Over the years, first in Hawaii and now on the mainland, I have
become increasingly aware of perplexity within the Shin community. It is
a problem I see reflected in youth who have little understanding of, or
concern for, their Shinshu heritage. I have met them frequently in
classes I have taught. A similar problem is reflected among Shin clergy
who face many obstacles in trying to chart creative directions for their
institution. And it is reflected also among the lay people, who
themselves do not understand the teachings and who wonder why their
children show little interest in their Shinshu heritage. I myself have
witnessed what I could consider profound theological confusion, so that
there sometimes seems to be a conflict between being Buddhist and being
Shin Buddhist. Among both lay and clergy, there is a conflict on how the
Shin Buddhist faith relates to everyday life and society.
As I have contemplated these problems, for which -- as a Shin
Buddhist convert I have deep concern -- I have come to realize that, in
fact, they have their roots deep in Shin history as it unfolded within
the framework of Japanese society and its perspectives on religion. The
American Shin Buddhist community is an extension of that history. As I
struggled to gain a handle on the problem, I found myself drawn back to
the earliest times of Shin history to observe the interaction of
historical circumstances and human decision. I also found myself rather
deeply over my head in trying to gather the materials to draw this
picture, since we must rely largely on scholarship in Japanese, though
there are several excellent works now available in English.
The subject has been painful in a variety of ways. It is not an
altogether bright picture to contemplate from our contemporary
standpoint. To my mind, the perspective from which we may approach these
serious issues of the problems of Shinshu in America is one given by
Prof. Kitanishi, an assistant professor of Otani University in Kyoto, in
an essay on the formation and development of the Honganji Kyodan. He
subtitles his essay: "One phase in the loss of religiosity." [1]
According to Kitanishi who relies on Kiyozawa Manshi, a Meiji period
Shin reformer, over the course of Shin history an order has been
constructed in the name of Shinran, but in the process of
institutionalization, people have lost sight of Shinran and have also
had the misfortune of losing insight into the humanity which Shinran
himself perceived so deeply and profoundly. As a result, there has been
a loss of true self. Rather, living only by the "other within the
self," the externalized authority and reality that is internalized
has been taken for the real self.
Kiyozawa called this loss of the direct self (Chokka no Jiko) and
proposed that if one wished to liberate himself from the "other
within himself," he must feud vehemently with the pattern of the
Kyodan (Order), the institutionalization of Shinshu which surrounds him.
He goes on to say that the new starting point for the Order begins with
this feud, that the confrontation is the vehicle for renewal and
rediscovery of the direct self which is the focus of Shinran's
teachings. Kitanishi notes that in the past, when this issue arose, the
Order had developed suitably as the womb which gave birth to subjective
human beings who could endure that struggle. While in the past there may
have been people who saw the problem and who engaged in the battle,
there was, however, no major reform. One must dismantle the self, says
Kitanishi, if there is to be progress.
We would add to this that in order for such a process to take place,
one must understand the way in which we have arrived at our present
condition. Thus, we need an overview of its historical process as a
guide to our dealing with the problem and potentialities of Shinshu in
America, and with the present and future of Shin Buddhism in the modern
world.
To show the potential of Shinran's thought and to point out its
relevance to our time, we must note that hardly had his long life ended
than the processes of the institutionalization and formalization of his
teaching began. Some of this, undoubtedly, was stimulated by problems
which had emerged before his passing, and therefore, we cannot impute
any bad intentions or negative meaning to what took place. Such
developments may be negative if they are considered to be the true norm,
rather than the working out of a tradition for which the future is still
open.
The essential fact we must remember is that we will have departed
from the most basic insight of Shinran, as well as Buddhism itself, if
we consider the future closed because the past is more real or
authoritative than the present. This is the heart of the problem of
institutionalization of Shinshu and the consequences for Buddhism of
centuries of repressive political control of the Honganji as well as of
other Buddhist orders by the state in Japan.
After the passing of Shinran, the fellowships that he began were
small informal groups without any institutionalization or hierarchy in
the beginning. These groups were scattered throughout the Kanto region.
They were, apparently, rather independent and loosely organized. The
followers met in halls or in homes but did not possess temples as such.
They were unrecognized as a religious movement and do not appear on
ancient records outside the sect. In general, the type of organization
taken up in the provinces was the more voluntaristic ko, which was
organized for the common person. The ko was a cooperative consultative
body whose leaders were the older and trusted disciples of Shinran, such
as Yuienbo, author of the "Tannisho," Shoshin or Shimbutsu.
When Shinran passed away, he did not apparently designate
specifically anyone to take over his position, even from among his own
seven children. Instead, during his lifetime, one of his most anguished
decisions was to disown his eldest son Zenran, who claimed he had been
given secret teachings by his father.
During his years of ministry in Kanto, Shinran began with very simple
institutional elements such as the ko groups, but upon his death, there
was an immediate effort to give them firmer shape. His grave was
originally merely a marker at Otani, in the vicinity of what is at
present the Chion-in temple of the Jodo school. The marker soon became a
mausoleum, and then a temple, so that the process of venerating and
exalting Shinran as the founder of Shin Buddhism began almost
immediately. The emphasis on hereditary succession of leadership was
promoted from the beginning, as explained in the essay, "Rennyo and
the Shinshu Revival," by Prof. Weinstein:
"Despite the apparent success that these men had in gaining a devoted
following, both lay and clerical, during their lifetime, their attempts
to reform and purify Buddhism did not immediately bear fruit. To the
contrary, we find in most instances after the death of the founder, a
common pattern emerged whereby the self-proclaimed followers venerate
the founder virtually to the point of deification while they ignore or
distort his teaching and often revert to the very type of Buddhist
belief or practice that the founder had attempted to reform." [2]
In this manner, after Shinran's passing, the process of
institutionalization with its implied controls began to take place.
There was, certainly, the necessity to preserve the memory of the
founder and his teaching in its purity. Though Shinshu lacked
independent recognition from the authorities, Shinran's daughter,
Kakushin-ni, felt the need to provide a rallying point or center -- a
place of pilgrimage -- for the loosely knit fellowship of her father's
followers. There may have been some fear on her part that the land where
the marker was placed might be sold in later times, as well as, also a
residual influence of the ancestral reverence so strong in Japan. As
Yuienbo's "Tannisho" indicates, institutionalization may have also been a
way to deal with heresy.
Problems had already arisen in Shinran's lifetime, and they appear in
the "Tannisho" as well as Shinran's letters. Shinran could not prevent
such developments, nor could his eldest son, Zenran, solve them. Zenran,
in fact, had to be disowned in the interests of the greater fellowship.
It would appear from this incident that Shinran did not place a greater
premium on blood line over spirit, and that he did not ask, nor
designate, any of his children to carry on his teachings.
Whatever her motives, Shinran's daughter, Kakushin-ni, assumed
responsibility to care for the tomb in Kyoto, and thus set up the
Rusushiki or office of caretaker. By 1277, Shinran's followers in the
provinces recognized Kakushin-ni's role and helped to maintain it.
Eventually, a more suitable mausoleum was constructed and the care of
the shrine became the hereditary duty of Kakushin-ni's descendants.
She was followed in office by her eldest son, Kakue. Next, after some
difficulties, it came to Kakunyo, Shinran's great-grandson in 1301 when
he was 41 years of age. Kakunyo had ambitions to make the mausoleum and
his office the center of the Shin sect. In 1290 he had traveled through
the provinces visiting places related to Shinran. He subsequently
developed the Hoonko service to express gratitude and reverence toward
the founder. He also wrote a biography the "Godensho" to exalt him. He
also remodeled the tomb and had a new picture of Shinran produced, a
picture which then became highly venerated.
Kakunyo attempted to transform Shinran's tomb into a temple with the
name Senjuji, but faced opposition from the authorities of Hiei who
objected to the name since it referred to the prohibited Pure Land
teachings and used the term which characterized Honen's Nembutsu (Senju
means sole practice). Despite this, by 1321 it appears that the less
prejudicial term Honganji -- which also refers to Pure Land teachings --
was in use. By about 1333, Honganji received the status of a kitojo (a
temple for prayers), or chokuganji (a temple authorized by the
government to pray for the welfare of the country) from the southern
court. In 1334, Shorenin (the headquarters of the Tendai sect)
recognized its independence from the Kanto believers. Kakunyo also
attempted to place an image of Amida in the central position, with the
image of Shinran to the side. He was opposed in this by the provincial
believers, but such an altar arrangement later came about with Abbot
Zennyo.
For Kakunyo to secure his leadership, he had to combine the claim of
blood lineage with that of spiritual lineage. This he did by maintaining
that he had received Shinran's teaching through Nyoshin, the son of
Zenran, who, though disowned, had followers in the Kanto area. As
Weinstein points out, numerous factors may operate here such as the
transmission through master-disciple, the principle of primogeniture and
the right of inheritance belonging to the eldest son. Kakunyo's various
efforts to establish the independence of Honganji in relation to the
provincial groups stimulated more sectarian activity among the disciples
who split into several groups. Whatever their reasons, the disciples
somewhat distrusted Kakunyo.
Following Kakunyo, Zennyo took over and administered Honganji under
the control of Shorenin. At this time, Honganji was considered a
sub-sect of Tendai. These relationships restricted efforts at Shin
development and with the greater independence of the provincial
believers, financial problems arose. Notable was the development of the
Takata school which in 1478 also became a chokugansho, receiving
recognition from Emperor Tsuchimikado.
Fortunes began to change for Honganji with the appearance of Rennyo,
the eighth patriarch, in the fifteenth century. At the request of his
mother, Rennyo launched a popular campaign to spread Jodo Shinshu.
However, in the course of doing this, he incurred the wrath of the
Tendai sect on Mount Hiei, which regarded the teaching -- namely that of
unimpeded light (Mugeko) -- as a heresy. In 1465 Hiei attacked the
center of Otani and also threatened Takata. Because of these and various
other problems, Rennyo moved frequently. He transferred from Yamashina
to Yoshizaki near Kyoto. Finally, in 1489, he retired and built a
hermitage in Ishiyama near Osaka. Under Rennyo's leadership, Honganji
encountered many problems, but grew in numbers and strength, and
continued to grow for more than a century until the split between the
East and West Honganji, a split that has persisted to modern times.
In historical retrospect, it is clear that Rennyo laid the foundation
for the popular spread of Shinshu by presenting the teaching in ways
which the common man could grasp, just as Shinran himself had done. In
this popularization, however, some of the subtlety of Shinran's own
thought was perhaps reduced in favor of clear and concrete belief.
Sometimes, in meeting a particular crisis, decisions are made which at
the time hold yet unknown implications for the future. Rennyo appears to
have forwarded the developing ecclesiasticism and centrality of
hereditary abbacy through his own charisma. While on one side he warned
against the tendency of Zenchishiki-danomi (dependence on a teacher) as
a means to assure people of their salvation, his own charisma created
such a dependency on himself and his successors. Thus, after Rennyo,
zenchishiki-danomi, still a negative term in its implications, comes to
refer to reliance on teachers other than the abbot.
Similarly, in the struggle to restrain the tendencies to
antinomianism and ridicule of the gods and Buddhas, Rennyo also
counseled obeying the laws of the state. He urged followers not to
express contempt for traditional religions. He established regulations
to control Honganji and aided in the transformation of Pure Land faith
from an individual quest of salvation (as it had been for Shinran), to a
group-oriented faith. Through his close relation to the peasants in
various regions, Rennyo caused them to band together as local groups.
This tendency to sectarian feeling and communality was strengthened
through the struggles in the Ikko-ikki wars (known as peasant revolts).
Through all of these various developments under Rennyo Shonin, the
Honganji gradually became a firmly structured, virtually authoritarian
movement which subordinated the individual to the group, cultivated a
paternalism on the part of the leadership, and encouraged a dependency
and ardency on the part of the follower. After Rennyo, the Ikko-ikki
wars (which have the appearance of defense of the "faith", or
anti-feudalism) increased with the result that the community transformed
from one of nurturing trust to one of feudalistic character. To that
extent, it departed from Shinran to a point from which it could not
return. The ko turned into gumi -- an organization for warfare. Sect
egoism grew. The anomalous belief was implanted in Shin followers that
one could vindicate one's rebirth only by exposing himself to the danger
of giving his life in bloodshed. This transformation in the character of
Honganji took place in the period of Shonyo, during the Temmon period --
1532-55. The Ikko-ikki struggles were the turning point.
There were many levels in the feudal structure of the Shin order,
Honganji-Ikkashu (one family group), also Daibozu, Matsuji, Dojo, and
Monto respectively, chief priest, branch temple, practice or worship
center, and follower. There was a structure to meet external threat, and
internally there developed the centrality of the head with power of
excommunication, which threatened the future destiny of the believer.
There were strong religious sanctions which could execute a person
spiritually but which also were tantamount to physical execution, since
individuals excommunicated from the village lost their right to live. It
is remarkable that the systematization of Honganji with such strong
internal sanctions, could be so very tolerant to outside groups. In
effect, in that period, Honganji externally taught Shinran, but in its
internal promulgation was non-Shinran.
The joy of faith which should be robust among followers was
transformed to a passive prudentialism of safety first. Teaching became
indoctrination and was symbolized in the practice of not permitting
people to read such works as the "Tannisho" until they were matured. As
with most Orders of medieval Buddhism, Honganji entered modern times
with no essential change in its institutional attitudes and practices.
Higashi Honganji became buried within the feudalism of the Tokugawa and
the ethics of the Order took shape within this framework where
conservatism was viewed as stability. The history of Nishi Honganji,
following the division of the two, was not entirely dissimilar.
In 1602, when Tokugawa Ieyasu sided with the Abbott Kyonyo in a
dispute with Abbott Junnyo over the succession of the 12th patriarch,
Kyonyo's supporters became known as Higashi (East) Honganji, from its
location at Karasumaru in Kyoto. Nishi (West) Honganji was located at
Horikawa. This division weakened the political and social power of the
organization, for each side of the division was now more subservient to
the feudal regime.
After the onset of the Meiji restoration, and the full opening of
Japan to western influence, the Shin sect played a significant role in
helping Japan face the problems of the modern era. There were positive
efforts by Honganji in the areas of religious reform, social work, and
Buddhist scholarship and education. Some Shin Buddhists were
instrumental in making religious freedom a reality in modern Japan.
However, important as these contributions undeniably are, such efforts
were limited both because they had strong nationalist coloring and were
largely directed to opposing Christianity. It is apparent from later
developments that these changes in the Meiji era did not reach the grass
roots, rank and file Buddhists in Japan.
1. The fellowships that carried on Shinran's teachings after his
death were generally:
a) highly institutionalized b) loosely organized c) hierarchical in
nature
2. Prof. Weinstein noted in his essay, "Rennyo and the Shinshu
Revival," that in most instances after the death of the founder, the
followers:
a) preserve the founder's teachings in pure form b) deify the
founder and distort his teachings c) continue to reform the tradition
in the way the founder would have
3. Which of Shinran's successors wrote a biography to exalt Shinran,
attempted to establish the independence of Honganji, and claimed to have
both a blood and spiritual lineage that originated with Shinran?
a) Kakunyo b) Kakushin-ni c) Kakue
4. Under the leadership of Rennyo, the 8th patriarch:
a) Honganji received the support of Hiei b) the individual quest for
salvation was valued over the unity of the group c) the foundation for
the popular spread of Shinshu was laid
5. "The loss of the direct self (chokka no jiko)," as
described by Kiyozawa Manshi and presented by Prof. Kitanishi,
refers to:
a) the loss of the true self as a result of the domination of the
Shin institution over the individual b) the sense of alienation people
are experiencing today c) the loss of ego that occurs in meditation.
6. After the passing of Shinran, the type of organization taken up in
the provinces was the ko which was organized for the common person. The
leaders of the ko were:
a) members of Shinran's immediate family b) well-educated men of
high status in the community c) the older and trusted disciples of
Shinran
7. Shinran's grave, originally merely a marker at Otani:
a) remained simple and obscure. b) soon became a mausoleum, and then
a temple c) was moved to Tokyo
8. The fact that Shinran did not designate any of his children to
carry on his teachings probably meant that:
a) Shinran did not trust his own children b) Shinran's first
priority was not to carry on his own bloodline c) Shinran had one of
his disciples in mind
9. Which of Shinran's successors developed the Hoonko service, wrote
the "Godensho" (a biography exalting Shinran), and tried to turn Shinran's
tomb into a temple?
a) Kakushin-ni b) Zennyo c) Kakunyo
10. The ikko-ikki wars (known as peasant revolts) were the turning
point in the development of Honganji because they:
a) promoted sect egoism, feudalism, and authoritarianism b) reversed the process of
institutionalization c) marked the
point at which Honganji renounced the feudal regime
