One Village, One Mind? 2014 Eto Tekirei, Tolstoy, and the Structure of 20–21, Agrarian-Buddhist Utopianism in Taishō Japan permission March noa, ā author's M at the Future and Hawai‘i without of quote Present, not do Past, University the and at paper Religions: this Studies James Mark Shields of Bucknell University Japanese International Research Center for Japanese Studies source and Buddhist in the Numata Conference in Buddhist Studies Violence, Nonviolence and Japanese Religions: Past, Present & Future Nonviolence, Conference 20–21 March 2014 acknowledge Violence, Please Numata 1 SHIELDS: One Village, One Mind? [PREZI 1 – 4]: ON THE BOOK • The primary task of the book is to provide a detailed, critical, and comparative analysis of the intellectual genealogy (and geography) of various forms of “modernist” and “progressive” Buddhism that 2014 emerged during the five decades leading up to the Pacific War— including the implications of such for postwar and contemporary 20–21, Buddhism in Japan and beyond. A secondary goal is to bring some light to the grey and underexposed areas that lie within and between permission March various conceptions and manifestations of “progress,” “reform” and noa, “modernity” in the formative period of modern Japanese Buddhism. ā author's M at the • I employ the term progressive to refer to a person or group that: a) is Future concerned with broad-based social welfare; b) believes that society can and should be refashioned along lines that will enhance social, and Hawai‘i without political and economic equality; and c) is engaged in sustained “criti- of cal engagement” with prevailing ideological structures.1 This second quote Present, and third aspect correlate with what has elsewhere been called the not “threshold of modernity”; i.e., the point at which it is recognized that do Past, University the order of society is not natural or ordained, but is rather the prod- the and uct of social, historical and economic forces. Once this cognitive leap at is made, it is a short step to the possibility of a reflexive transforma- paper Religions: tion of society via human agency.2 And this is where utopian think- this Studies ing comes into play.3 of Japanese [PREZI 5]: GENEALOGY OF “PROGRESSIVE BUDDHISM” source and Buddhist in the • One of the most significant outcomes of the broader Meiji Buddhist Enlightenment was the appearance of numerous lay Buddhist asso- ciations and publications—i.e., varieties of non-institutional Bud- Nonviolence, 4 Conference dhist activism. According to Yasutomi Shin’ya, these movements acknowledge can be grouped under three broad categories: 1) Buddhism for the state; 2) Buddhism for society; and c) Buddhism of the self.5 Violence, Please Numata 2 SHIELDS: Taishō Agrarian-Buddhist Utopianism • I would like to suggest a fourth possibility that arose in the late Meiji and Taishō periods, largely as a result of the influence of Rus- sian writer Leo Tolstoy: ‘Buddhism for nature.’ In this paper, I pre- sent the little-known case of Eto Tekirei, whose utopian experiment Hyakushō Aidōjō—the Farmer’s Institute (or Meditation Hall) of 2014 Love—sought to provide a comprehensive alternative lifestyle rooted in a Tolstoyan, agrarian ethics but also heavily inflected by Buddhist ideals—particularly those of Zen. 20–21, permission [PREZI 6–10]: TAISHŌ TRENDS March [PREZI 11]: TOLSTOY IN JAPAN noa, ā author's M • Tolstoy’s ideas on the individual, religion, society and politics were at the Future of immense influence on the “young men of Meiji”—the generation coming of age in the last decade of the Meiji period. Tolstoy appreci- and Hawai‘i without ated Asian culture, dabbled in Buddhism, and denounced Western of imperialism and colonialism, urging non-Western peoples to resist quote Present, (non-violently) becoming slaves or puppets to the West and its ide- not als, and instructing them to go “back to the land.”6 Although Tolstoy do Past, University and his followers are often labelled “antimodern,” this is a mistake, the and based on a simplistic conflation of “modernity” and urban culture. at Like Kiyozawa Manshi, his work contains aspects that are distinctly paper Religions: “modern” (or “modernist)”—including a rationalist interpretation of this Studies religion and (proto-existentialist) focus on the individual. of Japanese [PREZI 12–13]: TOLSTOY’S APPEAL source and Buddhist 7 in [PREZI 14]: 4 TAISHŌ “UTOPIAS” the • One of the first Japanese writers influenced by Tolstoy was Toku- tomi Roka (1868–1927). On the way back from a pilgrimage to Jerusa- Nonviolence, Conference acknowledge lem, Roka visited Tolstoy’s villa in Yasnaya Polyana in 1906, and soon began to inject his literary works with Tolstoyan qualities of self- 8 Violence, Please Numata introspection and a resistance to authoritarianism. 3 SHIELDS: One Village, One Mind? • In 1908, as leftwing activism grew in the wake of the Russo-Japanese War, Roka gave a controversial address to the Debating Society of the First Higher School of Tokyo entitled “The Sadness of Victory,” in which he evoked the emptiness felt by even the greatest generals upon their so-called “victories” in battle, concluding, in words that 2014 evoke the “conversion” of legendary Buddhist king Aśoka (304–232 BCE) after the battle of Kalinga: “Of what value is man’s victory? The 20–21, people search after ‘success’ or ‘distinction’, offering their very lives in payment. But what is success, what is distinction? These are noth- permission March ing more than pretty reflections shining forth from the dream of 9 noa, man’s aspirations.” This speech hit a chord with a number of the ā author's students in the audience, some of who promptly quit school to re- M 10 at the turn to their native villages as narodniki. Roka himself would spend Future his final two decades ensconced in a Musashino forest retreat called Kōshun-en, living the life of a “natural man” (shinzen nin). and Hawai‘i without of [PREZI15–17]: HYAKUSHŌ AIDŌJŌ quote Present, not • Eto Tekirei was another budding intellectual and writer who got do Past, University caught up in the Tolstoyan current. After studying law and politics at the and Tokyo Imperial University, around 1906, he abandoned his studies to at become a farmer. Yet even this was not enough, so in 1910, with the paper Religions: assistance of Tokutomi Roka, Tekirei took up residence in the village this Studies of Takaido in the Musashino area just outside of Tokyo.11 Calling his of new home Hyakushō Aidōjō, he attempted to practice the Tolstoyan Japanese life to the fullest, while incorporating Buddhist and Christian ele- source and Buddhist ments into his thought. Tekirei also borrowed heavily from the work in the of the anarchist Kropotkin,12 and was inspired by the works of Andō Shōeki, the Edo-period agrarian thinker and proto-communist vi- sionary.13 In 1922, Tekirei published his Aru hyakushō no ie (The Nonviolence, Conference Houseold of a Farmer), which, coupled with Tsuchi to kokoro o ta- acknowledge gayashi tsutsu (Tilling the Soil and the Heart, 1924), serves as both memoir and justification for his agrarian socio-religious vision. Violence, Please Numata 4 SHIELDS: Taishō Agrarian-Buddhist Utopianism • Citing Maruyama Masao’s remarks on the tendency towards ideo- logical polarization during this period, Nishimura Shun’ichi argues that this tendency extended to Taishō agrarian thinking, as well, such that there emerged a “right wing” faction of thinkers dedicated to nōhonshugi (lit. ‘agriculture-essence-ism’) and a “left wing” or pro- 2014 gressive faction espousing nōminjichishugi (lit. ‘farmer-autonomy- ism’).14 Nishimura correctly places Eto among the latter, “progressive” group.15 And yet, given our concern here, just how reliant was Eto on 20–21, Buddhist ideas and principles for his progressive, naturalist vision? permission March • As noted, after a few years of the life of a farmer, Tekirei sought a noa, more meaningful lifestyle. In his words, he began to have serious ā author's M doubts about Tolstoy’s idealized views of peasant life, and resolved at the to establish a new system for living with nature, which he called ka- Future shoku nōjō 家稷農乗—which we might translate as the “Wheel of and Hawai‘i Household Grain Farming.” In fact, the first half of this four- without of character set, kashoku, is borrowed directly—and thus effectively set quote in contrast to—the traditional term shashoku 社稷, used to refer to Present, not the state as a tutlerary deity of grain. Here, in Tekirei’s (anti-kokutai) do Past, reformulation, it is the household (ie) that becomes the locus of live- University lihood, rather than the state. In addition, the final character jō is the and at clearly borrowed from Buddhist tradition, where it refers to a par- paper ticular “vehicle” or branch of the Dharma, one that leads effectively Religions: to nirvāṇa—as in the Great Vehicle (Sk. Mahāyāna; Jp. Daijō). this Studies of Japanese • Tekirei goes on to divide this general concept into eight categories: source 1) farm methods (or ‘dharma’: nōhō); 2) farm organization (nōsei), 3) and Buddhist in farm association (nōso), 4) farm “path,” including social and eco- the nomic standpoints (nōdō), 5) farm thought, including philosophy and art (nōsō), 6) farm doctrine, including culture (nōkyō), 7) farm spirit, including spirituality and religion (nōkon), 8) farm practice Nonviolence, Conference 16 acknowledge (nōgyō). Violence, Please Numata 5 SHIELDS: One Village, One Mind? • Clearly, in the spirit of late-Meiji New Buddhism, Tekirei is aiming for a comprehensive lifestyle structure—one that stretches (or de- stroys) conventional boundaries of labor, philosophy, art, religion, society, and politics. Indeed, due to its application to all facets of or- dinary life, he would go on to call his vision a “non-religious religion” 2014 (mushūkyō no shūkyō).17 The primary difference of course, between Tekirei and the New Buddhists is that here “nature” or the “soil” re- 20–21, places “Buddhism” as the organizing locus.