04-modern-buddhism-tanigawa-on-teaching (1).pdf

8/19/2019 04-Modern-Buddhism-Tanigawa-on-Teaching (1).pdf

1/29

Modern Buddhism in

Japan

edited by

H Makoto

Ō EiichiPaul L. S

nanzan


2/29

Contents

Editors’ Introduction:Studies on Modern Buddhism in Contemporary Japan

– H Makoto, Ō Eiichi, and Paul L. S

Shin Buddhist Contributions to the JapaneseEnlightenment Movement of the Early s

– Mick D

e Movement Called “New Buddhism”in Meiji Japan

– Ō Eiichi

e Age of Teaching:

Buddhism, the Proselytization of Citizens,the Cultivation of Monks, and the Education of Laypeopleduring the Formative Period of Modern Japan

– T Yutaka

Suzuki Daisetsu and Swedenborg: A Historical Background

– Y Shin’ichi

Takagi Kenmyō and Buddhist Socialism:A Meiji Misfit and Martyr

– Paul L. S

Religious Studies and Religiously Affiliated Universities

– H Makoto

e Insect in the Lion’s Body: Kaneko Daiei andthe Question of Authority in Modern Buddhism

– Jeff S


3/29

e Age of Teaching

Buddhism, the Proselytization of Citizens,the Cultivation of Monks, and the Education of Laypeople

during the Formative Period of Modern Japan

T Yutaka 谷川穣

At the end of September of (Meiji ), Aoyama Hanzō, the

former mayor of Magome village in Kiso district (modern-day Nakatsugawain Gifu prefecture), set fire to his ancestral temple, the Rinzai-affiliated

Manpukuji. Hanzō was placed in detention for this crime and two months

later he died in a state of despair. is episode is, of course, treated at the end

of Before the Dawn, the famous novel in which Shimazaki Tōson wrote about

the life and times of Hanzō and his father Seiju. ere is a scene in the novel

in which, soon aer Hanzō’s death, the abbot of Manpukuji, Shōun (actually

Nishizawa Tōrin, abbot of Eishōji), tells Hanzō’s students about his own

prediction of the arson: “I sensed Hanzō’s feelings as soon as this temple’smain hall began to be used as a temporary classroom for early childhood

education, as if it were just like a finishing school. is absolutely signified

the suppression of Buddhism” (Part , Chapter ). Hanzō, who was involved

in education as well as being mayor, had in (Meiji ) established a new

primary school in Magome village, at which time Manpukuji’s main hall

had been used as temporary quarters for the school. is is what Shōun

believed was nothing short of “the suppression of Buddhism” preceding

the fire. In the eighth month of the same year Hanzō himself became an


4/29

| Modern Buddhism in Japan

instructor at the school. Shōun served as a faculty member too, and fromthis standpoint he also shouldered some responsibility for the education ofthe village’s children. But by the eleventh month of the same year, Hanzō

had removed his ancestral tablet from Manpukuji and expressed aninclination to no longer participate in Buddhist memorial rites. Ultimatelyhe went so far as to commit the arson described above. e anxiety overBuddhism’s persecution had struck home with Shōun. Carrying with himthis uncertainty—which included fear for his personal safety—Shōun

always received Hanzō warmly, and through his general posture duringservices and his unassailable character, Shōun carefully built up his trust.Until Hanzō’s death, Shōun cautiously held his tongue regarding his anxiety

about Buddhism’s persecution and refrained from criticizing Hanzō.Just as Hanzō could only express himself with an act of arson, Hirata-

school national learning scholars of Kiso valley were well aware that theinfluence of village monks was deeply rooted during those early years of theMeiji period. While it is difficult to say too much on the basis of this literary

work, from the historical documents of the period on which he relied,Shimazaki Tōson certainly recognized and depicted the determination ofBuddhism and its clerics since the persecution (haibutsu kishaku 廃仏毀

釈). In this new age of public education ( gakkō kyōiku 学校教育) and theproselytization of citizens (minshū kyōka 民衆教化) under the nationaldoctrine, one would expect to find that people were educated and guidedsolely by Shinto. Yet, in the story Before the Dawn we see nothing of this;indeed, this is precisely where the Buddhist monks appear in the story,

unexpectedly revealing their presence in local communities all along.In this article, I would like to examine several different settings related to

the relationship between Buddhism and public education in the first half

of the Meiji period. is is not merely an attempt to learn from ShimazakiTōson’s opinion. If we peruse the contemporary documents, Buddhism

and public education have an integral or overlapping relationship, and it isclear that they cannot easily be disentangled. Nonetheless, in the historiesof religion, education, and modern Japan, they are treated as distinctphenomena, as if they originally had no relationship to one another. Ever

since the work of Yoshida Kyūichi, the conventional narrative has been thatBuddhism was dealt a blow by the anti-Buddhist movement in the early years

of the Meiji, and was made to support the Ministry of Doctrine’s strategy for


5/29

|

the indoctrination of citizens; aer that, little by little the Buddhist worldregained its footing, enhanced by the intellectual contributions of severalmonks.1 According to this view, Buddhism and public education were

thereaer joined together, and we cannot detect any sign of conflict in theircoexistence. In the field of educational history, research generally takes theprocess of development of the secular public educational system as a given.is may be because of the well-established view that the conflict betweenreligious and secular powers over education, which we see in eighteenth-century Europe, was extremely rare in Japan and would have been com-pletely resolved in the early modern period (see H ). Even moresurprisingly, even in the research on terakoya (temple schools) in early

modern Japan, one cannot find a single work that consolidates the researchon terakoya run by monks. Such a project may be hindered by a desire toavoid the topic of “State Shinto,” which functioned as an ideology for pre-war nationalistic education and the official policy of pouring all efforts intoimperializing the citizenry during the prewar period. As for postwar edu-cation studies, the relationship between religion and education tends to beseen as taboo, and it would not be going too far to say that an investigationinto the actual historical circumstances has been avoided.

One may say that the relationship between religion and public educationwas a significant factor informing the formation of the modern nation-state,including the nature of “secularism” and the separation of church and statein contemporary society. is article seeks to redress the lacuna in historicalscholarship, as well as to provide a foundation for historical interrogation.However, I will not take up the investigation of the conflict between reli-gion and education aer the Imperial Rescript on Education until the Directive Prohibiting Religious Education (Monbushō Directive ).is national stage of Buddhism’s relationship with the state has been thesubject of previous research. I will, however, shed light on the attitudes andstatements of the Buddhist monks and government officials who were theactors on the local stage, at the actual place of practice. In so doing, I want toemphasize a perspective that will help us to revisit and revise our view of thehistorical relationship between Buddhism and education in modern Japan

. From Y Kyūichi’s Nihon kindai Bukkyōshi kenkyū () to James K’sHeretics and Martyrs (; tr. O Masahiko, Jakyō/Junkyō no Meiji, ), this trend

has not changed.


6/29


through the early Meiji. Tracing the circuitous path of Buddhism, publiceducation, and the proselytization of citizens as they variously overlap andseparate from one another will allow us to discover parts of the story that

have previously been hidden in the interludes of history—just as ShimazakiTōson caught a glimpse above.

The Conflict between Public Education and“Proselytization” by Doctrinal Instructors

The Age of Teaching (kyō 教). The early Meiji was a period in

which public education, the proselytization of citizens, and Buddhismwere fully intertwined. As is well known, in , the same year that theMinistry of Education promulgated the Fundamental Education Law( gakusei 学制), the Ministry of Doctrine was beginning a grand project forthe proselytization of citizens. All shrine priests and Buddhist monks wereto be mobilized and made into doctrinal instructors (kyōdōshoku 教導職).ey would expound to the citizens the virtues known as the ree Arti-cles of Teaching, which included “revering the gods and loving the coun-try.” Pointing out the propriety of the nation-state with the emperor as itsstandard, the ministry set forth a policy permeated by this ideology. In thefollowing year of , a proselytization system combining Shinto and Bud-dhism (known as the Daikyōin 大教院 or Great Teaching Academy system)was promoted by establishing a Great Teaching Academy at Sōjōji in Tokyo’sShiba district, placing intermediate teaching academies (Chūkyōin 中教院)in each prefecture, and making shrines and temples into smaller teachingacademies (Shōkyōin 小教院).

e political “entanglement” of public education and proselytization was

evident in this process. As an official in the Ministry of Doctrine, MishimaMichitsune’s favorable opinion of Shinto was central to the policy accom-plishments of proselytization. In the tenth month of Meiji (), theMinistry of Doctrine was merged with the Ministry of Education, since themajority of the administrators of the Ministry of Doctrine were absent, hav-ing departed for Europe and the United States as part of the Iwakura Del-egation. Soon aer, Mishima, who had entered the new ministry, criticizedthe school system as being one-sided in favor of Western education. In the

these criticisms bore fruit in the form of legislation allowing temples


7/29


8/29


e next example I wish to point out is a series of cases that unfolded inTsukuma prefecture (currently the south-central portion of Nagano prefec-ture and the Hida region of Gifu prefecture). In May of , a doctrinal

instructor who had been dispatched from the Great Doctrinal Academy inTokyo to Tsukuma in order to organize the proselytization activities therewas reported by the prefectural office and was ultimately dismissed by theMinistry of Doctrine. e major reason for his dismissal was the followingcriticism of the prefectural government:

Although everyone may speak of their gratitude for public schools, sendingteachers to the valley actually incurs such an expense that those with childrenall express grievances. However, the local teaching academy does not collect a

fee from residents, and its way of collecting resources is truly voluntary. isis worlds apart from the rigorous fund-raising for public schools, and civil-ians gradually heard and transmitted this story about the methods of publicschools, even committing slander here and there. ose in charge in the pre-fectural office have by and by heard these stories. As local teaching academiesbecome filled with [members of] confraternities and congregations, it maybecome injurious to the public schools. Because of this, they would arguethat we made improper fundraising for local teaching academies.2

Although people paid lip service to being grateful to public schools, infact public schools collected more exorbitant fees than the temple schoolsand private tutors, and people with children became disgruntled. e reportstates that upon critically contrasting public education (which puts a bur-den on local residents) with the free local teaching academy, the prefecturaloffice went on to spread the groundless rumor to the doctrinal instructorthat “they are demanding collections without good cause.” ese kinds ofmonetary problems are frequently referred to in the proselytization of citi-

zens, causing friction with the parties who promoted public education. iswas a conflict over financial resources.

e Tsukuma prefectural government, which had apprehensions aboutsuch criticism of the administration of public schools, thus worked out sev-eral measures to mitigate the conflict between public education and pros-elytization.

. See the Kyōbushō kiroku Chikuma Meiji 教部省記録筑摩明治六年 (in the holdings

of Kumano Jinja of Itabashi ward, Tokyo.


9/29

|

First, they put forth a proselytization policy by which both sermons for

citizens and explanations of the laws issued by the prefectural government

would be given in conjunction with one another, and they invited doctri-

nal instructors to carry this out. Explanations of school-related laws were, ofcourse, included. In other words, what was being solicited from the doctrinal

instructors was praise for the advancement of the prefecture’s public educa-

tion program and a simple explanation thereof. Not only was proselytization

not in opposition to school administration, but in fact this was a strategy to

reform them so they could be used in a mutually beneficial manner.

Further, in May of the following year (), the assistant governorNagayama Moriteru himself made the rounds of the prefecture in a persua-

sive performance of the importance of public education. On that occasionhe criticized Buddhism and Buddhist temples as being behind the times,pointing out in particular the stupidity of those monks who did not contrib-ute to the governance of the prefecture by giving sermons. is was clearlyexpressed in Nagayama’s admonishment in Ueho village, Inashi province.Here Nagayama asserted that monks had deceived people in order to obtainfinancing for building temples: “In the old days, when the Buddhist templeswere built, the monks used their skillful means for canvassing, and they were

able to erect beautiful temples. e village people did not know they hadbeen deceived. Massive amounts of funds were spent.” at was the “natureof those times,” he said, and it could not be helped, but this was an era of“civilization.” Further, went Nagayama’s censure, people had been confusedby “heresies” and “falsehoods” like “the law of karma” and “heaven and hell.”He criticized this, saying, “We should aim for the education of people whoare still alive. But you are only making contributions to the temple instead ofpaying school fees and devoting yourself to the place of teaching.” He called

this an utterly mistaken understanding (N , –). By contrast-ing “civilization” with “heresies,” and “life” with “death,” he repudiated Bud-dhism and Buddhist temples, while contrastively praising public education.Of course, in the background of his reasoning was the intention to directpeople’s resources away from temples and toward the public schools.

In addition, the prefectural government in the same period clearly saw adifference between public education and proselytization, and elevated thestatus of the former with the following pronouncement:

In accord with recent government notices there is a distinction between


10/29


sermons (sekkyō 説教) and public schools in the regulations instructional

guidelines. In some cases, time for a “sermon day” is set aside at primary

schools in consultation with doctrinal instructors. Because the above causes

scheduling conflicts and may be a source of inconvenience, henceforth thiswill not continue. is much has already been decreed.

(Nagano-ken kyōikushi, vol. , )

In other words, sermons should be distinguished from the activity of

public schools, but in some cases, upon meeting with doctrinal instruc-

tors, sermons were scheduled inside the schools—some schools were even

scheduling sermons inside of the time allotted for the regular curriculum.

But this was canceled entirely, because it would be an obstruction to pub-

lic education and thus inconvenient. As the announcement mentions that it

has “already been decreed,” we know that this is a repeat pronouncement—

but that in itself frankly tells the story of just how far public education

and proselytization overlapped. e prefectural administrators rigorously

sought to distinguish a “site” for public education apart from proselytiza-

tion, establishing a policy that would prevent mixing sermons in with the

public school curriculum.

Tsukuma prefecture boasted the highest rate of school attendance duringthis early period of modern education, and even today Nagano prefecture

is conscious of itself as an “education prefecture.” As a leading prefecture in

education at the time, the interweaving of public education and the pros-

elytization of citizens with regards to “sites” and “resources” was apparent

there. Seeking to put an end to this entanglement, the local government

tried to extinguish the conflict and advance public education through vari-

ous means. From this state of affairs we may conclude that public education

in modern Japan, though there were indeed conflicts over the proselyti-zation of citizens by Buddhist doctrinal instructors, utilized the sites and

monetary resources and roles that had hitherto been the province of Bud-

dhism. All the while, the government continued to emphasize the difference

between proselytization and public education, and moreover, by way of this

inversion, proselytization seems to have been used as a stepping stone to

promote public schools. It is necessary to revise our understanding of the

establishment of public education in modern society with the above process

in mind.


11/29

|

The Debate over Monks Working as Schoolteachersand the Response of the Buddhist World

While this separation of “sites” and “resources” continued toadvance, what surfaced at the same time was the problem of “people”: theservice of Buddhist monks as public school teachers, which was describedin Before the Dawn.

At the actual site of education, many monks doubled as public schoolemployees due to the nationwide shortage of teachers. As described above,the Ministry of Education had legally banned the practice of doctrinalinstructors doubling as public school teachers. erefore, some decided to

relinquish their status as monks in order to focus on their role as educa-tors, while others privileged their duties as monks and did not take outside

jobs. However, when the employment of monks was disallowed, complaintscame forth from many prefectures that local villages lacked the humanresources to fill teaching posts. Whenever such complaints arose, theMinistry of Education had tacitly permitted the monks’ to serve as teach-ers, saying, “there is nothing we can do.” But eventually, in November of, they affirmed an actual liing of the ban (Monbushō Proclamation ).

Evidently there were many cases in which public education could not besustained without Buddhist monks also serving as school teachers.

In response to the proclamation that removed the ban, editorials appearedin the Buddhist newspaper Meikyō shinshi 明教新誌 endorsing monks serv-ing as school teachers. e Jōdo monk A Gijun of Asakusa warmlywelcomed the liing of the ban in the article “Reading Monbushō Procla-mation ” ( Meikyō shinshi, – December , –). He noted that,along with Hara Tanzan (Sōtō school) giving lectures on Buddhist Studies

at Tokyo University that year, the new law was favorable to the revival ofBuddhism and an opportunity to expand the sites for propagation ( fukyō).Monks had to consider for themselves whether they would participate ineducation in the future, he wrote, putting forth his own opinion as follows:

e opening of the path for doctrinal instructors to serve as schoolteachers isbased mostly on their eloquence as propagators. People shall not ever forgettheir debt to their teachers who nurtured them with such care when theywere young.

Asano explained that there was a tendency for students to have faith in the


12/29


religion and philosophy of a teacher whom they revere. is was also evi-dent in the success of Christian missionaries, who won converts by carryingout propagation while providing education in colonized territories and gov-

ernment-run schools. erefore, the liing of the ban should be extremelybeneficial for the propagation of Buddhism. Asano passionately made hiscase in this manner.

On the side of the local government, too, the liing of the ban was wel-comed. Hirakawa Yasu, chief of Iwate Prefecture’s Education Department,put forth a proposal to the Ministry of Education surveying its seven pointsof merit. ese points included the fact that monks already had a primaryoccupation, which meant that they required less salary; that monks were

superior to teachers who were just getting by with brief intensive training atthe normal school; and that it would be easy to persuade even those parentswho were reluctant to send their children to school at the parish temple tocomply with the obligation for school attendance. Most notable is the men-tion of the proselytization policy:

As the days and months go by in which public schools are established inevery local district, children from a young age are made to study hard solelyto increase their knowledge and expand their talents. ere is a strong ten-

dency to assume that they will respect people of the world on their own. emoral teachings are largely ignored, and places for sermonizing are oenempty. Like something the government has no wish to expand, they try toplace proselytization aside as something that is important in name but not infact. ( Meikyō shinshi [ January ])

In other words, his argument was that the proselytization of citizens hadbeen neglected for the sake of public education, and the government hadalso le it alone, considering it important in name but not in practice. is

had brought about the loss of the foundation of cultivating morality. edebate at that time between Itō Hirobumi (prime minister) and MotodaNagazane (Confucianist adviser to the emperor) over the “theory of educa-tion” (kyōikugi 教育議) is well known. However, the educational platformthat Hirakawa put forth did not reflect Motoda’s emphasis on moral trainingin education according to Confucianism, nor was it the path espoused byItō. Rather, it was a strategy of making use of monks who were knowledge-able resources in the local communities as educators. It is very interesting

that this conception emerged from the conflict over proselytizing activities.


13/29

|

But this theory, which was culled from the situation on the ground, wasonly a minority opinion. Monks who were at the elite level of the Buddhistinstitution were especially disinterested in it. In the late s and early

s, their interest in education was entirely focused on the matter of thecultivation of monks. For example Fukuda Gyōkai, the abbot of Zōjōji, wrotein support of the establishment of Tōbu Gakkō as an educational facility forJōdo school monks: “Children of the villages and backstreets know their let-ters; stable hands and seamen can all explain themselves rationally. In suchtimes the sangha members who are supposed to be the guiding teachersshould not very well neglect their own learning.” So as not to appear fool-ish to the general public who all went to school, he asserted, monks had to

study as well and should enter the same schools ( Meikyō shinshi [ July]). Not only did monks not participate in the broader public education,but indeed they understood themselves in contrast to it. Further, the layBuddhist Ōuchi Seiron called public schools “heretical schools,” and con-sidered it natural that Buddhists would refuse to attend ( Meikyō shinshi [ February ]). In these criticisms we can see there was also a tendencyto avoid public education altogether.

We can assume that several things were going on in the background. For

instance, the sharing of finite resources under the Great Teaching Academysystem meant that people still had memories of Buddhist sites and person-nel actually being snatched away by public schools. Further, Western moral-ity tracts such as Taisei kanzen kunmō 泰西勧善訓蒙 were widely used intextbooks, a fact which was presumably viewed antagonistically because ofMishima Michitsune’s critiques of Christianity elsewhere. In that respect, wecertainly cannot view the conservative statements of obstinate monks solelyin a critical manner. Nonetheless, I cannot find any discourse in which theinfluential monks of this time period took up the issue of the cancellation ofthe ban against monks serving as public school teachers, and I believe thatthe above examples represent the broader trend.

The Establishment of Institutions for Cultivating Monksand the Demand for Lay Education

Aer the dissolution of the Daikyōin (Great Teaching Academy)

system in (Meiji ), each sect proceeded to furnish its own system


14/29


of educational facilities for training monks. Here I want to focus on thecase of Shinshū Honganji-ha. is sect released the Publication of RevisedSectarian Regulations (Rinmon kaisei kisokusho oyobi tassho 林門改正

規則書及達書) in . The following year the four Jōdo Shinshū sectstogether established the “Educational System.” A central doctrinal acad-emy (Daikyōkō 大教校) was set up in Kyoto, and thirteen smaller acad-emies were constructed in various local areas. At the latter, a curriculumwas established in which general education (penmanship, mathematics,history, etc) was added to the sectarian teachings. Because of this, duringthe period in which the Fundamental Education Law was in effect (–), the Ministry of Education provisionally recognized these sectarian

academies as a replacement for primary school, and students were treatedas if they were attending a public primary school. In September of , anew law was released to replace the Fundamental Education Law, and itwas later revised in December of the following year. As far as I can tell, nolaw came down from the Ministry of Education prohibiting this treatmentbut rather, it seems that those affairs were le to the prefectures.

However, when a conservative educational reform was undertakenby the head temple (Nishi Honganji) in , the educational content at

primary sectarian schools shied to an emphasis on sectarian doctrine.is reform was carried out so that the central doctrinal academy, nowcalled Gakushō 学庠 (previously Daikyōkō), would be directly linked withthe cultivation of elite monks. In reaction to this, there was an outpouringof demand for education for the laity (monto 門徒) both in and outside ofthe sectarian schools. e demand came from both laity and sympatheticmonks from various regions. For instance in spring of , the followingplan was published for reviving a missionary school ( fusen kyōkō 布宣教校)in Toyo’oka, Hyogo prefecture, which had been forced to close due to lack offunds:

Among the concerned practitioners of Kinosaki district there is a move-ment to depart from the school’s connection to training temple abbotsby establishing a private school that would take only the laity as students.Determining that the monks in the nearby villages may also agree to this,presently a request has been put forth to this temple.… The letter says:Already large numbers have enrolled. At this rate, the faculty will soon bein place and the curriculum arranged; I believe we shall have roughly two

hundred pupils enrolled. (Kijitsu shinpō 奇日新報 [ April ])


15/29

|

Quite to the contrary of the main temple’s intention, the revival of the schoolwas sought in response to the demand of local laity for regular education,and advancement to the doctrinal academy was not the primary concern of

the educators or curriculum as an educational facility for laity who were notaspiring monks. e document suggests that the result was the collection oftwo hundred applicants for the school.

Amid such circumstances, at the Honganji-ha’s central congress in the fol-lowing year, the establishment of a school to provide education to monksand laymen alike made it on to the agenda, and it was determined that this“general sectarian school” ( futsū kyōkō 普通教校) would be established. Inactuality, however, this institution was not provided in response to the edu-

cational demands of the laity, but was rather intended to round up monksand lay disciples who were candidates for becoming elite monks. Certainly,arguments on the effectiveness of education for securing the faith of thelaity and expanding the reach of the teachings were made in the congress.Fujioka Hōshin of the Kumamoto district introduced the story of a wealthyfarmer he had met while soliciting contributions for the establishment of aprivate school.

On the promise that I will not allow my two sons to become temple abbots

as long as they live, I would like to have them learn the sectarian teach-ings. My thought is that entrusting doctrine only to monks, who have nei-ther resources nor vitality to contribute to the great dharma, will hasten itsdemise. Instead, I hope that having my children study the teachings willextend the lifespan of the dharma by one hundred years.

(Kijitsu shinpō [ November ])

e farmer wanted his sons to study the teachings of the Jōdo Shinshūon condition that he would make neither of them into temple abbots. He

hoped that the Buddhist dharma would flourish when laypeople—insteadof monks, who lacked financial resources and vitality—were permitted tostudy doctrine. Fujioka praised him, saying, “such is the laity’s zeal!” Hemade an appeal for sectarian schools (kyōkō) to support and cultivate thiskind of faith by the laity.

However, the Honganji-ha was as disinterested as ever in the educationof lay disciples. An extreme example of this was the document entitled,“Request Concerning the Amendment of the Conscription Law to Treat Sec-

tarian Educational Facilities as Privately Administrated Schools” that Ōtani


16/29


Kōshō and Ōtani Kōson (abbots of Honganji-ha and Ōtani-ha, respectively)addressed to the Ministry of Education. Herein the abbots sought the defer-ment of conscription for students of the Gakushō (formerly the Daikyōkō

central doctrinal academy) just as for students of privately-run schools. Onthe other hand, they also put forth the argument that Buddhist sects shouldbe no exception to the conscription: “Within the sect, there are variedopinions. If there are those who sentimentally express the desire to excuseBuddhists from the conscription, we will enjoin them and rouse them to

conform to your intentions.” More than education for the laity, they priori-

tized the creation of conditions that would protect elite students.Buddhist responses to the demand for lay education were also consciously

enacted outside the confines of the institution. Concrete examples includethe private Clear Path School (Kendō Gakkō 顕道学校) built by KagaiMyōryō of the Honganji-ha (), and the plan for composing a textbook

for Buddhist training with the cooperation of the layman Ōuchi Seiran andthe Honganji-ha monk Katō Eshō (). However, inasmuch as these activ-ities were ultimately controlled by the attitude of the institution itself, theyinevitably encountered setbacks.

If this is the case, then, was education carried out in all of these sectarian

schools intended to cultivate elite monks? We must be careful, because thedaily life at these schools was not all the same. Here I will attend to thosewho received the education, examining concrete examples of those whoentered doctrinal schools in the second half of the Meiji s (s).

Sawai Jun was born in (Keiei ) in Yahata village (present-day

Onomichi city) in Hiroshima as the eldest son of a wealthy farmer. He wastaught to read the four classics and the five sutras (shisho gokyō 四書五経) byhis grandfather, and he became a primary school instructor in . ree

years later he was selected by his district to attend a teacher training courseat the Hiroshima Normal School. e Honganji-ha monk Hino Gien, rec-ognizing Sawai’s ability aer teaching him English and other subjects at hisown temple, sent him to Kyoto where he was enrolled in a general sectar-

ian school when it opened in April of Meiji . At that time Hino wasemployed as the school’s assistant administrator (T , –).

In this way, influential monks within the religious institution or schoolfaculty would dig up talent from the local villages and enroll them, so that

elite youths—even those who were not monks—could be corralled into gen-


17/29

|

eral sectarian schools. But those who enrolled exerted a different kind oftalent from what was intended by the religious institution. Sawai becamea founding member of a society for the promotion of the prohibition of

alcohol, and was an active member in “enlightenment groups” outside theschool through magazine publications and the like. e religious institutionwas blissfully unaware of this trend, and in the general sectarian schoolwas closed and reorganized into the Central Seminary Arts and LettersCampus (Daigakurin Bungakuryō 大学林文学寮; Honganjishi, vol. ).

Next is the case of Inoue Kitarō, who was born in (Meiji ) the sec-

ond son of a wealthy farmer in Magura village (present-day Ube city) in Asadistrict, Yamaguchi prefecture. Inoue graduated from the second-highest

grade of middle school in February of . He was taken on as a studentassistant to a regular faculty member at a local primary school at the ageof thirteen. His resume was similar to that of Sawai Jun up until this point.

Soon he graduated from the highest grade of middle school and becamea land surveyor for the village. Four months into his term at this job, thethirty yen he had saved was sent to Yamaguchi as tuition. He was a candi-date for entrance into two neighboring training academies for monks, theShinshū Honganji-ha’s Kaidō Kyōkō 開導教校 and the Sōtō-Jōdo affiliated

Ōtsuke Kyōkō 大附教校.Inoue’s choice to enter Kaidō Kyōkō was determined by three factors: the

influence he had received from a Shinshū monk while he was a student assis-tant, the privilege of having the monthly honorarium waived, and the factthat the Buddhist studies curriculum consisted of non-sectarian teachings.Students who were temple successors were awarded financial assistance,

and were required to study both sectarian and extra-sectarian doctrine. Hestudied six subjects including Buddhist doctrine, chemistry, classical Chi-

nese, composition, English, math and physical fitness. Inoue was particu-larly good at numbers, and within a year he advanced to grade two in theadvanced class of secondary school. He took a position as a mathematics

instructor at Ōtsuke Kyōkō, but the next day he faced a student strike andimmediately resigned. e students had been called to protest because thetwo neighboring schools had such a competitive relationship. ereaer heprepared to take the certification exam to be a mathematics instructor, butthen the system itself was abolished. Dejected, he ultimately returned to his

natal home (I I D K , –).


18/29


ere are two points worthy of attention here. First, as Kaidō Kyōkō wasa place where lay disciples were educated, the study of Buddhist texts wasnon-sectarian. at means that the school was not solely aimed at recruiting

candidates (lay or cleric) to become elite monks and sending them on to thesect’s central upper-level school in Kyoto. In Yamaguchi prefecture in ,the temple sons in Honganji-ha’s Yamaguchi district, one-hundred twenty-five individuals, were studying in other prefectures, including Kyoto’sGakushō (central seminary). Forty-five were studying at a general schoolwithin the prefecture and only sixty-three were attending Kaidō Kyōkō(Kijitsu Shinpō [ August ). Because of a lack of data we cannot sayfor certain, but presumably this meant that Honganji-ha temple sons would

not necessarily be able to advance to this school.Another point is that sectarian schools accepting lay students from any

sect existed outside of the Shinshū as well, and even became rivals to theShinshū schools. In other words, these schools were institutions that pro-

vided intermediate education, and were among the choices available toprospective students across different Buddhist sects. Sawai subsequentlychanged his name to Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎, and became a well-known Buddhist scholar and educator. Inoue entered the military academy

and served in the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars. He eventuallybecame a general in the army, and aer entering the reserve forces becamethe last president of the Imperial Veterans Association.

The Debate over Monks’ Endorsement ofLay Education and the Resulting Bottleneck

From the above examination of the attitudes of sectarian schools

with regards to lay education, I have shown the increasing sense from thelate s that monks—and the Buddhist world more broadly—should beexpected to shoulder some responsibility for public education. e senseof competitiveness with Christians, who had opened up schools to gain afoothold for proselytizing, together with the demand of Buddhist laity foreducation provided a stimulus to those in inner Buddhist circles. e estab-lishment of schools that were not necessarily aimed solely at the cultivationof monks and often transcended sectarian affiliation became connected

with a movement to carry some responsibility for primary education.


19/29

|

e problem of how Buddhist monks (including those who doubled as

schoolteachers) were to be involved in the education of laity was debated

not just on the pages of Buddhist journals, but was also widely discussed in

general interest papers and public education journals. Some of these discus-sions stand out as being quite concrete. Below I will consider a few of these.

First is the opinion of a monk named Sekirenshi 石蓮子, who gave a lec-

ture in February of to a private education conference in Saitama pre-

fecture. He described two examples of the relationship between monks and

schoolteachers that he had observed on a visit to Aichi prefecture on sect

business. ere were two opposite cases. In one village, the local temple was

rented as a school building, and despite the fact that the priest’s residence

was in the same location as the school, the two got along poorly. Meantime,in a neighboring village a temple was similarly used as the school building,

but here the temple abbot and the schoolteacher were quite close and there

was constant communication between them. In the latter case, seeing that

the teacher cared for the abbot, the school students similarly held him in

high regard. But in the former, because the priest had a poor relationship

with the schoolteacher, the students (whose parents were temple parish-

ioners) detested the teacher, leading to a very unfavorable situation. Here

Sekirenshi proposed the following:

Although the schoolteachers whose job it is to provide education may not

believe in Buddhism, even if only for the sake of diplomacy they should give

up the idea of slandering the true dharma and cease holding Buddhist monks

in contempt.… If they show outward signs of respect, their relationship will

be friendly and a path shall be opened whereby knowledge can be exchanged

in a complementary manner.

Noting the problem of the anti-Buddhist climate that existed at theground level of education, Sekirenshi proposed that schoolteachers should

not show contempt for Buddhism in front of the students, and should at

least make a pretense of having some respect for Buddhism. Further, he

hoped that teachers would “not give rise to a feeling of antipathy toward sec-

tarian teachings among the students, but should as much as possible guide

students morally in this regard.” Although it is true that this was a venue for

speaking before an audience of educators, in allowing teachers to start by

merely showing “outward signs” of respect, Sekirenshi’s proposal was actu-


20/29


ally a flexible solution for combating anti-Buddhist perspectives—his chal-lenge to public schools and his dogmatism as a Buddhist notwithstanding.

On the other hand, Toshiro Denshichirō, editor in chief of the journal

Kyōiku hōchi 教育報知, asserted in an editorial entitled “Questions for Bud-dhists” that monks who were not temple abbots should become school-teachers aer laicization ( genzoku 還俗) and then carry out Buddhist moraleducation. In support of this, Toshiro enumerated the following:

For Buddhists who would like to understand the advantages and disadvan-tages of building a school, they must first consider the following items. First,that the influence that a teacher wields with his students is extremely pow-erful… Second, that it is human nature to feel a great debt to one’s teacher.

Third, that it is easy to take on prejudices but difficult to remove them.Fourth, that facilities for the public good have the trust of the public.

(Kyōiku hōchi [ August ])

Toshiro asserts that because of the long-term merit of imparting influ-ence, obligations, and preconceptions to students, and because of the moreimmediate merit of imparting a good impression by being seen as a facil-ity that contributes to the public good, measures such as monks becomingschoolteachers and the establishment of various types of schools should cer-

tainly be adopted as propagation methods.During this period, we know of the philosophical “moral educa-

tion debate” (tokuiku ronsō 徳育論争) set off by an opinion piece by KatōHiroyuki that recommended a moral education rivalry in the schools amongthe teachings of Shinto, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Christianity. Alongwith this somewhat one-sided debate in which participants tended to restateone another’s assertions, the elevation of the discussion of the relationshipbetween monks and lay education also belonged to the discourse concern-

ing education and religion during the mid-Meiji. Nor can we overlook thefact that this topic constantly crossed over between educational journalsand Buddhist ones.

us, Toshiro’s “Questions for Buddhists” had its reverberations. Next, letus examine two editorials that were written in response to it. First is “MonksShould Engage in Public Education Immediately” (S ), writ-ten by the Honganji-ha monk Shimaji Mokurai, perhaps the most famousindividual in Meiji Buddhism. Shimaji was a distinguished proponent of

the theory of religious freedom, and he is also usually profiled as a critic of


21/29

|

Buddhist propagation policies. However, we can also take the changes in his

position toward monks working as school instructors as symbolic of the fact

that Buddhism and education were not mutually independent in the early

Meiji.While traveling overseas in , Shimaji had believed that teaching basic

writing and arithmetic should be the province of Buddhist monks. Seeing

that the Anglican Church in England and Catholic priests in France were

responsible for such things, he determined that “writing and arithme-

tic” were not “arts” but rather “things capable of being a way and an occa-

sion,” and thus, in Japan, areas in which monks should have responsibility

(S ). However, when he returned to Japan the following year he

made an about-face, taking a more passive position toward monks’ par-ticipation in public education. In the course of criticizing the Ministry of

Doctrine, Shimaji poured his energy into avoiding government interference

in religious matters—or more precisely, avoiding government pressure on

Buddhism (Shinshū). He was aware that monks’ participation in elementary

education was connected to the difficult problem of their being required to

follow the trends of the state. For that reason, he tended toward to hold that

the primary schools should be le to the Ministry of Education, and that

the points of contact between monks and elementary education should beminimized (S ).

Moreover, in (Meiji ), deeply stimulated by the editorial that “raised

the topic of ‘Questions for Buddhists,’” he went so far as to strongly endorse

monks serving as schoolteachers:

Today the urgent duty of Buddhists is to also take up the work of general

education. Even if one is a temple abbot, this need not obstruct the regularly

scheduled lessons of the day, as you can conduct funeral services before oraer them; giving instruction to one’s own parishioners similarly need not

interfere with your school obligations. All the more so, a monk who is not

currently employed as a temple abbot can concentrate solely on this work,

and indeed teaching is the most appropriate employment for him. Moreover,

I have heard recently that there are many schools that have closed or gone on

extended holiday because the local residents are in dire straits and cannot

bear the expense of school fees. erefore, beyond the subsistence these tem-

ple priests earn from the contributions of their parishioners, if they also hold

the job of schoolteacher, they can reduce school fees, and meanwhile monks


22/29


can receive some help with their livelihood. Truly this would be a wonderful

system that could accomplish these two tasks at once.

(Reichikai zasshi [September ])

Here the temple abbot’s main duty is portrayed as covering school les-

sons. Funeral services and parishioner instruction should be performed

outside of school hours. Shimaji even comments that for those monks who

are not abbots of a temple, it is most appropriate for them to be exclusively

employed as school instructors. e assertion that they could contribute

to the lowering of fees needed to maintain the schools is similar to the

opinion of Hirakawa Yasu cited above. Further, Mori Arinori, the Minister

of Education at that time, also touted the economic nature of schools, shar-

ing Shimaji’s concern with the cost performance of education. Shimaji went

on to point out the urgency of constructing teacher training schools for

Buddhist men and women (monks and nuns) so that they could be quickly

turned into school instructors: “When monks have grasped in their hands

the supreme authority for public education throughout the country, their

educational authority will be so brilliant that its splendor will truly out-

shine the sun and the moon.” From the vehemence with which Shimaji

changed his position—and from his overcoming the lack of interest ofthose monks who were at the center of the institution—we can gather

that there was a great wave of debate within the Buddhist world regarding

monks serving as schoolteachers.

A further example is H Shōkei’s “Future Educational Plan for Bud-

dhists,” published in six parts from September of to June of the fol-

lowing year in the journal Hanseikai zasshi, which was affiliated with the

Honganji-ha’s general sectarian schools. Hitomi’s history is not known,

but we know that his thinking was similar to that of Toshiro Denshichirō.He wrote, for instance: “e journalist of our beloved Kyōiku hōchi has

written from No. to on the subject of ‘Questions for Buddhists,’

making the closing argument that education should be targeted to Bud-

dhists.” We also see him praising Toshiro, that “he concurs in large part

with my own humble opinion.” Further, he writes, “not being in a position

of having acquired great experience in public education, I cannot improve

upon this theory. In particular as an individual layperson, there is no rea-

son for me to detail the ancient customs of the various Buddhist sects.”


23/29

|

Even accounting for his humility, it is probably safe to assume he was alayperson with some experience as an educator.

Like Toshiro, Hitomi believed that “it should be recognized that Bud-

dhism’s fortunes were dependent on whether or not it actually had authorityin education.” He also wrote that for Buddhism to prosper, it was essential

that monks become educators. But the difference between the two emerges

from Hitomi’s presupposition that monks themselves needed to receivean adequate education. He clearly described the objective of education asforging disciple monks into “those who had assembled the three qualifica-tions of being an individual, a Japanese person, and a monk.” Required forthis were the four subject areas of exercise, wisdom, morality, and aesthet-

ics. e fourth subject of aesthetic learning stands out in particular. Hitomiexplained that even for the most moral monk, if his carriage and comport-ment were not exquisite, he would be ineffective in propagation. Since “inBuddhism, adornment (sōgon 荘厳) and the spreading of the teachings areone and the same,” the way a monk was seen was most important. We candiscern a similar meaning in Sekirenshi’s proposal above, in which Bud-dhist reverence could be “entered from the level of form” by showing out-ward signs of respect. Hitomi explained that this would be learned first in

the home, and later it was essential that students be taught “general stud-ies” ( futsūgaku) in various subjects (apart from studies in Buddhist texts) inthe regular elementary schools. If this was neglected, and monks in the sec-tarian schools were trained only in specialized education, “above all read-ing the sutras,” then education would ultimately fail to produce the kindsof human beings it aimed at. He particularly criticized as problematic “theavoidance of sending temple children to school in the same village as thechildren of their parishioners:”

It is said that there are many actual examples of this: When a [temple son]is studying at the same school as the parishioner children and he cannotbe placed above them, one day his instruction will be impeded. ere is adanger of losing one’s dignity when attending the same school as the towns-people and farmers…. us it is said that this becomes a reason for avoidingelementary school, but, oh, what a mistake this is!

(Hanseikai zasshi [ May ])

What is most important in Hitomi’s assertion is his frank description of

the reason for monks not to study at the same school as laypeople, namely,


24/29


the preservation of status in the relationship between temples and theirpatrons, and the desire of monks not to appear scholastically inferior totheir parishioners. Here in the late s and early s, Hitomi’s argu-

ment—like the assertions of those like Fukuda Gyōkai discussed above—focused on the cultivation of monks while taking their distance from publicschools. By this had changed, which was the reason those like Shimajiwho were close to the center of the religious organization began to encour-age monks to serve as schoolteachers. It is not an overstatement to arguethat the reason this became highly controversial within the Buddhist world

at this time was that Buddhist monks’ instructing temple parishioners inthe position of school instructors drew attention as a means of improving

monks’ status in society and preventing their loss of standing.Viewed in this way, moves such as the establishment of private secondary

schools run jointly by various sects (in Tokyo, ) and the investment inand operation of public middle schools (kōritsu jinjō chūgakkō 公立尋常中学校) by the Ōtani-ha (in Kyoto and Kanazawa, since ) can be seen at onceas the sects’ taking a proactive involvement in the education of the laity, andas a measure both to counter the tendency for temple successors to view thegeneral subjects that were taught in regular schools as alienating and to pro-

vide for a knowledgeable existence for monks in name and in reality.e most widespread among monks’ activities relating to the education of

laypeople was the steady establishment of basic primary school courses (the Primary School Law had determined that a basic primary educationwould be free for underprivileged students). N Naoki () has

conducted research on this process already, so I will leave a more detailedtreatment to him. What I wish to confirm here is the somewhat hasty man-ner in which these basic primary school courses were presented by monks.

Shimaji Mokurai, in the argument cited above, frankly described this as fol-lows: “It may be said that this is slapdash, and we have not taken our timewith it, but this is a chance that we will likely not encounter again. Certainly,

when you look back on it later at your leisure, even a smile made in hasteis not recalled with regret. So my dear friends, you should gladly make thechoice to engage in education!” (S ). us, these measures weretaken with the zeal of individual Buddhist monks leading the way. But justwhat was concretely indicated by these references to “monks engaging in the

education of laypeople?” Was it the construction of schools? Was it monks


25/29

|

becoming schoolteachers? Was it the introduction of Buddhist rites? Or wasit teaching lessons directly concerning doctrinal tenets? ese issues werenot necessarily deeply debated or contested in Buddhist circles. e records

of a primary school program established by a monk in Ishigome, Tokyo, pub-lished in a Jōdo school-affiliated journal in June of , are representative:

e instructors at this school are not bald, but rather young teachers withtrimmed hair. They wear not the long sleeves of a monk, but rather thehakama of a layman…. Aer the lesson was complete, turning to the instruc-tor [the reporter asked], “You believe in religion! If you believe, whichreligion do you believe in?” e teacher replied, “We do not believe in Bud-dhism, we do not believe in Jesus, in other words we are ‘without religion’.”

[e reporter] asked, “What is the nature of the education conducted atthis school? Is it based on the meaning of Buddhism? Or is it based on gen-eral morals and ethics? What is it?” [e teacher] answered, “We do not add any teachings from religion atall. We carry out precisely the same moral training as one finds in the otherschools in our society.” [e reporter] asked, “Since this is a school established by a Buddhist, itmust have the goal of promulgating religious teachings, or strengtheningpeople’s faith. Why is it not based on this?”

[e teacher] answered, “Because if one is taught about religious matterswhen one is very young, it will give rise to a feeling of fear, and that personwill grow into a ‘timid’ and strange person. And, because children from vari-ous sects are mixed together in the same school, if you teach one sect’s tenetit will not be suitable for some children, while another sect’s tenet will notbe suitable for others. is is why we do not impart any religious teachingswhatsoever.” ( Jōdo kyōhō 浄土教報 [ August ])

In other words, the school was hiring teachers who were not afraid to admit

that “the implementation of Buddhist education is difficult.” Further, thereport indicates that even when a monk or Buddhist follower became aninstructor, they could not possibly carry out the moral education hoped forby the institution’s main constituency.

Tose in the Buddhist world did not catch wind of such assertions. Te

notion that education was an original project of Buddhism, the conscious-

ness of its necessity for preserving the social order and increasing the

school graduation rate, and the desire to make an appeal for Buddhism’s

social relevance all animated their expectations of Buddhist education.


26/29


Shimaji Mokurai’s changing stance on education described above surelytook advantage of this trend as well.

Their expectations embraced such terms as “charity” ( jizen 慈善) and

“compassion” ( jihi 慈悲). If one looks at the documents surround the estab-lishment of these elementary courses, or the congratulatory remarks madeat the opening of a new school, without exception the words “charity” and“compassion” are included. For example, at the school-opening ceremony ofthe Tokyo Elementary School Intensive Teach Training Center in Novemberof , the chief abbot of the Tendai sect, Murata Jakujun, stated in his typi-cal congratulatory address:

Spreading compassion to the world, imparting wisdom to the people until

at last all is replete with compassion and wisdom, this is the ultimate goal ofBuddhism. ere are many ways to be compassionate in the world. None aremore profound than providing education to those beloved students who lackthe means to attend school. ( Meikyō shinshi [ November ])

Murata’s remarks encouraged the desire to educate poor children. At thesame time, these statements were weakened by the fact that, if other “chari-table” activities that could satisfy that desire had been demanded, Buddhistswould quickly turn in that direction instead. In fact, the Primary School

Law Revision of eliminated the free primary education system, andBuddhists were soon pouring their efforts into relief efforts such as fund-raising drives and memorial services for victims of the Nobi earthquake of. ey thus ceased to show an active interest in lay education.

This waning of interest coincides precisely with the time at which theOctober of promulgation of the Imperial Rescript on Educationresulted in a contentious “collision between education and religion.” eperiod from about until offers an extraordinarily rich opportunity

to consider the practice and role of Buddhism at the ground level of pub-lic education. However, the world of Buddhism restlessly spent this periodcalling for “charity.” Confronted with the “collision of education and reli-gion” resulting from the cooling of their own enthusiasm for lay education,Buddhists—unconscious of the problems confronting the entire religiousworld (themselves included)—focused only on strengthening their positionfor attacking Christianity. Ultimately, we can say that during this period theBuddhist world played no small part in the establishment of modern Japan’s

“non-religious” educational system.


27/29

|

Conclusion

I have described above the most important aspects of Buddhists’

view of public education and their involvement in it during the period inwhich modern Japanese society took shape. For now, we can say that Japan’smodern educational system, aer passing through various phases duringthe early Meiji, took on a “non-religious” character. From the perspectiveof the formation of the nation-state, public education shunned the citizenproselytization activities that might have played an analogous role to edu-cation. On the other hand, it propitiated and made use of religion, againstwhich it could hold its own with regards to moral education (tokuiku 徳育).

In this way, public education established its social value as the most impor-tant element in the formation of citizens.

If we focus on those individuals in the interval between Buddhism andpublic education, however, the matter is not so simple. As seen in this essay,depending on the times there were great fluctuations in the statements ofthose like Shimaji Mokurai about monks serving as schoolteachers. Theissue of monks working at side jobs continued into the mid-Meiji. Even incontemporary times it is not unusual for a monk to also hold a post as a

public schoolteacher. As Aoyama Hanzō showed in Before the Dawn, theseparation of education and religion did not always take place accordingto the ideal. Indeed, at the local level of modern Japan’s public education(and even in the broader local communities), the areas in which Buddhism’shuman resources had an effect must have been considerable.

What is more complicated, on further analysis, is that even though therewere in actuality many monks doubling as schoolteachers, very few of thesecases were featured in Buddhist journals or institutional publications. Even

in general newspapers and magazines, such monks were treated at best asfruitless in the trend toward secularization. If one were to rely entirely onnewspaper and magazine records, what would stand out in the first half ofthe Meiji would be the complicated overlap between Buddhism and edu-cation, and then the “separation” of the two aer the “collision of religionand education” debate enroute to secularization. By considering the casesof those monks who held outside jobs in the records of local districts, forexample, we can revise our understanding of the actual situation, and per-

haps even expand the argument made in these pages.


28/29


As mentioned at the outset of this essay, the prevailing view in religiousstudies, education studies, and the study of Japanese history is that reli-gion and education were peripheral to one another. However, as modern

nationalism and state Shinto continued to absorb Buddhism’s ideas andcapabilities, we cannot pass over as merely “peripheral” what was advocatedthrough public education. e important work of future scholarship will beto place ourselves in these various “peripheral” territories and focus on whatcannot be adequately described by a simple unilinear history of the separa-tion of education and religion.3

[translation by Jessica Starling]

References

A Gijun 浅野義順, Monbushō daiyongō tassho o yomu 読文部省第四号達書. Meikyō shinshi 明教新誌 (– December ): –.

H Yukio 久木幸男, Kōkyōiku to shūkyō kyōiku: Sono rekishi o saguru 公教育と宗教教育—その歴史を探る. In Kyōikushi no mado kara 教育史の窓から.Tokyo: Daiichi Hōki Shuppan, .

H Shōkei 人見松溪, Bukka shōrai no kyōiku saku 仏家将来之教育策. Han-seikai zasshi 反省会雑誌 (September –June ).

I I D K 井上幾太郎伝刊行会, ed., Inoue Ikutarō den 井上幾太郎伝. Tokyo: Inoue Ikutarō Kankōkai, .

K, James Edward, Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism andIts Persecution. Princeton: Princeton University Press, .

N Muboku 長尾無墨, Setsuyu yōryaku 説諭要略. Nagano-ken kyōikushi 長野県教育史, vol. . –: Nagano: Nagano-ken Kyōikushi Kankōkai,.

N Naoki中西直樹

, Kyōiku chokugo seiritsu chokuzen no tokuiku ronsōto Bukkyō to “hinji kyōiku” 教育勅語成立直前の徳育論争と仏教徒「貧児教育」. Ryūkoku shidan 龍谷史壇 ().

O Masahiko 岡田正彦, Jakyō/Junkyō no Meiji: Haibutsu kishaku to kindaiBukkyō 邪教・殉教の明治―廃仏毀釈と近代仏教. Tokyo: Pelikan, .(translation of K )

S Mokurai 島地黙雷, Oshū seikyō kenmon 欧州政教見聞. Shimaji Mokurai

. Further details on the issues raised in this article can be found in my book on early

Meiji education and Buddhism (T ).


29/29

|

zenshū 島地黙雷全集, vol. , –. Kyoto: Honganji Shuppan Kyōkai, ().

_____, Kyōbu kaisei gusaku 教部改制愚策. Shimaji Mokurai zenshū, vol. , –.

Kyoto: Honganji Shuppan Kyōkai, ()._____, Sōryo wa sumiyaka ni futsū kyōiku jūji subeshi 僧侶は速に普通教育に従事すべし, Reichikai zasshi 令知会雑誌 (September ).

S Tōson 島崎藤村 , Before the Dawn. Translated by William E. Naff.Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, .

T Shunshi 鷹谷俊之, Takakusu Junjirō sensei den 高楠順次郎先生伝. Kyoto:Musashino Joshi Gakuin .

T Yutaka 谷川穣, Meiji zenki no kyōiku, kyōka, Bukkyō 明治前期の教育・教化・仏教. Kyoto: Shibunkaku Shuppan, .

Y Kyūichi 吉田久一, Nihon kindai Bukkyōshi kenkyū 日本近代仏教史研究.Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, .

04-modern-buddhism-tanigawa-on-teaching (1).pdf

Documents