Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/: 3–59© 2005 Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture

Yuki Miyamoto

Rebirth in the Pure Land or God’s Sacriﬁcial Lambs?
Religious Interpretations of the Atomic Bombings
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

This article explores the development of religious discourse surrounding
the experiences of the atomic bombings of 945. Although there have been
attempts to discuss the ethics of the use of the bomb and nuclear weaponry
from theological perspectives, little exists in the way of religious approaches
to the experiences of those who suﬀered directly from the atomic bombings. I
argue that religious understandings can and should contribute to the existingatomic bomb discourse, which is largely determined by a nation-state framework.

keywords: Atomic bomb – Pure Land Buddhism – Catholicism – nuclear arms
issues – ethics

Yuki Miyamoto is a Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies, DePaul
University.

3

T

his paper explores religious interpretations of the 945 atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My goal in this paper is to challenge thepresently prevailing atomic bomb discourse, which is bound by a nationstate framework, and to propose religious interpretations as alternative readings to these events. In doing so, I argue that, despite certain limitations to theseinterpretations, they can contribute to a more inclusive understanding of thebombings—an understanding that the current discourse is unable to provide.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has often been discussed fromwithin a discourse based upon nation-state boundaries. The Smithsonian debateof 994–995 exempliﬁes an interpretation of the atomic bombings that is boundby a nation-state framework. In 994, Martin Harwit, then curator of the Smithsonian Institution’s Air and Space Museum, planned a ﬁftieth anniversary exhibition to commemorate the end of World War II. A part of this plan included
images of the atomic bombing taken from ground level, and for this purpose
the Air and Space Museum made an arrangement for the loan of items fromthe Peace Museums in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A number of World War II
veterans in the United States, however, opposed Harwit’s plan as “anti-patriotic,”
resulting in the cancellation of the original plan, as well as Harwit’s resignationfrom the museum (Harwit 996, and Linenthal 996, pp. 9–62).
In Japan, on the other hand, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as memorial sites,
became part of a “Japanese” collective past. That is to say, the bombings were
presumed to have occurred to Japan as a nation state and to the Japanese people
as a whole. This phenomenon culminated in the 980s when prime ministers
and major newspaper companies began to employ rhetoric implying that theexperience of the atomic bombings was unique to Japan and the Japanese people.1 The rhetoric suggested that Japan was the only country that truly knew
the destruction of nuclear weapons, and that the Japanese were the only people
who truly knew the horror of nuclear attacks. Such rhetoric was founded upon amyth that Japan was a homogeneous country, as expressed in the annual White
Paper of Japan’s Defense Agency of 983, which referred to Japan as “one race,
one state, and one language” (Dower 986, p. 35). Along with this rhetoric ofprivileges—the privilege of the Japanese as homogeneous people and the privilege of having a “unique” experience of atomic bombing—the two cities became
prominent sightseeing spots and destinations for school excursions in the 980s(Yoneyama 999, p. 00). This view of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as national

. The rhetoric in which Japan is referred to as yuiitsu no hibakukoku 唯一の被爆国 (“the only
country”) itself existed in the 950s; see ICHIBA 200, pp. 89–9.

miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 33

memorial sites of victimhood was challenged and radically altered in the 990s.
Coinciding with the death of the Shōwa Emperor in 989, various hibakusha
被爆者 (atomic bomb victim) minorities emerged in public discourse. These
included Korean, Okinawan, Japanese-American, American POW, and Dutch
POW hibakusha, whose experiences had been expelled from the Japanese collective past.2 The testimonies of the hibakusha minorities thus contested the dominant atomic bomb discourse in Japan, in which the experience of the atomic
bombing was constitutive of Japanese uniqueness. In other words, while theatomic bombings inﬂuenced and impacted Japanese identity-formation, a number of hibakusha minorities, who experienced the atomic bombings and aftermath outside the nation-state framework, had been left out. This suggests that anation-state framework that outlines the atomic bombings becomes inadequate
to account for their experiences. In fact, it is extremely crucial to retrieve theexperiences that have been often unrecognized in discussing the atomic bomb
issue. This is precisely because such experiences enable us to realize the indiscriminate nature of this nuclear weaponry, which distinguishes it from otherso-called “conventional” ones.3
In addressing this issue, I propose to examine religious, rather than strictly
political, interpretations of the bombing. Unlike the existing discourse on theatomic bombings in the United States and Japan, religious interpretations are
not necessarily grounded in national boundaries, but in theological understandings of history, anthropology, and soteriology. Through such diﬀerences,religious interpretations create diﬀerent frameworks that can go beyond thenation-state framework, by which the victims of the atomic bombings, regardless of their national identities, take part in discourse, as well as non-victims. I
argue, therefore, that religious interpretations provide us with a more inclusive
perspective on this historical event, and thereby they can contribute to creating a discourse in which the marginalized hibakusha participate more fully,
regardless of their connection, or lack thereof, to a particular nation-state. It isextremely important to stress my argument here that religious interpretations
only supplement the existing atomic bomb discourse, but not replace it. They
have their own frameworks and those who do not share the same faith will ﬁndthemselves unheard when a particular religious interpretation becomes a dominant narrative.
In order to present my argument, I will focus primarily the work of two
2. Signiﬁcantly, corresponding to the death of the Shōwa Emperor, a number of atrocities that
the Japanese Imperial Army committed during the Paciﬁc War (93–945)—such as the Nanjing
massacre, the use of “comfort women” (systematic sex slavery by the Army), and the vivisection
experiments of Unit 73— emerged in public discourse. It is important to note that employing a
victim narrative based upon the atomic bomb experience promoted a selective amnesia among theJapanese about the past atrocities on a national level.
3. The prolonged life-threatening eﬀect of radiation is another characteristic that distinguishes
nuclear weapons from other bombs.

34 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
thinkers who attempt to come to terms with the atomic bomb incidents in a
religious context: the ﬁrst is the interpretation by Nagai Takashi, a Catholic convert in Nagasaki. The second is that of Kōji Shigenobu, a True Pure Land (Jōdo
Shinshū) priest residing in Hiroshima. The selection of these two religious ﬁgures reﬂects the religious demography of Nagasaki and Hiroshima respectively.
Over half of the residents of Nagasaki’s Urakami area, over which the atomic
bomb was detonated, profess the Catholic faith, while Hiroshima is characterized by its signiﬁcant Aki-monto 安芸門徒 (True Pure Landers of Hiroshima)
population.
In examining these diﬀerent religious traditions on interpretations of theatomic bombing, I will test the possibilities, as well as limitations, of religious
interpretations in coming to a greater understanding of human-made mass
death such as that of the atomic bombing. To this end, I will address to thefollowing questions: () a theological question—how can we understand theatomic bombing incident in relation to God or Amida (Amitābha) Buddha?; (2)a soteriological question—in a religious context, what does it mean to die fromthe atomic bomb?; and (3) an anthropological question—what does the atomic
bombing tell us about human nature more generally?
I open this paper with a brief history of the Catholic community of Urakami
in order to attain a better understanding of their eventual embracing of Nagai’s
idiosyncratic interpretation of the bombing. After examining Nagai Takashi’s
theological interpretation of the event, I will introduce Kōji’s True Pure Land’sinterpretation, which stands in contrast to Nagai’s. Through this comparative
study of two religious understandings of the bombing, I hope to develop a perspective that is broader and more inclusive than that of the prevailing discourse,which is conﬁned by a nation-state framework.
A Brief History of Urakami
Christianity was introduced to Japan in 549, when St. Francis Xavier, one of
the six founders of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), landed with the ambition
to proselytize the Japanese people. Having gained favor from several powerfulfeudal lords seeking for trading opportunities at the time, the missionaries succeeded in the promulgation of Christianity for the ﬁrst thirty years. The numberof converts exceeded thirty thousand within a decade. Although this number
includes many cases of mass conversion, in which feudal lords imposed baptism
on their retainers and subordinates, the ﬁgure comprised over one percent of theentire population (Spae 964, pp. 4–5, and Boxer 95, p. 32).4 This favorable
relationship, which was based upon the feudal lords’ interest in the ﬁrearms pro4. In a letter by Alessandro Valignano dated 6 October 60, the number of Catholic converts
was estimated to be 300, ooo while the entire population was 20,000,000 in 60. Alessandro Valignano (539–606), a native of present-day Italy, and a Visitor (Supervisor) of the Jesuit mission in
Asia, arrived in Japan in 579.

miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 35

vided by the missionaries’ home countries, underwent a change when two of theprominent lords attempted to unify Japan. The missionaries’ close connection totheir homelands—primarily Spain, Portugal, and Italy—became a threat to thelords, who now viewed these countries as a danger to the uniﬁed Japan. Unlike
the previous “Warring states” period (sengoku jidai 戦国時代) when many feudallords sought to fortify their power by importing ﬁrearms from Western countries, once uniﬁcation was achieved to some extent, the uniﬁers’ concern shiftedto protecting themselves from those countries that were capable of providing
such powerful weapons. Finally, in 64, threatened by the inﬂuences of thesecountries, the Tokugawa shogunate proscribed Christian practice, and persecuted the Christian populace.
Because of this persecution, the Japanese Catholics had no other choice but
to either proselytize or practice their faith in secret. However, several Catholic communities survived this persecution that ended up lasting over two hundred and ﬁfty years. Among them were the Urakami Catholics. To this day, they
maintain the belief that their religious lineage has passed unbroken from theirancestors, who were initiated into Christianity by the Western missionaries inthe sixteenth century. It is true, however, that the Catholic faith was transformed
during the time when Christianity was oﬃcially forbidden from 64 to 873.
As adherents to Catholicism were forced to practice underground, disguising
their faith in the outward accoutrements of Buddhism, their religious exercises
thus merged with certain practices of indigenous folk religion and Buddhism.
Finally in 867, the Urakami Catholics were reconnected to the Church when
the Tokugawa shogunate, at the mercy of treaties with the United States andseveral other countries, made a decision to permit foreigners to reside in Japanand practice Christianity. However, the edict addressed to these newcomer foreigners from America and European countries alone and the shogunate still
disallowed the Japanese to practice this proscribed religion (see Toby 984).5
When the Paris Foreign Missioners6 built a church in Yokohama in 862,
and another in Ōura, Nagasaki in 865, a group of Catholics from the Urakami
area visited this Ōura church, and thereby conﬁrmed that the religious practicefrom their ancestors was that of Roman Catholicism (Spae 964, p. 3). Encouraged by the reconnection to the Church, the Urakami Catholics became lessafraid of pronouncing their faith, despite the ongoing oﬃcial proscription of
Christianity. Eventually they conducted a funeral without a Buddhist priest, in
opposition to the Tokugawa shogunate’s mandate. In 867, the shogunate imprisoned sixty-eight prominently active Urakami Catholics, and in 868 exiled one
5. The shogunate permitted Chinese, Koreans, and Dutch people to live in Dejima, Nagasaki,
before the treaty.
6. The Vatican purposely dispatched the Paris Foreign Missioners, instead of the Jesuits, sinceamong all the orders the Jesuits had suﬀered the most from the Tokugawa persecution because of
their enthusiasm for missionary work.

36 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
hundred and fourteen villagers into diﬀerent domains in Japan for their practice of a proscribed religion. In the same year, the Meiji government overthrew
the Tokugawa shogunate and established itself as a nation state, modeled after
Great Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. Yet, its religious policy
remained unchanged. It was not until 873 that this newly established Meiji government allowed all the villagers in exile to return home, largely because of pressure from those countries the government was emulating. Thus, the Urakami
Catholics returned home after a ﬁve-year absence, only to ﬁnd their village inruins. Despite their hardships, in 94, just forty-one years after their return,they completed a cathedral that became the largest one in East Asia at the time.
Unfortunately, on 9 August 945, the atomic bomb was detonated over the cathedral, destroying the church and the entire vicinity.
After Japan’s surrender to the Allied Powers in 945, Westernization, or more
precisely Americanization, made Christianity more familiar to the Japanese.
Nonetheless, the number of Christian converts remained less than one percentof the entire Japanese population. Considering this ﬁgure, the high population of
Catholics in the Urakami area is particularly remarkable. In fact, only a year after
the bombing, the Urakami Catholics rebuilt their church temporarily as a place
to worship, while postponing the construction of their own houses. After creating this temporary place of worship, they completed a new cathedral with twin
spires, which became again “the largest of the Far East” until 962 (Van Hecken
963, p. 20). With this history and concentration of Catholics in Urakami inmind, I will now turn to Nagai Takashi’s interpretation of the atomic bombing.
Nagai Takashi’s Interpretation: God’s Sacriﬁcial Lambs
Nagai Takashi was a well-respected medical doctor and Catholic convert in the
Urakami community. He was born into a family whose father and grandfather
were also doctors in Shimane prefecture, and the family practiced Shinto, more
speciﬁcally, Izumo Shinto of which the main shrine is located close to his hometown. His mother was from a samurai (warrior) class, and she disciplined herchildren with the Japanese Confucian ethics that was largely employed by thisclass. Nagai himself became attracted to materialism, as he developed his interests in science in his high school days. The turning point for him was when his
mother died. He hurried home from Nagasaki, where he studied medicine, tobe at his mother’s deathbed. His mother’s last gaze at Nagai made him believein the existence of human spirit beyond the decay of the physical body. Nagai’s
biographers have speculated on several reasons for his conversion to Catholicism,7 among which is this experience of being present at his mother’s death.
7. William Johnston, who translated Nagai’s Nagasaki no kane, speculates that Pascal’s Pansée, the Angelus at the Urakami Cathedral, and Nagai’s wife Moriyama Midori, were the primaryfactors that inﬂuenced Nagai to convert. See William Johnston’s “Introduction” in NAGAI 984, p. viii.

miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 37

Others are his encounter with the work of Pascal, who mitigated his rational life
as a scientist and his spiritual life as a believer, with the Angelus from the Cathedral that created ethereal atmosphere, and with the Moriyama family, whose
only daughter became his wife.8
I will enlarge the list of possible reasons by adding his encounter with the living faith of the Urakami villagers. After the loss of his mother, Nagai needed aquiet environment to calm his upset mind. Having lived in the downtown areaof Nagasaki for two years, he had already noticed the two diﬀerent faces of thecity. One face displays a town of commerce where the foreign ships and tradersﬁlled the downtown area with exotic goods; it is a town of excitement, amusement, and passion. Another face shows a town of prayer, where one encounters
Catholic priests, monks, and nuns on the streets, as well as cathedrals, churches,and other Catholic institutions such as hospitals, nurseries, and orphanages.
What attracted Nagai to this religious face of Nagasaki at that time must havebeen his aspiration for spirituality, for something beyond materialism.
Thus, he moved to the Urakami area and convinced the Moriyama family toprovide a room for him. His future wife, Midori, was the only daughter of thisfamily, which was known as the Oﬃce of the Calendar (chōkata 帳方) throughout the persecution period (64–873)—the position in charge of announcing
holidays and celebrations according to the Church calendar. After their marriage, Nagai was diagnosed with leukemia while he was working as a radiologist at Nagasaki Medical School. Acknowledging that he would have only three
to four years to live, Nagai was hoping that his wife would raise their children
after his death. Ironically, it was not Nagai but Midori who left their children
behind. She died an almost instant death due to the bomb, while Nagai managed to reunite with his children after the bombing despite his injuries. Nagai’s
two children and Midori’s mother suﬀered no direct damage from the bomb, as
they had evacuated from the Urakami area. They joined Nagai ﬁve days after thedetonation of the bomb.
While Nagai and his bereaved family were restoring their lives in Urakami,
Nagai’s former students, who had been conscripted into the army, visited him
upon their return. Frustrated with their loss, they told Nagai that non-Catholics
and even Catholics perceived the atomic bombing on the Urakami area as apunishment from God or the gods (kami). Non-Catholics claimed that Urakami
Catholics had been worshiping a “foreign” god, which led to the bombing of
Urakami, while Catholics blamed themselves for being unfaithful and giving into the militaristic regime, unlike their ancestors who had endured a long-lasting
persecution. Upon hearing their lament, Nagai felt an urge to explain what thePhilosopher TAKAHASHI Shinji disagrees slightly with Johnston and adds Nagai’s mother’s death tothe list of direct causes (994, p. 95).
8. As for Nagai’s conversion, see his semi-autobiographical Horobinu mono o (NAGAI 996).

38 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
atomic bombing meant to the Urakami Catholics. In his mind, this incident wasby no means a punishment from God.
One of Nagai’s friends, Yamada Ichitarō, who lost all of his family to theatomic bomb, visited Nagai at about the same time. Like other Urakami Catholics, Yamada was eager to know why this atrocity befell them. Yamada pressed
Nagai to provide an answer for the meaning of the bomb, especially when some
non-Catholics understood that the gods had separated good from evil throughusing the bomb. Yamada explained that non-Catholics, primarily Shintoists,believed that the bomb was a punishment from Heaven. Those who died were
evil people who failed to worship Shinto gods, while those who survived hadreceived special grace. Yamada asked Nagai whether or not the people who were
killed by the bomb, including his wife and children, were evil, deserving God’s
punishment (Nagai 984, p. 06). Responding to Yamada, Nagai introduced his
own understanding of the bombing: “I have a completely diﬀerent view. In fact,
I have the opposite view. The atomic bomb falling on Nagasaki was a great act ofDivine Providence. It was an act of grace from God. Nagasaki must give thanks
to God” (Nagai 984, p. 06). Nagai comforted Yamada by assuring him that his
family members were not evil but were, on the contrary, holy enough to be chosen as a sacriﬁce, while those who survived the bomb, like Nagai and Yamada,
had to face the loss, that is, the loss of their families, belongings, and the war.
In addition to conversations with his former students and friends, two episodes contributed to the development of Nagai’s interpretation of the bombing as Divine Providence. First, several nurses from the radiology department
where Nagai was working testiﬁed that they had heard Latin hymns around
midnight of the ninth, but were too exhausted to ﬁnd out who was singing. The
next morning, the nurses passed by the place where they had heard the hymns,
and discovered twenty-seven nuns from the Josei convent burned to death. The
second episode concerned Catholic schoolgirls at Junshin high school, where
Nagai’s wife Midori had once taught. During the war, the school principal, Sr.
Ezumi Sue, had the students sing a hymn every day to ask for God’s protection. The hymn begins with the words, “Mother Mary, I oﬀer myself to you, mybody, my soul, and my spirit.” Most of the Junshin girls died singing this very
hymn on the day of the bombing. These two stories, in which nuns and schoolgirls died singing hymns, deeply moved Nagai, and in fact implanted in him theimage that he would go on to use in his explanation of the bombing: sacriﬁcial
lambs burnt at the altar, praising God.
Three months after the atomic bombing, on 23 November 945, Nagai was
asked to deliver a speech at a Requiem Mass. At this Mass, he addressed the
Urakami Catholics openly, saying they should thank God for the atomic bombing. Those who were killed by the bomb, he claimed, were God’s “sacriﬁcial
lambs.” They were, in fact, unblemished lambs chosen by God to atone for thehuman sins of war. His conclusive remarks announced more explicitly the linkmiyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 39

between the victims of the bomb and God’s grace acting through them. “Let us
be thankful that Nagasaki was chosen for the whole-burnt sacriﬁce! Let us bethankful that through this sacriﬁce, the world saw peace, which brought religious freedom to Japan” (Glynn 990, p. 90). Despite the apparent idiosyncrasyof Nagai’s understanding, the Urakami Catholics embraced his interpretation,
relieved to know that their loved ones were chosen, not punished.
In order to understand the acceptance of Nagai’s interpretation of the atomic
bombing, we must take into account the pride of the Urakami Catholics in theirunbroken lineage of the Catholic faith that endured persecution. For example,
Bishop Urakawa Wasaburō (Shirabe 972, p. 58) once stated that “[w]hen the
Urakami Catholics returned from their ‘journey’ (the exile from 868 to 873),
Urakami was a wasteland with no soul. However, we rose up from the devastation. We were even able to build a marvelous church right here in Urakami.
Unfortunately, the atomic bomb smashed our seventy-year-old accomplishment
into pieces once again. Those victims were all righteously devoted believers.”9 By
overlapping the wreckage after the “journey” and the destruction after the bomb,
Urakawa reminded the atomic bomb survivors of their ancestors’ hardships. In
other words, the 945 tragedy is associated with their community’s hardships ofnot long ago, or the event cannot be understood without their faith of survival.
Although there were only some twenty Urakami Catholics who experienced the“journey” seventy-ﬁve years prior, most of the survivors knew this story as thatof the experience of their parents or grandparents. The narrative of the “journey” provided Urakami Catholics with an identity as enduring Catholics, whichcame to be inseparable from their experience of the atomic bombing. Bishop
Urakawa’s conclusion reinforces Nagai’s understanding of the atomic bomb: “Allare in Heaven. We survivors should take the atomic bomb as God’s providence,and do our best to restore Urakami” (Shirabe 972, p. 58). However, when John
Paul ii visited Japan in 98, he obliquely denied Nagai’s interpretation, statingthat “war is the work of man. War is destruction of human life. War is death.”10
While the majority of the Urakami Catholics embraced Nagai’s interpretation of
the bomb as God’s Providence, some other Catholics as well as non-Catholics
began to challenge this understanding.
The Catholic Response to Nagai
Although common Urakami Catholics tacitly embraced Nagai’s understanding, voices disagreeing with Nagai’s interpretation gradually emerged. Akizuki
9. Shirabe Raisuke led the sixth relief team on the day of the bombing as a doctor and assistantprofessor at the Nagasaki Medical School, while Nagai led the eleventh relief team.
0. This quote from Pope John Paul II appears engraved in stone at Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum upon his visit on 25 February 98. He also visited Nagasaki, but never publicly mentioned
the relationship between the Nagasaki bombing and Catholic faith, according to ITŌ Akihiko (993,
pp. 30–303).

40 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
Tatsuichirō (96–) was one such voice. Like Nagai, Akizuki was a medical doctor.11 Interestingly, he once worked with Nagai, undertaking a job at the Radiology Department at the Nagasaki Medical School, when Nagai was an assistantprofessor for a year. Akizuki also converted from True Pure Land Buddhism
to Catholicism much later in his experience of the atomic bombing.12 Before
his conversion to Catholicism, Akizuki criticized religious leaders and their
institutions, claiming that they could not provide practical solutions for dealing
with atomic bomb issues. “Thinking about the atomic bomb was a fundamental
issue of human nature in general and was crucial to the integrity of any religious
sect. Nonetheless, religious leaders remained silent and devoted themselves toprayer alone” (Akizuki 972, pp. 244–45). After his conversion, he continued
to criticize religious leaders’ incapability to engage this issue, as well as Nagai’s
understanding, not from a theological point of view but from the perspective ofa peace activist.
In the beginning of his engagement with the atomic bomb issue, Akizuki wasmore involved in disseminating information about the experience of the bomb,
but later he became active in the struggle to abolish nuclear weapons. Frustrated
with the failed eﬀorts at nuclear disarmament and unceasing nuclear production, Akizuki began to attribute the ineﬀectiveness of the anti-nuclear movement to certain interpretations of the bombing, such as that of Nagai. Citing
several paragraphs from Manira no higeki マニラの悲劇 (Japanese atrocities in
Manila) attached to Nagai’s Nagasaki no kane (984) when the piece was ﬁrst
published, Akizuki accused the “SCAP (the Supreme Commander of the AlliedPowers) narrative” in this piece of being a major factor rendering the atomic
bomb experience forgotten. Akizuki summarizes this SCAP narrative:
If all of a sudden a man becomes violent, and murders whomever he encounters on the street, a police oﬃcer must capture him. This is the assignmentthat Japan imposed on the United States and the rest of the world. In order toterminate such indiscriminate atrocities and end the war, the United States
and the rest of the world were compelled to use atomic bombs. By doing so,
we were able to save innumerable lives in Japan and other countries. The warthat Japan inaugurated in Rokokyo Bridge in 937, and in the sudden attack on
Pearl Harbor in 94, was brought to an end by the complete destruction ofHiroshima and Nagasaki.
(Akizuki 972, p. 250)

While Akizuki acknowledges Japan’s aggression, he tries to argue for the disproportional destruction of the bomb. All in all, his statements are based upon. Akizuki was born in Nagasaki, trained to be a doctor at Kyoto University, and returned toNagasaki to become a tuberculosis specialist in 940. Akizuki had tuberculosis himself and lost twosisters to the same disease. The misunderstanding that tuberculosis was hereditary meant that having tuberculosis, or family members with tuberculosis, rendered one a pariah in prewar Japanesesociety (see AKIZUKI 972, pp. 2–22).
2. Akizuki received baptism in a Catholic Church in October 953.

miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 4

theoretical, rather than theological, claims. He maintains, for example, that placing the bomb in a framework of cause-and-eﬀect constitutes a misunderstanding whereby one deduces that Japanese transgression was the justiﬁcation forthe bomb. According to him, the bomb cannot be justiﬁed for its indiscriminate
disposition.13 His criticism against Nagai is that Nagai’s understanding, though
not necessarily justifying the use of the bomb, nevertheless encourages the
Urakami hibakusha to passively accept the bomb as God’s will, rather than being
active in voicing their hardships and in banning such weaponry. Since Akizuki
and Nagai take diﬀerent viewpoints and address diﬀerent audiences, there arelimits to comparing their understanding of the bomb. A limit of Nagai’s understanding, for example, is that it unfortunately resulted in conﬁning the experiences of Urakami Catholics to themselves for a long time.
Another limit to Nagai’s understanding was shown by Inoue Hisashi, a wellknown playwright, who has written three plays concerning the atomic bombings. At the time of the war, he was a young catechumen residing in a Catholic
nursing institute in Sendai, a city in the northern part of Japan. After he reada series of Nagai’s books when they were published in the late 940s and early950s, Nagai became a role model for Inoue as a Catholic intellectual. In fact,
Nagai was becoming well known to the public through his works after the war.14
In 948, Nagai’s Konoko o nokoshite この子を残して (Leaving my children) was
ranked the ninth best-selling book of the year. In the following year, it placed
first, and Nagasaki no kane 長崎の鐘 (The bells of Nagasaki) placed fourth.
Nagai, thus, represented “a cultural hero at the forefront of the times, and a religious leader who had transcended life and death” (Inoue 995, p. 59). Despite
Nagai’s fame reaching its peak and Inoue sharing the same faith as Nagai, Inoue
struggled to accept Nagai’s interpretation of the bomb. He recollects his discomfort when reading Nagai’s books, especially regarding Nagai’s explanation thatthose killed by the bomb were a sacriﬁce holy enough to atone for human sins.
Remembering his acquaintances who were also killed in the war as victims of
air raids or as soldiers, Inoue felt uncomfortable with the idea that their deaths
were inadequate for God (Inoue 995, p. 60). In other words, Nagai’s granting of a privilege to the dead in the Nagasaki bombing inevitably makes othervictims inferior to them. Even though Inoue identiﬁes himself with the Catholic church, he is unable to identify himself with the Urakami Catholics, which
demonstrate a limit of Nagai’s understanding.
3. “I claim that each case of mass death caused by humans should not be encompassed together
due to its similarities, but be treated individually with respect for its uniqueness.” This statement by
Akizuki, however, contains the danger of privileging the atomic bomb incident due to its “uniqueness” over that of other cases.
4. In 949, for example, the Emperor visited Nagasaki and wished Nagai a swift recovery; Pope
Pius XII sent an envoy, praising Nagai as a model Catholic of Japan; the city of Nagasaki acclaimed
him as an honored citizen; the Diet commended him; and Nagasaki no kane was made into a hit
movie by Shindō Kaneto in 950, and its theme song swept Japan.

42 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
As Inoue illustrates above, Nagai’s interpretation is diﬃcult to adopt without
sharing the history of Urakami Catholics. Motoshima Hitoshi, former Nagasaki
mayor and a Catholic, places Nagai’s thoughts in a historical context. Tracing
the Urakami Catholics’ history through the persecution in the Tokugawa period(604–868) up to their suﬀering under the fascist regime during the war (937–945), Motoshima claims the atomic bombing brought religious freedom. He
states that the attainment of true freedom of religion was the only good fortunethat befell the Urakami Catholics, since they had never enjoyed it before 945
(Nagasaki shinbun, 4 August 2000). His words are quite convincing, considering that his own grandfather had his ankle damaged due to the persecution.
He continues to say that the idea of “God’s providence” alone encouraged the
Urakami Catholics to restore their community. This is not to say that the senseof “privilege” gave them hope, but that the belief of Catholics that one should
appreciate fortune as well as misfortune as gifts from God kept them going. “[I]fmishaps [as well as good fortune] are also from God, Catholics should overcome this aﬄiction of the bomb, appreciating God. Nagai would have liked toclaim that we Catholics must have the strength to do so” (Nagasaki shinbun, 4August 2000). Their association to the past taught them that even in the midstof despair, they are God’s creation. Instead of focusing on Nagai’s understandingof the bomb as God’s Providence, Motoshima draws attention to Nagai’s insight,
wherein Nagai asserts that the war initiated by the Japanese was unjust. This perspective was remarkable, explains Motoshima, especially at a time when mostJapanese were still in a stage of self-claimed victimization. Motoshima does notcriticize Nagai, but demonstrates that it may be meaningless to argue against
Nagai’s understanding apart from the theological and historical standpoints. In
fact, the criticisms from non-Catholics circles will demonstrate this point.
Most of the criticism, besides attacking Nagai’s personality, can be summed
up in the notion that Nagai’s writing intentionally catered to the Japanese government and SCAP in three ways (see especially Takahashi 994). First, Nagai’s
theory exonerated the Japanese government from taking responsibility for prolonging the war. Had the government ended the war sooner, the bomb would
not have been dropped. Yet, in his theory, the chosen lambs atoned for such
sins. Second, Nagai’s interpretation created the sentiment among the Urakami
Catholics of tolerating the atomic bombing as God’s will, rather than condemning it as an indiscriminate weapon. Third, Nagai’s written pieces, in which heexpressed his faith in nuclear technology as a peaceful source of future energy,
conveniently ﬁt the United States’ program of producing more powerful nuclear
weapons and testing them in order to win the arms race against the Communist
camp. Regardless of Nagai’s intention, SCAP used Nagai’s writing to divert thehibakusha’s anger from them.15 In fact, Nagai’s ﬁrst book was published in 949,
5. For example, the Nagasaki hibakusha and poet Yamada Kan was dissatisﬁed with the mass
media’s treatment of Nagai. “Only a few years after the bombing, a number of hibakusha were dying

miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 43

though with a condition that it should be accompanied with a story about Japanese atrocities in the Philippines (see page 9), while SCAP carried out censorship,16 especially on writings concerning the atomic bomb experiences. Inouecomments on the SCAP’s approval of Nagai’s book; “the SCAP must have considered that Nagai’s theorization of the dropping of the bomb as God’s grace andprovidence was useful [in justifying the bomb]” (Inoue 995, p. 6).
Responses Among Urakami Catholics
Like Akizuki and others, there are Catholics other than Nagai who attempted
to make sense of the meaning of the destruction from the atomic bomb. For
example, Monsignor Paul Yamaguchi, bishop of Nagasaki, stated that “God’s
ways are not our ways” (Williams 956, p. 25), as he beheld the destructionof Urakami. Since Yamaguchi rarely spoke of the bomb afterwards, it remains
unclear whether this statement should be taken as claiming that the bomb was
actually God’s providence, or rather that what human beings have done is not
God’s will. Shirabe Raisuke summarizes the general view of the atomic bomb
among the Urakami Catholics as follows: “Why was the atomic bomb dropped
on Urakami? It was God’s providence.… Both man’s happiness and unhappiness are from God’s providence. God always grants us blessings and ordeals,
just as we discipline our own children” (Shirabe 972, p. 59). Together with thetestimonies by hibakusha in Urakami compiled in Itō Akihiko’s Genshiya no“yobuki” (993), it can be concluded that the interpretation of the bomb as God’s
providence is a common view of Urakami Catholics.
Kataoka Chizuko is one who defended Nagai against these criticisms.
in agony in Nagasaki. Under such circumstances, I always wondered why Nagai alone received
attention as if he represented all the hibakusha” (Nagasaki shinbun, 2 August, 2000). Yamada alsofeels that the SCAP’s occupation policy used Nagai’s work and his reputation to distract people’s
resentment. Reproving this policy, Yamada states, “Nagai’s works played a role in diverting the Japanese people’s attention away from the criminality of dropping the bombs. SCAP created circumstances whereby the common hibakusha were discouraged from questioning the justiﬁcation for
the atomic bomb by embellishing Nagai’s works, which resulted in making any criticism of Nagai
taboo” (Nagasaki shinbun, 2 August 2000). YAMADA (972) put these thoughts into words in an
appeal to the public, which was originally titled Seija: Manekarezaru daibensha 聖者―招かれざる代弁者 [The Saint: An unwelcome representative]. (The current title is Gizensha: Nagai Takashi eno kokuhatsu [A hypocrite: Accusing Nagai Takashi].) Yamada is said to be a former Catholic. On
its publication, the essay drew some attention, yet Yamada, looking back at the time of publication, remarks that “all in all, Nagai’s pretentious image was too prevalent to draw adequate attention to criticism against him in my essay” (Nagasaki shinbun, 2 August, 2000). On the one hand,
Yamada was quite disturbed by media attention paid to Nagai and was critical of Nagai’s writings.
On the other hand, however, he greatly valued the medical records Nagai left while leading the relief
unit, primarily because the records appeared to Yamada less subjective than essays, and thereby lessmanipulative. Yet Nagai was fully aware that the mass media was exploiting him with such praiseand criticism, but was also mindful of its usefulness in earning attention and sympathy as well as
ﬁnancial and material aid that could be used to restore Urakami.
6. As for the censorship by SCAP, see Monica BRAW 99; HORIBA Kiyoko 995a and 995b.

44 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
Kataoka claimed that the criticism has overlooked the viewpoint of the Urakami
Catholics, and argued that Nagai’s interpretation of the bomb should be discussed within a Catholic framework, since Nagai exclusively addressed to the
Urakami Catholics. Kataoka continued that most of the criticisms do not take
into account Nagai’s theological interpretation of the atomic bombing, but only
his political agenda and its postmortem influence over the Nagasaki narrative. She began her defense with the Catholic understanding of suﬀering, andexplained that it is only within the Catholic viewpoint that Nagai’s understanding makes sense theologically. “The fundamental Catholic teaching is that Jesus
Christ came down to earth to save mankind, redeemed human sins by suﬀeringon the cross, and has brought everlasting life to us by His resurrection. Humanbeings are able to participate in the Savior’s task by projecting their suﬀering
onto that of Christ. Suﬀering becomes worthy [to Christians] only by laying itover Christ’s” (Kataoka Chizuko 996, p. 74). Therefore, maintained Kataoka,“the Urakami Catholics acknowledge that the deaths of their fellow villagers
were the sacriﬁce they had to make to atone for the unprecedented aﬄiction
caused by the bombing and the aftermath.… This is the very reason that God
required the Urakami Catholics to mediate between men and God in Christ”(Kataoka Chizuko 996, p. 75). Almost ﬁfty years later, we see the shift in thefocus of the understanding of the bomb from searching for the meaning fordeath by the bomb to the meaning for the survivors to be alive.
Kataoka also expresses her frustration over recurrent Nagai bashing: “suchcriticism against Nagai reappears in the same fashion over and over again. They
criticize him based upon his employment of the term ‘God’s providence,’ butthey take the term not as possessing religious signiﬁcance, but political connotations” (Nagasaki shinbun, 3 August 2000). It is an injustice to Nagai to argue
about a common religious term such as “providence” outside of its religious
framework, argues Kataoka, and therefore Nagai’s interpretation should be contextualized within the boundaries of its religious framework. Not referring to
the Urakami history, Kataoka rather stresses the meaning of the atomic bombfrom a general Catholic point of view. However, as Inoue conﬁdes, even within
a Catholic framework, Nagai’s understanding of the bomb creates a boundary
by which non-Urakami Catholics ﬁnd it hard to share the experience of thebombing.
Another scholar, Kataoka Yakichi, refutes the claim that Nagai’s interpretation prevented the Nagasaki hibakusha from becoming actively involved in theanti-nuclear movement. Kataoka gives two historical and geographical reasonsfor Nagasaki’s relatively passive attitude regarding the anti-nuclear movement,
which have nothing to do with Nagai’s interpretation. First, Nagasaki has an
idiosyncratic history of being the only port open to other countries during mostof the Tokugawa period. According to Kataoka, this physical openness, moreso than other Japanese cities, has nurtured the philanthropic, rather optimistic,miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 45

and future-oriented characters of Nagasaki residents, who cultivate an atmosphere of putting misfortune behind them (Kataoka Yakichi 972, p. 4). Second, the ﬁrst atomic bomb destroyed the whole of Hiroshima almost uniformly,
and the citizens of the city were able to identify with each other as hibakusha,
which aided them in uniting in the anti-nuclear movement. The second bombin Nagasaki, on the other hand, left the center of the city relatively unharmed.
As a result, the hibakusha consciousness did not spread evenly throughout thecity of Nagasaki, as it did in Hiroshima.17
Kataoka, then, makes a counter-argument by turning his readers’ attention to
the contradiction that the anti-nuclear movement embodied. As we have seen,
one of the criticisms against Nagai’s understanding is that it helped the Urakami
hibakusha accept the bomb as God’s will and prevented them from being actively
involved in the anti-nuclear movement based upon their own experiences.
Kataoka, however, points out that the anti-nuclear movement itself had internal
conﬂicts and ended up splitting. As Kataoka indicates, the peace movement inJapan, from the experience of the nuclear attacks, invariably revolves aroundthe anti-nuclear agenda. Nevertheless, after the eighth World Peace Conferencein 962, the peace movement dissolved into two groups, that supported by theSocial Democratic Party (SDP) and Japan Communist Party (JCP) respectively,
due to their disagreement on the Soviet Union’s nuclear tests.18 Kataoka criticizes the way these two groups antagonized each other while working simultaneously for the “peace movement” (Kataoka Yakichi 996, p. 43).
Furthermore, Kataoka Yakichi distinguishes the peace movement from theatomic bomb experience, claiming that participation in the movement in establishing peace has been the goal for all humankind, not the privilege of hibakusha. By this statement, Kataoka attempts to exonerate the hibakusha frombeing always identiﬁed by their experiences alone. In other words, Kataoka tries
to emancipate hibakusha from social expectation, which expects hibakusha toreact and behave in a certain way.19 The dilemma lies in the fact that conveying the experience of the atomic bombing has elevated people’s consciousnessof the fear and absurdity of nuclear war, and thereby contributed greatly to the7. Discrimination against Catholics, the Koreans, and outcasts (buraku) before and after thebombing needs to get more attention in public discourse. On discrimination in Nagasaki, see
NAGASAKI-KEN BURAKUSHI KENKYŪSHO 995.
8. The SDP supported the tests as a powerful anti-American demonstration, while the JCP was
opposed to “any” nation’s possession of nuclear weaponry. The former preserved the reprimand
against nuclear tests by the Soviet Union, while the latter neglected to protest nuclear tests made by
the People’s Republic of China. For a discussion of the chaotic environment caused by the spirit ofpeace conference, see Hiroshima Notes by ŌE Kenzaburō (98), especially Chapter one on “My First
Journey to Hiroshima.”
9. For example, a hibakusha Ōe cites in his Hiroshima Notes exclaims: “Must all surviving Abomb victims eventually meet a tragic death caused by radiation aftereﬀects? Is it not possible forthe victims to overcome their illnesses, and their psychological anxiety and inferiority complexes,
and thus die a natural death like other people?” (98, p. 7).

46 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
peace movement. Is it the hibakusha’s responsibility to be active in speaking out
concerning their experiences (Braw 997)? At the same time, active hibakusha feel helpless in encountering inveterate nuclear deterrent supporters, who
believe in a nuclear deterrent while they disapprove of any peace that assumes
the existence of nuclear weapons. Also to the point is Robert J. Kisala’s sharpcomments on the naïvité of the Japanese peace movement; he states that Japanese peace activists need to explicate a concrete vision of their account for peace
and its relation to nuclear issues to be eﬀective (999, 80–8). These observations are what peace activists in Japan seriously need to take into consideration.
Tadokoro Tarō, a journalist, has analyzed the relationship between Nagasaki’s relatively low interest in the peace movement and Nagai’s interpretation of
the bomb (Tadokoro 965, p. 43). On the one hand, as others suggest, Nagai’s
interpretation made Catholics hesitant to participate actively in the anti-nuclear
movement. If dropping the bomb was God’s providence, as Urakami Catholics
tend to think, taking part in the anti-nuclear movement indicated an indirect
dissatisfaction with God’s plan. Tadokoro introduces a Nagasaki librarian’sutterance: “[t]he fact that Mr. Nagai’s books sold so well became a disadvantage to Nagasaki [in terms of the peace movement]” (Tadokoro 965, p. 43).
Another point that Tadokoro suggests is Nagai’s other face as a scientist, not asa man of faith.
Despite the destruction the bomb brought out, explains Tadokoro, Nagai as
a scientist believes in the good use of atomic power in science as well as everyday life. Tadokoro continues the analysis of Nagai’s understanding in comparison to hibakusha in Hiroshima and states that Nagai sublimated the grief andagony caused by the atomic bomb into God’s glory, but Hiroshima writers suchas Hara Tamiki, Yamashiro Tomoe, and Tōge Sankichi turned such suﬀering
into an anti-war spirit (Tadokoro 965, p. 44). Is this because Hiroshima hibakusha are not religious? A Hiroshima poet, Kurihara Sadako argues that religious diﬀerences between Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot excuse Nagasaki’s
relative passivity in relation to the peace movement. “While Nagasaki is known
for Catholic perseverance and repentance,” writes the poet, “Hiroshima is also
known for Aki-monto, or the rebellious Pure Land Sect followers, which is thereligion of karmic retribution and resignation. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima
were under the same spell of tradition” (Kurihara 970, pp. 59–60).
While the Catholic population in Japan constitutes only less than one percent,Nagai’s books became best sellers, and his life story was made into a movie. Even
though there are criticisms against his understanding of the bomb, as we haveseen, the criticisms themselves prove that his interpretation has been inﬂuential.
In contrast, Shinto and most of Buddhist sects have not yet produced a narrativeon the atomic bomb for the majority to share or, for that matter, to criticize. It
is extremely hard to answer questions of why there seems no attempt to cometo terms with the atomic bombing from a Shinto perspective, and why Buddhist

miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 47

interpretations do not seem to be widely shared, despite the large number of
Buddhist residents in Japan. This issue touches upon a more profound questionof the role of religion in the face of human suﬀering, a subject that needs to beaddressed in more detail. In this paper, I conﬁne myself to addressing questionsof the possibilities and limitations that religious interpretations provide in casesof mass death, and I will now turn to another religious thinker, Kōji Shigenobu,a Jōdo Shinshū (True Pure Land) priest.
Jōdo Shinshū and Kōji Shigenobu
Unfortunately, in comparing Nagai’s Catholic understanding of the atomic
bomb experiences to that of other religious traditions, there is no equivalentﬁgure to Nagai, who was a proliﬁc writer and whose life biographers have been
visited in detail. Considering the number of Buddhist and Shinto adherents inJapan that constitutes an overwhelming majority (eighty to ninety percent) of
the Japanese population, the absence of written documents itself is an interesting issue to be studied. For the purpose of this paper, I have found one written piece and one speech that is transcribed on the Internet by Kōji Shigenobu.
Aside from testimonies of the atomic bomb experiences, this is the only written
piece to grapple with the incident from a Buddhist viewpoint, and I have not yet
encountered any by Shinto theologians. Thus, even though the essay is rather
short, Kōji’s brief piece is signiﬁcant.20
Before examining his True Pure Land understanding of the atomic bomb incomparison with Nagai’s Catholic interpretation, I will brieﬂy introduce Kōji’slife and his experiences of 945 in Hiroshima, followed by an abridged historyof the Jōdo-shin tradition in Japanese Buddhism. Kōji was born in 935 into a
priest family of the Jōdo Shin sect at Kōryūji 光隆寺 near the downtown areaof Hiroshima. At the time of the bombing in August 945, Kōji had evacuatedwith other students to Kuruhara village (now Midori town), approximately
sixty miles north of the city. Such mass evacuation of children was commonly
practiced in order to protect young children from air raids often targeting thecrowded residential and commercial areas in Japan, especially toward the endof World War II. On 6 August, Kōji remembers witnessing the ﬂash from thedetonation, and feeling even the warmth of the heat from the beam.21 Then,sometime later, he and other children heard the explosive noise from the bomb,
and another student saw a mushroom cloud in the sky over the mountains. Not
knowing what had happened, Kōji recollects the cloud being so white and beau20. There is a transcription of his theological understanding of the atomic bombing explainedat the Peace Exhibition in 995, held by the Aki District of Jōdo Shin sect. See also the material atwww.heiwaten.org/900-9.html.
2. His experience of the bomb is from the transcription of Kōji’s testimony at the Peace Exhibition; see www.heiwaten.org/900-9.html.

48 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
tiful, like a cream puﬀ. The image of the cloud still remains quite vivid in his
mind. Gradually, the bottom of the cloud was dyed a pinkish color, and made an
attractive contrast to the white layer on the top. It was not until the evening thatthat Kōji and his teachers learned of the destruction of the city from the injured
who reached the village. Yet, it still took them a full week to realize the actual
scale of the damage. Kōji ﬁnally returned home in October of this year.
Kōji himself experienced the atomic bombing afar from the hypocenter, but
his two sisters happened to be in the city at the time of detonation. The secondoldest sister, who was ﬁve years older than Kōji, was on a street car, approaching
the Aioi bridge at 8:5 am on 6 August. Suﬀering from a cold, she was on her
way to the hospital. Had she gone to the Hiroshima Army Clothing Depot22
with other fellow students for compulsory labor service, which was imposed onschool children and general citizens during the war, she would have survived
the bomb. She miraculously had no visible injury but a small cut on her cheekand ﬂed to Koi, the western part of the city, where she was found by Kōji’s oldest sister, who was looking for her missing sisters. After the bomb, Kōji’s family
took refuge in a temple in Itsukaichi, as their house and temple in the city wereburnt down by ﬁre. On 4 August, this second oldest sister woke up from her
bed and told her father that she would go on a pilgrimage (mairashite morau).
Pure Land and True Pure Land Buddhism, as I will explain later, teaches that
believers go to Amida’s Pure Land after their death, thanks to Amida’s mercy.
Being surprised and disturbed by his daughter’s remark, Kōji’s father told her
not to make such an inauspicious utterance. Contrary to her father’s wishes, she
was ready to go and continued to utter her friends’ names and teacher’s nameto thank them. Finally realizing that his daughter’s death was inescapable, Kōji’s
father whispered to her ear, “bring Teruko to the Pure Land with you” (teruko
o saido shitareyo). Then, she breathed her last as if she acceeded to her father’srequest. Teruko was the third sister of Kōji, and she is one of many who disappeared without a trace after 6 August. Teruko was three years older than Kōji,and she went to Dobashi, only half a mile away from the hypocenter, to do compulsory work on that day. Since the family never knew what had happened toher, it was extremely hard, according to Kōji, for his father to give up on Teruko.
There always remains a slight hope in his family, however small, that they will
see her again, since they never obtained any proof of her death. Kōji’s father,
who looked for Teruko throughout the city almost every day, died from radiation disease seven years after the bombing (Kōji 988, pp. 29–30). Reﬂecting
on his father’s death, Kōji is convinced that his father would never have beenat ease without his ﬁrm brief in Amida’s mercy and salvation that must havereached his missing daughter. Now, I will turn to explain Amida worship and its
22. “The Imperial Army’s facility, located in Minami-machi, for the manufacture and storage ofmilitary uniforms and other clothing to send to the battlefront” (OGURA 995, p. 223).

miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 49

belief system, together with some historical facts about Pure Land Buddhism inJapan as a background to Kōji’s beliefs.
Buddhism was introduced to Japan in the sixth century. During the seventhand eighth centuries, the center of practice was located in Nara. When Emperor
Kanmu (737–806, r. 78–806) moved the capital to Heian (now Kyoto) in 794,
the inﬂuence of the Nara priests declined. This became more obvious when the
Heian court endowed the authority to ordain priests to the newly established
Enryakuji. This temple was founded by Saichō (767–822),23 who transmitted theTendai (T’ien-t’ai) teachings from China. This new Tendai teaching appealed toJapanese Buddhists, and with the support of the Heian court, Tendai became adominant sect. Both Hōnen (33–22), the founder of Jōdo (Pure Land) sectand Shinran (73–262), the founder of Jōdo-shin (True Pure Land) sect wereonce trained at Enryakuji.
By the time Enryakuji had grown to become the largest cultural and economic institution of Japan, it was facing moral decay among high ecclesiastics.
Under such circumstances, young clergymen sought spiritual guidance outside
traditional Tendai teaching, and were attracted to the Amida cult. The Amidacult was introduced as early as the tenth century from China, and based upona belief that there is a world called the Western Paradise, governed by the Buddha Amida. Diﬀerentiating this paradise from our worldly, impure realm, thisparadise is also called the “Pure Land.” Prior to attaining enlightenment, it issaid that Amida made forty-eight vows (hongan, or Original Vows), in which
Amida swore not to become a buddha unless all the people on earth who wish
to be reborn in Amida’s Pure Land can do so. When one has absolute faith inAmida’s mercy, one is reborn in the Pure Land, where one’s enlightenment is
promised in the next life. In Japan, Genshin (942–07), another Tendai priest,
is well known for devoting himself to Amida belief.
Hōnen, having realized that the path of sanctiﬁcation and enlightenmentby means of precepts, meditation, and knowledge was theoretically possible
but practically impossible, sought for a Buddhist way beyond the authorityof Enryakuji and its elite-oriented teachings. Coming across Genshin’s Essentials of Salvation (Ōjōyōshū 往生要集), Hōnen realized that “he was to seek
not ‘enlightenment’ but ‘salvation in the Pure Land’” (Kitagawa 966, p. 2).
This distinction between enlightenment and salvation marked a revolutionary
departure from the fundamental Buddhist teaching, in which enlightenment isprerequisite for salvation. Hōnen, who was concerned for the common people’ssalvation, was also dissatisﬁed with the elite oriented Enryakuji. He was convinced that the common people also needed salvation, and the means to attainsalvation must not lie in a life of interpreting scriptures, secluded from the realworld, which common people were unable to do.
23. The permission for authority to ordain priests was given shortly after Saichō’s death.

50 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
His concerns for the non-elite population led him to emphasizing the practice of nenbutsu 念仏 (chanting)—Namu Amida butsu 南無阿弥陀仏 (Venerable
Amida Buddha). Nenbutsu, thus, is a manifestation of one’s faith in Amida.
Since chanting does not require profound philosophical discourse or timeconsuming training for understanding the texts; nenbutsu can be practiced bycommon people while they are engaged in daily activities. By stressing nenbutsu
practice, Hōnen made Buddhism available to a wider population.
It is not certain whether Hōnen had in mind the establishment of a new sector school, but his charisma attracted disciples to form a new religious society
even after his ex-communication from Enryakuji and his subsequent death inexile. As one of Hōnen’s disciples, Shinran furthered Hōnen’s theology of Amida
worship, and developed a doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and thereby his
sect is called Jōdo Shin (True Pure Land), as opposed to Hōnen’s Jōdo (PureLand). Faith, for Shinran, indicates a total surrender to Amida’s mercy. By realizing the absolute truth of helpless human nature, Shinran asserts, we learn todepend not on ourselves, but solely on Amida. And Amida’s power or “otherpower” (tariki 他力) alone leads us to salvation. As Kitagawa explains: “after
testing all other paths and disciplines, there was nothing left for him [Shinran]except to believe in the mercy of Amida. Accordingly, he believed it is not man
who ‘chooses’ Amida, but rather it was Amida’s Original Vow which ‘chose’ allbeings to be saved” (Kitagawa 966, p. 5).
Thus, breaking from the doctrine of enlightenment as indispensable to salvation, the soteriology of Pure Land and True Pure Land Buddhism requires
nothing but unconditional devotion to Amida, which is expressed in the practice of chanting Amida’s name. This single-minded devotion24 to Amida reveals
a monotheistic character, rather idiosyncratic among Buddhist teachings. Beliefin Amida’s salvation, thus, composes the basis of the Jōdo and the Jōdo-shinfaith. One of the distinctive diﬀerences between Hōnen’s teaching and that of
Shinran that lies in the understanding of practice. While Hōnen encouraged
believers to practice nenbutsu as often as possible, Shinran stresses one’s intentionality so much that a single truly sincere recitation of nenbutsu is suﬃcientfor salvation. I will discuss Kōji’s understanding bearing in mind this basic
teaching of Jōdo-shin.
Kōji’s Interpretation: Rebirth in the Pure LandIn relation to the three questions I previously posed—interpretive, anthropological, and soteriological—I encapsulate Nagai’s understanding of the atomic
24. True Pure Land is also called “Ikkō-shū” 一向宗. Ikkō indicates single-mindedness. Fromtheir profound belief in Amida’s salvation, the Pure Land adherents had no fear of death in thisworld, and often became formidable opponents to feudal lords during the sixteenth century on incases of rebellion.

miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 5

bombing as follows: the bombing was a manifestation of God’s Providence; thebombing was the result of the fact that human beings failed to love each other;
yet those who were killed by the bomb were unblemished lambs atoning forhuman sins. In contrast to Nagai’s explanation to the ﬁrst point that the bombing was God’s will, Kōji claims that it was human beings who brought out the“error” (ayamachi 過ち) of the atomic bomb disaster. He develops his notion of“error” into three levels: the error of the Hiroshima residents, the error of theJapanese people, and the error of human beings. Among these notions, I will
begin with the error of the Hiroshima residents, as the error of human being
involves Jōdo-shin understanding of human beings, requiring anthropologicalanalysis.
Kōji begins his notion with the error of the Hiroshima residents. Explaining
his own experiences of witnessing the mushroom cloud and the loss of his family members, as noted above, Kōji reduces the error of the Hiroshima residents
to the “survivors’ guilt” of the hibakusha. While Nagai also mentions that thedead, contrary to the survivors, are holy, Kōji presumes the survival was possible only by their selﬁsh behavior. Whether or not this generalization contains
any truth, it is in fact true that many survivors never stop blaming themselves
for their selﬁshness—having abandoned their loved ones in the ﬂames, having
left the injured behind, or having stayed at home while other classmates went
to the downtown area for compulsory labor. Kōji believes that the pain of thesurvivors should be shared by all Hiroshima residents as part of the Hiroshima
experience.
In referring to the error of the Hiroshima residents, however, Kōji fails tomention that Hiroshima was the second largest military base during the war.
If there is an error that can be said as the error of the Hiroshima residents, I
would argue that we cannot ignore the fact that Hiroshima was the location of alarge military base. The Ujina port, located .5 miles away from the hypocenter,is known as a port that sent innumerable soldiers to the Korean Peninsula, theChinese Mainland, and other Paciﬁc Islands to invade these regions during thewar (Sora 994). This also suggests that Hiroshima may have been chosen as atarget city partly because of its military function, though the bomb obliterated
the commercial and residential center as a result.25
In examining the “error” of the Japanese, Kōji ﬁrst clariﬁes that Americans
dropped the bomb, not Buddha or God. Yet he also refers to the bomb as a consequence of the imbecilic war, which the Japanese government initiated and in
25. This, in fact, touches upon a sensitive issue in diﬀerentiating combatants from civilians, andshows the contradictory nature of nuclear weapons as indiscriminate arms used in total war. I will
return to this point later. The distinction of combatant from non-combatant has been one of thecriteria in Just War Theory, based largely upon the Christian understanding of war and peace. However, under total war it has become problematic, especially since there are many cases in which thecriteria no longer apply.

52 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
which the Japanese people were deeply involved. He recollects that, as a littleboy, he was delighted to hear news of American losses and Japanese gains (Kōji988, pp. 30–3). As a result, a large number of people, both in and out of Japan,
became victims. Reminding his readers that the sudden attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese initiated the war between the United States and Japan, Kōjiasserts that having participated in the war is the error of the Japanese people.
Here it is important to draw attention to his argument. Though admitting theerror of the Japanese, Kōji is not suggesting that the Japanese deserved the dropping of the bomb as a result. Drawing on the Dhammapada, he argues that it ismeaningless to discuss who attacked ﬁrst: “Not by enmity are enmities quelled,whatever the occasion here. By the absence of enmity are they quelled. This isan ancient truth” (Chapter , Verse 5; Carter and Palihawadana 987, p. 3).
What is important is to realize that Japan took the “destructive action” (hakaikōdō 破壊行動 ) of attacking Pearl Harbor, while the United States took the“destructive action” of attacking Hiroshima. Neither action can be praiseworthy.
Yet, we human beings were engaged in such lamentable “collective behaviors”(shūgōteki kōi 集合的行為, or, using Buddhist terminology, gūgō 共業). Asserting that any kind of destructive behavior is the error of human beings, Kōjiconcludes the section by positing that “war is explicitly the action of mankind”(Kōji 988, p. 3).
So far, I have shown that Kōji’s interpretation of the atomic bomb regards thebomb not as the will of a transcendental being, but as the error of human beings.
What, then, are humans who engage continuously in destructive actions? I now
turn to the anthropological question in examining Kōji’s understanding of the
mankind in relation with the error of human beings. Kōji ﬁrst analyzes what
human beings are in connection to other beings, including non-organic ones.
This is because, explains Kōji, “Buddhism preaches that all the lives and entities[including the land and the earth] happen to take a diﬀerent shape temporarily by ‘causes and conditions’ (in’nen 因縁)” (Kōji 988, p. 32). By stated thusly,
he explains Buddhist anthropology, in which all lives are related to each other,and this relations are continuous beyond time and space. Some Buddhist thinkers analogize this view of life-relatedness to one’s palm and ﬁngers. We humanbeings, for example, see ﬁngers and their shapes and functions diﬀerently andindependently. However, if we lower our gaze down to the palm, all fingers
are connected there. In other words, Buddhism maintains that there is force(palm) that lets each being exist independently (ﬁngers), but there are no ﬁngers without the palm. Within our limited capacity, we perceive each individual
separately, yet they are ultimately connected to each other. Drawing upon thisunderstanding of relatedness, Kōji asserts that the diﬀerences of process madethe diﬀerences of forms, functions, races, and individuals, but they are not evolution in a sense associated with “progress,” but accumulation of merely diﬀerent appearances (Kōji 988, p. 32).

miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 53

Another interesting contrast to Christianity in general is that Kōji states thatliving beings as well as non-organic beings have dignity (songensei 尊厳性). “[AsThe Nirvana Sutra states,] any living beings on earth, non-organic beings, andeven the earth itself have the same digniﬁed lives as human beings do. All beings
thus exist in the midst of Amida Buddha’s absolute impartial mercy” (Kōji 988,
pp. 32–33). With such an ontology, Kōji poses the question of what separates
humans from non-organic beings. In Buddhism, according to Kōji, humanbeings are often expressed as ki 機, signifying an accident or chance, including
the possibility for the better or the worse. In other words, asserts Kōji, “humanﬁgures [expressed in Buddhist texts] are not willed, proud, and infallible beings”(Kōji 988, pp. 32–33). In sum, he concludes that we are all morally fragile, andbecome culpable by chance. As is mentioned above in a brief summary of Jōdoshin teaching, Shinran stresses the weakness of human beings. Humans cannot
save themselves. Therefore we need to sincerely seek for Amida’s mercy. Interpreting Shinran’s masterpiece, Tan’nishō 歎異抄 [Notes lamenting diﬀerences],
Kōji stresses the frailty of man’s moral capacity. “Even when I am determined tobehave righteously or not to make any mistakes, some accidental factor makes
me commit error. It is human [not to be certain of one’s moral capacity]” (Kōji988, p. 33). A close analogy to explain this point may be driving a car. Despite
conﬁdence in one’s own driving ability, one can never be certain about avoiding
accidents. A person may run in front of the car, and one may turn the wheels to
avoid hitting the person, which may cause another accident.
Stressing human beings’ moral fallibility, Kōji brings in the notion of reincarnation in discussing the atomic bomb. In Buddhism, one reincarnates until one
attains enlightenment. Based upon this understanding, Kōji hypothesizes thathe might have been born in the United States during the war, he might have been
the pilot in charge of pressing the button for the bomb. He was born into the
Kōji family by mere chance, but the same “chance” could have made him bornas an American pilot. If he were a pilot at the time, confesses Kōji, he would, forsure, have pressed the button. For Kōji, the invention of the atomic bomb also
represents human weakness, not scientiﬁc superiority, since the weapon aimed
solely at obliterating human lives and civilization. Again, Kōji’s argument is not
to blame the United States in inventing the bomb, as he acknowledges that Japan
as well as Germany had pursued the completion of a nuclear weapon. Instead ofseeing the incident of bombing from the “Japanese” point of view as opposed to
the “American” point of view, Kōji proposes another viewpoint—that of “humanbeings.” “Not to mention people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were damagedby the bombs, the atomic bombs also left a psychological scar in the minds ofAmericans. The bombing was the sorrowful result of human beings who are
fundamentally weak and ignorant of summa bonum” (Kōji 988, p. 34). This is
his analysis of bombing as the error of humans, and his attempt to go beyond54 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
a dualistic understanding of “American versus Japanese” is based on Buddhist
philosophy.
Analyzing the three levels of errors, Kōji seeks for a way to build a constructive future for all, and present a Buddhist view of the relatedness of lives. In fact,according to Kōji, we are not just related, but are interdependent as a “collectivebody” (dōtai 同体). As an example, Kōji refers to a food chain. Our existence isonly possible at the expense of other lives. “To eat means to kill, which indicatesto deprive other beings of life” (Kōji 988, p. 35). Unfortunately, continues Kōji,
humans have come to the point where we feel too numbed to feel the suﬀeringand pain of others in order to sustain our own lives. On the contrary, we evenforcibly cause such pain on each other in order to ameliorate the suﬀerings andpains of others. Thus, the “collective body” of which we are also constituent is,
in fact, a misled collective body. Interestingly, Kōji explains that this collective
body includes Amida Buddha, even when it goes astray. Because Amida is apart of this collective body, all of our delusion, suﬀering, pain, and sorrow concern Amida, and thereby Amida is too merciful to abandon concern for thecollective body.
As the enlightened one, Amida participates in the collective body in its own
way. Kōji illustrates that Amida’s wisdom and mercy enable us to transform suffering into comfort, pain into console, and sorrow into delight. It is important
to note that this takes place through transformation, but not through abolishment. For example, when one mourns the loss of one’s mother, it is rarely helpful, especially in the long run, to eliminate the feelings of sorrow completelyfrom one’s mind. Rather, when one embraces one’s sorrow, one can ﬁnd comfort
in the midst of sadness. This is a kind of transformation that Amida executes.
Since Amida’s mercy shines equally upon those who died from the bombs andthose who dropped the bomb, Kōji suggests that we should “transform” the painof both the victimizer and the victimized into something more meaningful, creating a world beyond a dichotomy of the victimzer and victimized.
So far, Kōji’s understanding of the atomic bomb can be summarized as theconsequences of the errors of humans who are morally culpable. There remains asoteriological question, concerning his understanding of the bomb, to be examined. Kōji convincingly states that the dead from the bomb have “returned” toAmida’s Pure Land, which is “a true world and a world of perpetual life, yet nota visible form” (Kōji 988, pp. 37–38). Those who died from the bomb went to“this absolute authentic world beyond suﬀering and delight, beyond love andhate, beyond good and evil, and beyond beauty and ugly in the relative humanworld” (Kōji 988, p. 38). Put diﬀerently, Kōji suggests that their grievous deaths
were redeemed, and their salvation is accomplished. This is accomplished notfrom a reward given to the victims’ suﬀerings, but from Amida’s mercy.
It is important to stress this point that salvation in the Pure Land is notachieved by the victims of the atomic bombs because they suﬀered so tremen-miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 55

dously that they could enjoy the afterlife in the Pure Land, but because Amida,
full of mercy, never fails to abandon them. What, then, happens to the deadin the Pure Land? Kōji answers that the dead are not leading a life dissociatedfrom the suﬀerings on earth. On the contrary, now that the dead belong to thecollective body together with Amida, they are concerned about our distress as
well. From Amida’s Pure Land, the dead work for us ceaselessly so that truth
and peace are realized in this world. On the other hand, we ordinary humans,
through working toward this goal with the dead in the Pure Land, are more profoundly related to Amida, and able to participate in Amida’s vows.
Conclusion
I have examined interpretations of atomic bomb experiences from a religious
perspective, focusing on two thinkers—Nagai Takashi, a lay Catholic, andKōji Shigenobu, a Jōdo-shin priest. While constructing their arguments centering upon three questions (What is the atomic bombs in a religious context?
What does it mean to die from the atomic bomb? What does the incident tell
us about human nature?), I have shown an alternative framework to the currently dominant atomic bomb discourse. As the Smithsonian debate mentioned
in the opening section demonstrates, the atomic bombings are too often discussed within a framework of nation-states, which has prevented us from fully
grasping the indiscriminate character of nuclear weapons, as well as the whole
picture of victimhood. Thus, I argue that employing diﬀerent frameworks to
examine the discourse allows us to see those who are invisible behind a nationstate framework. Retrieving the long dismissed experiences guides us to a more
complete picture of the incident.
However, religious interpretations alone are insuﬃcient to retrieve the voicesof the excluded victims from the nation-state discourse. By presenting a diﬀerent framework, they can merely provide a couple of missing pieces of a whole
picture. Nagai’s understanding of the bomb comforted the Urakami Catholics,
who are rather tacit in expressing their experiences, but it did not help the Catholics in diﬀerent regions in and out of Japan to understand the incident better. Kōji, standing ﬁrmly on his Jōdo-shin belief, suggests nourishing a senseof dōtai, or a collective body, through which we understand the incident as theerror of human beings, rather than that of a particular people. While agreeing
with his approach to cultivate the sense of a collective entity, I also ﬁnd several
issues that must be addressed in his argument. The most diﬃcult issue perhaps
would be a question of identity. In such an inclusive entity, for example, howdoes Kōji maintain his identity as a Buddhist without separating himself fromothers who do not depend upon his Buddhist convictions? Or does this entity
presuppose Buddhist anthropology? What if someone does not share the sameworldview of human existence of interdependence? Moreover, his anthropology56 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
that humans are morally culpable—that an error is committed by accident, andour collective body is astray—raises the moral question of where we look foraccountability for one’s actions.26
Nonetheless, it is enormously important to examine these understandingsof the atomic bomb experiences. In addition to the reasons given above, theseinterpretations reveal a rather troublesome fact that religious institutions have
not yet properly responded to this important issue. As I mentioned earlier, criticism against Nagai almost always refutes Nagai’s interpretation from outside thereligious framework. It is regrettable that there is not enough theological discussion taking place on this issue. Similarly, while diﬀerent Buddhist sects in Japan
are involved in the peace movement in their own terms, a theological discourseon the atomic bomb experience and nuclear issues has not yet taken shape, with
Kōji’s pieces being the few exceptions. Even more disturbingly, Shinto institutions and priests have maintained their silence on this issue. As far as I havebeen able to determine, there has not be even a single line appearing publicly on
this issue. I hope that this small paper will provoke their response.
While Shinto theologians remain silent, Kōji has commented on Emperor
Shōwa’s haiku: “The fullness of summer, Lotus blooms in the water, Thinkingof Buddha’s words” (Natsu takete, Hori no hasu no hanami tsutsu, Hotoke nooshie omou asa kana 夏たけて 堀の蓮の花見つつ 仏の教え思う朝かな; see www.
heiwaten.org/900-95.html). Strictly speaking, the successive emperors are supposedly descendents of gods who are worshipped in Ise Shrine. However, in thecourse of Japanese history, emperors maintained a close relationship with Buddhism. In fact, the retired emperors often became Buddhist monks. Reﬂecting
on the losses during World War ii, interprets Kōji, the Shōwa emperor felt helpless. Kōji convincingly states that “the Shōwa emperor must have thought ofdepending on Buddha’s salvation, especially when it comes to the salvation of
innumerable soldiers who died under the cruel circumstances for the name ofthe emperor” (www.heiwaten.org/900-95.html). Regardless of the accuracy of
Kōji’s interpretation, the absence of discourse itself compels us to consider the
momentous responsibility for interpreting mass death caused by humans withina religious context. Are religions, which often theorize on the mysteries of lifeand death, equipped to explain the unprecedented incidents of mass death in
the twentieth century? Can religious explanations move beyond scenarios inwhich the dead are honored as self-sacriﬁcial martyrs, as was the case during
World War ii, when State Shinto deiﬁed the kamikaze pilots?
Keeping these questions open, I will conclude this paper by pointing out boththe possibilities and limitations of religious approaches to the bombings, and that
26. Shibata Shingo makes a similar claim in attempting to understand the atomic bomb incident
from a religious perspective. Stating that human beings are intrinsically “sinful” obscures the distinction between the assailants and victims, and detracts from the eﬀort to prevent another case ofmass death caused by humans occuring; see SHIBATA 978, pp. 6–62.

miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 57

they oﬀer a richer, more inclusive understanding of this event than that provided
by the restrictions of the nation-state discourse.

references
Akizuki Tatsuichirō 秋月辰一郎
972 Shi no dōshin’en 死の同心円. Tokyo: Kōdansha.
Boxer, C. R.
95 The Christian Centuries in Japan: 549–650. Berkeley: The University ofCalifornia Press.
Braw, Monica
99 The Atomic Bomb Suppressed: American Censorship in Occupied Japan.
New York: M. E. Sharpe.
997 Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The voluntary silence. In Living with the Bomb:
American and Japanese Cultural Conﬂicts in the Nuclear Age. Edited by
Laura Hein and Mark Selden, pp. 55–72. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Carter, John Ross, and Mahinda Palihawadana, ed. and trans.
987 The Dhammapada. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dower, John W.
986 War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Paciﬁc War. New York: Pantheon Books.
Glynn, Paul
990 A Song for Nagasaki. Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co.
Harwit, Martin
996 An Exhibit Denied: Lobbying the History of Enola Gay. New York: SpringerVerlag.
Horiba Kiyoko 堀場清子
995a Kinjirareta genbaku taiken 禁じられた原爆体験. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
995b Genbaku hyōgen to kenetsu: Nihonjin wa dō taiō shitaka 原爆表現と検閲―日本人はどう対応したか. Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha.
Ichiba Junko 市場淳子
200 “Yuiitsu no hibakukoku” kara “hirakareta hibakukoku” e 「唯一の被爆国」から「開かれた被爆国」へ. Sekai 692: 89–95.
Inoue Hisashi 井上ひさし
995 Bestoserā no sengoshi ベストセラーの戦後史 , vol. . Tokyo: Bungei
Shunjū.
Itō Akihiko 伊藤明彦
993 Genshiya no “Yobuki”: Katsute kaku sensō ga atta 原子野の「ヨブ記」―
かつて核戦争があった. Tokyo: Komichi Shobō.

58 | Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32/ (2005)
Kataoka Chizuko 片岡千鶴子
996 Nagai Takashi to Nagasaki no kane 永井隆と長崎の鐘 . In Hibakuchi
Nagasaki no saiken 被爆地長崎の再建 , Kataoka Chizuko and Kataoka
Rumiko, ed., pp. 53–79. Nagasaki: Nagasaki Junshin Daigaku Hakubutsukan.
Kataoka Yakichi 片岡弥吉
996 Nagasaki wa naze damatte irunoka 長崎はなぜ黙っているのか . In
Hibakuchi Nagasaki no saiken, Kataoka Chizuko and Kataoka Rumiko,ed., pp. 39–46. Nagasaki: Nagasaki Junshin Daigaku Hakubutsukan.
Kisala, Robert J.
999 Prophets of Peace: Paciﬁsm and Cultural Identity in Japan’s New Religions.
Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press,.
Kitagawa, Joseph M.
966 Religion in Japanese History. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kōji Shigenobu 光寺重信
988 Bukkyōto to shite no hibaku taiken to heiwa no negai 仏教徒としての被爆体験と平和の願い, In Ningen no kokoro, Hiroshima no kokoro 人間の心
ヒロシマの心, Akiba Tadatoshi, ed., pp. 27–43. Tokyo: Sanyū Shuppan.
Kurihara Sadako 栗原貞子
970 Hiroshima 24nen: Dokumento Gendai no kyūsai ヒロシマ２４年―どきゅ
めんと現代の救済. Tokyo: Shakai Shinpōsha.
Linenthal, Edward T.
996 Anatomy of a Controversy. In History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other
Battles for the American Past, Linenthal, Edward T., and Tom Engelhardt,
eds., pp. 9–62. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Nagai, Takashi 永井 隆
984 Nagasaki no kane 長崎の鐘 (translated by William Johnston as The Bells ofNagasaki). Tokyo: Kodansha International.
996 Horobinu mono o 滅びぬものを. Tokyo: San Paolo.
Nagasaki-ken Burakushi Kenkyūsho 長崎県部落史研究所, ed.
995 Furusato wa isshun nishite kieta: Nagasaki, Urakami-chō no hibaku to
ima ふるさとは一瞬にして消えた―長崎、浦上町の被爆と今 . Kyoto:
Kaihō Shuppansha.
Ōe Kenzaburō 大江健三郎
98 Hiroshima Notes (Hiroshima nōto ヒロシマノート). Edited by David L.
Swain. Translated by Toshi Yonezawa. Tokyo: YMCA Press.
Ogura, Keiko 小倉桂子, et al.
995 Hiroshima hanndobukku ヒロシマハンドブック. Hiroshima: The Hiroshima Interpreters for Peace.

miyamoto: religious interpretations of hiroshima and nagasaki | 59

Shibata Shingo 柴田進午
978 The Role of Religion in the Prevention of Nuclear Extinction: The Possibility of the Total Annihilation of Humankind and the Implication for
Religion.” In Hiroshima Heiwa Kagaku (Hiroshima Peace Science), vol.
2, pp. 53–64. Hiroshima: Hiroshima Daigaku Heiwa Kagaku Kenkyū
Sentā.
Shirabe Raisuke 調 来助, ed.
972 Nagasaki: Bakushinchi fukugen no kiroku 長崎―爆心地復元の記録. Tokyo:
Nippon Hōsō Shuppan Kyōkai.
Sora Tatsuo 空 辰男
994 Kagaikichi Ujina: Atarashii Hiroshima gakushū 加害基地宇品―新しい広島学習. Tokyo: Chōbunsha.
Spae, Joseph J.
964 Catholicism in Japan: A Sociological Study. Tokyo: ISR Press.
Tadokoro Tarō 田所太郎
965 Heiwa ni tsunagaranu genbaku 平和につながらぬ原爆. Asahi Journal 7/50:
42–46.
Takahashi Shinji 高橋真司
994 Nagasaki ni atte tetsugaku suru 長崎にあって哲学する. Tokyo: Hokuju
Shuppan.
Toby, Ronald P.
984 State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia in the Development of
the Tokugawa Bakufu. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Van Hecken, Joseph L.
963 The Catholic Church in Japan Since 859. Tokyo: Herder Agency.
Williams, Frederick Vincent
956 The Martyrs of Nagasaki. Fresno: Academy Library Guild.
Yamada Kan 山田 かん
972 Gizensha: Nagai Takashi e no kokuhatsu 偽善者―永井隆への告発. Ushio[February]: 23–37.
Yoneyama, Lisa
999 Hiroshima Traces: Time, Space, and the Dialectics of Memory. Berkeley:
University of California Press.