Series Editor’s Preface

Caitilin Griffiths’ study of the nuns of the Jishū provides us entrée into an impor­tant part of the history of Pure Land Buddhism in Japan. In one sense it is quite natu­ral that the majority of modern scholarly attention has been paid to the Pure Land sects that are most prominent in Japan ­today: Jōdo shū and Jōdo Shin shū. Scholars have long recognized, how- ever, that the history of Pure Land Buddhism in Japan is much more complex. ­There ­were forms of Pure Land Buddhism that ­were significant in Japan prior to the rise of the specifically self-­identified Pure Land sects, and ­there have been a variety of alternative forms of Pure Land devotion since then. Pure Land imagery, teachings, texts, and practices entered Japan cen- turies before the Kamakura (1192–1333), when the autonomous sects ­were established. Pure Land thought and practice ­were already impor­ tant for the two major Heian era (794–1185) lineages. Although found, for example, in the Shingon tradition, the presence of Pure Land praxis in Tendai proved to be instrumental in laying the groundwork for the rapid rise of Pure Land devotionalism. One characteristic of Pure Land Buddhism in the early medieval era was experimentation with a variety of institutional forms other than traditional monastic organ­izations. Noteworthy in this regard are the several associations that assembled monastics and lay devotees for Pure Land practices of vari­ous kinds. The White Lotus Society, founded by Huiyuan (334–416) at Mount Lu on the mainland, served as a model for ­these ­later associations. In Japan ­there ­were several groups that sought to spread recitation practice among lay adherents. In the Heian, for ex- ample, the Association for the Encouragement of Learning (Kangakue 勸學會) brought together Pure Land monks and lay adherents. Outside both monastic institutions and formal associations, popu­lar forms of Pure Land w­ ere propagated to the general populace in the marketplace by wandering prac­ti­tion­ers, such as Gyōgi (668–749), Kūya (903–972), and Ippen (1239–1289). Griffiths tells us that the name “ji-­shū” (時衆), though pronounced the same as “Ji-sect” ( Jishū 時宗), identifies provisional groups—­people who gathered for a par­tic­u­lar event. In this case the event was recitative

vii Series Editor’s Preface chanting. Such temporary affiliation stands in opposition to the ­great monasteries and other established institutions. By the f­ourteenth ­century ­these had become so popu­lar that halls for practice ­were set up, thus creating regular locations where prac­ti­tion­ers could assem­ble and from which they could travel. One was led by the nun Chin’ichibō, who provides a focus for Griffiths’ study. It is perhaps surprising how autonomous the Jishū nuns ­were in their activities; also startling is Chin’ichibō’s leadership of a group of mendi- cants that included members of both sexes. In other words, contrary to the common modern feminist critique that associates Buddhism with institutionalized paternalism, ­there have been instances when ­women held positions of authority over not only other ­women, but also groups that included both w­ omen and men. Griffiths’ study, with its attention to nuns and itinerancy in the early period of Pure Land Buddhism in Japan, is a welcome addition to the Pure Land Buddhist Studies Series and to scholarship more generally.

viii