BBuucckknneellll UUnniivveerrssiittyy BBuucckknneellll DDiiggiittaall CCoommmmoonnss Faculty Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Summer 6-1-2016 PPeeaassaanntt RReevvoollttss aass AAnnttii--aauutthhoorriittaarriiaann AArrcchheettyyppeess ffoorr RRaaddiiccaall BBuuddddhhiissmm iinn MMooddeerrnn JJaappaann James Shields Bucknell University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/fac_journ Part of the Asian History Commons, Buddhist Studies Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Ethics in Religion Commons, History of Religion Commons, History of Religions of Eastern Origins Commons, Intellectual History Commons, Japanese Studies Commons, Political History Commons, Political Theory Commons, Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons, and the Social History Commons RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn Shields, James. "Peasant Revolts as Anti-authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan." Journal of Religion in Japan (2016) : 3-21. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Bucknell Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Bucknell Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Religion in Japan 5 (2016) 3–21 brill.com/jrj Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan JamesMarkShields BucknellUniversity,Lewisburg,usa [email protected] Abstract ThelateMeijiperiod(1868–1912)witnessedthebirthofvariousformsof“progressive” and“radical”BuddhismbothwithinandbeyondtraditionalJapaneseBuddhistinsti- tutions.Thispaperexaminesseveralhistoricalprecedentsfor“Buddhistrevolution” in East Asian—and particularly Japanese—peasant rebellions of the early modern period.Iarguethattheserebellions,oratleastthereceivednarrativesofsuch,provided significant“rootparadigms”forthethoughtandpracticeofearlyBuddhistsocialists andradicalBuddhistsofearlytwentiethcenturyJapan.Evenifthesenarrativesended in“failure”—as,indeed,theyoftendid—theycanbeunderstoodasexamplesofwhat JamesWhitecalls“expressionisticaction,”inwhichfiguresactoutofinterestsoron thebasisofprinciplewithoutconcernfor“success.”AlthoughWhitearguesthat:“Such expressionisticactionwasnotasignificantcomponentofpopularcontentioninToku- gawaJapan”—thatdoesnotmeanthatthereceivedtaleswerenotinterpretedinsuch afashionbylaterMeiji,TaishōandShōwa-erasympathizers. Keywords Buddhistmodernism–radicalBuddhism–peasantrebellion–religionandpolitics September1905.AstunningvictoryoveramajorEuropeanpowerintheRusso- Japanese War provided substantial wind to the sails of emerging Japanese imperialism and justified, to some degree, the political and cultural changes thathadroiledthenationsincetheMeijiRestorationof1868.Atthesametime, however,societalandeconomicfracturesbroughtonbyindustrialcapitalism, combinedwithaninfluxofliberalandradicalthoughtfromRussiaandWest- © koninklijkebrillnv,leiden,2016 | doi:10.1163/22118349-00501002 4 shields ernEuropegavebirthtoanascent—andhighlyeclectic—socialistmovement, which found support among those who were opposed to the war.1 Japanese Buddhist institutions, for the most part, either supported the prevailing ide- ological winds or stayed cautiously out of the fray, but there were those— both individual priests and young lay scholars and activists—who sought to build bridges between progressive thought and praxis and Buddhist ideals. The New Buddhist Fellowship, born in 1899 and led by young lay-Buddhists SakainoKōyō境野黄洋(1871–1933),WatanabeKaikyoku渡辺海旭(1872–1933), SugimuraSojinkan杉村楚人冠(1872–1945),TakashimaBeihō高嶋米峰(1875– 1949)—andincludingayoungSuzukiDaisetsu鈴木大拙(1870–1966)—isper- hapsthebestexampleofaprogressive(thoughnotradical)formofJapanese Buddhist modernism that flourished in the waning years of Meiji. The same period sawthe emergence of what I referto as “radicalBuddhism,” exempli- fiedinthelifeandworkofTakagiKenmyō高木顕明(1864–1914)andUchiyama Gudō内山愚童(1874–1911),tworenegadeBuddhistpriestswhosoughtaradi- caltransformationofindividualandsocialbeingthroughafusionofBuddhist idealsandleft-wingpoliticaltheoriessuchassocialism,communismandanar- chism.TheseearlyexperimentsinradicalBuddhismwerebroughttoanabrupt end with the government crackdown known as the High Treason Incident (Taigyakujiken大逆事件)of1910–1911,whichalsoservesasacodatoMeiji-era Buddhistprogressivism. I have dealt with most of the above figures and movements, examining in some detail their historical context and their religious and philosophical sources, elsewhere (e.g., Shields 2012, 2014; Shields and Ladwig 2014). In this paper, I examine the question of precedents to “radical Buddhism” in East Asian—and particularly Japanese—peasant rebellions of the early modern period.Isuggestthattheserebellions,oratleastthereceivednarrativesofsuch, providedsignificant“rootparadigms”forthethoughtandpracticeofearlyBud- dhist socialists and radical Buddhists such as Takagi Kenmyō and Uchiyama Gudō(seeWhite1995:107;Bercé1980:334;NajitaandKoschmann1982:129).In manyruralareasofearlymodernJapan,such“culturesofcontention”—passed downvialegends,songs,andchronicles—providedadeeplyrootedsetofmod- els and a vocabulary for resistance and rebellion, if not outright revolution. Someofthesetalestranscendedregionalrelevancetobecomemultiregional or even nationally known legends (Yokoyama 1975: 225). Even if these narra- tivesendedin“failure”—as,indeed,theyoftendid—theycanbeunderstood 1 ItshouldalsobenotedthatevenmanyJapanesewhohadsupportedthewarwereenragedby thetermsofthePortsmouthTreaty,whichlackedprovisionforterritorialgainsandmonetary reparations.Riotingensued. Journal of Religion in Japan 5 (2016) 3–21 peasant revolts as anti-authoritarian archetypes 5 asexamplesofwhatJamesWhitecalls“expressionisticaction,”inwhichfigures actoutofinterestsoronthebasisofprinciplewithoutconcernfor“success” (seeScott-Stokes1974;Morris1975).AlthoughWhitearguesthat:“Suchexpres- sionisticactionwasnotasignificantcomponentofpopularcontentioninToku- gawaJapan”—thatdoesnotmeanthatthereceivedtaleswerenotinterpreted in such a fashion by later Meiji, Taishō and Shōwa-era sympathizers (White 1995:16n.20). PeasantRevoltsandReligioninEastAsia Peasantrevoltsareastandardfeatureinthehistoriesofvirtuallyallciviliza- tions, and those of East Asia are no exception to the rule. As in Christian Europe,suchrevoltsusuallybeganwithgrievancesrelatedtotaxation,drought orsomeotheragrariancrisis,butwouldquicklytakeonareligious—andfre- quentlymessianic—coloring.2OneprecedentforpopularrevoltinChinawas, ofcourse,theMandateofHeaven(Ch.tiānmìng天命),which,asinterpreted through Mencius and adopted by Neo-Confucians such as Wang Yangming 王陽明 (Ō Yōmei, 1472–1529), left open the possibility that the rule of the sovereignwascontingentonacertainmeasureofstabilityandsecuritywithin therealm.Ifsuchsecurityandstabilitywasperceivedtobelacking,orthemoral character of the Emperor judged to be wanting, then regime change could bejustifiedas“divinelyordainedrevolution”(ekiseikakumei易姓革命).While majoruprisingsinChinaaremoreoftenassociatedwithDaoism(e.g.,theYel- lowTurbanRebellionandFivePecksofRiceRebellionofthelatesecond-early third centuries ce), a long tradition of looking for the return of the bodhi- sattva and future Buddha Maitreya (Miroku 弥勒) was occasionally invoked as a justification or explanation for political unrest on the part of the lower strataofsociety—thepeasantsinparticular.Perhapsthebestexampleofthis in China was the White Lotus Rebellion of 1796–1804, in which an appeal to thereturnofMaitreya—andapromiseofuniversalsalvation—wascombined withanti-Manchusentimentsinan(unsuccessful)attempttooverthrowthe Qingregime.3 2 ThelocusclassicusformedievalEuropeisthewell-knownPeasants’Revoltof1381,ledby WatTyler,JohnBallandJackStraw,oftencreditedwithbringingaboutanendtoserfdom inEngland.Thesefigureswouldserveasinspirationstonineteenth-centuryBritishsocialists suchasWilliamMorris(1834–1896). 3 TheWhiteLotusRebellionsettheprecedentforthemuchlargerTaipingRebellionof1851– 1864,whichisarguablythebloodiestpeasantuprisinginEastAsian(ifnotworld)history. Journal of Religion in Japan 5 (2016) 3–21 6 shields InJapan,themostsignificantpeasantrebellionsassociatedwithBuddhism weretheikkō-ikki一向一揆revoltsoftheMuromachiperiod(1336–1573).4In thiscase,peasantfarmers,monksandsomenoblesbandedtogethertofight against samurai rule under the inspiration of Amida Buddha and the Jōdo Shinshū浄土真宗teachings.5ContemporaryShinsectreformerRennyo蓮如 (1415–1499), who preached a form of Pure Land Buddhism that was populist innature,wasaclearinspirationtotherebels—thoughhewascarefultodis- tinguishhimselffromtheuprisingandsubsequentviolence(Weinstein2006: 55). In particular, Rennyo attempted to clarify that while single-mindedness (i.e.,ikkō)wastobeencouragedinthecontextofdevotiontoAmida’svowof salvation,itshouldnotextendintomilitantorantinomianactivities.Despite Rennyo’s admonitions, in 1488 the ikki successfully overthrew the rulers of Kaga加賀province,andestablishedbasesinotherregionsoverthenextfew decades.Unsurprisingly,thiscaughttheattentionofthesecularauthorities,but whiletheikkiofMikawaprovinceweredefeatedattheBattleofAkukizakain 1564,otherbranchescontinuedtoexistthroughouttheEdoperiod(1603–1868), partlyduetoallianceswithpowerfuldaimyō,includingAshikagaYoshiaki足 利義昭(1537–1597)and,foratime,ToyotomiHideyoshi豊臣秀吉(1537–1598). Eventually,OdaNobunaga織田信長(1534–1582)andhisforceswoulddestroy thefortressesoftheIkkōsectatNagashima長島andIshiyamaHonganji石山 本願寺(nowOsakaCastle),andthesect,orwhatwasleftofit,wouldbeout- lawedundertheTokugawabakufu.6 Here,too,religiousideologywascentral,thoughinthiscaseitwastheidiosyncraticChristian- ityofrevoltleaderHongXiuquan洪秀全(1814–1864).Andofcourse,Japanhadexperienced itsownversionofa“Christian”uprisingtwocenturiesprevious,withtheShimabaraRebellion (Shimabaranoran島原の乱)ledbyAmakusaShirō天草四郎(1621–1638).Whilesmallerin scalethantheTaipingRebellon,theShimabaraRebellion“leftlastingmemoriesofpeasant resistancetotyrannicallordship”(Bix1986:7). 4 For reasons that may be obvious, peasant uprisings in Japan have attracted a significant amountofscholarlyattention,includingthefollowingfull-lengthworksinEnglish:Kelly (1985);Bix(1986);Vlastos(1986);Walthall(1986,1991);White(1995);Esenbel(1998).Seealso NajitaandKoschmann(1982),whichdealswiththegeneralissueofconflictinmodernJapan. PerhapsthebestsourceinJapaneseisYokoyama(1975). 5 TheIkkōsectwasoriginallyfoundedbyIkkōShunjo一向俊聖(1239–1287),ateacherofthe ChinzeibranchoftheJōdo浄土orPureLandsect.However,underpressurefromcrackdowns byauthoritiesagainstallformsofAmidistpietism,mostofhisfollowerswouldeventually defectforthe“mainstream”JōdoShinorTruePureLandsect,andadheretotheteachingsof Rennyo;seePauly(1985:361). 6 SeeAmstutz(2010:66–67)formoreonikkō-ikkiinrelationtoShinBuddhismandtheburaku- min;alsoseeTsang(2007). Journal of Religion in Japan 5 (2016) 3–21 peasant revolts as anti-authoritarian archetypes 7 Thoughitisusually,andwithsomejustification,laudedasaneraofpeace and security after centuries of near constant warfare, the succeeding Edo period witnessed the emergence of several individuals whose “progressive” ideasandactivitiesinsupportoftheruralpoorwouldhaveasignificantimpact onthelivesandworkofprogressivesandradicalsthroughouttheMeijiperiod. Thefirstofthese,whowouldserveasadirectinspirationtoUchiyamaGudō,is SakuraSōgorō佐倉惣五郎(1605–1653),asemi-legendaryfarmerwhosedirect appealtotheshōguntoeasethetaxburdenonpeasantsandassistwiththeir lackofagriculturalproductivityledtohisarrestandcrucifixion—butalsoto aremissionofthetaxesandexcessduties.Whilethestoryof“self-sacrificing man”Sōgorōpassedintolegendviagimindensetsu義民伝説(legendsofexem- plary martyrs) and the kabuki stage—itself an important outlet for popular resentment in the early to mid-Edo period—it is nearly impossible to verify anyhistoricalfactsinhistale.Whatiscertainisthat,inthemid-eighteenthcen- tury,ahundredyearsafterSōgorō’sdeath,atemplewaserectedinhismemory, wherethepeasantmartyrwasworshippedasadaimyōjin相明神—i.e.,ahigh- rankingShintōdeity.7Thetemplesoonbecameapilgrimagesite,andthestory ofSōgorōwascarriedthroughoutthecountry,reachingevenremotepartsof Kyushu.Bythenineteenth-century,hehadbecome,inAnneWalthall’swords, “thepatronsaintofprotest.”8 UnlikeSōgo-sama,twootherfiguresthatbearmentioninthisregardboth livedanddiedwithinthelivingmemoryofthoseoftheearlyMeijiperiod,and thuscanbetakenashistoricalratherthansimplyliterarymodels.Thefirstof these, Ōshio Heihachirō 大塩平八郎 (1793–1837), was a low-ranking samurai policeinspectoraswellasaNeo-ConfucianscholarinOsaka.Increasinglyfed upwithcorruptionwithinthecityadministration,in1830Ōshioresignedhis post,andestablishedhisowntrainingcentercalledtheSeishindō洗心洞(lit., Heart-mindCleansingDen).Histeachingsandlecturenoteswouldeventually becompiledinatextknownasSeishindōsakki洗心洞箚記.In1836,asJapanese farmersstruggledthroughthemostseverefamineindecades,Ōshio,likeSōgō- 7 Itbearsnotingthat,aswiththeHeian-periodcultofTenjin-sama天神様(Sugawarano Michizane菅原道真,845–903),theenshrinementofSōgorōasDaimyōjinSōgo-samawas atleastasmuchawaytopacifyhisrestlessandvengefulspirit(goryō御霊)asitwasaform ofgratitudeforhisdeeds. 8 Walthall1991c:36–37.Sōgorō’sfamewassowidespreadbytheendofthenineteenthcentury that at least two versions of his story were translated into English: George Braithwaite’s LifeofSogoro:TheFarmerPatriotofSakura(1897)—prefacedwithseveralbiblicalpassages enjoiningsacrificeaswellasanappealtotheJapanesetoembrace“theloveoftheLordJesus Christ”—andViscountHayashiTadasu’sForHisPeople(1903). Journal of Religion in Japan 5 (2016) 3–21 8 shields sama before him, made a direct appeal to regional magistrates to help the people. Refused (though not, in this case, crucified), he reportedly sold all his possessions—including his substantial library—to purchase food for the sufferingpoor. Atthispoint,Ōshio’staleseemsanear-perfectrecapitulationoftheSōgo- samalegend.However,thingstakeonamoreradical—orperhapsmodern— turn in the following year, 1837, when the former police inspector published amanifestochargingthechiefcitymagistrate(bugyō奉行)withcorruption. AfterinvokingthenameofboththeEmperor,who“hasbeenkeptinseclusion andhaslostthepowertodispenserewardsandpunishments,”andthefounder of the Tokugawa shogunate, who “decreed that to show compassion for the widows,widowersandthelonelyisthefoundationofbenevolentgovernment (jinsei仁政),”themanifestostatesitsaimsinaremarkablyforthrightmanner: Forthesakeofallunderheaven,knowingthatwehavenoonetodepend onandthatwemaybringonpunishmentstoourfamilies,[…we]resolve todothefollowing:Firstweshallexecutethoseofficialswhotormentand harassthosewhoarelowly.Nextweshallexecutethoserichmerchantsin thecityofOsakawhoareaccustomedtothelifeofluxury.Thenweshall uncovergoldandsilvercoinsandothervaluablestheyhoardaswellas bagsofricekepthiddenintheirstoragehouses.Theywillbedistributedto thosewhodonotownfieldsorgardensinthedomainsofSettsu,Kawachi, IzumiandHarima,andtothosewhomayownlands,buthaveahardtime supportingfathers,mothers,wivesandothermembersofthefamily[…] Whatwedoistofollowthecommandofheaventorenderthepunishment ofheaven. lu1997:280–281 Soon afterwards, Ōshio led an “army” of (mainly landholding) peasants, stu- dents, low-ranking samurai officials and social outcastes—along with two Shintō priests—on a rampage of destruction throughout Osaka. The rebels, carryingbannersfestoonedwith“savethepeople”and“Amaterasu,”succeeded in burning down one-fifth of the city before being quashed by government troops. Amidst the resulting confusion and conflagration, Ōshio went miss- ingforfortydays,atwhichpointhewastrackeddownbytheauthoritiesand committed suicide upon being discovered. Despite the failure of his upris- ing,“Ōshio-sama”immediatelybecameafolkheroamongpeasantsandeven some merchants and samurai—a Japanese version of American abolitionist folkheroJohnBrown(1800–1859).Afterhisdeath,handwrittencopiesofhis manifestospreadthroughoutthecountry,touchingachordwithpeasantsin Journal of Religion in Japan 5 (2016) 3–21 peasant revolts as anti-authoritarian archetypes 9 many regions. His story was retold (and embellished) in Mori Ōgai’s 森鷗外 (1862–1922)novellaŌshioHeihachirō,publishedinJanuary1914,notlongafter theHighTreasonIncident,andoverthesucceedingdecadesservedasinspira- tiontoadiversegroupofmovementsandpeople,includingtheFreedomand PopularRightsMovementofthe1870sand1880s,GeneralNogiMaresuke乃木 希典(1849–1912),MishimaYukio三島由紀夫(1925–1970)andleft-wingstudent radicals of the 1960s. According to Marius Jansen: “His ill-fated revolt served astheclimaxtotheTokugawatraditionofprotest,anditforeshadowedlater expressionsofnihilisticviolence”(Jansen2000:223). LikeŌshio,NinomiyaSontoku二宮尊徳(1787–1856)wasborninthelate- eighteenthcentury,andthusspentmostofhisadultlifeinthetumultuousfinal decadesofthebakufuperiod.BornintoapoorpeasantfamilyinKayama栢山, Sagami相模province(nowwesternKanagawaprefecture),byhislatetwen- ties the famously self-educated Ninomiya had became a wealthy landowner aswellasanagriculturalinnovator.Catchingtheattentionoftheauthorities for his administrative techniques, he was eventually recruited to run one of the shōgun’s estates, a significant honor for a person of such humble begin- nings.Hisideassoonbecametheacceptedstandardforlandmanagementin thelateEdoperiod,andNinomiyawasgrantedthenameSontoku尊徳(lit., pricelessvirtue)forhistalentsandaccomplishments.Uponhisdeathin1856, hewasgrantedposthumoushonors,andisreveredeventodayasamodelof educationaldiligenceandselflessvirtue.Thisbriefbiographyrevealsastriking distinctionwiththeothergimindiscussedinthissection—andalsowiththe earlier ikkō-ikki movement. While committed to agricultural reforms to alle- viate the suffering of the rural poor, Sontoku was not, in any sense, a “rebel” or“radical.”Heneverengagedinpoliticalactivismagainstthestate,andasa resultwasneversubjecttopersecution.Iwillreturntothisdifferencebelow,as Ibelieveitisinstructiveinhelpingustounderstandthevariousforcesatwork inshapingthegiminnarrativethatwouldpassintothesocialdiscourseofthe Meijiera. While it would be anachronistic to call these movements or individuals “socialist”—at least in the way the term is usually understood today—they playanimportantroleasprecedentsfor“righteousrevolt”onthepartofthe commonpeopleagainstthesecularauthorities.WhetherwefollowYokoyama Toshioinunderstandingofearlymodernpeasantrevoltsastheincipientfor- mation of a revolutionary class consciousness, or Ann Walthall’s more mod- eratereadingofsuchascallsforsocialreform,onecommonfeatureofthese movements is the self-conscious employment and reinterpretation religious doctrinesas“political”(insomecases,military)slogans,inawaythatprefig- urestheworkofprogressiveandradicalBuddhistsofthemodernperiod(see Journal of Religion in Japan 5 (2016) 3–21 10 shields Yokoyama1977;Walthall1991c).Theikkicarriedbannerswiththewords“Namu Amidabutsu”南無阿弥陀仏and“RenouncethisDefiledWorldandAttainthe PureLand.”WhilethesearetraditionalphraseswithinbothJōdoandShinBud- dhism, the political implications go well beyond traditional interpretations. For one, an appeal is made to Amida, and Amida’s vow of universal salva- tion, as a “law” that extends beyond those of the realm, including “secular” customsofharmony,hierarchy,loyaltyandobedience.Second,theinvocation to“renouncethisdefiledworldandattainthePureLand”seemstoindicatea belief in the possibility of establishing a “Pure Land” here on earth—similar to the understanding of the “Buddha land” (bukkokudo 仏国土) within the Nichiren日蓮sectandrelatedtothemoregeneralexpressionyonaoshi世直し, whichgainedcurrencyinthelaterEdoperiod(seebelow). Thetermikkiitselfinvitesfurthercommentinthisregard.Thoughtheword originallyimplied“identity”—i.e.,twoapparentlydistinctthingsbeing,inthe familiarBuddhistexpression“nototherthan[oneanother]”—bythetimeof theKenmuRestorationinthefourteenthcenturyithadbecomelinkedtothe expressionichimidōshin一味同心(i.e.,solidarityband,butliterally:“people working together with one mind”). Ichimi dōshin were special social groups established in order to formulate an “objective” decision on issues involving mattersofjustice.9Theunderlyingbeliefwasthatinmakingsuchabondone was released from both personal but also familial biases; in other words, by enteringtheichimidōshinonealignedoneselfwiththe(impersonalandobjec- tive)“willofheaven”(Bix1986:143).ThoughtheterminologyhereisChinese, there are echoes of indigenous beliefs concerning the ability of humans to channelandcarryoutthewilloftheheavenlykami神orbuddhas.10Further- more,WalthallnotesthatduringtheMuromachiperiod,“self-governingbodies ofmonksdrewontheKamakuramodel[ofichimidōshin],plusaprimitiveBud- 9 Thoughrarelyinvolvedinpoliticalunrest,thekō講confraternitiesthatproliferatedin theearlynineteenthcenturymaybeconsidereddescendantsoftheichimidōshininthe sensethattheyweresocialgroupsbasedoncommoninterests,andwereoften,though notalways,focusedonachievingworldlybenefits.Some,likeFujikō冨士講,evolvedinto newreligiousmovements.Formoreonkō,seeIto(1952);forburakuconfraternities,see Andachi(1997:591–593);Yamamoto(1999:383–413);Nobi(2007). 10 Katsumata (1982: 23–24); also see Walthall (1991a: 12): “Peasants also used the shrine precinctsandothersacredplacesonthemarginsofhumanhabitationforvillageassem- blies.Meetinginthepresenceofthegodswasbelievedessentialifhumanbeingswere toreconciletheirdifferencesandreachaconsensusbecauseitseemedtotakeamiracle forunanimitytobereached.Itwasclaimedthatthissignofadivinepresencemadethe decisionlegitimate.” Journal of Religion in Japan 5 (2016) 3–21 peasant revolts as anti-authoritarian archetypes 11 dhistsystemofautonomous,sacredassembly,touniteinaunionbothpolitical andreligiouswhendebatingmattersthatpertainedtothegroupasawhole” (Walthall1986:16). Inshort,asBixconcludes,relyingontheworkofKatsumataShizuo勝俣鎮 夫: The consciousness of man’s oneness with the gods shapes many of the characteristic features of the ikki: its belief in justice beyond consan- guineous ties, initiative among participants in the solidarity band, and theirstrongindependenceandfreedomfromtherulingpowers…Sothe ikkiwasnotonlyahabit,adefense,andarighttobeexercisedbypeasants intimesofacutecrisis.Itwasalsoaritualforkeepingaliveprefeudalideas ofimpartialjustice,equality,andequityinasocietydominatedbykinship, hierarchyandfixedstatus. bix1986:143(myemphasis) Ofparticularnotehereistheassertionthattheikkipeasantrevoltsinvolved acompleterefashioningofbothkinshiptiesandhierarchicalmodelsofsoci- ety—a shift, we might say, from a strictly vertical and largely static vision of the world to one that is radically horizontal and fluid. One thinks of the classicalChinesephrase“heaven-humanity-together-one”(Ch.tianrenheyi天 人合一), but the conflation of the two realms is arguably much stronger in the ikki, reminiscent of Andō Shōeki’s radical homophonic transposition of the categories ten/chi 天地 (heaven and earth) with tenchi 転定 (movement andrest)(Najita2002:71).Insymbolicterms,thisradicaltranspositionismost apparentintheactofsigningapetitionoroathincircularorumbrellashape,a practicethatdatestosomeearlyikkibutbecomesespeciallycommonwiththe yonaoshimovementsofthe1860sand1870s(seeEsenbel1998:26;Katsumata 1982:131). While the specific doctrinal connections may be less apparent than with theikkō-ikki,theheroicnarrativesoftheindividualgimindiscussedabovealso show Buddhist—or at least Buddhistic—elements. It is certainly possible to interprettheactionsofSōgō-samaasabodhisattva(bosatsu菩薩)inthetra- ditionalMahāyānaunderstandingoftheterm.Bodhisattvasareunderstoodas beingswhoseinfinitecompassionforotherbeingsdrivesthemtomakesacri- fices,bothwithregardtomaterialcomforts(likeŚākyamuni)and,inpopular textssuchasthe JātakaTales,bygivinguptheirlivesforothers,iftheoccasion demandsit.Itbearsnoting,here,thatwhilethetermgimincanbetranslated as“martyr,”itisnormallydistinguishedfrom junkyōsha殉教者,thetraditional termfor“religiousmartyr.”Whiletheformercanbeliterallyglossedas“(aper- Journal of Religion in Japan 5 (2016) 3–21