility. Atany rate Soto priests ex pounding to the plebeians how they should

understand these principles apparently sometimes took liberties ininterpreting them.

For ex ample, K ankei Mits uun, who was promoted “First- rank doctrinal instructor” (daikydsei ]E )21 on 18 J uly 1872 (Meiji 5.6.13 )

went to Izu Peninsula to teach dur ing the same year. O n this occasionhis sermons apparently met a rather skeptical audience. Four listenerslater sent him a letter asking for clarification of his interpretation ofthe three tenets, pointing at contradictions between what he hadtaueht and their understanding of the court’s intentions. Teizan was

entrusted by Kankei with the task of replying to this defiant missiveand refuting its arguments, concerning the first tenet, commandingpeople to “revere the kami and love the nation,” the authors of theletters express doubts concerning Kankei s statement that in foreignlands there were “instances of commoners (tami ) inherit ing theimperial throne (tenshoku ” while this cus tom nev er ex isted inthe Japanese imperial lineasre. The second and harshest point of theirprotest deals with the establishment of Shinto funerals (shinsdsai

. T hey co mplain that the r ejection of ancient rites not only

goes against filial piety but also contravenes the spirit of the threetenets. They even claim that if directives to hold Shinto funerals werenot abandoned or amended the sermons (given by Buddhist clerics)

w ould be utterly useless and would only serve to confuse the people.1 he very system of doctr inal instructors, they add, was conflicting withthe intentions of the court ( K a w a g u c h i 1982, pp. 50- 51). T heir protest

201 borrow this expression from K e t e l a a r (1990 p. 107).The highest grade among “doctrinal instructors” {kydddshoku ) (Kokugo daijiten

p. 674a). The title kyosei seems to be borrow ed from a similar rank in Qing-dynasty China, where the jiaozheng ]E was “the head teacher” (shunin kydkan ) incharge of prefectural schools (shugaku [Daikanwa jiten v o l.5, p. 505b). Acomplete list of the fourteen grades is provided in Kawaguchi (1982, p. 50).




apparently referred here to an allusion Kankei made verbally, but wedo not know the contents of what he said.

T eizan’s response f irst clarifies Kank ei5s intent by giving the contex t

of the mythical emperor Yao who demonstrated his virtue by handing over his title to his minister Shun . T eizan is careful to state thatthis example of a foreign land could not apply to Japan, where “even alittle child knows that the imperial rank (hdso if ca nnot be the lotof subjects (shinmin ’ T eizan rejects the s econd ar g ume nt o f the authors of the letter by s imolv asserting they misunder stood K ank eisex planation. He argues that as long as there is no ming ling betweenShinto and Buddhist funerals everyone is free to choose either rite.Teizan finally blames the authors of the letter for not having grasped

the purpose of the court, which he spells out as being “to regard Shintoand Buddhist clerics as equivalent and [ beloneine to] one single professionw (shinkan soryo isshi K a w a g u c h i 1982p. 51). fhis disputation illustrates the way everyone was speculatingon “the intentions of the court” (choshi whose utterances wereso sparse.

In short, Teizan was a major force in convincine laypersons andother priests to embrace the principles contained in the three tenets.His effor t i s epi tomized by a publ ica t ion dated March 1873“Justifica tion of the T hree T enets” (Sanjo benkai w hich isreported by the Shaji torishirabe ruisan to be the work ofKankei Mitsuun. The same book was simultaneously printed with thesame contents under a different title (Sanjo ryakukai I ) carrying the notation “by the Soto school head temple” (Sotoshu honzan cho

. T here is, however, some suspicion that the book m ig htactually have been printed by the Daikyoin (Great Teaching

A cademy ), using Eihei- jis name ( K a w a g u c h i 1982 p. 53). Whoeverthe issuer, Teizan’s letters show that he was in charge oi distributingthe Sanjo benkai I # to temples in the countryside in his capacity of doctrinal instructor, ex plaining the contents, and collecting moneyfor the publicat ion.22 A manuscr ipt copy o f the Sanjo benkai by Teizanis kept at Hojo- ji, suggesting that T eizan held this publication in greatesteem. Ih is document can be considered a crucial testimony to the

willingness of some of the leading Soto representatives to suppor t thegovernment’s indoctrination policy.

A lt houg h y ie lding to official injunctions or spontaneously try ine toplease the court do not account for all the reactions emerging amongSoto priests, T eizan’s stance seems best characte rized as a zealous

29T his can be see in particular fro m the reports dated 26 September 1873 and 20 J an u

ary 1874 (K a w a g u c h i 1982, pp. 53 56).




commitment to make the best of the government’s strategy while promot ing his sect’s own interests. In the turmoil of this per iod T eizanalso collaborated with representatives of other Buddhist schools in an

attempt to improve the standards of doctrinal instructors. In a letterdated 6 Febr uary 1875 and addressed to the office supervising Eihei- jiand Soji- ji (rydzan kan'in ) he reports the or g anization of a meet ing at the Pure L and te mple Jukyo- in in Nagoya. As aresult oi the consultations held between the representatives of different Buddhist denominations, an agreement was founa m regard toproposing a new way to select the doctrinal instructors. This choice

w ould be delegated to a specialized office, the cons ultation Office ofthe Six Schools [ Rokushu s'dgisho ins tead o f entrusting this

task to each sect. In other words, the candidates would be selected bytheir peers, through the office of a teacher search section {toko kokyu- ka instead of being imposed by the sect’s head temples.Ih is is, of course, not articulated in T eizan’s wr itings, but one can surmise that its objective was the prevention of the nomination of incompetent doctrinal instructors, which was often denounced as a plague.To realize this project, a “pledge” (meiyaku ) was siened by seventeachers belong ing to the Soto, T endai, J odo, Nichire n Rinzai, andShingon denominations, who directed their petition to the Daikyoin(Kawaguchi 1982 p. 56).

T here are several other aspects of T eizan’s life and teaching thatdeserve to be ex amined, but I shall conclude this section by me ntioning only ms particular interest in textual studies. Of all those who hadconsulted Fusrai in their y outh, T eizan apparently gaine d Fugai5s earlyrespect by his devotion to reading, while Fusrai5s othe r disciple, Ryo-saku Tanzan Hara 1819- 1892) was praised for his single-m i n d e d p r a c t i c e o f zazen ( K a w a g u c h i 1982 , pp . 121 - 22) . T h is characteristic led reizan to devote much of the last part of his life tothe edition o f classics and comparisons o f ancie nt texts. In 1878 bothSoto head temples celebrated the s ix - hundredth memor ial o f theirsecond patriarch, Koun Ejo (1198- 1280). O n this occasionTeizan committed himself to the task of reprinting a revised edition ofK ouns Komyozo zanmai (The samadhi of the light stored [inever yone] ) which was published in A ugust o f the fo llowing year. T histext of recorded teachings had first been printed by Menzan Zuiho in1767; the emended version marks the beginning of a new wave ofpublications aimed at fostering Soto sectarian studies (shugaku ).Teizan was not the only Soto cleric involved in this activity, and others

like B okusan K in’ei Nishiari 1821- 1910) work ed in asimilar direction, trying to raise the level of Soto scholarship. Yet thetwo men were far from aereeine on all hermeneutical issues, and the




former’s personal annotations sometimes also included criticism ofthe unders tanding of the la t ter ( K a w a g u c h i 1982 p. 1 0 1 ) . In this sense, Teizan, despite his efforts to adapt to the changes proper to the

Meiji era, still embodied a sum of knowledge and the kind of independent erudition that predominated in the line of his Tokugawapredecessors.

To summarize the significance of Teizan: one must stress his inheritance of a particularly wide range of traditions. Via Kosen Mujaku helearned a blend of teaching that had been marked by Dokuan Genkoand his Chinese legacy. This was further nurtured by the guidanceT eizan received from K 6sen5s successor Daisen Taisho, who was also aspiritual heir of the Obaku- influenced T okuo Ryoko. T eizan also con

sulted Fugai Honko, a teacher whose roots go back to Tenkei Denson,a peculiar Soto lineage that emphasized the use of koan in its practice. The efforts by T eizan’s teacher Kosen Mujak u to har monize thistr adition with the trend followed by Menzans successors, who veneratedD6g ens Shobogenzo, appears to mark an important step in shaping thesense of union in Meiji Soto clergy. Teizan, who further promoted thistendency, can be considered one of the people responsible for integrating the Tokugawa Soto legacy into a doctrinal sum that has largelyremained unchanged since then (except that today’s interpreters

often display a narrower background).

Rydchu, Korin, and the Obaku school

Ryochu Nyoryu 1793- 1868) marks a turning point in thehistory of the Obak u lineage. His appointment in 1851 as thirty- thirdabbot of Manpuku- ji came after long vears of practice under Rinzaiteachers. He had consulted Shunso Shoju 1751- 1839)23 formore than three years before he received a Rinzai certification from

Takuju Kosen 1760- 1833) .24 T his event can be inter prete dfr om two points o f view, w hich do not necessarily contr adict each

23 Shunso Shoju is a successor of Hakuin’s disciple Suio Genro 1717- 1790). Inregard to Shunso^ dates, I followed Zenbunka 145, p. 76. KSBD gives only the year hereceived his imperial title of Daikankosho Zenji (v o l.1 ,p. 178). T his has mistakenly been taken as the year o f his deat h by NBJ, p. 336b.

94 . . . . . -This filiation is fully acknowledged, and even emphasized, by the Obaku teacher

M u r a s e , who includes a photog raphic re productio n of T ak uju^ certificate (1982, pp.72- 77). Biog raphical infor mation o n Ryochu can be fo und in KSBD 3 pp. 4-8; ZGD, p.

995d; and OBJ , pp. 388a- 89a. T he entry in OBJ, however, contends that fr om 1837 Ryoc huconsulted Shunno Zen’etsu ■ (1772- 1844), one o f T ak uju5s successors, and complete dhis tr aining in 1838, five years after T ak uju?s death. In r eg ard to the dates o f Shunno , I followed Zenbunka 125, p. 81.




other: on the one hand, it represents the emergence of a new vitalityin the Obaku teaching; on the other, it also signifies that the Obakulineage had returned to the bosom of the Rinzai school. Obaku teachers

indeed had claimed to represent the true Linji tradition, but theirlegacy thus was reunited with its Japanese expression.

Personal connections between Obaku and Rinzai priests had, however, been tightening since the time of Hakuin Ekaku 1686—1769). The fact that Hakuin consulted the Obaku teacher EeokuDomyo 1632- 1721) at a critical phase in his practice r epresents a crucial event in Hakuin’s biography, which has not yet receivedthe attention it deserves.25 Conversely, when Hak uin had g ained somedegree of re cog nition, the Obak u priest K akushu J ocho }

(1711- 1790) came to seek his guidance. K akushu became the twenty-second abbot of Manpukuji m 178b, but he first consulted Hakuin in1749 and s ubsequently contr ibuted to intr oducing Ha k uin5s style intothe Obak u lineag e.26 His role was pivotal in that he succeeded to thelast Cmnese abbot of Manpuku- ji, Dacheng Zhaohan (1709-1784, J. Daijo Shokan), and that his nomination marked a shitt m thepolicy of the Bakufu, which seized the occasion to restrict the abbacyto Japanese priests (OBJ, p. 60a).

Korin Yosho Yoshii 1835-1902) was connected with

Ryochu through his own teacher, Banjo Goko 1815- 1902)(OBJ , pu. 312b- 314a). O f relevance to us in this inquiry are the rolesKorin played durine the Restoration and his acquaintance with priestsfrom other schools. Incidentally, he happened to consult the same master as Nantenbo and can thus be considered his brother in the Dharma.

since K or in is absent fr om major r eference works27 a word aboutthe few existing sources on his lite appears necessary. Today, we mustrely on three short documents, of which only one has been published:Obakusan dai yonjuichi dai Yoshii Korin zenji ryakuden

a biog raphy published in the November 1902issue of the journal Zenshu . T he other two manuscr ipts are thedraft of an abridged chronological biography, Obaku dai yonjuichi dai Korin Yosho zenji ryakunenpu and amanuscript copy of the discourse pronounced by korm when he wasaDpointed abbot o f Manpuku- ji, K orin zenji shins an ho go p•

. T he beg inning of the chronological biogr aphy bears the

25 Itsumadegusa, HZS 1 p. 182, Kato (1985, p. 137 ) Rinoie (1981, pp. 217- 22), Wa dde ll(1983, p. 109).

26 K a t o (1985, pp. 228 and 231, note 16) OBJ , pp. 59b- 60b. This episode is also mentioned m Keikyoku sodan, HZS 1 p. 144.

27T o my knowle dge, the only exce ption is OBJ , pp. 130- 31.




indication “dra ft by S etsudo (unc omple te d)w hich tells us it hasbeen written by Yoshinaga Setsudo (1881- 1964), a journalist

who dev oted his life to g athering materials be long ing to the Obaku

tr adition.28A lthoug h the author o f the article published in Zenshu ismentioned only in a marginal annotation, it has probably been writtenby Setsudo or at least has used some of its contents, since it follows avery similar scheme. Besides these materials, we find some information in local chronicles recording the history oi the city of Isahaya

w here K or in s pent his late years as the e ig hte en th abb ot of Shoku- ji a temple founded by Keigan Myodo 1627-1710) (OBJ , pp. 91b- 92b).29 K or in’s hometow n of Taku (Saga prefecture) also strives to make his artistic gifts known to a wider public

(Takushi Kyodo Shiryokan 1991 p. 39).It eoes without saying that the above documents offer only a veryfrag mentary vision of K or in5s lite. Despite this limitat ion, let us look atthe bits of information we can find. The first printed document is themost comprehensive.

Korin is also known under his first surname of Kozan and thesurname Sonsei “[ The one] living in the southeast [ corner ofKyoto]which he took w hen res iding in Uji. He was bor n on 2 A pr il1835 (sixth year or the Tenpo era, third month, fifth day) in the small

town of T aku, country of Hizen (pre sent Saga Pre fecture) as the younees t son of four brother s and sisters. He was entr usted to Fukuju- j i of T aku30 as novice at an early aee, but his youth was mar ked

by years of hardship and misery when his first teacher, Eun TsuryuI (n.d.), died. A t the age of ten Korin had to return to his family,

but his father soon died too and his mothe r barely mana ee d to feedher children. His for mal o rdina tion took place at Fukuju- ji of Taku,as a disciple of Gasan Ekisui ( d . 1858) (OBJ, p. 130a). A t alater stage Korin embarked on his spiritual pilgrimage, arriving atManpuku- ji in 185 9 at the age o f twenty- five. He prac ticed there

28 O n Se tsudo5s biog ra phy a nd fo r his dates, see Ima m u r a 1991.29 For local chronicles, see T anaka T ameichi (1965, pp. 123—26), Isahaya Shishi Hen-

sanshitsu (1962, 3 pp. 154- 57 and 4, pp. 152—60) and Isahaya Kindais hi He nsh uiinka i(1992). O n 27 Dece mber 1886, K orin received the mandate to leave Zuiko- in, the Manpuku- ji subte mple where he re sided fro m 1 875 and to ente r Shoku- ji.

T here are two temples called Fukuju- ji . T he one in T aku, K or in’s hometow n, issignalized by its “temple surname” {sango Kensho- san 1 . It is located in a remotearea and has always had few patrons. The other one is located in the Kokura ward ofKitaky ushu (Fuk uoka prefecture) and possesses the surname Koju- san . It is a large

complex of buildings, and it used to be even larger w hen it was found ed by Jif ei Ruyi — — (J . S ok uh i Ny oic ni 1616- 1671 ) w it h the pa t ro nag e o f Og asaw ara T ada zane1596- 1667). Onl y the second temple has an entry in ZGD , p. 1 065a. To avoid

confus ion I shall disting uish them as Fukuju- ji of Tak u and Fukuju- ji of Kokura.




almost two years under the guidance of Zuiun Goho(1798- 1869) the thirty- fourth abbot o f Manpuku- ji who was a fellow-country man o f the Hize n area (OBJ, 165a- b). It is dur ing this period

that Korin formally received in 1860 the three sets of precepts (san- dankai ) specific to Obak u monks.31 Zuiun kept his function o fabbot from 1857 until his death on 27 May 1869 (Meiji 2.4.16) confronting the fall of the Bakufu and the ensuing privation of economicsupport (goshuinroku ^f P # ) for Manpuku- ji.

In 1861 Korin chose to return to the Kyushu area and to become adisciple of Banjo Goko 32 at Fukuju- ji of Kokura (OBJ , pp.312 b- 314 a). It is w orth noticing that Banjo had followed Ry ochuNyoryu for nine years, taking successively the functions of chief cook

(tenzo duty- o cer (ino secretary (shoki and head- monk responsible for visitors {shika ) at Manpuku- j i, duringRy 6chu5s abbacy (OBJ , p. 313). Banjo f inally himself became the thirty-seventh abbot of Manpuku- ji m 1877.

T he Fukuju- ji of Kokura seems to have been a popular monasteryin the 1860s since K or in’s biography records that the m onk ’s hall wascompletely full when he arrived in 1861. He consequently had toreside f or a w hile in a subtemple, Jikai- an g oing to themonastery only in the evenines. He finally obtained admission into

the monastery, where he stayed some six years. It was during thisintense period of practice that Korin became acquainted with a fellowmonk named Hakuju Yoshin Aoyagi later T akatsu1836- 1925) (OB J , pp. 307 b- 308b) .33 T hey were called the “tig er ”(Korin) and the “dragon” (Hakuju) of Fukuju- ji monastery.

The summer of 1866 was marked by the second punitive expeditionto Choshu (dainiji Choshu seibatsu 34 which resulted inthe Fukuju- ji of Kokura beine set on fire. T his challenge apparentlyonly he ightened K or in5s resolve, for he decided dur ing the fall to con

sult the Rinzai teacher Raio Bunjo 1799- 1871) and for thatpurpose went to Eifuku- ji in Usa (temple surname Kinryu- zan

I present Oita pre fecture). His biography records that he even-

31 On this ritual, see Sc h w a l l e r (1996, pp. 12- 14).32The following information also relies on this dictionary.

Hakuju also consulted several Rinzai teachers, in particular Sozan Genkyo(1799- 1869) and Razan Ge nma 1815- 1867). Whe n H ak uju was staying at Yotoku- ji

(temple s urname Daishin- zan in ICitsuki present Oita Prefecture), hetempor arily prac ticed as a co- disciple of Nante nbo, unde r S oza n’s g uidance. T his is

confirmed by Nantenbo^ own sayings(N a k a h a r a

1984 p. 56). Hakuju became the forty-fourth a bbot of Manpuku- ji m 19 . Sometimes called “T he Summe r War of 1866 .” For details, see T otma n 1980, pp.

227-66.




tually received a cer tification (inka shomei H ) from Raio. K nownfor his severity, Raio was also one of the masters consulted by Nantenbo.

In the following years Korin consulted other teachers and resided

in several temples. He attended the 1872 assembly for bestowing theprecepts (Jukaie ) that was held at Manpuku- ji unde r the direction of the thirty- fifth abbot Dokusho Shinki Hanaiw a1815-1889) (OBJ p. 276a- b; ZG D, p. 606b). Dokusho was anothernative of the northern Kyushu area, since he was born in Yanasrawa(Fukuoka prefecture). Dok usho took over as abbot of Manpuku- ji on22 December 1870 (Meiji 3.11.1) and stood at the forefront duringthe most difficult times. Despite the predicaments that marked thisper iod it is interesting to observe that in the fourth month o f 1872

on the occasion of a bicentennial celebration in honor of YinyuanLongqi J. Inge n Ryuki, 1592- 16 73) Dokusho received imperial authorization to wear the purple robe and a sample of calligraphyby the emperor, before his retirement (OBJ, p. 276b). This indicatesthat despite considerable economic difficulties the Obaku traditionhad not lost all official approbation.

A sig nif icant episode took place in Februar y 1873 when K or in wasa p p o i n t e d “ d o c t r i n a l in s t r u c t o r c a n d i d a t e 55 (kydddshoku shiho

| by the new chief abbot of the three Zen traditions, T ekisui

Giboku ]c . A fter this appointment, K orin devoted his energy torestoring the Obaku lineage, in collaboration with Doei TsushoHayashi 1836- 1911),35 another of B anj6s disciples w ho ha d

consulted Ry ochu in his early years (OBJ , p.261a- b).K or in5s biography gives some indications of the atmosphere prev ail

ing in the years following the Restoration, in particular the confiscation of the fiscal privileges that had been g ranted by the B ak ufu5sofficial sealed document (shuin ) . T his economic blow made itdiff icult to support all of Manpuku- jis secondary temples in the c ountryside, and there was a debate among the Obaku administrativeofficials about diminishing the number of affiliated temples. Mostofficials were apparently convinced of the necessity of such a reduction, but Korin managed, with the help of Doei Tsusho, to propose aless humilia tine alternative, by reducing the expenses o f Manpuku- jiand limit ing the food of the monks to a strict minimum .36 In the midst

35 _In July 1880 Doei became the thirty- eighth abbot of Manpuk uji. Dur ing the same year, he comple ted the redaction o f his Obaku zaike anjin hogo ' (Dharmatalks about peace o f mm d tor uba k u lay persons) whose title was mspire a by the work of hispredecessor, Dudang Xingying 1 (J. Dokutan Shokei 1 628- 1706), Zaike anjin hogo. See ZGD, p. 372a.

S6The daily allowance was reduced to three portions of brown rice per person (kurogome sango (Obakusan dai yonjuichi dai Yoshii Korin zenji ryakuden, p. 37).




of the anti- Buddhist stor m and despite relative success in obta iningimperial recognition or buying back land for his head temple, theManpuku- ji abbot, Dokusho S hinki re tired dur ing the eig hth

month of 1872 leav ing his successor, K inshi K oi 1823- 1878thirty- sixth abbot of Ma npuku- ji), to handle the crisis (OB J , pp.85b- 86a).37

Following the early retirement of Dokusho, Korin also chose tospend a period of retreat in an unnamed Rinzai temple in the regionof Fukuchiyama unt il Febr uary 1873 when he received theproposal f rom TeKisui Gibok u that he work as ' doctr inal instr uctorcandidate .” K or in’s under st anding of the situation apparently did notcoincide with the position of other factions within his school, since his

bioeraphy recalls that “as his thoughts did not conform to those of theManpuku- ji officials he [ wanted toj avoid the m ” ( Obakusan dai yon ju ic hi da i Yoshii K or in zenji ry akuden, p. 37). The bioeraphy does not

spell out the cause of this disagreement, but it appears to be linked toDok ush65s retirement and to the debate concer ning the way to deal

with the new economic dif ficulties. As mentioned above, a grow ingnumber oi Obaku priests was in favor of reducing the number ofaffiliated temples, and some of them even proposed to sell some ofManpuku- ji5s treasures yjuho ) to obta in liquid assets. K or in unite d

with his fr iend Doei and the Manpuku- ji abbot Kins hi Koi to resist thistemptation to dismantle what remained of the Obaku patrimony. As ares ult of the policy of austerity they def ended, K or in’s biogr aphyreports that the only money left in the accounts section of Manpuku- ji

was a debt of three yen, so tha t many buildings felt into decay.Korin became active in the field of education, deeply committing

himself to the creation of the new Obaku School General Academy( Obakushu soko ina ug ur a te d in 1878 at the S hoindo

a building w ithin the Manpuku- ji precincts. T he Shoindo hadimportant symbolic value, since a building of the same name hadalready existed at W an f us i in China, and later, in J apan, it wasthe hermitage chosen by the founder of Manpuku- ji, Yinyuan L ongqi,for his last years of retreat (ZGD, p. 527). In the same year Korinreceived his certification from Banjo i^oko.

For Korin, the seeming consecration came when he was electedchief abbot o f the O bak u school m the s pring o f 1900 a decis ionratified by the Ministry of Interior in June for his appointment as“first rank doctrinal instructor.” For Korin himself, however, thisapparently was not a matter for any particular rejoicing, since he had

K inshi Koi took office as abbot on 30 December 1872 (Meiji 5.12.1) at the age of fiftyand died at the age o f fifty-six.




already been elected twice to this position and always firmly declinedthe offer. Apparently he was not allowed to refuse a third time andhad to leave Shoku- ji, where, incidentally he had acquired the reputa

tion o f an eccentric monk fo nd o f drink ing .38 Back at Manpuku- ji, fortwo years he fulfilled his oblig ations as forty- first abbot until passingaway quietly at midnig ht under the f ull moon, on 15 October 1902 atthe age of sixty-eight. He left one direct Dharma heir, Yoshii Ranpo

(n.d.), and scores of students he had inspired.In K or in’s case too we see a combina tion o f commitme nt to activi

ties aimed at maintaining the essentials of the Buddhist teachings, while at the same time he kept some distance from the ins ti tution.Muc h o f K o rins pers onal histo ry still has to be uncov er ed, b ut his ties

with Rinzai teachers illustrate the ex tent to which the Oba ku schoolhad been assimilating the Rinzai koan practice (shitsunai ) whileretaining some or its typical Chinese flavor. Let us now look morespecifically at Nantenbo, whose deeds are better documented.

Nantenbo and the Rinzai School

Toshu Zenchu (Nantenbo 1839- 1925) is a rather unconventionalcharacter who can hardly be considered the most representativefigure o f the Meiji R inzai school; however, as a plam- spoken—sometimes naive~ wr iter , he eloquently embodies some o f the typical contradictions oi his time. Furthermore, his role in training hundreds oflay practi t ioners cannot be overlooked, and he collaborated with

Yamaok a Tesshu 1836- 1888) to establish the first monasteryin Tokyo, Dorin- ji m Ichigaya, off icially recog nized by Myoshm-

j i in 1887 (Nakahara 1984 p. 21 8 ).39The activity of Nantenbo and his followers can be considered com

plementar y to the efforts made by the teachers o f the Engaku- ji lineof Kamakura, although the implicit rivalry between these two lineaeeshas been partially overshadowed by the achievements of the latter.T he impor tance given to the Engaku- ji line became even more conspicuous follow ing the “success story ” of Suzuki Daisetsu (1870- 19b6 )

who emerged from the En aku- ji line and became ins trumental in

38 This fact is highlighted in the publication by Is a h a y a Sh i s h i Hensanshitsu (1962 4, p.160), w hich relates an anecdote a bout K or in’s unwillingnes s to tolerate marr ied monks.Once he became chief abbot, he would have temporarily forbidden the entrance of marriedmonks into Manpuku- ji. Those who felt concerne d by this prohibitio n retor ted that theinscription at the entrance of the temple forbade alcohol but not marriage. Rather than giving up drinking, Korin accepted an easy compromise by which both practices would be tolerated, saying that it was an unavoidable trend of the time.

39 This temple does not exist anymore.




introducing Rinzai teachings to the West.Nantenbo is known in particular for his pledge to ensure that his

fellow certified masters (roshi had all reached g enuine spiritual

attainment and, on the occasion of the f ormal assembly at Myoshin- jion 1 May 1893 he presented a bold proposal that a rule be made thatall recognized roshi undertak e an ex amination ascertaining the level of their realization (shusho kentei ho .

The timing of this proposal is of particular interest. It was madealmost one century after the death of most o f Ha k uin’s major disciples:Daishii Zenjo 1720-1778) Shiky6 Ery6 1722- 1787 )

Suio Genro 1717- 1790) T orei Enji 1721-1792 )Gasan Jito 1727- 1797) and T airei Shokan 1724-

1807). The commitment of Nantenbo to establish a Zen monastery inTokyo was inspired precisely by the efforts made a century earlier byShikyo Ery o to create a “monastery open to any one55 {goko Enpuku- j i in Yawata, south of Kyoto. Nantenbo spent his first

years of monastic prac tice at Enpuku- ji and was galv anized by theexample of shikyo Eryo, who had managed to overcome the inertia ofMyoshin- ji and to inaugurate the first official monastery of this branchoi the Rinzai school.40

In the Meiji contex t, Nantenb6 5s 1893 project came at a time when

freedom of religion haa been recognized since 1877 and the “worst ofthe s torm” aimed at eradicating B uddhism was passing (C o ll c ut t1980 p. Ib7). In the international context, it happened a few monthsbefore the first World’s Parliament of Religions opened in Chicago on

September, where Kogaku Soen ? presented a Rinzai Zen with a slightly dif ferent flavor.41 We shall return to the contents of his1893 proposal. Let us first take a brier look at his life.

Besides Nantenbo^ own autobiographical accounts, found in particular in his memoirs, Nantenbo angyaroku, written at the age of eighty-

two (Nakahara 198 4),42 and in Nantenbo zenwa published in 1915 theearliest account of his life is the one included in the Zoku Kinsei zenrin

40 _T he official reco gnition of the Enpuku- ji monastery by the authorities o f Myoshin- jicame only in 1787 (T enmei 6), and no t in 1769 as given in K a t o (1969, p. 261). Monasteriesaffiliated with T enryu-ji, S hokoku- ji, and Nanzen- ji had already been established a few yearsbe fo r e .Ihe complex story of the foundatio n o f the Enpuku- ji monastery is meticulously discussed in K a t o (1969).

T he young S uzuki Daisetsu translated into Englis h the speech of K oga ku Soen (A k i z u k i 1967, p. 2 2 1 ).Co ncerning the implications o f this conference, see K it a g a w a (1987), Fa d e r (1 982) an d K e t e l a a r (1990, pp. 1 36- 73). The translated paper was finally read by the chairman; it has recently been published (Y o k o y a m a 1993, pp. 131- 37).

42 _T he age of redaction is mentio ned on p. 24. As usual, Nante nbo calculates his ageaccording to the custom of co unting one y ear from o ne’s day o f birth.




soboden 1926) by Gy okugen B un te i Obatag 1870- 1945) published one year atter Na nte nbo^ death. Ih is is,

however, largely uncritical and apparently relies almost entirely on

Nantenbo^ own accounts. More recent publications generally reiterate similar anecdotes and describe Nantenbo^ life along the samelines.43 Fortunately, some archival mater ials also re main, ma inly atlaibai- ji in Sendai and at Zuigan- ] i in Matsushima.

Let us begin with a factual summary of Nantenbo^ life. He wasborn on 15 May 1839 in the port town of Karatsu, in the domain ofHizen, ruled by the Ogasawara family. A decisive event mark ed hischildhood: the loss of his mother Kitako at the aee of seven. The distress he felt is reflected in his memories of going every day during the

following years to pay his respects in front of her grave. Nantenboidentifies his desire to strive for the salvation bodai of hisdeceased mother as his prime motivation for entering the religiouslife w hen he was eleven (Na k ahar a 1984, pp. 20- 21).

On 23 October 1849 he was ordained by a priest named Reiju Zen-taku 1820- 1880)44 at Yuko- ji in Hirado and receivedthe new or dination name of Zenchu. Yuko- ji was renowned because o fits founder, Bankei Yotaku 1622- 1693). T he family nameNakahara was later bestowed on him in 1872 by Mori Motomitsu

(1816- 1884) (Naka hara 1917 p. 301; 1984 p. 140).45A t eig hteen,after the usual years of apprenticeship, Nantenbo left Reiju and startedhis spiritual pilgrimage (angya HI). Using the postal boat that wasgoing to Osaka, it took him no less than thirty days to reach the Kan-sai area, where he headed straight for the Enpuku- ji monastery .

His first master was Sekio Somin (1795—1857) a dir ect successor of Takuju Kosen 1 . Nantenbo recalls how during thisinaugural winter in the monastery he danced for joy on the last day ofthe rohatsu sesshin, after breaking through the mu koan (Nakahar a

1984 p. 39). This marks the beednning of another nine years of strenuous efforts under the guidance of several teachers, which led to his

43 This is the case of K i s h i d a (1973 and 1994) and K a s u m i (1963).44 .

For the reading of this priest’s surname, I followed Nakahara (1984, p. 21), while anolder publication gives the reading Reiso (Nakahara 1917, p. 298). In the same publicationNantenbo mentions his death, ms age, and the fact that he was a successor of Bannei Gen’i

1790-1860) (N a k a h a r a 1984, p. 162), but the date of the priest’s death wasunclear. D urin g my survey at Yuko-ji the cur rent aobot, T suchiya Seigi con fir me dthe readinsr “Reiju” and showed me his mortuary tablet, wmch carries the date 11 March1880 (Meiji 13.3.11). Calculating backward from age (sixty-one according to Nantenbo)gives the appro x imation o f 1820.

45 The reading of this name is wrongly siven as “Motoshige” in Nakahara (1984, p. 140).More information on this figure in N i h o n R e k i s h i Ga k k a i (1981, p. 997 b- c).




certification by Razan Genma ■ 1815- 1867) at the age of twenty-seven (Nakahara 1984 pp. 93- 94). This early re cog nition could have been a reason for more rejoicing', but when he recounts this event in

his memoirs with the mature eye of an old man, Nantenbo remarks:The inka (received) just after completing the formal koantraining is not true. Let us leave now the rationalization forlater on, but get to work on what is truly alive!

(Nakahara 1984 p. 93)

Ih is second major tur ning point in N ant enbo^ life was also an occasion for him to reflect upon the guidance he had received from theteachers consulted during his years as a wandering monk. For him,one o f the ma in reasons for the lack o f vitality he found in the Rinzaischool was the “affliction” (one of ten) denounced by the Chinesemaster Xutang Zhiyu 1185—1269) when he said: “T he illnessresides in (having only) one master and one (s piritual) m e n d ” (yamai

wa isshi ichiyu no tokoro ni ari ) .46Resolved not to commit this mistake, Nantenbo consulted no fewer

than twenty- four teachers fr om both the Inzan and Takuju lineages .471 hese twenty- four teachers reveal something of his backg round, inparticular the fact that, although he experienced to a certain extentthe style o f In z a ns line, especially by co ns ulting Ek ke i S huke n

(1810- 1884),48 the influence of T ak uju^ line appears pre dominant. The second point that can be noted is that he did not consultteachers who were active in Kamakura, such as Kosen Soon .49

Was this due only to circumstances, or did Na ntenbo have a distastefor the Engaku- ji style?

It is difficult to assess his appraisal, but there are a few allusions thatreveal Na nte nb6 5s skepticism conc er ning the K amak ura teachers.One of them explicitly mentions by name two successors of KosenS6on5s line. Nante nbo recalls a tr ip to the pref ecture o f A kita, where

he was invited to give a teisho by a z,en group called Yuima- e :Until now Shaku Soen Shaku Sokatsu and KonoMukai had been coming alternately in autumn and in

46 Xutanglu 4, T. 4 7 .1014 al4. Mentioned in Na k a h a r a (1984, p. 146). Nantenbo was al re ady w ar ne d ag ains t this dang er by his teac her Ra za n, w ho quoted X ut ang (Nak ahara 1985, p. 119).

Since the list of the twenty- four teachers appeared elsewhere ( M o hr 1995 p. 69- 70) I will omit it her e.

48 KSBD 1 p. 270- 71, ZGD , p. 502c- d, NBJ, p. 61a, MZS, pp. 25- 45 (wrongly gives thedates as 18 09- 1883).

For more on this person see Su z u k i (1992) and Sa w a d a (1994 and her contribution inthis issue).




spring, but they only gave their teisho and there was no zazen atall. Therefore, I heard that when the teisho was over the peoplestarted playing go and [ engaging in] other [distractions] .50

The criticism is courteous, but it reflects a frequent complaint Nantenbo expresses when mentioning the tendency to indulg e in wration-alized zen” (rikutsu Nakahara 1984 pp. 52 265). A nother piece oi indirec t ev idence conce rning the contras t between Nan ten-bo ^ style and the style of the Engaku- ji line is prov ided by the contactsNantenbo had with the fe minist pioneer Hiratsuka Raicho.

Hiratsuka Raicho

Like many inquisitive teenagers, Ra icho was torme nted by philosopni-cal questions. Her doubts were fueled by articles she had read onChris tian theology ,51 but her interes t in Zen practice arose when shecame across the Zenkai ichiran of Kosen Soon (Hirats uka1992 1 p. 192). In the summer of 1905 Raicho beean consultingTetto Sokatsu she earnestly a ttended his Ryomo- an inNippori and received the koan “[show me] your original face before

your parents were bor n” (p. 194).She reported that the next year, durine an unidentified sesshin, she

suddenly felt “enormous teardrops falling onto my knees” while reciting Hakuin^ Zazenwasan (Hymn to zazen). As she was not in any emotional state of sadness or gratitude, she identified this event as being“probably an explosion of the life that was in me” (p. 209). Her firstkensho was ack nowle dge d by S okatsu in the summe r of 1906 and he eave her the Buddhist name Ekun (p. 210). A lthoug h she continued to consult Sokatsu, he soon broke the news to her that he waseoine to spread the Dharma in the United States with a group of disciples. This is the famous trip that took Sokatsu to San Francisco in Sep

tember 190 6 ac com panied by Zuiea n Soseki (Goto1879- 1965) Soshin Shigetsu Sasaki 1882- 1945) and Shige-tsu’s firs t wife T omoko.52

Nakahara (1917 p. 264). The three priests mentioned are Kogaku Soen, Kogaku^ disciple Tetto Sokatsu 1870 - 195 4) and Muk ai Kory o 1864- 1935).

Raicho reports hav ing been particularly move d by an article o f T sunajima Ryosen1873- 1907) cal led “My ex per iment of seeing G od ” ( Yo ga kenshin no jikke n

‘ w hich describes the necessity of unde r g oin g a tr ans fo rma tion bey ond mere

intellection (H ir a t s u k a 1992,1,p . 190) .The American side of the story is related by Soshin Shigetsu himself (T h e F i r s t Ze n Ins tit ute o f Amer ica 1947; see in particular p p .19 and 23), a narration taken up by Fields(1992, l ,pp. 174-77).




Raicho recalls how she was deeply shocked to be separated fromher master, and how Sokatsu recommended that she not follow anotherteacher during his absence (p. 221). Nevertheless, her thirst for fur

thering her practice was pressing, and she started to do sanzen underShinjo Sosen (Sakag ami 1842- 1914) the a bbot of Seiken- ji7 in Okitsu (Shizuoka Prefecture), who came regularly to Tokyoto lecture. A g ro up of lay pra ctitioner s called the Nyoi- daninvited shinjo every month to direct a sesshin org anized at Kaizen- ji

in A sakusa) and Raicho attended it.53Shortly afterward Raicho was involved in afrairs with two men

which culminate d m March 1908 when she ran away with one of heruniversity teachers, Morita Sohei 1881- 1949) a disciple of

Natsume Soseki 1867- 1916). This event, called the “Shio-bara incident” (Shiobara jiken ) because of the hot spring inIbaraki Prefecture w here they were caught, was much ex ploited by thepress, and the whole Hiratsuka family had to endure the consequences of this “scandalwmch became the talk of the town and gavebirth to Morita’s novel Baien (Soot and smoke).

Partly to escape the curiosity o f journalists , Raicho lived for a whilein Kamakura and in Nagano Prefecture, where her practice remainedintensive. During her stay in Kamakura she lived in a small hermitage

w ithin the precincts of Eng aku- ji, but she describes K oeaku S oen^successor as chief abbot, Kanno Sokai (Miyaji 1856- 1923) as“abs olute ly un a ttra c tiv eana she di d no t f ee l like do ing sanzen under his direction (p. 274).

O f most relev ance to our discussion is what haDpened when shereturned to Tokyo in the winter of 1908. Having heard that Nantenbo

was coming ev ery month to the N iho n Zeng ak udo inKanda to conduct a sesshin, she started practicing sanzen with him.During their first meeting in the sanzen room, Nantenbo abruptly

asked her: “What did you understand by practicing Kamakura Zen? You probably d idn’t unde rs tand any thing at all. If your mas ter hasbeen indulgent with you and if you therefore believe that you havereally eot kensho, it is a biff mistake.” Raicho recounts that she couldnot understand why Nantenbo was so agrsressive toward her formerEngaku- ji teachers. She conjectured that Nantenbo m ieht have meantto encourage her to return to her beginner ’s mind and to devote herself to practice with renewed energy (pp. 289- 90).

In Decembe r 1909 Raicho went to Nan te nb6 5s temple, Kaisei- ji

fhis temple still exists and has been located in the popular area called Kappabashito the east of U en o Stat ion.




'/ in Nishinomiya, to participate in the Rohatsu sesshin. Duringthis intense week of training she passed through the mu koan, andreceived from Nantenbo the new name of Zenmyo (p. 294). This

name is a com bination o f Na nte nb6 5s or dination name ze nc hu with the ^mo- Japanese reading of Raic ho^ firs t name, H a m .54 T heformal bestowal of this name by Nantenbo indicates his full recognition of R aicho5s accomplishments.

Nantenbo Choice of a Different Style

From these few bits of evidence it is difficult to draw any definite conclusions about Na nte nbo5s ev aluation of Tetto S okatsu^ teachinsr. but

at the very least they suggest that Nantenbo^ requirements for ms disciples were different from those of his colleagues in the Kanto area.Regionalism is another element that cannot be entirely disregarded.

A lludine to people who mis understood his intentions Na ntenbo oncefulminated:

Natives of Tokyo breathe hard through their noses [i.e., arear rog ant] , but there is no thin g settled below the navel [ i.e., they have not developed their energy in the ham, they have nofirm resolve, no guts] . (Naka hara 1984 p. 193)

Nantenbo underscores that he has not the slightest intent to “praisehimself while rejecting others” {jisan taki )55 and he appear sto have been aware of people who disagreed with his frequent invectives against “fake Zen.” After this preliminary precaution, hedeclares:

When I look at people who come to do sanzen at my place andsay that they used to sro to Kamakura, they all interpret koan,saying whose teisho are bette r whose sanzen is better , a nd they

put on airs, pretending to be awakened (satotta furi o sum jus t by receiving k oan or lis tening to teisho.(Na k a h a r a 1984, p. 194)

Nantenbo confesses that he disliked the very idea of giving lecturesGeis/id f ) and attibuted more importance to personal consultation (sanzen (Nakahara 1984 pp. 134- 35). S peaking of those who

Raicho is a pseudonym coming from the word for the mountain bird raicho therock ptarmigan or Lagopus mutus. Raicho herself explains that she chose to write it with theold hiragana spelling rather than in kanji or in modern hiragana Hiratsuka1992, l p. 374).

This expression refers to the seventh of the ten cardinal precepts (Jiijiikinkai listed in the ^ ' X T. 24.1004cl9) .




indulge in stereotyped lectures, he plays upon the word teisho by describing it as the behavior of people “who pursue traces of hoovesand speak about it” ( teisho •It is in this ir onical contex t that he

mentions Kosen Soon and Koeaku Soen by name. He adds that eachoral performance, be it teisho or theater, has a distinctive “tone” (hari

in its expression. The tone found around Kamakura, he says,“must be K6sen’s or S6en s” (Nakahara 1984 pp. 320- 21). T his statement is probably to be taken as a criticism aimed not so much at Kosen and Soen themselves but rather at their successors or emulators.

The skeptical attitude of Nantenbo toward teachers from theEngaku- ji line could, however, be considered a quest ion of style andshould be put in perspective. Coming from the countryside, Nantenbo

was obviously suspicious of the intelligents ia linked with the Kamakura-based temples, and his standpoint might even be understood in termsof a k ind o f “inferiority complex .” T here is, however, an impor tan tepisode that reveals another facet of his perception of Soen. According to Raicho, Nakahara Shugaku ( d . 1928),56 the abbot ofKaizen- ji, was adopted and or daine d by Nantenbo at Zuigan- ji. Yet afew years later we f ind S hugaku prac ticing at the Eneaku- ji monasteryunder the direction of Soen, and Shugaku is even reported to haveobta ine d S 6 en 5s inka (Hira tsuka 1992 1 pp. 233 290). A lthough one

cannot f ind the me ntion of Shugaku among Soen5s successors (Tama-mura and Inoue 1964 p. 7 27 ),57 the dr aft of a letter by Nan ten bo k ept at Taibai- ji m Sendai throws some new light on this eniema.

In spite of his widespread reputation for being rough, Nantenbo was metic ulous in several respects, in pa r tic ular in his correspondence; he used to write a draft every time, before writing out a faircopy. A t Taibai- ji Nantenbo even left a memo showing how many letters he wrote every year and to which area they were sent; some yearshe wrote more than seven hundred letters, a record that earned him

the nick name of 'letter- wr iune T 6s hii.” W hile most orig inals havebeen lost, some of the drafts remain, and one of them tells us a por-

56 _The date of the death of Nakahara Shugaku is recorded in the register of Kaizen-ji. Iowe this information to the present abbot, Goto Lizan . SlrQgaku was the 1 9th abbotand died on 5 May 1928 at the approximate age of fifty-six, but I haven’t been able yet tocheck the exact date o i his birth. A ccor ding to the abbot o f Taibai- ji, Hoshi Chiy u

w ho knew him persona lly , s hu g ak u5s na me befor e his ado pt io n was Na g ai Y uji ro 7jc ^and his fathe r was Nag ai Z ens hin 7c (n.d.), the 20 th abbot of Zenno- ji in thearea of Sendai.

57 . _ A no the r re as on for the co ns picuous abs ence o f S hug ak u in the Dha rma char ts o f the

Engaku- ji misrht simply be, as Soshin Shigetsu puts it, the fact that “thirteen of the n ine hundred (disciples of Sokatsu) had completed the training, but of these thirteen only four hadreally penetrated to the core of Zen. These four he had ordained as teachers” (T h e F i r s t Zen Institute of America 1947, p. 23).




tion of Shugaku^ story. The date and addressee are missing, but thecontents suggest this letter was sent to Soen (Hoshi 1993 p. 6).

In the letter, Nantenbo replies to his correspondent, who had writ

ten about the apprentice Shugaku, and first of all thanks him for his“solidarity” {shumei •He adds that uShug aku has deserted (dasso

Taibai-ji, probably on the instigation of his elder brother NaeaiChirei (n.d.), an evil mo nk .” T his gives us some ex planationfor S hugak u5s presence at Eneaku- ji. Finally, Nante nbo requests hiscorrespondent to apply his compassion and his influence as a teacherto make the apprentice ^hueaku realize his misbehavior, adding thathe would be ready to forgive Shugaku if only he would show sincererepentance.

T he story as viewed fr om Raicho5s side is slightly different. In hermemoirs there is a chapter in wmch she recalls her “first kiss . ” T he incident took place one evening during the spring of 1907. She hadbeen s itting alone at Kaizen- ji for a couple of hours and s uddenly realized it had become dark and she was late. Upon leaving the templeshe passed in front of the office where the young abbot, Shugaku,ex claimed “O h you were still there? ” As he took a candle and helpedher open the heavy entrance door she unexpectedly kissed him.Raicho explains that she was in a state of complete stillness and that

her behavior was utterly innoc en t but the m onk took it for somethingdifferent. After days probably marked by agony he resolved to ask histeacher Soen for permission to marry her. The next time Raichocame to Kaizen- ji it was her turn to be dumbfounde d, for Shueak uproposed marriage (Hira tsuka 1992 1 pp. 230- 31). She then had todeploy treasures oi imagination to think up how to refuse him and toconvince him that she was not ready and had other priorities. But thisapparently trivial incident spelled ruin for Shugaku5s monastic career;he lost in particular his chance to become an “official” Dharma suc

cessor of Soen, although he had received his early certification. Thisending of ^hueaku^ chances of promotion would confirm the existence of a “two- tiered clerical rank ing system” among Rinzai prieststoo, a phenomenon of the Soto school observed by Richard Jaffe inthis issue. It means that toward the end of Meiji a Rinzai monk who chose to marry would be allowed to do so, but would have to give upall hope of becoming a high- ranking teacher.

Finally, Raicho managed to keep up a friendly relationship withShugak u unt il the s ummer o f 1910 when he became her f irst “love

instructor” for one t ime ( H i r a t s u k a 1992 1 p. 312). Raicho confessed this incident only in the last version of her autobiography, long after ^hueak u was dead. T he episode o f Shugaku es caping Taibai- ji




for the capital, then achieving some success as a mo nk at Engaku- ji,before falling in love with a cheeky young lady of the establishment ispicturesque enough. There is some speculation about whether it

could have inspired Soseki^ novel Kusamakura (literally uT he grass-pillow trans lated into Eng lis h as “T he T hree- Cor ner ed Wor ld ’

which contains str iking' similarities and even mentions Taibai- ji. T hisissue is not my main concern and a whole monograph has been written on the subject; it reaches rather negative conclusions, on chronological gr ounds (T a k a h a s h i 1997).

W hat matters for our purpose is tha t Shugaku mig ht be a key person for understanding the somewhat tense relationship between Nantenbo and Soen, and through them between factions belonging to the

Myoshin- ji and Engaku- ji lineages. As for Raicho, her story shows to what ex tent a first realization of kensho, even if genuine, can be associated with a lack of maturity in apprehending human emotions orsocial conventions. The words Nantenbo addressed to Raicho upontheir first meeting take a different significance when we realize thathe presumably was aware of at least some of her background withmen. Nantenbo certainly was kept informed of all developments concerning Shugaku, who was after all his adopted son. He is also likely tohave learned about the Morita afrair through the press.

As can be surmised from the above ex cerpts and from his complexconnections with Kamakura Zen, Nantenbo was not always a championof diplomacy either, and sometimes he could not hide his aversions;although he kept a courteous profile when adressine Soen directly, histeisho and his dealing with Raicho reveal a distrustful attitude. Whilepersonal feelings (the “treachery” of ^hueaku) might also have playeda role tms should not be inter pre ted as pure rudeness , as appears forexample in the detailed requirements for Nantenbo^ reform projectpresented below.

Nantenbo ys 1893 Reform Project

Nantenbo obviously did not hit upon the idea of reforming ms schoolall of a sudden. After having consulted twenty- four teachers when he

was a monk and hav ing received the certificat ion from his master , heresolved to eo around the monasteries scattered throughout the country again, but this time to check his fellow masters. He reports leavingfor such a tr ip on three occasions: in 1874 (aee 36) in 1876 (asre 38),

and in August 1917 (age 79). The purpose of these trips, he says, wasnot to measure his own superiority or inferiority compared to others;rather, he went because he “could really not stand the sadness of




(witnessing) the decline of the great Dharma” ( N a k a h a r a 1984 p. 149).

The origins of this initiative can in fact be located a little earlier

and g o back to Me iji 5 (w inter o f 1 8 7 2) w hen he was asked byMyoshin- ji and Daitoku- ji authorit ies to review the sermons given bypriests in the temples along the Tokaido road. During this trip ofinspection, Nantenbo was accompanied by Goten Dokai(1814- 1891) a teacher he had consulted before (KSBD, 3 pp. 90- 91;ZG D, p. 65oaj. A t that time Nantenbo, who was already thirty- four,

was obviously carry ing out his duties as a gov ernment- appointed cleric, but he also seems to have taken tms opportunity to evaluate thestate of the Dharma in the areas he visited. In other words, the

uneven caliber of the teachers Nantenbo met during ms trip mighthave led him to conceive of educational means to improve their standard. According to the new policies, a selected number of priests hadbeen ordered to preach and were treated by the government as doctrinal instructors classified into fourteen categories. The mission ofthis trip was to determine into wmch category each priest would beclassified. This had to be done in the name of “propagating the GreatTeaching” (taikyd senpu ) that is to say, for the dif fus ion ofState Shinto ideas (Nakahara 1984, pp. 138- 39).

T he 1893 project itself is described by Nante nbo as the f ruit of thirty years of labor and as the result of his reac tion to the degenerat ingconditions of monastic life, “since the demise of Hakuin, each passing

year has seen a de g rada tion of the tr ue style of the patriarchs ; allmonasteries ( dojo) are falling to the depths o f des olation” (Nak ahar a 1984 p. 159). Consequently, he resolved to accomplish a “great revolutionM( daikakumei) in the w orld o f his school, similar to the political revolution achieved by the Restoration. Nantenbo consulted hisacquaintances among the other roshi to determine wmch articles

w ould be include d in the actual ex amination. A fte r entrus ting him with the res ponsibility of choos ing the mos t appropr iate items theyapparently revised the final draft. According to Nantenbo, the six masters involved in this draft were Tankai Gensho 1812- 1898)58Mugaku B un’eki (181 8- 18 98 ),59 K azan Zenry o(Kono 1824- 1893),60 Dok uon J oshu T ekisui Gibokuand Choso Genkai Yiik6 1830- 1903) (Nakahara 1984pp. 259 263).

58 See KSBD, 3 pp. 175- 80, ZG D, pp. 287d- 288a, MZS, pp. 47- 66, NBJ, p. 510a.

59See KSBD, 3 pp. 182- 90, ZGD, p. 656d, NBJ, pp. 749b- 750a. T he reading o f his surname is wrongly given as “Mon’eki” in ZGD; I followed NBJ.

60See KSBD, 3 pp. 128-36, ZG D, p. 323b.




Everything seemed ready for presenting the proposal. However,Nantenbo took one more verbal precaution in his memories beforedisclosing the items that were inc luded in the ex amination, specifying

that “when (koan are) enumerated like this, people may misunderstand Zen as a kind of erudition, but it has nothing to do with that”(Nakahara 1984 p. 160).

Let us now look at the outline of the project, which was entitledShiken hisho: Shusho to shosuru zenjigata shiken hyddai jun i ka jo

— [Confidential examination text: Iwelve headings ror the ex amination o f the z,en teachers who claim tobe masters in our school] .61 Impo r ta nt to note is the fact that theex amination tex t was to be burned once the ex amination had been

completed. I list below only the twelve headings of the project, without the appendices published in Nakahara (1984 p. 263).

1 Master Hak uin 5s Eig ht koan diff icult to penetrate (Hakuin osho hachi nanto

2 The Sayings of L inji (Rinzairoku 3 han Master Feny ang 5s Ten Wisdoms [expressing the] Same Truth

(Funnyd zenji jitchi doshin 4 Shoushan’s Verses on the Essential Principles huzan koju no ge

5 T he hidde n melody of the ten car dinal precepts (Jujukin no hikyoku

6 Composition of verses on the essential principles o f the ten cardinal precepts (Jujukin koju no ge o amu

7 T he formless, the mind- ground, and the substance of the precepts, by the grand master Bodhidharma (Daruma daishi no muso shinchi m'to'

8 X utane ’s substitute and separate teachings (Kidd no dai betsu

9 T he verses on the boundless w ind and mo on re lated to theBiyanlu (Hekigan muhenfugetsu

10 T he hidden keys to the five positions (Goi no hiketsu The last barricade (Matsugv no rokan )

12 T he ultimate conclusion (Saigo no ikketsu 0 .62

T he text is reproduced in A k i z u k i (1979, pp. 254- 94). For some reason, one part hasbeen intent ionally omitte d by A kizuk i (on page 28 2) and I hope to be able someday to consult the o rig inal on w hich he r elied, presently at Kaisei-ji. A more concise draft o f the project is kept at T aibaiji.

62 T his follows the headings of A k i z u k i (1979. pp. 254- 94). T he headings differ slightlyfrom those found in N a k a h a r a (1984, pp. 260- 63), despite the same editor.




1 his gives an idea of the requirements devised by Nantenbo to raise thestandards expected from a Rinzai teacher. It should nevertheless benoted that these koan represent the essential requirements expected

of a roshi anyway, and do not constitute something especially difficultfor someone who would have passed through the entire sanzen process. Despite this detailed curriculum, Nantenbo further insists onthe impor tanc e of the first break throug h: “However if the initialbreach into the mu [koan] is truly accomplished, [the other koan]

will be pas sed f luent ly in quic k succession” (Nak aha r a 1984 p. 264).Finally, when the crucial day arrived, Nantenbo vigorously defended

his proposal in fr ont o f the Myoshin- ji assembly, with Kyodo Etan aschief abbot, but he did not get the slightest reaction from the partici

pants: “Not a single person proffered a word of approval or disapproval.MIn fact, as Nantenbo puts it , the executives had theirintentions. T he Myoshin- ji administ ration would take no acc ount ofthe proposal, since tacit approval in such a conference would implyno coercive force. In other words, this motion would be stillborn and

w oul d s imply be dis reg arde d. Nante nbo, the six roshi w ho had s upported him, and even the chief abbot who was in favor of the proposal, had been deceived. Nante nbo5s disappointment and humilia tion wasconsiderable, and this event had the result of heightening his resolve

to concentrate more on laypeople than on fellow priests:Therefore, I (understood that) trying to remodel the presentZen masters who were so rotten (konnani kusatta gendai no shushi dorno) would definitely be a lot of trouble f or nothingand that it would prove totally ineffective.... This is why Idecided that, given the state of things, I would rather trainlay men or lay women among the population and producepowerful men and women who could protect the Dharma.

( N a k a h a r a 1984 p . 266)

The commitment of Nantenbo and his emphasis on training lay people also reveals his feelings for his country, a facet that deserves to beexamined.

The Nationalist Dimension

There are numerous passages in Nantenbo^ writings that leave littledoubt as to his patriotic feelings and his reverence for the emperor.

His family background as the son of a samurai apparently contributedto his identification with the military caste and his fighting abilitiesgained him early respect.




For instance, when he was still in his thirties, shortly after his firstnomination in 1869 as abbot of Daijo- ji in Tokuyama Yama-eucni prefecture), the turmoil of the Restoration was still alive and

armed groups were scouring the region. Nantenbo mentions in particular the name of Dairak u Gen taro ^ (1834—1871) a warrior who had not recognized the new government and was killedshortly afterwards. In 1871 the threat posed by armed eroups drovethe civilians of Tokuyama to create a heterogeneous defense force,comprised of priests from both the Rinzai and Soto schools, doctors,Shinto priests, and Confucian scholars. Nantenbo was at the head ofthe “troops,” training these people in the arts of the sword, the spear,and the bow, for the sake of the “emperor and the nation” (kunkoku

no Nakahara 1984 pp. 130- 31).Describing the confusion that reimed during the first years of theRestoration, Nantenbo speaks of the sudden privilege given to Shintobeliefs that were imposed on Buddhist temples, but to his eyes thecourt was not responsible: “In those days [ people misunder stood therejection of Buddhism as being the opinion of the court, and it wasreally a difficult time.” A dding that in such a situation the role o f a Zenpriest is to work even harder, he comments on the reason for his efforts,a task that consisted at the time of convincing Ian Soken

(1810- 1880) to accept charge of Enpuku- ji: “It is because Zen is theroot of the Imperial Way (kodo no kongen the entir e depository of B uddhism (buppo no sofa 63 the source of all things;if it were to disappear, the nation and mankind would disappear”(Nakahara 1984 pp. 122- 23).

Nevertheless, Nantenbo faced a Rinzai school that was on thepoint of collapse, and he considered himself invested with a missionto reestablish what he calls “the crumbling Zen of the early Meiji”(Meiji shorten no daitdzen Nakahara 1984 p. 159).

A nothe r cause of indig na tion for Nantenbo was the Meiji infatuationfor things foreign, “since the people in the government of that timegave little thought to the fact that they were livmsr in their own country, they were deluded by foreigners (Nakahara 1984 p. 167).

Speaking more precisely about his state of mind when he established Dorin- ji in T okyo with the help of Yamaoka Tesshu, Nantenboadds: “We practiced zazen and trained our spirit (seishin f ) and we

This expression is used in Dogen^ Hokyoki where D 6 g en ’s master T ianton g

Rujinsr (1162- 1227) is described as claiming his true inherita nce o f the patriarchs 5teachings: “Today, I am the entire depository [sum] of the Buddha D har ma ” IkedA, ed.1994, pp. 43, 45,157). The translation o f sofu as “Chief Prefect” may be a bit too literal(W add e ll 1977, p. 130).




tried to resist (taiko WiS) the Western culture that w ould inevitably becoming” (Nakahara 1984 p. 212).

As a last ex ample of how Nantenbo felt, I should me nt ion a passage

re lated to his re flections ar ound 1889 w hen he was strusrsrling toestablish a practicing dojo in T okyo: “Monks, too are impor tant, but i fone does not first take care of laypeople and strengthen Japan withZen, should there be a crisis leading to war with foreign countries,Japan will lose against the hairy white foreigners (ketd because ofthe number of our citizens, our economic power, and our physicalsize” ( N a k a h a r a 1984 p. 248).

It must be remembered that this discourse took place before the^mo- Japanese and Russo- Japanese conflicts , at a time when the general

atmosphere was still dominated by a lack of confidence. Yet it is discomfiting to see such language, for it prefigures the militaristic rhetoric that led to the Pacific war.

I shall not, of course, attempt to justify Na nte nbo5s declarations, w hich speak for themselves. B ut there is a question that cannot beavoided at this point: Is it possible to identify in Japan at the end ofthe nineteenth century a coherent political discourse that did notsuppor t the imper ial system ex cept for those that urged a re turn tothe Bakufu? I cannot embark on this issue here, but the Japanese Social

ist Party (Toyo shakaito founded by T arui T okichi (1850- 1922), was founded in 1882. One of the surprising features of thisevent is the role played by Buddhist thought in the formation of thisparty (T amamuro 1967 p. 332). Some early alternatives did exist, even though they probably supported but another vision of nationalism.

To go back to Nantenbo 5s declarations, when he speaks for instanceof “the Japanese spirit” ( Yamato damashn this w or d ins tantlyevokes dark associations with the military dictatorship of the Showaera. For a person raised during the Tokugawa period and steeped in

the principles of bushidd, however, it was probably as ordinary as thephrases “the American s piritor T espr it f rangais” in today’s world.To give a provisional conclusion to this delicate question about thenativist dime ns ion I think that more epistemoloedcal reflection is necessary before calling Nantenbo “a staunch nationalist and partisan ofthe Japanese military” ( S h a r f 1993 pp. 11-12). T he whole issue is tooimportant to be treated hastily.

Nantenbos View of Lay Practice

Nantenbo^ teaching activity had an enduring influence on monks as well as on lay people, and he cla imed to have ha d thr ee thous and




spiritual descendants (Nakahara 1984 p. 51 ).64 We have seen that hisdecision to put more emphasis on the training of lay practitioners wasrelated to the failure o f his 1893 proposal. A nother pa inful episode

took place while he was abbot of Zuigan- ji, where he resided between1891 and 1896. The incident was minor; an apprentice had accidentally blackened the nose of a wooden statue representing DateMasamune 15 67- 163 6) the patriar ch of the family thatpatronized the temple, while Nantenbo was away presenting his reformproject in Kyoto. The apprentice was tryine to show it to visitors and,

when he br oug ht the torch too close to the statue it was stained withsoot. In the excitement that followed the monks tried to wash thestain with a floor cloth, b ut the nose was bro ke n (Zuig anji H akubutsu-

kan 1986 pp. Id- 17 ). This provided a perfect pretext for those who rese nted Nante nbo and it was blown up into a lese majesty afiair.

Here a word must be said on the motives of those who felt resentment. The battle around the country that ensued from the Restoration had taken a heavy toll amone natives of Sendai. Pockets ofresistance aeainst the new government remained in northeasternJapan, and the area around Aizu (present Fukushima prefecture) wasunsubduea. Durine the third month of 1868 a pacification unit consisting of pro- Restoration troops fr om the domains of Satsuma,

Chos hu, T osa and Hiz en enter ed Sendai and order ed the S endaidomain to send soldiers to suopress the Aizu resistance. Sendai, whichhad been sympathetic to the cause of those who remained loyal to theBakufu and even led the ephemeral Tohoku alliance (Ouetsu reppan domei had to comulv with the order. A lthoug h thepro- Restor ation side to w hich they belong ed eventually won, as aresult of strategical setbacks the youngest contingent, called Byakkotai

was decimated. A ha ndful of survivors who took refuge on ahill misunderstood the situation and, thinking they had lost the battle,committ ed collective s uicide.65 T ms dramatic story has since become asymbol of the oppressive treatment northeast domains had to sufferfrom the Kyushu domains of Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa, and Hizen,

which led the Restoration. It also confirms the fact that, at the beg inning of the Meiji period, regionalism played a mightier role in mostpeople’s minds than the idea of a “nation,” which had to be stampedon the popular m ind through successive wars and the fabrica tion ofan “external enemy” so as to engender internal cohesion.

Now Nantenbo was, you may recall, from Karatsu in the Hizen

64 O n this, see also K a s u m i 1963, p. 287.

Narratives of this story can be found in the Kokushi daijiten, v o l.1 1 ,p. 1003c and vol.10, pp. 210d-2 11c.




domain. W hen he was appointed to revitalize Zuigan- ji, which had suffered consider able loss in the first years of anti- Buddhist movements,there were many who wished to get rid of “the monk from Hizen.”

The resolute measures he took to reorganize the monastery and toget back some of the temple’s land might also have contributed to bitter feelings. One of the leading figures in the faction hostile to Nantenbo was the senior monk Nagai Chirei, whom Nantenbo describedin his letter to Soen as an evil mon k and who had also practiced atEngaku- ji (Ho s hi 1993 p. 6). Hostility seems to have been reciprocal, although Nantenbo saw all the uproar as a result of opposition to hisreform proposal (Nakahara 1984 p. 271).

Facing increas ing pressure at Zuigan- ji, Na ntenbo eve ntually

re tired to Taibai- ji, also in Sendai, a temple know n for its poverty. T hecommonly held idea that Nantenbo was evicted fr om Zuigan- ji is notaccurate, in the sense that all along he had held the office of abbot ofthree temples in the same area: Zuigan- ji, Taibai- ji, and Kessan- ji

in Shiroishi (also Miyagi Prefecture). After a short transitionalper iod dur ing w hich he res ided at Myokaku- an a small hermitage on the island of Oshima Na nte nbo mov ed to Taibai- jionce his successor, Sassui Soshin (Shaku 1824- 1916)66had been chosen.Ihe poem Nantenbo wrote the day of his arrival atTaibai- ji, on 16 Nov ember 1896, is ke pt among the treasures or thistemple.

It was during this period that Natsume Soseki is reported to havevisited Na ntenbo , but there is no a ccount of this in Na nte nb6 5srecords (Zuiganj i Hakubutsukan 1986 p. 17). T he famous photog raph showing Nante nbo, arms fold e d standing be hind a g roup of

y oung men w ith his disciple , the futur e g ene ral Nog i Maresuke1848- 19 12) was taken at Taibai- ji around the same time

(Kasumi 1963 p.169; Zuiganji Hakubutsukan 1986 p.21). Nogi had jus t been nomina ted to eo to Taiwan and wanted this souvenir pictur e

taken before his departure . T he master- disciple relationship betweenthe two men lasted until Noei’s much publicized suicide after thedeath o f the Meij i emperor . N os is practice had no t been limited to asuperficial acquaintance with zazen, an accomplishment acknowledged by Nantenbo ( N a k a h a r a 1984 pp. 242- 43). The status of Nogias one or his “Dharma successors” is even duly published in Kinsei zenrin soboden, where Nogris re ligious name, Sekisho k o ji is listedfirst among Nantenbo^ lay disciples (KSBD, 3 p. 503). Tms facet ofN oe is personality is, intentionally or not, completely passed over by

66 O n this figure, see Murayama (1980, pp. 44- 45) and Zuig anji H a k u b u t s u k a n (1986pp. 24- 25).




the military “historian” Matsushita Yoshio in his biography of Nogi (I960).

T here were several other high- ranking soldiers who practiced

u n d e r N a n t e n b o , a m o n g t h e m t h e g e n e r a l K o d a m a G e n t a r o1852- 1906) who first introduce d Nogi to Nantenbo. T he

sanzen scene in which Kodama asked Nantenbo, “How should a soldier handle Zen?” was for him memorable. Nantenbo asked him toshow how he would handle three thousand soldiers right now. AsKodama argued that he did not have any soldiers to whom he couldeive orders, Nantenbo pushed him further: “This should be obviousto you... You fake soldier!” Upset, Kodama replied: “How would you do it then?” Whereupon Nantenbo threw Kodama to the ground and

jumpe d on his back, s lapping his buttock with the nanten stick andshouting. “Troops, forward march!” (Nakahara 1984 pp. 205- 8).This comical episode was not, however, appreciated by all oi Nan

tenbo^ contemporaries. Inoue Shuten 1880- 1945) a formerSoto priest who turned to writing harsh criticism of the Zen teachersof his t ime takes this episode as an ex ample of what he calls “thebluffing Zen of NantenboM {Nantenbo no hattari zen ® ).For shuten, “to indulge in this type of childish behavior and to pretend it is ‘a living resource o f Ze n’ is definitely ir re sponsible (Sahashi

1982 p. 95). In short, Shuten considered that the Meiji masters didnot even approach the level of ancient Chinese masters, and that theirsayings and wntines only revealed their hypocrisy. In his critiques,generally not very constructive, Kogaku Soen and Nantenbo were histwo main targets.

There are a few passages in Nantenbo^ writings that suggest thesuperiority of ordained individuals over laypeople, in particular whenhe mentions the strength of the resolve demanded of monks as theybeg to be accepted into a monastery (Nakahara 1984 p. 31). Acknowledging that monks and laypeople have to be treated differently, Nantenbo never theless worked t i re less ly to moni tor several zazen lay groups throughout the country. This type of activity started in 1902,

when he accepted an inv itation from a group called Anjm- e togo to his native region of Saea and conduct a sesshin (Nakahara 1984Dp. 280- 81).

A nother of Nantenbo^ foremost lay disciples was the for mer doctor,Daiken Toin Iida Masak uma 1863- 1937). T heir firstmeeting took place during the nig ht of 2 December 1889 at Taioai- ji.67Daiken had experienced a massive breakthrough and was eaeer to

Nante nbo left Taibai- ji in the spring of 1900, with the inte nt of coming back, butnever returned there (Hoshi 1993 p. 7).




confirm his understanding with a master as soon as possible. Hisunderstanding was acknowledged as genuine, but Nantenbo pressed thenewcomer to further refine and deepen his training. He finally gave

him his full recognition (inka) in 1898 (Nakahara 1984 pp. 244- 45).Daiken Torin was the first lay person to undergo the whole training

process under Nantenb6 5s stern regimen, and he later had a considerable following dur ing the T aisho and Showa periods. S ome of his vigorous teisho have been r ecorded and even now these texts are consideredamong the best commentaries on Zen classics and koan training fromthe po int of view of a practitioner.68 In 1922 however, Daiken chose tobecome a p r ie s t under T a iun S ogaku ( H a r a d a

1871- 1961), becoming his Dharma successor and contr ibuting to the

success of the Rmzai- tinged S oto lineag e that still flourishes atHosshm- ji in Obama (ZGD, p. 19a- b). From another perspective, though, Daiken is also depicted as an incarnation of “nationalistZen” (Ives 1994 pp. 17- 18).

There are hundreds of other disciples who cannot be mentionedhere, but i f we try to summarize the s ingularity of N an te nb6 5s style inparticular when he dealt with laypeople, a few features can be highlighted. First, he conceived of himself as a reformer who tried to emulate the work done by Hakuin (Nakahara 1984 p. 159); he did not

pretend to bring new elements to the Rinzai tradition. Second, hisrequirements for laypersons were in no way less severe than those formonks , since he had placed a lot of hope in the future of lay Zen. Ih eexample of Yamaoka Tesshu is eloquent; he had already received m1880 a certification from Tekisui Giboku before he met Nantenbo(Omori 1983 p. 222; Nakahara 1984 pp. 190- 91). Nante nbo pushedhim to eo further. A third characteristic is Nantenbo^ attitude towardhistorical changes: he apparently did not make any effort to adapt

en practice to the times other than to resist what he considered

superficial vogues. The inner dimension was given priority, and hisdisregard of tactical considerations or compromises probably helpedcause the humiliations he experienced with his 1893 proposal andduring his tenure as abbot of the Zuigan- ji.

Conclusions

Tms review of leizan Korin, Nantenbo, and Hiratsuka is meant asg roundwork o n a topic that is still largely unex plore d, f he figures

ex amined here can be considered four indications that the common

68 See in particular I id a (1934, 1943, and 1954).




tendency to treat “the Zen school” as if it were a homogeneous entityis largely artificial. Besides the fact that such simplification temporarilyserved the purpose of the new Meiji government, it is simply inade

quate to describe the diversity of positions found among individualsconnected with the Zen schools. Sectarian categories, which form themain articulation of Japanese scholarship, also reveal their deficiencies:they tend to obliterate the direct exchange of ideas between individuals belonging to different traditions and to pass over discrepanciesfound within a single denomination. Unraveling this maze of mutualinfluences or aver sions dur ing Meiji is a task that has jus t beg un.There is no methodological recipe for avoiding the two extremes ofgeneralization and excessive fragmentation, and only a patient accu

mulation of cases can help us put together a picture that does justiceto multifariousness. We hav e seen tha t there wer e sev eral factions ins ide the Soto

school: those in favor of new Meiji policies and those who stoodagainst it those who s ided with Eihei- ji and those who were faithful toS o j i - j i ; but these are merely gross demarcations. Teizan’s zealous commitment showed a true talent for diplomacy and promoting compromises, either within rival groups of his denomination or with theauthorities. This point might be related to maturity coming with age:Teizan was already sixty-four at the time of the Restoration, as contrasted with Korin, who was thirty- four, and Nantenbo who was thirty

years old at the time. Raicho was ak in to the childr en of the postwargeneration: bor n nine teen years after the Meiji coup d5etat, she wasindifferent to the trials and tribulations experienced by her seniors.

In our look at Oba ku clergy, we have briefly ex amined K or in’s case,but here too we found a similar picture of internal dissensions, in particular regarding how to deal with new economic contingencies.K or in’s decision to consult mainly Rinzai teachers fur ther ex emplifieshis frustration with his own school. In the case of Nantenbo, we sawthat different styles coexisted among Rinzai teachers, including notonly the usual distinction between the Inzan and Takuju lines but alsoa slightly different understanding of lay practice, for instance betweenthe line or Nantenbo and that or the Engaku- ji. A lthoug h, for the sakeof simplicity, I have briefly mentioned tensions between Nantenboand teachers fr om the Engaku- ji line, I do no t mean to indicate thatthe Rinzai school at that time was dominated by these two lines. There

were other sig nif icant tr ends, such as those repr es ented by the BizenBranch (Bizen- ha 69 and the Mino B ranch (Mino- ha

T he Meiji- period Engaku- ji line was linked with the Bizen Br anch thro ug h Gisan Zen-rai 1802- 1878) and his successor Kosen S oon.




and the differences in style among the various monasteries survive tothis day.70

In Hiratsuka Raicho, we saw how a lay practitioner belonging to the

intellectual elite could shift from one line to the other, and the issueslink ed with such moves. Hirats uka5s plainspoke n memoirs , descr ibing,for instance , Sokatsu5s successor at Engaku- ji as “unatt rac tiv e” alsoshow the limitations of our attempts to categorize teachers withinspecific compartments; these attempts fall short of recognizing thatthe different orientations and choices of an individual ultimatelybelong to the subjective matter of human relations, which are farfrom philosophical rubrics.

The complexity of these various tendencies should not prevent us

fr om outlining general developments. A n attempt to resist the growing influence of Christian movements was a necessity for all Buddhistsects, and broadening the basis of lay practitioners was another way toreact against the sluggishness or the Buddhist clergy. Concretely, ZenBuddhist leaders faced changes in legislation and economic problems. A related issue was that of the motivation for enter ing monkhood. In the three cases of Teizan, Korin, and Nantenbo we see thattheir ordination followed the death of a parent, this being linked toacute poverty in the case of Korin. A nother s hared feature that under

lies their diversity is the dynamic responses they showed to the variouschallenges they had to face. In the three instances we note a commitment to educative activities that seems to go beyond mere yielding toofficial rulings .

Besides the constraints and the aforementioned developments, itnevertheless appears difficult to pinpoint changes in their perceptionof the fundamentals of their own teachings and traditions. The effortsof Nantenbo in particular were aimed instead at returning to theroots o f the T okugawa Rinzai tr adition, incarnate d for him by Hak uin.

Yet our inv es tigation was essentially limit ed to figures who becameempowered by their roles as teachers. One can wonder to what extentthis can be extrapolated to Zen practitioners in general. Raicho presents an example of an attempt to go beyond this limitation, but shebelonged to the privileged class. While the prominence gained bylaypeople has ineluctably affected the discourse of the teachers to acertain extent, the privileges monopolized by the clergy licensed themto preserve convictions about their respective traditions that appear to

70 '

T his is, for ex ample, illustrated by the r ather unknow n line of T oshu Reiso(Ito 1854- 1916), belong ing to the Mino Branch, which stands in contrast to the morefamous Bizen Branch, both belonging to the line of Inzan. This lineage is discussed by K a t o

Shoshun (1981) in the article translated in this issue.




be almost immovable if we compare those convictions with their Tokugawa predecessors.

In this regard the standpoint of Nantenbo, who considered that the

early Meiji government was infatuated with things foreign, and hisefforts to “resist Western culture” by putting more emphasis on thespiritual, appears meaningful, especially if we cease for a moment toproject “nationalist” categories onto Meiji figures. In separateinstances we saw that regional divisions were still fully present in theapprehension of Meiji events. The question of an evolution in thementality of the rank- and- file lay people involv ed in Ze n practice,

when they are viewed independently from the ir teachers, is one of themany queries requiring further research.

REFERENCES

A B B R E V IA T IO N S

HZS Hakuin osho zenshu . 8 vols. Goto Koson andMori Daikyo eds. Tokyo: Ryuginsha, 1934-1935. (reprint1967)

KSBD Kinsei zenrin soboden . 3 vols. Ogino Dokuon . Kyoto: Shibunkak u, 1973. (orig inal publication 1890)

NBJ Nihon Bukkyd jinmei jiten . Ed. Nihon Bukkyo Jin-mei Jiten Hensan Iin k a i ed. Tokyo:Hozokan, 1992.

NKG Nihon kin gendai shi jiten . Nihon Kin Gendai ShiJiten Henshu Iin k a i ed. Tokyo: ToyoKeizai Shinposha, 1978 (1990).

OBJ Obaku bunka jinmei jiten . Otsuki MikioKato Shoshun and Hayashi Y ukimitsu eds.Kyoto: Shibunkaku, 1988.

SBM Sotoshu kankei bunken mokuroku . Sotoshu Shugaku Kenkyusho ed. Tokyo: Sotoshu Shumucho,1990.

STZ Sotoshu zensho . S6toshii Zensho Kankokai e d.,18 vols. Tokyo: Sotoshu Shumucho, 1970- 1973.

ZGD Zengaku daijiten . 1 vol. (new ed.), Zengaku Daijiten Hen-sansho ed. Tokyo: T aishukan, 1978 (198 5).

S O U R C E S ( P R I O R T O T A IS H O E RA )

Korin zenji shinsan ^ handwrit ten manus cr ipt copy by a monk named Esshin 1 made in 1903 orig inal da ted 1900 9




pages, archive of the Sofuku- ji of Nagasaki, copy at the Obaku Bunka Kenkyusho .

Obaku dai yonjuichi dai Korin Yosho zenji ryakunenpu

manuscr ipt by Yoshinaga S ets udomarked “uncom pleted26 pages, archive o f the S ofukuji ofNagasaki, copy at the Obaku Bunka Kenkyusho.

Obakusan dai yonjuichi dai Yoshii Korin zenji ryakuden article inc luded in the jo ur na l Zenshu 92

November 1902 pp. 35—48 Kyoto: Baiyo Shoin a briefnote at the end of the article indicates that it had been puttogether by Korin’s disciple Yoshii Ranpo : and other disciples) .

Seirai Tokuo Kb osho nenpu inc lude d in STZ: shiden, gekan pp. 380- 96.

7>nr include d in K aw ag uchi 1982.Tetteki tosui firs t publis hed in 1783 then in 1788 with Fug ai5s

capping phrases; included in STZ: juko .Ushakurd kokanroku by Fugai Honko .

L AT E R S O U R C E S

A d d i s s , Steohen

1986 The life and art of Fugai Ekun, The Eastern Buddhist 19: 59-75. A kizuki Ry omin I

1982 Zen no hito:Watakushi no deatta jinsei no shitachi . Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo.

Be s s e r m a n , Perle and Manfred St e g e r

1991 Crazy Clouds: Zen Radicals, Rebels and Reformers. Boston and London: ^hambhala.

Bo d if o r d , William M.1991 Dharma transmission in Soto Zen: Manzan Dohak u^ ref orm

movement. Monumenta Nipponica 46: 423- 51.1993 Soto Zen in Medieval Japan. Studies in East Asian Buddhism 8

Kuroda Institute. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Co l l c u t t , Martin1981 Five Mountains: The Rinzai Zen Monastic Institution in Medieval

Japan. Harvard East Asian Monographs 85. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.

1986 Buddhism: The threat of eradication. In Japan in Transition: From Tokugawa to Meiji, Marius B. Jansen and Gilbert Rozman, eds.,

pp. 143- 67. Princeton: Pr inceton University Press.Fa d e r , L arry A.

1982 Histor ical and philosophical implications of the 1893 Chicago




W or ld’s Parliament of Re ligions. The Eastern Buddhist 15:122- 45.

F i e l d s , R i c k

1992 How the Swans Came to the Lake: A Narrative History of Buddhism in

America. Third edition, revised and updated. Boston and London: Shambhala.

T h e Fi r s t Zen In st it u t e o f A me r ic a , ed.1947 Cat’s Yawn: A Zen Miscellany. New York: The First Zen Institute of

America.

H e i s i g , J a m e s W . a n d J o h n C . M a r a l d o , eds.

1994 Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School the Question of Nationalism. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

H i r a t s u k a R a i c h o1992 Genshi, josei wa taiyd de atta . 4 vols., Koku-min bunKo . T okyo: Otsuki shoten. (nrst edition1971- 73 Otsuki Shoten, with a different pagination)

H o s h i Y u u n

1993 K antogoto: “K usama kur a” to “Rikusen T aiba iji”. / ^ 1993/01/01): 4-7.

IiDAT6in1934 Sanzen manroku . Ashiya: Iida T oin Itoku Kenshokai.

(reprint 1986)1943 Zen’yH ni ataeru no sho . Tokyo: Daito Shuppan.

(revised ed. 1978)1954 Kaian kokugo . Kyoto: Kichudo. (first ed.

1920)

Ikeda Rosan1994 Hokyoki: Dogen no nisso guho noto .

Tokyo: Daito ShuDpan.

Im a m u r a M o t o i c h i

1991 Obak ushu shi kenkyuka: Yoshinaga Setsudo no shogai (Showa otsuzuru hito to g ur u pu 17 ) ( . Nishi nihon bunka 277: 6- 9.

I s a h a y a K i n d a i s h i H e n s h u i i n k a i

1992 Isahaya kindaishi Isahaya: Isahayashi.

Isahaya Shishi H ens anshitsu1962 Isahaya shishi . 4 vols. Isahaya: Isahaya Shiyak usho.

(reprint 1975)

Iv e s , C h r i s t o p h e r1994 Ethical pitfalls in imperial Zen and Nishida philosophy: Ichikawa

H ak uffens critique, in Heisig and Ma rald o 1994 Dp. 16- 39.




K a s um i B u n s h o

1963 Zen ni ikiru kesso Nantenbo . Tokyo: Shunjusha.K a t o S h o s h u n

1969 Shikyo Eryo to goko dojo no kaiso ni tsuite . Zengaku kenkyu 57: 253-67.

1981 G udo n no ke ifu: T oiu Reiso to sono s huhen . Zenbunka henshubu ed. Meiji no

Zensho . Kyoto: Ze nbunka K enkyusho, pD. 271- 90.1985 Hakuin osho nenpu . V o l. 7 Kinsei Zenso Den

. K y o to : S h i b u nk a k u .

K a w a g u c hi K o f u

1982 Shiratori Teisan osho kenkyu: Meijiki Sotoshu no sekitoku

_ . Tokyo: Daiichi Shobo.1985 Fugai Honko osho: Kenkyu to goroku _ .

Tokyo: Meicho Fukvukai.1993 Fugai . In Dogen shiso no crmmi v o l . 3 Edo

j id a i Sotoshu Shugaku K enky ujo ed.,pp. t>o6-72. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.

K e t e l a a r , J a m e s

1990 Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

K is h id a K i n u o

1973 Homyaku: Gendai zensho retsuden . Kyoto: Chu-g a i N i d d o .

1994 Kikutsu no tan: K indai zenso no sei to shi . K y o to : T a nk o s h a.

K it a g a w a , Jos eph Mitsuo1987 The 1893 Wor ld’s Par liament of Religions and its legacy. In The

History of Religions: Understanding Human Experience, AAR Studiesin Relig ion No. 47. Atlanta: Scholars Press, pp. 353- 68.

K o h o C h is a n

1927 Ekido zenji: Fu shokanshu { Seng ai) . Dai-honzan Sojiji Shushikyoku ed. Tokyo:Komeisha.

Kokushi Daijiten Henshu Iinkai ed.1979-1997 Kokushi daijiten . Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.

M a t s u s h i t a Yo s h io

1960 Nogi .Jinbutsu Sosho . Tokyo: Yoshikawa

Kobunkan. (1992)M o h r , M i c h e l

1994 Zen Buddnism during the Tokugawa Period: The challenge to




go beyond sectarian consciousness. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 21:341- 72.

1995 Monastic tradition and lay practice fr om the perspective of Nan

tenbo: A response of Japanese Zen B uddhism to modernity. Zen Buddhism Today 12.

1997 Traite sur Vlnepuisable Lampe du Zen: Torei (1721- 1792) et sa vision de Veveil. 2 vols. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 28. Brussels(Bruxelles): Institut Beige des Hautes Etudes Chinoises.

M ur a s e G e n m y o

1982 Rinzai no shoju bakumon ni okoru . Zenbunka 104: 72- 77.

M ur a y am a T a i o

1 9 8 0 Z u im n - ji s h i . S e n d a i : H o b u n d o .

N a k a h a r a T 6 s hii !^ ( N a n t e n b o )

1916 Tamo ichiban fe— Tokvo: Kawano Shuppan du.1917 .Tokyo: Toado Shobo.1920 . Tokyo: Osakayago Shoten.1920 Akuratsu zanmai . Tokyo: T eikoku shuppan Kyokai.1922 Dokugo . Tokyo: Senshindo.1928 Zen no kyokuchi: Kokoro o neri hito o tsukuru

. T o ky o : C h u o S h up pa n s h a .1928 Nantenbo teisho: Mumonkan . Tokyo: Sen

shindo.1984 Nantenbo angyaroku . A kizuki Ryomin sen zensho

fukkoku shirlzu Sf 3 A kizuki Ry ominSf ed., Tokyo: Hirakawa Shupoan. (first published in 1921)

1985 Nantenbo zenwa S . Akizuki Ryomin sen zensho fukkokushirizu 5 Akizuki Ryomin ed. Tokyo: Hirakawa Shuppan. (firstpublished in 1915 by Heigo Shuppan)

Nakamura Hajime and Takeda Kiyoko eds.1982 K indai nihon: Tetsugaku a .

Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki.

N i h o n R e k i s h i G a k k a i ed.

1981 M eiji ishin jinm e i jite n . To k y o: Yo s hik a w a Kobunkan.

O m o r i S o g e n

1983 Yamaoka Tesshu . Tokyo: Shunjusha. (r eprint 1994)

R i n o ie M a s a f u m i1981 Obaku san ketsu: Egoku Domyo zenji den _ .

Tokyo: Daizo Shuppan.




S a h a s hi H o r y u I

1982 Inoue Shuten . Tokyo: Meicho Fukyukai.Sa w a d a A n d e r s o n , J a n i n e

1994 Religious conflict in Bakumatsu J apan: Zen Master ImakitaKosen and Confucian scholar Higashi fakusha. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 21:211- 30.

S c h w a l l e r , D i e t e r

1996 Unreiner Zen ? Zwei Texte des Obaku- Mdnchs Choon dokai (1628- 1695). V o l .20 Schweizer Asiatische Studien: Monogra-phien. Bern: Peter Lang.

Senzaki Nyogen and Ruth Strout McCandless1964 The Iron Flute:100 Zen koans. Rutland and Tokyo: Tuttle, (reprint

1985)S h a r f , R o b e r t H .

1993 The Zen of Japanese nationalism. History of Religions 33:1- 43.1994 Whose Zen? Zen nationalism revisited. In Heisig and Ma r al do

1994 40- 51.S h ib e K e n ’i c h i

1993 T okuo no Daijoji taiin mondai ni tsuite: Ryoko osho taan jitsuroku h o n k o k u —Sotoshu Shumku Kenkyusho kiw 6: 60-81.

1994 T okuo Ryoko no shiho ni tsuite: Sairai osho zoseki yurai ochushin toshite

Indomku bukkvdmku kenkyu 42: 773- 77.1995 Dok uan Genko o meg uru mondaiten: Manzan keito oyobi

Tenkei ni yoru Dokuan hihan . In Dokuan Genko to Edo shicho

'/1 } Kagamishima Genryu, ed., pp. 267- 9 . Tokyo: Perikan.

S h im a n o E i d o

1981 S enzak i Ny og en shi to Soe n ro shi no kor y u

. Zenbunka 101: 186-205.S u z u k i D a i s e t s u

1992 Gekidoki Meiji no koso: Imakita Kosen .Shinpan Suzuki Daisetsu Zen senshu 10. Tokyo:shunjusha. (revised ed.; nrs t Drmted m 1944 then m 1962)

Tada Minoru1990 Bukkyd tdzen: Taiheiyd o w at atta Bukkyd

. K y o to : Z e n b u n k a K e n k y us h o.

T a k a h a s h i Iw a o1997 Kusamakura ibun, Rikuzen no T aibaiji: Sokuten kyoshi e no kiseki

. Tokyo: K indai Bungeisha.




T a k e n uk i G e n s h o

1989 Nihon Zenshushi . Tokyo: Daizo Shuppan.1993 Nihon Zenshushi kenkyu . Tokyo: Yuzankaku.

T a k u s hi K y o d o S h ir y o k a n

1991 Taku no senkakusha shoga . Taku: T akushi KyodoShiryokan (catalog).

Tamamura Takeji and Inoue Zenjo1964 Engaku- ji • . Tokyo: Shunjusha.

T a m a m u r o T a is e i e d.

1967 Nihon Bukkydshi: Kinsei kindai hen _ . Kyoto:Hozokan. (third of 3 vols.)

T a n ak a T a m e ic h i1965 Isahaya shidan . Isahaya: Isahayashi Kyoiku Iinkai.

T h e l l e , N o t t o R .

1987 Buddhism and Christianity in Japan: From Conflict to Dialogue, 1854- 1899. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

T o t m a n , C o n r a d

1980 The Collapse of the Tokugawa Bakufu, 1862-1868. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

W a d d e l l , N o r m a n , t r .

1977 D6gen’s Hokyo- ki: Part I. The Eastern Buddhist 10:102- 39.1978 D6gen’s Hokyo- ki: Part II. The Eastern Buddhist 11:66- 83.1982 Wild ivy: The spiritual autobiography of Hakuin Ekaku (Part 1).

The Eastern Buddhist 15: 71- 109.1983 Wild ivy: The spiritual autobiography of Hakuin Ekaku (Part 2).

The Eastern B uddhist 16:107- 39.

Y a n a g id a S e iz a n

1989 Shamon Ryokan: J ihitsubon uSddd s hi s huo yomu . Kyoto: Jinbun Shoin.

Y o k o y a m a , Wayne S . , t r.

1993 Two addresses by Shaku Soen: “The Law of Cause and Effect, AsT aught by Buddha” translated by D. T. Suzuki; “Reflections onan American Journey ,w The Eastern Buddhist 26:131- 48.

Y o s h id a D o k o

1993 Sotoshu to Rinzai, Obakushu to no kosho . In Dogen shiso no ay umi v o l . 3 Edo jidai

Sotoshu Shugaku K enky ujo ed. pp.

155-96. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, pp. 155-96.Z e n b u n k a H e n s h u b u ed.

1981 Meiji no Zensho f . Kyoto: Zenbunka Kenkyusho.



Zuiganji Hakubutsukan ed.1986 M e iji zenki no Z uig a nji ten: Hok uzan to Nantenbo

. Matsushima: Zuiganji Hak ubutsukan.

M ohr Japanese Zen Schools 213

mohr michel - japanese zen schools and the transition to meiji

Documents