Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan
The late Meiji period (1868–1912) witnessed the birth of various forms of “progressive” and “radical” Buddhism both within and beyond traditional Japanese Buddhist institutions. This paper examines several historical precedents for “Buddhist revolution” in East Asian—and particularly Japanese—peasan...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill
2016
|
| In: |
Journal of Religion in Japan
Year: 2016, Volume: 5, Issue: 1, Pages: 3-21 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Japan
/ Buddhism
/ Uprising
/ Reception
/ History 1400-1912
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AD Sociology of religion; religious policy BL Buddhism KBM Asia KCD Hagiography; saints NCA Ethics TH Late Middle Ages TJ Modern history |
| Further subjects: | B
Buddhist Modernism
radical Buddhism
peasant rebellion
religion and politics
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Summary: | The late Meiji period (1868–1912) witnessed the birth of various forms of “progressive” and “radical” Buddhism both within and beyond traditional Japanese Buddhist institutions. This paper examines several historical precedents for “Buddhist revolution” in East Asian—and particularly Japanese—peasant rebellions of the early modern period. I argue that these rebellions, or at least the received narratives of such, provided significant “root paradigms” for the thought and practice of early Buddhist socialists and radical Buddhists of early twentieth century Japan. Even if these narratives ended in “failure”—as, indeed, they often did—they can be understood as examples of what James White calls “expressionistic action,” in which figures act out of interests or on the basis of principle without concern for “success.” Although White argues that: “Such expressionistic action was not a significant component of popular contention in Tokugawa Japan”—that does not mean that the received tales were not interpreted in such a fashion by later Meiji, Taishō and Shōwa-era sympathizers. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2211-8349 |
| Contains: | In: Journal of Religion in Japan
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/22118349-00501002 |