The perception of the problems of Japanese society through the prism of “Critical Buddhism”

• Published in: Японские исследования no. 1; pp. 6 - 16
• Main Author: Lugavtsova, A. P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Association of Japanologists 21.04.2025
• Subjects: buddhism; critical buddhism; discrimination; japan; society
• ISSN: 2500-2872; 2500-2872
• DOI: 10.55105/2500-2872-2025-1-6-16

The article examines the so-called “Critical Buddhism,” which is a specific trend in Japanese Buddhist philosophy that has become widespread since the 1980s and has questioned the “truth” of both Japanese Buddhism itself and the entire Far Eastern Buddhist tradition due to their gross discrepancies with the Indian roots of the teaching. The main ideologists of the movement were Matsumoto Shirō and Hakamaya Noriaki, professors at Komazawa University and followers of the Sōtō school. The author analyzes the social aspect of their criticism, which caused the greatest resonance at the initial stages of development of “Critical Buddhism.” Arguing that Japanese Buddhism had actually created and supported the oppression of the Burakumin (Japanese “untouchables”) by imposing the ideas of “Buddha-nature” and “original enlightenment” on the population over the centuries, Hakamaya and Matsumoto accused the teaching itself and its adherents (including themselves) of departing from the true precepts of the Buddha, the key one of which was the renunciation of one’s own self for the sake of another. The spread of doctrines of imaginary equality, according to Hakamaya and Matsumoto, reinforced the existing problems in society, depriving believers of the need to make any unpleasant moral choices, since, if “Buddha-nature” was present in everything, then social discrimination was also a state of affairs pleasing to Buddha himself. By analyzing academic studies of the ideologists of “Critical Buddhism,” it is shown that they did not seek any compromise option for further coexistence of Buddhism in Japan with the doctrines of hongaku and “Buddha-nature” due to their initially heretical nature and the severity of the harm inflicted on society. It is also shown how Japanese feminism actively responded to the agenda of “Critical Buddhism,” adding gender discrimination, which had not gone away, to caste discrimination in Buddhism. The author concludes that this movement, although unable to bring about fundamental changes in Buddhology and society, was not in vain, since it once again highlighted the importance of the ethical aspect of Buddhism and the public demand for reforming Buddhism in Japan.