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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:  
Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. VerfasserIn: Shields, James Mark (VerfasserIn)
Medienart: Elektronisch Aufsatz
Sprache:Englisch
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Lade...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Veröffentlicht: Brill 2016
In: Journal of Religion in Japan
Jahr: 2016, Band: 5, Heft: 1, Seiten: 3-21
normierte Schlagwort(-folgen):B Japan / Buddhismus / Aufstand / Rezeption / Geschichte 1400-1912
RelBib Classification:AD Religionssoziologie; Religionspolitik
BL Buddhismus
KBM Asien
KCD Hagiographie; Heilige
NCA Ethik
TH Spätmittelalter
TJ Neuzeit
weitere Schlagwörter:B Buddhist Modernism radical Buddhism peasant rebellion religion and politics
Online Zugang: Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang
Volltext (Verlag)
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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
Enthält:In: Journal of Religion in Japan
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1163/22118349-00501002