ONLINE ISSN 2435-3019

PRINT ISSN 2435-5259

Journal ofWorld Buddhist Cultures
Vol. 7
CONTENTS❖ Articles ❖◆ “I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought
Bee SCHERER◆ The Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran, Ambedkar, andSangharakshita’s Work
Mrigendra PRATAP◆ The Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a Wandering Saint
Avery MORROW❖ Book Reviews ❖◆ Review of Impermanence: Exploring continuous change across cultures Ed. by Haidy Geismar,
Ton Otto and Cameron David Warner
Gouranga Charan PRADHAN

Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures,
Ryukoku University

2024.3

Journal ofWorld Buddhist Cultures
Vol. 7

Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures,
Ryukoku University－ March 2024 －Editorial Note
Kenichi Wakita
Director, Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures

The Research Centre for World Buddhist Cultures (RCWBC) hosted many national
and international scholars, collaborated with several domestic and overseas research
institutions, and successfully organized as many as forty-five academic events, including
special lectures and international seminars, symposia, forums, and workshops during the2022-2023 academic year. Some of them were in-person events, while many wereconducted in hybrid formats. We strongly believe that it was only due to the active supportof all the stakeholders that we at RCWBC were successful in organizing such a large
number of academic events.
With great pleasure, we present the seventh volume of the Journal of World
Buddhist Cultures. The journal upholds the rigorous standards of a peer-review process.
We are very proud of the articles that have been included in this volume and would liketo thank all the reviewers for their kind and thoughtful comments. We would also like toexpress our sincere gratitude to all the contributors.
One of the main objectives of our center is to make RCWBC an international hub
for Buddhist studies. Together with all the stakeholders from all over the world, we willcontinue to make every effort to promote Buddhist studies. We look forward to yourcontinued support in the future.

i発 刊 の 辞脇田 健一
世界仏教文化研究センター長

2023 年度、龍谷大学 世界仏教文化研究センターでは、国内・国外の講師を招いて、また、学内外の研究機関と連携して、特別講演会や国際研究セミナーをはじめ、シンポジウム、フォーラム、ワークショップなど、45 件の研究事業を開催いたしました。対面、オンライ

ン、また２つを合わせたハイブリッド形式など、開催形式は様々ですが、このように充実した研究活動が展開できましたことは、関係者の皆さんのご尽力の賜物と考えております。
さて、このような活発な研究活動を通して、『世界仏教文化研究』第 7 号を皆様のお手元にお届けできることを心より喜んでおります。本誌は学内外の査読者による厳しい審査を設けており、今号に掲載された学術論文は、そのような査読を通過した優れた水準を持つものと自負しております。査読いただきました皆様方には、心より御礼申し上げます。
世界仏教文化研究センターのミッションのひとつは、仏教研究の国際的なハブを構築することにあります。世界各地の皆様と共に仏教研究を推進していけるよう、今後とも努力をして参りたいと考えております。何卒、よろしくお願いいたします。

ii

Table of Contents
Editorial Notei

Table of Contentsiii❖

Articles ❖“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought
Bee SCHERER
The Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita’s Work
Mrigendra PRATAPThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering Saint
Avery MORROW

❖

3

27

47

Book Review ❖Review of Impermanence: Exploring continuous change across cultures Ed. by Haidy
Geismar, Ton Otto and Cameron David Warner
Gouranga Charan PRADHAN
68

Purpose of the Journal

73

Authors’ Profiles

76

iii

目

次

発刊の辞

i

目次

iii

❖ 論

文 ❖

“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought
Bee SCHERER
3The Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita’s Work
Mrigendra PRATAP 27
The Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering Saint
Avery MORROW 47❖ 書 評 ❖
Review of Impermanence: Exploring continuous change across cultures Ed. by Haidy
Geismar, Ton Otto and Cameron David Warner
Gouranga Charan PRADHAN

68

発刊の目的

73

執筆者一覧

76

iv

凡

例

1, 本誌は、英語を主言語とするが、日本語による投稿もさまたげない。したがって、目次、巻末執筆者等は、英語と日本語を併記する。
2, 漢字表記については、翻訳を含む日本語原稿の場合、一部の人名、書名を除き、原則、
常用漢字に統一する。
3, 本誌中に使用されている図版の無断コピーは固く禁ずる。

v

vi

ArticlesBee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”:
Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought

Bee SCHERER
Professor of Buddhist Studies,
Faculty of Religion and Theology
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

3❖ Articles 1 ❖❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Abstract
This article examines the intersection between LGBTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*,
intersex, queer and questioning) subjectivities and mental health and suicidal tendencies;
furthermore, it discusses the supposedly positive influence of religiosity on mental health;
Buddhist perspective on suicide; and avenues to emancipatory practices (liberation“dharmology”).
Departing from the example of the suicide of Kyaw Zin Win, a 26-year-old gay
Burmese librarian taunted by religious homophobia, the question arises as to how Buddhist
traditions have conceptually, socially, and systemically contributed to LGBTIQ+ sufferingand suicidality.
First, trauma, suicidal ideations, and ‘self-completed death’/‘murders’ are framed
within wider social justice parameters before queer mental distress and religiosity are laid out
and the assumption that religiosity has an inoculative effect against suicidality is questioned
and complicated. Buddhist thought and subjectivities are introduced in relation to trans- andqueerness as well as with self-completed deaths. The complexity and ambiguity of the
Buddhist perspectives on sexual and gender diversity as well as on suicide are demonstrated
to be co-productive factors of cultural expectations and normative scripts.
Through critical hermeneutics (textual, historical-contextual, anthropological, andconceptual hermeneutics), possibilities for engaged Buddhist inclusive social justice practices
are revealed; Buddhist perspectives on LGBTIQ+ discrimination and suicidality can thus be
critically questioned and reconsidered, utilizing five steps of Buddhist liberation dharmology.

4Bee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought❖ Articles 1 ❖“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”:
Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought ∗Bee SCHERER

Keywords: Buddhism and Social Justice, Buddhist and LGBT, Buddhism and Suicide,
Hermeneutics, Dharmology
1. Introduction
On 23 June 2019, 26-year-old Kyaw Zin Win, a gay librarian working at a university inYangon, Myanmar, killed himself after having suffered prolonged homophobic bullying. 1
His death started a conversation about the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, intersex,
queer and questioning (LGBTIQ+) people in the predominantly Buddhist country thathas an alarmingly high suicide rate. 2 Shortly after Kyaw Zin Win’s death, Ashin Asayar,
a senior Buddhist monk (sayadaw), was recorded performing a two-minute stand-up
routine during a dharma talk, in which he not only mocked Kyaw Zin Win but also called
for all homosexuals to be shot in state-sanctioned killings and to be beaten to death bylynch mobs. 3
The recording of a senior Buddhist monks’ homophobic hate speech makes forchilling viewing and provides a necessary reminder of the plight of LGBTIQ+ people inmajority Buddhist countries. Far from the Western, rose-tinted orientalist imaginary of
the peaceful and inclusive Buddhist Other, the reality and the lived experience of religion
in Buddhist majority countries is far too often blighted by a vast array of hateful, rightwing, nationalist, and militarist religious fanatics. Therefore, discussing vulnerable
groups and suicidality from a Buddhist perspective cannot ignore the injustices andoppression supported and actively propagated by Buddhist leaders such as Ashin Asayar
and his followers.

∗ This is a slightly revised version of an original manuscript completed in 2019 for a volume on Japanese Buddhism

and suicide prevention, edited by Jonathan Watts (Tokyo); given the uncertain publication of the Japanese edited
volume, Dr. Watts kindly permitted the (pre-)publication in other venues.
1 Myanmar Mix, 2019.
2 WHO figures put Myanmar at 0.0131 percent (13.1/100,000) suicide rate as compared to the global average of 0.0114(11.4/100,000) percent (Htwe and Thi 2018).
3 Equality Myanmar, 2019.

5❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

2. Social Injustice, Mental Distress, and Suicidality
There is a pandemic experience of social injustice among marginalized groups, resulting
in sustained mental distress, suicidal ideations and ‘self-completed deaths.’ 4 Already
Émile Durkheim, 5 in his examination of the social conditions of self-completed deaths,
pointed to the fact that the act of taking one’s own life cannot simply be reduced toindividual pathology without social (justice) contexts. The messiness of our humanexperience and our–for the most part, bumbling–negotiation of individuation with the—often contradictory—societal scripts and value systems usually causes mental distress toeveryone at some stage in one’s life. Following on from mental distress, suicidal ideations
are also common occurrences within the whole populace at some point in an individual’slife. However, the frequency and intensity of mental distress, suicidal ideation, suicide
attempts, and self-completed deaths are statistically far more endemic within thosemarginalized populations who struggle with particular tensions and clashes with thedominant hegemonic societal scripts. These blueprints of social expectation andregulation function, in Lakoffian terms, as the almost universal societal “prototype” 6.
This “prototype” acts as an unobtainable and symbolic, yet inescapably powerful andoppressive, ideal against which all members of society have to negotiate and performtheir own individuations and identitarian expressions within ethnocentric/racist, classist,
body-normative, neuro-normative/sanist, ableist, and cis-heterosexist patriarchy. As aconsequence, large segments of society find themselves unable to perform their social
roles and their interpellated identities within a vicinity sufficiently close to the Lakoffian
center—that creates abject margins—to safeguard their stable mental well-being. The
unjust social orders inherently produce various and often intersecting degrees of abjection
for a wide range of persons:• color and ethnic diversity• the poor and working class• physical and/or neural atypical persons (including anyone shamed as “old”,“fat”, “ugly”, “insane”, etc.)• variously able (“variable”) persons 7• trans*, intersex, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or queer• women, who in patriarchal thought constitute the inferior human in relation to
the male default. 8
In fact, recently, the academic study of suicide–suicidology–has taken a Social Justice

I argue this terminology to be more just and fitting than the term ‘suicide’ ('self-killing', as in the Chinese and Japaneseterm 自殺 zìshā/jisatsu), see Scherer,“I am a Suicide,” 2020b. Similarly, cp. the usage of the more neutral term 自死(jishi) in Japanese.
5 Durkheim, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, [1897] 1951/2005.
6 Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, 1987, see Scherer, “Atypical Bodies,” 2020a, p.28.
7 The terms “variability”, “variable”, etc. are more just and empowering substitutes for “disability”, “disabled”, etc.;
see Mounsey, “Introduction,” 2014; Scherer, “Atypical Bodies,” 2020a, pp. 20–21.
8 See Scherer, “Beyond Heteropatriachal Oppression,” 2018, “Atypical Bodies,” 2020a, and “I am a Suicide,” 2020b.
4

6

Bee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought❖ Articles 1 ❖turn in the form of Critical Suicidology. 9 If Buddhists can accept the predominance ofsocial conditions for the concrete experience of suffering 10 in mental distress andsuicidality, they will also reject the neoliberal, late-capitalist smokescreens thatcompartmentalize, individualize, and pathologize suffering in order to produce a firewall
for maintaining inherent systemic injustices and structural violence.
3. LGBTIQ+ people, Mental Health & Suicidality, and Religiosity
In the wake of the “era of enlightenment”, the scientification of socio-legal discourses in
Europe and North America in the 19th century–around 1870, as Michel Foucault famously
argues—led to the invention of the “homosexual” as an essentialized identity within EuroAmerican medical circles. Equally, as its counterpart, “heterosexuality” emerged as an
essentialized category. 11
LGBTIQ+ people consistently show a higher prevalence of mental distress andsuicidality, not due to intrinsic psychiatric disorders but rather to societal stigma. 12
Suicidality is particularly virulent among the younger (under 25) LGBTIQ+ populace. 13
The phenomenology of queer suicidality has also been recognized within the Japanesecontext. 14 The extent of the problem is well documented in the case of trans* people. A
recent meta-analysis of trans* mental health surveys from the Global North demonstrates
alarming statistics of various mental distress and suicidality indicators. 15 Between 6575% of trans* identified individuals report harassment and direct discrimination. Most
trans* people experience a daily onslaught of systemic and structural oppression leading
to a high prevalence of depression, self-harm, and suicidal ideation, attempts, andcompletions. Research clearly shows that the trans* populace is not, as is sometimes stillclaimed in trans-hostile discourses, simply mentally ill. 16 This trope is merely acontemporary incarnation of the early psychiatric invention of the “suicidal homosexual”
as a pathologized stereotype in sexological discourses of the late 19th and early 20th
centuries. 17 Rather, the research consensus points at societal stigma and marginalization
as the key factors of worse mental health among LGBTIQ+ people. 18
Marsh, “Critical Suicidology,” 2015; Widger. “Suicidology as a Social Practice,” 2015; White, “Shaking Up
Suicidology,” 2015; White et.al. eds., Critical Suicidology, 2016; Button and Marsh eds., Suicide and Social Justice,2020.
10 Skt. duḥkha-duḥkhatā, Pāli dukkha-dukkhatā, Chin. 苦苦: Sangīti Sūtra/Sutta DĀ Skt. 3, Chin. 9: T. 1 50b12; DN
33: iii 216 PTS, cp. Visuddhimagga xvi, 35 (32-60).
11 Cp. See Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 1978:43; Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality, 1995; Jagose, Queer
Theory, 1996, pp. 10–16.
12 See Cheng, “Being Different,” 2018, pp. 1–2 for ample references to social science and psychological research.
13 See, e.g., Gibbs and Goldbach, “Religious Conflict,” 2015; PACE 2015, The RaRE Research Report, pp. 13-17; 7173 and Trevor Project, “National Survey on LGBTQ,” 2019.
14 Hidaka and Operario, “Attempted Suicide.” 2006.
15 Scherer, “Beyond Heteropatriachal,” 2018: 67-73.
16 The World Health Organization (WHO) no longer lists "gender identity disorder" as a mental illness in theInternational Classification of Diseases (ICD); instead, the WHO now describes “gender incongruence” (also known
as “gender dysphoria”) under the section on sexual health (Lewis 2019).
17 Marsh, “Queering Suicide,” 2010.
18 Pascoe and Smart Richman, “Perceived discrimination,” 2009.
97

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Still, it is often claimed rather simplistically that “religiosity” in general inoculates
to a certain degree from suicidality, although the evidence for this claim is weak andcontradictory. 19 Currently, research into this topic is in its infancy, lacking complexity
and, for the most part, intersectional analyses. 20 Without carefully considering thespecific religious contexts, the usefulness of sociological studies claiming to address suchfar-reaching conceptual questions is highly doubtful. Unsurprisingly, hence, there is aclear indication that “religion” can function equally as either a risk factor or as an
inoculation for LGTBIQ+ individuals. 21 In other words, it is complicated and contextdependent. The effect of Buddhist forms of religiosity on suicidality is still insufficiently
researched, despite the oft-repeated claim that practicing Buddhism protects against
suicidal ideations and actions. 22 Recently, researchers have started to develop a
specifically Buddhist perspective on suicide prevention. 23 For Japan — a country withsignificantly higher suicide rates compared to other countries with significant Mahāyāna
Buddhist populations (disregarding contemporary South Korea which is dominated by
Neo-Confucian/secular-capitalist paradigms and has a higher Christian than Buddhist
populace) – the inoculative effect of Buddhist thought and teaching appears has beenquestioned. 24 However, it could be argued that, for many Japanese, Buddhism, rather
than being an immersed and lived practice, is merely a cultural-traditional context just as
are Neo-Confucianism and Shintoism; secondly it cannot be denied that Buddhist-driven‘suicide prevention’ movements with their successful mobilization of Buddhist priests
and media exposure are having significant effects. 25
4. Uneasy Bedfellows: LGBTIQ+ people and Buddhist Traditions
The intersection “queer/religion” is highly problematic both in religious and queeractivist discourses. While religions as vestigial forms of governmentality 26 offer
See the recent studies by Gearing and Lizardi, “Religion and Suicide,” 2009; Nelson et al., “Protective Functions,”
2012; Gibbs and Goldbach, “Religious Conflict,” 2015; Lester, “Does Religiosity Predict Suicidal Behavior,” 2017;
Lew et al. “Religious Orientation,” 2018; Mason, Martin, and Kim, “Suicidal Ideation,” 2018; Krysinska et al., “Does
Religion/Spirituality,” 2018; see also Cheng, “Being Different,” 2018, pp. 2–3.
20 Some studies have started to address particular intersectionalities, e.g., Leong et al. “Suicide among Asian
Americans,” 2007; Nelson et al. “Protective Functions,” 2012; Lizardi and Gearing, “Religion and Suicide,” 2010;
Stack, “Religious Activities,” 2018.
21 Kralovec et al., “Religion and Suicide,” 2014.
22 Such claims can be found in Tzeng and Lipson, “The Cultural Context,” 2004; Wangmo and Valk, “Under the
Influence of Buddhism,” 2012; Han et al., “Qualitative Research,” 2013; however, see Vijayakumar et al. “Socioeconomic,” 2008, p. 25. The limited qualitative study by Cheng (2018) appears to project an aspiration (rather than areality) of Buddhist inclusiveness while based on an insufficient data set and lack of intersectional triangulations. Still,
Chang recounts the suicide of a gay Buddhists due to direct rejection by a Buddhist preceptor (p. 5).
23 E.g., Teerawutgulrag, “The Developed Buddhist,” 2006; Disayavanish and Disayavanish, “A Buddhist Approach,”2007; Takahashi et al., “Educating Gatekeepers,” 2008; Hirono, “The Role of Religious Leaders,” 2013.
24 Kawamoto, “Buddhism and Suicide,” 2008.
25 See, e.g., Watts, “The ‘Suicide Priests’ of Japan,” 2008 and the forthcoming edited volume Buddhism and Suicide
Prevention, edited by Jonathan Watts. Dr Kanae Kawamoto (Tokyo) is currently conducting in depth research into
Japanese clerical suicide prevention.
26 Goldenberg, “Write: The Category of Religion,” 2015.
198

Bee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought❖ Articles 1 ❖belonging in exchange for regulation, queer liberation has often dogmatically constructed
the Western category of “religion” as an enemy of LGBTIQ+ expressions, identity
performances, and rights. In this “homosecularism,” “queer” and “religious” areconstrued as antithetic and mutually exclusive. 27
Any attempt to counter this homosecular impulse within LGBTIQ+ rights
advocacy is hampered by the abundant popular homo- and trans-phobic rhetoric usedwithin conservative Buddhist organizations and by Buddhist leaders in traditionally
Buddhist countries in Asia. Within transnational modernist/Westernized Buddhist circles,
the responses to questions around sexual and gender diversity can also range fromoutright condemnation to well-meaning indifference to full embrace of the LGBTIQ+
community. Just as it is the case in contemporary Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu
discourses, the anti-LGBTIQ+ proof-texting of premodern scriptures constitutes a key
factor in contemporary Buddhist homo- and trans-phobia and LGBTIQ+ discriminationand stigmatization. Proof-texting refers to the finding of decontextualized authoritative
quotations in aid of a preconceived position (e.g., the condemnation of homosexuality)
rather than careful hermeneutical exegesis in the form of interpreting authoritative texts(such as the Buddhist suttas) in context to arrive at a position. During such proof-texting
exercises, influential conservative Buddhist leaders and thinkers conflate the complex
and inherently alien categories of sex/gender/sexual behavior variance found in Buddhist
canonical and commentarial literature with contemporary performances of queerness.
Such proof-texting in homiletic and doctrinal contexts is, at its best, hermeneuticallyinsincere and misleading, and, at worst, simply the dharma-splaining of one’s own
homophobia and transphobia.
Buddhist anti-LGBTIQ+ discourses overlook the complexity of Buddhist traditions
which have espoused multiple, often contradictory perspectives on (trans* and) queerness,through time (diachronically) and in various cultural spheres (synchronically), i.e.
through the ages and the various (g)local adaptations of Buddhist traditions. 28 However,
it is necessary to highlight that pre-modern Buddhist traditions did not essentialize sexual
orientation as an identity—as European discourses of the 19th century did. Further, themodern Global Northern LGBTIQ+ categories only uncomfortably map onto premodern
and indigenous Buddhist and Asian concepts regarding sex/gender and sexual behavior.
It can be argued that, at its most basic philosophical level, Buddhist thought regards
sexual activities as actualizations of an attachment in the form of sensuality (rāga) and,as such, counts among the core afflicting emotions that form obstacles to liberation andenlightenment. However, this does not render all Buddhist traditions “sex-negative”.
Afflicting emotions such as desire, anger, and confusion are always opportunities for thecultivation of the right conduct and right mindfulness.
For the ordained, the monastic code (vinaya) prominently prescribes celibacy. In
Scherer, “Queer Thinking Religion,” 2017.
See Zwilling, “Homosexuality as Seen,” 1992; Cabezón, Buddhism, Sexuality, and Gender, 1993; Sweet and
Zwilling, “The First Medicalization,” 1993; Jackson, “Male Homosexuality,” 1998; Harvey, An Introduction to
Buddhist Ethics, 2000, pp. 411–434; Sweet and Zwilling, “The Evolution of Third-Sex,” 2000; Scherer, “Gender
Transformed,” 2006; Powers, A Bull of a Man, 2009, pp. 93–95; Scherer, “Variant Dharma,” 2016.
27
28

9

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Early Buddhism, socio-legal prohibitions existed against any breach of celibacy formonastics–with varying consequences ranging from expulsion to degrees of repentances.
The Vinaya also prevented the ancient South Asian third and fourth sex/gender categories(apart from male and female) from full participation and ordination in the monastic
community (Sangha, saṃgha). These abject categories were the paṇḍaka (roughly:‘gender-deficient’) 29 and ubhatobyañjanaka (roughly: ‘both-sexed’, often rendered‘hermaphrodite’ and most likely denoting a specific intersex condition). Paṇḍakas andubhatobyañjanakas were barred from the Sangha in order to avert any social stigma
associated with and corresponding to the prevalent discriminatory views in thecontemporaneous South Asian society of non-normative sex/gender/sexualities. However,these social-saṃsāric attitudes within Early Buddhism are not necessarily reflective of
the soteriological-nirvāṇic attitude. In liberation and cessation (i.e., nirvāṇa), there is not
only the falling away of all “defilements” such as desires but there is also no sex/gender.
The tension in Buddhist traditions between saṃsāra-karmic and bodhi-nirvāṇic
orientations 30 is perfectly illustrated in the example of Buddhist attitudes towards genderequality, 31 espousing on the saṃsāra-karmic level traditionally starkly patriarchaloppressive views on the unfavorable female birth. For instance, the early, influential
paracanonical Pāli treatise Questions of King Menander (Milindapañhā) states withrhetoric playfulness that being a woman (ittha) means inferiority (ittaratā) 32 andmonastic thinkers such as Buddhaghosa (5th c. CE) regularly emphasize the lesser (hīna)value of womanhood. 33 At the same time, Early Buddhism accepted—even on a sociopragmatic level—that sex/gender is not static even within one single lifetime; sex/gendercan, indeed, change. For instance, the Milindapañhā enumerates sex/gender change
among a long list of phenomena that regularly occur in the world. 34 Importantly, early
Buddhist monastic regulations (vinaya) accept this fluidity and the change of sex/gender.
35
Sex/gender-changing monastics are pragmatically confirmed by the Buddha and redirected to their new sex/gender community. When the ‘sign’ (liṅga) of a woman (itthi)
or of a man (puriso) appeared in a monastic, the Buddha explicitly confirmed the retainingof the preceptor, ordination validity and seniority of sex/gender changing monastics (iii
Older literature uses the misleading translation “eunuch”. Zwilling problematically described paṇḍakas as “asocially stigmatized class of passive, probably transvestite, homosexuals” (1992, p. 209, but see Scherer 2016, pp. 257–258), while Powers (2009, pp. pp. 82–85) calls paṇḍakas “sexual deviants”, and Cabezón 2017 uses the –despite of his
justification p. 13 problematic–term “queer” for paṇḍaka. Generally, on the paṇḍakas and their five sub-categories, see
Welzer 1998; Powers 2009, pp. 82–85 (calling paṇḍakas “sexual deviants”); Scherer 2016, pp. 254-260; and Cabezón
2017, pp. 407–410. On paṇḍaka as the “neither -nor” category of a fourfold sex/gender paradigm, see Scherer, 2006,
pp. 68–69 and Scherer, 2016, pp. 254–260.
30 Adapting terminologies established fifty years ago by Melford E. Spiro and later Geoffrey Samuels, see Gombrich,
How Buddhism Began, 1996, p. 49.
31 Sponberg, “Attitudes toward Women,” 1992.
32 As stated by the interlocutor Kong Milinda in the paracanonical Questions of Menander (Milindapañha) in the
introduction to the meṇḍaka-pañha (‘solving of dilemmas’) section, Miln. 89-90.
33 Cp. Buddhaghosa, Atthasālinī (Commentary on the Dhammasaṅgaṇi) 322 PTS Müller; Cabezón 2017, p. 363.
34 Miln. 267 = Dilemmas, division 7, point 4 “What there is Nothing of in the World.”
35 See Scherer, “Gender Transformed,” 2006; Anderson, “Changing Sex in Pāli Buddhist,” 2016 and “Changing Sex
or Changing Gender,” 2017; Kieffer-Pülz, “Sex-change in Buddhist Legal Literature,” 2018.
29

10

Bee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought❖ Articles 1 ❖35 PTS). Moreover, a past sex/gender change in itself was not seen as an ordination
impediment; the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya even explicates that an ordination impediment
only occurs after the third (!) sex/gender change. 36 On this basis alone, trans* individuals
should be safe from religious discrimination in Buddhist traditions.
In terms of lay sexual ethics, the universal application of the liberatory Buddhist
dharma (teaching) was not affected by the early socio-legal marginalizing regulations. Of
course, Early Buddhist sources frame the culturally specific paṇḍaka andubhatobyañjanaka in terms of karmic obstacles to practicing the Buddhist path towards
liberation and enlightenment. For example, Asaṅga’s Abhidharmasamuccaya denies lay
person status to any ṣandha (impotent/asexual) and paṇḍaka. 37 But there is also clear
evidence of soteriological overriding of socio-bio-political stigmatization of the third andfourth sex/genders. One such example can be found in the tradition of the influential
Brahma-Net (Brahmajāla) Sūtra (梵網經; fàn wǎng jīng; T. 1484; early 5th c. CE). This
Mahāyāna discourse formulates a universal Bodhisattva ethics by explicitly affirming theenlightenment potential of all sexes/genders. Rule 40 38 appears to acknowledge thesocietal stigmatization faced by paṇḍakas ( 黃 門 huáng mén) 39 but uses themarginalization in order to stress the universally liberatory efficacy of the precepts (śīla:戒 jiè): whether royals, monastics, or Human abjects; gods, ghosts, or animals – theprecepts equally transform all into beings of highest purity ( 一淸淨者 yī qīng jìng zhě).
The stigmatization of same-sex sexual activities developed in many Buddhist
cultures only during and after the Kuṣāṇa period of South Asian history in the first four
centuries CE. 40 Sources such as Buddhagosa’s Dīghanikāya commentary (D-a 853 ad D
III 70) and the somewhat obscure Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra quoted in Śāntideva’sŚikṣāsamuccaya evidence the condemnation of male-male sexual contacts as sexual
wrong-doing; yet these fifth century CE texts slightly postdate Kuṣāṇa era
systematisations in abhidharma and Yogācāra philosophy.
Two influential abhidharma compendia of the 4th c. CE, Asaṅga’
Abhidharmasamuccaya & its commentary and the Abhidharmakośa & its commentary
by Vasubandhu expand to lay people and systematize the definition of “sexual wrongdoing” (kāmesu micchācāra, “misconduct in sexual matters”), i.e. the ‘third precept’ of
Buddhist ethical conduct. 41 Vasubandhu explicitly lists opposite-sex anal and oral sex asprohibited also for lay people: “or when one has intercourse, even with one’s own wife,
by an ‘un-bodily’ (unnatural) body part such as the mouth or the anus.” 42 This passage
prohibits all penetrative sex acts that except (heteronormative) penile-vaginal penetration
See Gyatso, “One Plus One,” 2003, p. 111.
Abhidharmasamuccaya 57, 13-16, see Bayer, The Theory of Karman, 2010, p. 216.
38 Fauré, The Red Thread, 1998, pp. 92-93; Scherer, “Beyond Heteropatriachal Oppression,” 2018, p. 261.
39 While one early Chinese translation for paṇḍaka is literally 'non-male' (不男, bù nán), the most common term in
Chinese Buddhist texts, 黃門 huáng mén ('yellow door') is derived from the later Han court harem area (Charles
Muller,"黃門," Digital Dictionary of Buddhism).
40 The following is partially adapted from Scherer, “Variant Dharma,” 2016, pp. 263–266.
41 Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 2000, pp. 71-74
42 anaṅge vā gacchati svāmapi bhāryām apāne mukhe vā, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya at 4, 74a-b (p. 244 Pradhan); my
translation.
36
37

11

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

excludinghence
byanalogy
non-heterosexual
penetration.
Asaṅga’s
Abhidharmasamuccaya commentary explicitly mention from a typical androcentric
perspective all other males and ‘non-males’ (napuṃsaka, i.e., paṇḍakas andubhatobyañjanakas) as forbidden partners for sexual ‘joining’ (dvayadvayasamāpatti). 43
The encyclopedic treatise of the Yogācāra school of Buddhist thought, theYogācārabhūmi-śāstra 44 explicitly classifies in its second section—the section on
doctrinal interpretation (Viniścaya-saṃgrahanī)— not only any non-vaginal penetration
as “sexual wrong-doing” but also more generally any sexual acts with (other) men andwith paṇḍakas. 45 The following East Asian commentarial traditions mainstream andcodify this interpretation of Buddhist ethical percepts for the East Asian Buddhist
traditions henceforth. The aforementioned influential Chinese Brahmajāla Sūtra and its
precept manual section, the *Mahāyāna-pratimokṣa with its authoritative commentary
Beommanggyeong gojeokgi (梵網經古迹記 T. 1815) by the eighth century Koreanscholar Taehyeon (Daehyeon) 太賢 (大賢) played a decisive role in this process. For the
Tibetan tradition the same text appears to be equally foundational.
It becomes clear that(post-) Kuṣāṇa era Indic nucleolar heteronormative,
procreative value productions around sexuality in the traditions of influential Buddhist
compendia and their commentaries, such as the Yogācārabhumiśāstra and Abhidharma
textual traditions, spawned the sex-negative and queer-phobic attitudes that took hold andprevailed in Tibet and upon meeting (neo-)Confucian family values in Chinese andKorean Buddhism. Japanese Buddhist traditions developed conflicting attitudes towards
same-sex relations, which included prominently the extolling of age-structured intragender relations between monks and novices, in particular within the medieval Shingon(真言) tradition. 46
In the Global North, some LGBTIQ+ people have consciously embraced various
forms of Buddhist traditions and (post-) Buddhist meditation practices as a means ofaddressing spiritual and psychological needs with various success. There is also an
increase of inclusive voices and openly LGBTIQ+ teachers in multiple Buddhist
modernist traditions. Far from being merely a project of global, transnational and/or‘White’/’convert’ Buddhist modernism, queer-inclusive voices and practices haveincreasingly emerged within ‘socially engaged’, ‘progressive’ and/or ‘humanistic
Buddhist’ (人間佛教, rén jiān fó jiào). 47 Among contemporary Sinophone Buddhists,
the Taiwanese Ven. Chao-Hwei (昭慧, Zhāo Huì) features prominently in her unwavering
support for the LGBT community; in 2014, she performed the first Buddhist same-sex
wedding in Taiwan. 48 In Thailand, an outspoken reformist Buddhist monk, Phra
Waradhammo พระวรธรรม, has developed a dedicated ‘neobuddhism’ blogspot for queer
practitioners; in Japan, a Jōdo Shū priest, Kōdō Nishimura 西村 宏堂 (*1989) who
4344

Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣya 63, 25-26 at AS 53, 10-13, see Bayer, The Theory of Karman, 2010, p. 139.

瑜伽師地論 yú qié shī dì lùn [Yü-ch'ieh shih-ti lun] T. 1579, translated into Chinese by Xuanzang 玄奘 from 646-

648 CE; composed in India in the first half of the 4.th c. CE.
[…] | 皆不應行 YBh 631b14|15 "anything with a man or a paṇḍaka | is called wrong practice."
46 Schalow, “Kūkai and the Tradition of Male Love,” 1992; Fauré, The Red Thread, 1998, pp. 233–240.
47 For more details, analysis and references see Scherer, “Queering Buddhist Traditions,” 2021.
48 Hu, “Buddhism and Sexual Orientation,” 2017, p. 663.
45 一切男及不男

12Bee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought❖ Articles 1 ❖doubles as a make-up artist has become the international queer face of Japanese
Buddhism. Japanese-derived transnational Buddhist movements — such as SGI (Sōka
Gakkai International 創価学会インタナショナル), the US American branch of the
Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha (浄土真宗本願寺派 Jōdo Shinshū Honganji-ha) Pure Land
tradition called the Buddhist Churches of America (BCA, 米国仏教団)—count among
the most LGBTIQ+ inclusive contemporary forms of Buddhism.
It can be argued that such examples of vocal Buddhist queer-inclusive voices andqueer Buddhist visibility are crucial to suicide (self-death) prevention among LGBTOQ+
Buddhists.
5. Buddhist Perspectives on Suicide and LGBTIQ+ Suicidality: Liberatory Practices as
Social Justice Action Dharma
Self-completed death and self-killing have been widely debated in Buddhist ethics. 49
Traditional Buddhist views on self-completed death generally condemn ending one’s own
life as an action against the first of the Five Precepts (pañca-śīla), non-harming/-killing(ahiṃsā). However, the canonical texts report cases of those who had realized
enlightenment (arhats) taking their own lives. 50 Further, corresponding to Durkheim’scategory of virtuous “altruistic suicide”, the voluntary death/self-sacrifice of a highly
realized being, such as a bodhisattva, for the benefit of others is found in Indic Buddhist
texts. 51 Such cases are usually narrated as a sign of accomplished detachment from thebody and/or as an ultimate act of generosity (dāna) and compassion (karuṇā). In East
Asia, a tradition of altruistic self-immolation emerged in the reception of, among otherscriptures, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra (SDP, Lotus Sūtra), Chapter 23 (=22 in the
Sanskrit versions). This chapter relates the story of the compassionate self-immolation ofa bodhisattva called “Pleasant to Behold by All Beings” (Sarvasattvapriyadarśana), whowill later become the Buddha “Medicine King” (Bhaiṣajya-rāja). 52 This scripturalparadigm regained power in modern times as a form of social-activist protest during theVietnam War. It has further gathered traction since 2008 among Tibetan communities in
the Chinese-controlled Tibetan regions and exile. 53 For Japan, Mark Blum has identified

On Buddhism and Suicide see Becker, “Buddhist Views of Suicide,” 1990; Keown, “Suicide, Assisted Suicide,”1998 (responses: Florida, 1998 and Harvey, 1998); Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 2000, pp. 286–291;
Delhey, “Buddhismus und Selbstötung,” 2002; “Zum Verständnis der Selbsttötung,” 2006a; “Views on Suicide in
Buddhism,” 2006b.
50 The following cases are discussed in the Early Buddhist suttas/sūtras of the monks Channa (MN 144 SĀ 1266);
Vakkali (SN 22, 87 SĀ 1265 EĀ 26, 10) and Godhika (SN 4, 23 [=4, 3, 3] SĀ 1091) see Wiltshire, “The Suicide
Problem,” 1983; Lamotte, “Religious Suicide in Early Buddhism,” 1987; on the Channa, see Keown, “Buddhism andSuicide,” 1996; Anālayo, “Channa’s Suicide,” 2010, 125–137; on Vakkali, see Delhey, “Vakkali: A New Interpretation,”
2009; Anālayo, “Vakkali’s Suicide,” 2011; on Godhika see Anālayo, “Vakkali’s Suicide,” 2011, pp. 162–163.
51 See overview in Blum, “Collective Suicide,” 2009, pp. 142–145.
52 Benn, “Where Text Meets Flesh,” 1998; Burning for the Buddha, 2007; “The Lotus Sūtra and Self-Immolation,”
2009; Kelly, “Self-immolation, Suicide,” 2011; Halkias, “The Self-immolation of Kalanos,” 2015.
53 For Vietnam, see Topmiller, The Lotus Unleashed, 2002, pp. 133–136 and passim; for Tibet see Buffetrille, “SelfImmolation in Tibet,” 2012.
4913

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7three legitimization discourses around self-killing: 54 1) the Indic Buddhist ambivalence
around suicide; 2) suicide as a means of entering the Pure Land (jigai ōjō 自害往生);
and 3) the Confucian traditions around “loyalty self-killing” (junshi 殉死), such as asamurai’s ritual cutting open of the belly (seppuku 切腹).
For the specific question around queer mental distress, suicidality, and selfcompleted murders/deaths, the potentially ambiguous Buddhist ethical views on selfcompleted deaths play a less pronounced role; from the perspective of “Buddhist
liberation dharmology” the key to preventing any of the violent mental imprints and thewider suffering associated with self-killing is, indeed, changing societal and individual
attitudes towards LGBTIQ+ people.
Following on from Roger Corless’ ‘Queer Dharmology’ and Jose Cabezón’s“Buddhist Theology of Sexuality,” I propose rethinking Buddhist perspectives on
LGBTIQ+ discrimination and suicidality by mindfully accepting the contextual
limitations of scriptural and traditional prejudices, carefully re-reading scripturalevidence, and in the manner of public dharmology, re-applying into contemporary
contexts the liberatory impulses for inclusion and social justice. Those marginalized andsuffering deserve deep and mindful acceptance and loving action by Buddhists to aid inalleviating both individual pain and systemic discrimination and suffering.
The pivotal starting point for queer Buddhist liberation is to acknowledge thesocietal and structural dimensions of karma (業 yè)–action–and to reaffirm karma’s
relation to the Right View (samyak-dṛṣṭi 正見) of no-self (anātman 無我) and, more
pronounced in Mahāyāna philosophy, of the emptiness (Skt. śūnyatā 空) of inherent
existence of all phenomena, including persons (pudgaladharmanairātmya 人法無我). 55
Where traditional and vernacular Buddhism Traditions accommodate queerness, it isusually done without challenging the simplistic notion of ‘bad karma.’ For instance, in
Myanmar, while Ashin Asayar’s homophobic and violent-inciting reaction to the gay
Burmese suicide might constitute the extreme of the spectrum; yet even the most openminded traditional Burmese Buddhist monks permitting the kaṭhina donations byorganized, openly gay Burmese practitioners practice their queer-inclusiveness withreference to notions of ‘bad karma’ which needs to be overcome. 56 Queer-inclusive
Buddhist thinkers such as Ven. Chao-Hwei and Phra Waradhammo stress the importanceof challenging deeply ingrained simplistic views on ‘bad’ karma in relation to LGBTIQ+
subjectivities and belongings. Acknowledging the deadly force of societal stigmatizationof LGBTIQ+ people, Ven. Chao-Hwei quotes the popular Chinese saying “I did not kill
Boren, but Boren is dead because of me.” 57 This saying is a quote from the Biography of
Zhou Yi (周顗傳) in volume 69 of the Book of Jin (晉書, compiled 648 CE). Yi (alias: 伯仁 Bórén) was murdered by his cousin while his friend stood by and did nothing. The
saying in this context points to the (in Buddhist terms: karmic) responsibility of thoseBlum, “Collective Suicide,” 2009, p. 140 and in detail 142–153.
This is the terminology used in the traditions of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra (T. 670 & 672) and Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra(T. 677).
56 Thant, “Choosing to Be LGBT,” 2017, pp. 17-20.
54
55

57

我不殺伯仁，伯仁因我而死wǒ bù shā bó rén, bó rén yīn wǒ ér sǐ; Chao-Hwei, “Why must LGBT,” 2006.
14

Bee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought❖ Articles 1 ❖who do not stop the killings: the LGBTIQ+ self-deaths due to systemic societal
oppression. Indeed, simplistic karma-bashing constitutes the core of Buddhist antiLGBTIQ+ dharma-splaining, spiritual bypassing, and spiritual harming. Despite thecomplex tenets of no-self and emptiness, “past actions” that led to phenomena andexperiences today (colloquially denoted as “past karma”) often become in popularsimplistic Buddhist discourse judgmentally essentialized (e.g., as “gay”, “disabled” etc.).
They are frozen upon an individual without any regard for the deeper philosophicalunderstanding that the manifestation of any “birth” and re-becoming in Buddhist thought
is necessarily an expression of continuity without identity. The empirical person or subject
in their current and fluid manifestation simply expresses karmic continuations of pastpossibilities and is personally neither accountable, nor blamable, nor to be morally judged
for past “lives.” Any human manifestation needs to be examined as a precious opportunity
for subject-contextual merit rather than regarding every person as duly limited andblueprinted by pre-scripted societal expectations. Societal scripts present in Buddhist
societies and traditions are accessories and contexts of the dharma; they are not thedharma itself. This is also true in the case of the patriarchal nucleolar heteronorm, moretheoretically discussed above, which formulates the concrete and normative expectation
on Buddhist lay people to establish male-dominated, gender-binary, heterosexualprocreative-reproductive relationships and hierarchical clan/family structures (i.e.,
compulsory cisgender, heterosexuality and procreative monogamous marriages). Notable
Buddhist feminists such as Rita Gross and her student Hsiao-Lan Hu have successfully
challenged the patriarchal paradigms in Buddhist traditions. 58 Here, Queer Theory is
helpful for excavating and challenging harmful societal scripts aroundsex/gender/sexuality normativities (and beyond). Judith Butler’s notion of
performativity 59 is particularly receptive to Buddhist philosophical readings. Both
Butler’s Queer Theory and Buddhist philosophies insist on a non-essentialist view ofhuman identity and stress the context-dependent ever-changing nature of humanexperiences and their negotiations of relationships. In Buddhist terms, we might rephrase
this as the condition-dependent ever-changing nature of saṃsāric experiences and theirinter/co-dependent arisings.
Where these scripts cause, contribute, and/or lead to suffering and self-completed
deaths, the act of suicide cannot conveniently be located in the individual, at least not
exclusively. Stigmatization and marginalization feature as decisive factors in thecontextual nexus of decision-making and agency.
The various Buddhist karma theories stress the immaterial and ethical dimensionof action as opposed to material and merely ritualistic-transactional aspects. Hence,
karma in Buddhist thought is usually fully “ethicized” 60 and there is a continuous need
See, e.g., Gross, Buddhism after Patriarchy, 1993 and Hu, This Worldly Nibbāna, 2011.
Butler, Gender Trouble, 1990.
60 Cp. Ramanujan’s categories in Doniger, “Karma and Rebirth,” 1980, p. xi. Vedic pre-Upaniṣadic ritualistic karma
theory and the determinist Ājīvika concept of rebirth lack ethicization of karma, which first occurs in the Upaniṣads
e.g., in Bṛhad Ārāṇyaka Upaniṣad 3, 2, 3: púṇyaḥ púṇyena kármaṇā bhavati pāpáḥ pāpéna “merit is produced by a
meritorious action, demerit by a demeritorious action”.
58
59

15

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7to re-ethicize karma for social justice, 61 i.e., to challenge popular karma discourses invernacular Buddhist traditions on aspects of reductionist individual determinism and thelack of complexity and actor (intention) focus. Such challenges to prevalent determinist
and reductionist notions around the relationship between cause and effect (karma-phalasaṃbandha) stand in the long tradition of philosophical discussions of Buddhist karma.
The popular notion of any linearity and personal ownership of karma was rejected earlyon (cp. Milindapañhā, ii. 1). 62 One of the most famous philosophical refutations is foundin Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (17, 6-12). 63 It is good to be reminded that
karman (in its causal aspect) is defined as “intention” (cetanā), e.g., in the Deep
Penetration of Wisdom Sutta (Nibbedhikasutta) of the Aṅguttara-Nikāya: 64 cetanāhaṃ,bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi “Monks, I state that karma is intention.”
In fact, Buddhist “karma” is intention-dependent to such a degree that accidental
or even ignorant actions cause no offence (Milindapañhā, iv. 2. 27) and/or that nonintentional karma does not cause grave negative results (Harivarman, Satyasiddhiśāstra
2, 84). 65 On the other hand, cetanā as karma means also that those who plan, preach, andpractice (“think–say–do”) 66 exclusion, even if they do so in the name of (ill-understood)
dharma, co-produce, and share in the karma of the LGBTIQ+ experience of concrete
suffering (duḥkha-duḥkhatā). It is, therefore, an ethical imperative for Buddhists toactively co-create inclusive societal parameters and to oppose those societal scripts thatcause discrimination and systemic suffering.
This can easily happen within the wide frameworks of early (sūtric) lay Buddhist
sexual ethics–with the focus on equality of power balance, non-coercion, and respect forexisting commitments among adult partners–rather than relying on later-addedinterpretations that merely conformed to prevalent societal prejudices. 67 Equally, theRight View on the inherent emptiness of phenomena, their interdependence, andprocessuality and fluidity should allow a truly non-judgmental acceptance of gender
performances, expression, subjectivities, and belonging beyond the dominant male–
female binary, particularly in view of the Buddha’s pragmatic reaction to sex-changing
monastics. Trans* Buddhists can utilize the powerful paradigms of sex/gender-changing
realized beings 68 to recognize both the inherent emptiness of gender categories and toaccept the occurrence of physical-mental gender incongruence or fluidity as simply oneof the experiences that occur naturally in saṃsāra. 69
See Watts, Rethinking Karma, 2009.
Cp. e.g., Bayer, The Theory of Karman, 2010, pp. 46-47.
63 See Kragh, Early Buddhist Theories, 2006.
64 Cp. AN iii 415, cp. Abhidharmakośa iv, 1b.
65 This feature of Early Buddhist karma theory was severely criticised by the Jainas (e.g., Sūtrakṛtāṅga 2.6.26-8), cp.
Krishan, The Doctrine of Karma, 1997, pp. 62-66.
66 Corresponding to the factors of karma production body, speech, and mind (kāya-vāk-citta 身口意); cp. the popular
Fo Guang Shan motto Do Good Things, Speak Good Words, Think Good Thoughts 做好事、說好話、存好心.
67 See Scherer, “Variant Dharma,” 2016, p. 260-266. On emerging sexual ethics in contemporary western /American
Buddhism see Kaza, “Finding Safe Harbor,” 2004.
68 See Scherer, “Gender Transformed,” 2006; on the utilization of Guayin as male-to-female trans* Buddhist icon, see
Bailey, “Embracing the Icon,” 2009.
69 Cp. Miln. 267 Dilemmas, division 7.4 where sex-change is listed among the phenomena regularly occurring in the
61
62

16

Bee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought❖ Articles 1 ❖6. Conclusion: Five Steps Towards Healing Queer Buddhist Systemic Suffering
I have suggested that Queer Dharmology or rather any Socially Engaged Buddhist
Liberation Praxis might operate from a fivefold parameter: 70
1. reflexivity and positionality
2. engaged hermeneutics for the oppressed
3. (re-)conceptualization of Buddhist thought
4. (re-)signification of paradigms for the liberation of the marginalized
5. application of liberatory practices
Applying these five steps to the question of queer suicidality, we can note first (i) that
Buddhist care for LGBTIQ+ lives needs to start from a position of reflection on our own
intersectional privileges and disadvantages and reflect on our altruistic intention as
Buddhist practitioners. Standing by while our friends complete the murder committed
through structural oppression is not an option. Therefore, we need to start to queer—
challenge— the harmful karma reductionism that abounds in popular and vernacular
Buddhist contexts, as exemplified above. We need to do so textual-hermeneutically (ii)by re-reading, contextualizing, acknowledging discriminatory hegemonic scripts andexcavating liberatory and ‘queer’ voices; we then need to transpose and reframe thefindings conceptually (iii) so that the discourse that provides a dharmic justification forthe self-completed murders ceases. Universal altruistic soteriology needs to behighlighted above oppressive temporal and cultural norm scripts which are merely
accessories of the dharma. (iv) Instead of justifying the individual onus of marginalization,
stigmatization, mental distress, and suicidal ideation caused by systemic oppression weneed to excavate queer Buddhist paradigms and role models and provide and support
queer visibility of openly LGBTIQ+ Buddhist teachers, leaders, and practitioners so that(v) inclusive spaces and practices can emerge—as evidenced in the work andcommunities of Ven. Chao-Wei’s, Phra Waradhammo, Lama Rod Owens, and increasing
numbers of other influential Buddhist voices.
It is my radical engaged Buddhist view that all those who do not proactively work
for social justice share in the karmic consequences of the suffering that social injusticebrings. Where we are placed in a position of power and influence that we can counter
oppressive normativities and scripts, doing so is our responsibility and privilege; thus, we
become vehicles of Bodhisattva activity, true to the universal aspiration (praṇidhāna) oftireless altruism in selfless gratitude to the precious opportunity afforded to us. To lessen
and to heal the systemic suffering of the marginalized constitutes meritorious andliberatory action dharma.

world.
70 Scherer, “Queering Buddhist Traditions,” 2021.

17

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7Bibliography

Anālayo “Channa’s Suicide in the Samyukta-āgama.” Buddhist Studies Review 27(2),2010, pp. 125–137.
–––––. “Vakkali’s Suicide in the Chinese Agamas.” Buddhist Studies Review 28(2), 2011,
pp. 155–170.
Anderson, Carol S. “Changing Sex in Pāli Buddhist Monastic Literature.” In Queering
Paradigms VI: Interventions, Ethics and Glocalities ed. by Bee Scherer. Oxford:
Peter Land, 2016, pp. 231–251.
–––––. “Changing Sex or Changing Gender in Pāli Buddhist Literature.” Scholar &Feminist
Online2017,14(2),
http://sfonline.barnard.edu/queerreligion/changing-sex-or-changing-gender-in-pali-buddhist-literature/ (accessed
13 August 2019).
Bailey, Cathryn. “Embracing the Icon: The Feminist Potential of the Trans Bodhisattva,
Kuan Yin.” Hypatia 24(3), 2009, pp. 178–196.
Bayer, Achim. The Theory of Karman in the Abhidharmasamuccaya (Studia Philologicxa
Buddhica. Monograph series XXVI). Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist
Studies, 2010.
Becker, Carl B. “Buddhist Views of Suicide and Euthanasia.” Philosophy East and West40(4), 1990, pp. 543–556.
Benn, James A. “Where Text Meets Flesh: Burning the Body as an Apocryphal Practicein Chinese Buddhism.” History of Religions 37(4), 1998, pp. 295–322.
–––––. Burning for the Buddha: Self-Immolation in Chinese Buddhism. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 2007.
–––––. “The Lotus Sūtra and Self-Immolation.” In Readings of the Lotus Sūtra, ed. By
Stephen F. Teiser and Jacqueline I. Stone. New York: Columbia University Press,
2009, pp. 107–131.
Blum, Mark. “Collective Suicide at the Funeral of Jitsunyo Mimesis or Solidarity?” In
Death and the Afterlife in Japanese Buddhism ed. by Jacqueline I. Stone andMariko Namba Walter. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2009, pp. 137–174.
Buffetrille, Katia. “Self-Immolation in Tibet: Some Reflections on an Unfolding History.”
Revue d’Études Tibétaines 25, 2012, pp. 1–17.
18

Bee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought❖ Articles 1 ❖Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York andLondon: Routledge, 1990.
Button, Mark E. and Marsh, Ian (eds.). Suicide and Social Justice: New Perspectives on
the Politics of Suicide and Suicide Prevention. London: Routledge, 2020.
Cabezón, José. I. “Homosexuality and Buddhism.” In Homosexuality and World
Religions ed. by Arlene Swidler. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International,
1993, pp. 81–101.
–––––. “Thinking through Texts: Toward a Critical Buddhist Theology of Sexuality”(Frederick P. Lenz Distinguished Lecture, Naropa University, 23 September 2008),
https://info-buddhism.com/Buddhism-Sexuality-Cabezon.html (accessed 13
August 2019).
–––––. Sexuality in Classical South Asian Buddhism. Boston; Wisdom, 2017.
Chao-Hwei 昭慧 “「同志」豈必承負罪軛？tóngzhì’qǐ bì chéng fù zuì è? [Whymust LGBT people be stigmatized?]” Hóngshì shuāngyuèkān 弘誓雙月刊 83(October 2006),
http://www.hongshi.org.tw/writings.aspx?code=A2A35E55C42B4B2E3D64CC
B01E451784, (accessed 15 January 2020).
Cheng, Fung Kei. “Being Different with Dignity: Buddhist Inclusiveness of
Homosexuality.”SocialSciences
7(4),
51,
2018,
pp.
1–15.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7040051.
Corless, Roger. “Towards a Queer Dharmology of Sex.” Culture and Religion 5(2), 2004,
pp. 229–243.
Delhey, Martin. “Buddhismus und Selbstötung.” Buddhismus in Geschichte undGegenwart 7, 2002, pp. 112–132.
–––––. “Zum Verständnis der Selbsttötung im Buddhismus.” Buddhismus in Geschichte
und Gegenwart 10, 2006a, pp. 145–165.
–––––. “Views on Suicide in Buddhism: Some Remarks.” In Buddhism and Violence ed.
by Martin Zimmermann. Lumbini: LIRI, 2006b, pp. 25–63.
–––––. “Vakkali: A New Interpretation of His Suicide.” Journal of the International
College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies 13, 2009, pp. 67–108.
Disayavanish, Chamlong and Disayavanish, Primprao. “A Buddhist Approach to Suicide
Prevention.” Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 90(8), 2007, pp.
1680–1688.
Doniger O’Flaherty, Wendy. “Karma and Rebirth in the Vedas and in the Purāṇas.” In19❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions ed. by Wendy Doniger
O’Flaherty. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980, pp. 3–37.
Durkheim, Émile. Suicide: A Study in Sociology [Le Suicide: Étude de sociologie].
Translated by John A. Spaulding and George Simpson. Edited with an
introduction by George Simpson. Routledge: London and New York, [1897]
1951/2005.
Equality Myanmar. “Buddhist Monk Plays Suicide of LGBTQ Librarian for Laughs.” 4July 2019, https://equalitymyanmar.org/buddhist-monk-plays-suicide-of-lgbtqlibrarian-for-laughs-video/ (accessed 24 August 2019).
Fauré, Bernard. The Red Thread: Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1998.
Florida, R.E. “A Response to Damien Keown’s Suicide, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia:
A Buddhist Perspective.” Journal of Law and Religion 13(2), 1998, pp. 413–416.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Translated from the French
by Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
Gearing, Robin E. and Lizardi, Dana. “Religion and Suicide.” Journal of Religion and
Health 48, 2009, pp. 332–341.
Gibbs, Jeremy J. and Goldbach, Jeremy. “Religious Conflict, Sexual Identity, andSuicidal Behaviors among LGBT Young Adults.” Archives of Suicide Research
19(4), 2015, pp. 472–488.
Goldenberg, Naomi R. “The Category of Religion in the Technology of Governance: An
Argument for Understanding Religions as Vestigial States.” In Religion as a
Category of Governance and Sovereignty, ed. by Trevor Stack, Naomi
Goldenberg and Timothy Fitzgerald. Leiden: Brill, 2015, pp. 280–292.
Gombrich Richard. How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early
Teachings. London: Athlone Press, 1996.
Gross, Rita. Buddhism after Patriarchy: A Feminist History, Analysis, and Reconstructionof Buddhism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.
Gyatso, Janet. “One Plus One Makes Three: Buddhist Gender, Monasticism, and the Lawof the Non-Excluded Middle.” History of Religions 43(2), 2003, pp. 89–115.
Halkias, Georgios T. “The Self-immolation of Kalanos and other Luminous Encounters
Among Greeks and Indian Buddhists in the Hellenistic World.” Journal of the
Oxford Centre of Buddhist Studies 8, 2015, pp. 163–186.
Han, Christina S.; Ogrodniczuk, John S. and Oliffe, John L. “Qualitative Research on

20Bee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought❖ Articles 1 ❖Suicide in East Asia: A Scoping Review.” Journal of Mental Health 22(4), 2013,
pp. 372–383, DOI: 10.3109/09638237.2013.799265.
Harvey, Peter. “A Response to Damien Keown’s Suicide, Assisted Suicide andEuthanasia: A Buddhist Perspective.” Journal of Law and Religion 13(2), 1998,
pp. 407–412.
–––––. An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Hidaka, Y. and Operario, D. “Attempted Suicide, Psychological Health and Exposure toHarassment among Japanese Homosexual, Bisexual or Other Men Questioning
Their Sexual Orientation Recruited via the Internet.” Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health 60(11), 2006, pp. 962–967,
doi:10.1136/jech.2005.045336.
Hirono, Tatsushi. “The Role of Religious Leaders in Suicide Prevention: A Comparative
Analysis of American Christian and Japanese Buddhist Clergy.” SAGE Open
April-June, 2013, pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.1177/2158244013486992.
Htwe, Nyein Ei Ei and Thi, Myint Kay. “Suicide in Myanmar: The Hanging Question.”
Myanmar Times 24 August 2018, https://www.mmtimes.com/news/suicidemyanmar-hanging-question.html (accessed 24 August 2019).
Hu, Hsiao-Lan. This Worldly Nibbāna: A Buddhist-Feminist Social Ethic for
Peacemaking in the Global Community. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 2011.
Hu, Hsiao-Lan. “Buddhism and Sexual Orientation.” In Oxford Handbook ofContemporary Buddhism, ed. by Michael Jerryson. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2017, pp. 662–677.
Jackson, Peter A. “Male Homosexuality and Transgenderism in the Thai Buddhist
Tradition.” In Queer Dharma: Voices of Gay Buddhists ed. by Winston Leyland.
San Francisco: Gay Sunshine Press, 1998, pp. 55–89.
Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University
Press, 1996.
Katz, Jonathan N.. The Invention of Heterosexuality. New York: Dutton, 1995.
Kaza, Stephanie. “Finding Safe Harbor: Buddhist Sexual Ethics in America.” BuddhistChristian Studies 24, 2004, pp. 23–35.
Kawamoto, Kanae. “Buddhism and Suicide: Right Attitude towards Death.” In Buddhist
Virtues in Socio-Economic Development: ICDV Conference Volume (The 8thInternational Buddhist Conference on the United Nations Day of Vesak21❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures
Celebrations, 12 - 14 May 2554/2011, Thailand).
Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University, 2008, pp. 589–599.

Vol. 7

Bangkok:

Kelly, Brendan D.. “Self-immolation, Suicide and Self-harm in Buddhist and Western
Traditions.” Transcultural Psychiatry 48(3), 2011, pp. 299–317.
Keown, Damien. “Buddhism and Suicide: The Case of Channa.” Journal of Buddhist
Ethics 3, 1996, pp. 8–31.
–––––. “Suicide, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Buddhist Perspective.” Journal of
Law and Religion 13(2), 1998, pp. 385–405.
Kieffer-Pülz, Petra. “Sex-change in Buddhist Legal Literature with a Focus on the
Theravāda Tradition.” Annual Report of the International Research Institute forAdvanced Buddhology at Soka University (ARIRIAB) 21, 2018, pp. 27–62.
Kragh, Ulrich T. Early Buddhist Theories of Action and Result: A Study of
Karmaphalasambandha—Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā, Verses 17.1-20 (Wiener
Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde. 64). Vienna: Arbeitskreis fürTibetische und Buddhistische Studien, University of Vienna, 2006.
Kralovec, Karl et al. “Religion and Suicide Risk in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Austrians.”
Journal of Religion and Health 53, 2014, pp. 413–423.
Krishan, Yuvraj. The Doctrine of Karma: Its Origin and Development in Brāhmaṇical,
Buddhist and Jaina Traditions. Delhi: Motilal, 1997.
Krysinska, Karolina et al. “Does Religion/Spirituality Modify the Association of Stressful
Life Events and Suicidal Ideation in Australian Men?” Religions 9(6), 180, 2018,
pp. 1–9.
Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about theMind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Lamotte, Étienne. “Religious Suicide in Early Buddhism.” Buddhist Studies Review 4(2),[1987] 2005, pp. 105–18. Reprinted In Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious
Studies. Volume 1, ed. by Paul Williams, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 214–223.
Lefferts,
Gabriel.
“Karmapas
Unite.”
Tricycle
11
October,
https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/karmapas-meet/ (accessed 13 August 2019).

2019

Leong, Frederick T.L. et al. “Suicide among Asian Americans: What Do We Know? What
Do We Need to Know?” Death Studies 31, 2007, pp. 417–434.
Lester, David. “Does Religiosity Predict Suicidal Behavior?” Religions 8(238), 2017,
pp.1–8, DOI: 10.3390/rel8110238.
Lew, Bob et al. ”Religious Orientation and Its Relationship to Suicidality: A Study in One
22

Bee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought❖ Articles 1 ❖of the Least Religious Countries.” Religions 9(1), 15, 2018, pp. 1–10.
Lewis, Sophie. “World Health Organization removes “gender identity disorder” fromlist of mental illnesses.” CBC News 29 May, 2019,https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-removes-genderdysphoria-from-list-of-mental-illnesses/ (accessed 13 August 2019).
Lizardi, D[ana] and Gearing, R[obin] E. “Religion and Suicide: Buddhism, Native
American and African Religions, Atheism, and Agnosticism.” Journal of Religion
and Health 49, 2010, pp. 377–384.
Maggard, Thea Rae. “Queering Trans(theo)phobia: A Comparative Analysis between
Jōdo Shinshū Buddhism and Roman Catholicism on Transgender Issues.”
Religión e Incidencia Pública: Revista de Investigación de GEMRIP 2, 2014, pp.
109–136.
Marsh, Ian. “Queering Suicide: The Problematic Figure of the ‘Suicidal’ Homosexual in
Psychiatric Discourse.” In Queering Paradigms ed. by B. Scherer. Oxford: Peter
Lang, 2010, pp. 141–159.
–––––. “‘Critical Suicidology’: Toward an Inclusive, Inventive and Collaborative (Post)
Suicidology.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 4 (5), 2015, pp.
6–9.
Mason, Karen; Martin, W. Blake and Kim, Esther. “Suicidal Ideation and Sense ofCommunity in Faith Communities.” Religions 9(2), 40, 2018, pp. 1–15.
Mounsey, Chris. “Introduction: Variability – Beyond Sameness and Difference.” In The
Idea of Disability in the Eighteenth Century ed. by Chris Mounsey. Lewisburg:
Bucknell University Press, 2014, pp. 1–27.
Myanmar Mix. “Myanmar Librarian Dies by Suicide after Homophobic Bullying.” 25
June 2019, https://myanmarmix.com/en/articles/myanmar-librarian-dies-bysuicide-after-homophobic-bullying (accessed 24 August 2019).
Nelson, Graham et al. “Protective Functions of Religious Traditions for Suicide Risk.”
Suicidology Online 3, 2012, pp. 59–71.
PACE 2015. The RaRE Research Report: LGB&T Mental Health - Risk and Resilience
Explored by Nodin, Nuno; Peel, Elizabeth; Tyler, Allan and Rivers, Ian. London:
PACE,
available
onlineatwww.queerfutures.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/RARE_Research_Report_PACE_2015.pdf (accessed 2
July 2018).
Pascoe E. A. and Smart Richman, L. “Perceived discrimination and health: A metaanalytic review.” Psychological Bulletin 135, 2009, pp. 531–554.

23

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Powers, John. A Bull of a Man: Images of Masculinity, Sex and the Body in Indian
Buddhism. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Schalow, Paul G. “Kūkai and the Tradition of Male Love in Japanese Buddhism.” In
Buddhism, Sexuality, and Gender ed. by José I. Cabezón. Albany: State Universityof New York Press, 1992, pp. 215–230.
Scherer, B. “Gender Transformed and Meta-Gendered Enlightenment: Reading Buddhist
Narratives as Paradigms of Inclusiveness.” Revista de Estudos da Religião –
REVER 6.3, 2006, pp. 65–76.
–––––. “Variant Dharma: Buddhist Queers, Queering Buddhisms.” In Queering
Paradigms VI: Interventions, Ethics and Glocalities ed. by Bee Scherer. Oxford:
Peter Lang, 2016, pp. 253–273.
–––––. “Queer Thinking Religion: Queering Religious Paradigms.” Scholar & Feminist
Online 2017, 14.2, http://sfonline.barnard.edu/queer-religion/queerthinkingreligion-queering-religious-paradigms/ (accessed 13 August 2019).
–––––. “Beyond Heteropatriachal Oppression: Inhabiting Aphallic Anthroposcapes.” In
Queering Paradigms VII: Contested Bodies and Spaces ed. by Bee Scherer withPatrick de Vries. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2018, pp. 65–81.
–––––. “Atypical Bodies: Queer-Feminist and Buddhist Perspectives.” In Cultural
History of Disability in the Modern Age (Cultural History of Disability, Vol. V)
ed. by David T. Mitchell and Sharon L. Snyder. London: Bloomsbury, 2020a, pp.
19–28.
–––––. “‘I am a Suicide Waiting to Happen’: Reframing Self-Completed Murder andDeath.” In Suicide and Social Justice: New Perspectives on the Politics of Suicideand Suicide Prevention ed. by Mark E. Button and Ian Marsh. London: Routledge,
2020b, pp. 141–151.
–––––. “Queering Buddhist Traditions.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion(ORE Religion) (published 28 June 2021),
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.765 (accessed 30 June2021).
Smith, Sharon E. and Munt, Sally R. “The Dragon King’s Daughter: Gender andSexuality in Western Buddhist New Religious Movements.” Theology & Sexuality
16(3), 2010, pp. 229–260.
Sponberg, Alan. “Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism.” In
Buddhism, Sexuality, and Gender ed. by José I. Cabezón. Albany: State Universityof New York Press, 1992, pp. 3–36.
Stack, Steven. “Religious Activities and Suicide Prevention: A Gender Specific Analysis.”24Bee SCHERER“I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought❖ Articles 1 ❖Religions 9(4), 127, 2018, pp. 1–12.
Sweet, Michael J. and Zwilling, Leonard. “The First Medicalization: The Taxonomy andEtiology of Queerness in Classical Indian Medicine.” Journal of the History of
Sexuality 3, 1993, pp. 590–607.
Sweet, Michael J. and Zwilling, Leonard. “The Evolution of Third-Sex Constructs in
Ancient India: A Study of Ambiguity.” In Invented Identities: The Interplay of
Gender, Religion and Politics in India ed. by Julia Leslie and Mary McGee.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 99–132.
Takahashi, Yoshimoto et al. “Educating Gatekeepers in Asia.” In Suicide and Suicide
Prevention in Asia ed. by Herbert Hendlin et al. Geneva: World HealthOrganization, 2008, pp. 51–61.
้์
Teerawutgulrag ธีรวุฒกิ ลุ ร ักษ ์, Eumduan เอึอมเดื
อน 2006. “รูป แบบเครือข่าย พระ สงฆ ์ ในการป้ องกัน ป้ ญหา การฆ่าตัวตาย: กรณี ศึกษา จัง หวัด เชียงใหม่” [The Developed Buddhist
Monk Net Work Model in Suicidal Prevention Program: A Case Study in Chang
Mai Province]. Journal of Mental Health of Thailand 14(1), pp. 33–38 [in Thai,with English abstract].
Thant, Aye Min. “Choosing to Be LGBT: Gender and Sexuality Activism inContemporary Myanmar.” MA thesis, Cornell University, 2017.
Topmiller, Robert J. The Lotus Unleashed: The Buddhist Peace Movement in South
Vietnam, 1964–1966. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2002.
Trevor Project 2019. National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health. West Hollywood:
The
TrevorProject,
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/The-Trevor-Project-National-Survey-Results-2019.pdf(accessed 13 August 2019).
Tzeng, Wen-Chii, and Lipson, Juliene G. “The Cultural Context of Suicide Stigma in
Taiwan.” Qualitative Health Research 14(3), 2004, pp. 345–358.
Vijayakumar, Lakshmi et al. “Socio-economic, Cultural and Religious Factors Affecting
Suicide Prevention in Asia.” In Suicide and Suicide Prevention in Asia ed. by
Herbert Hendlin et al. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008, pp. 19–29.
Wangmo, Tashi and Valk, John. “Under the Influence of Buddhism: The PsychologicalWellbeing Indicators of GNH.” Journal of Bhutan Studies 26 (summer), 2012, pp.
53–81.
Watts, Jonathan S. “The ‘Suicide Priests’ of Japan and the Search for Gross National
Happiness.” In Towards Global Transformation: Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Gross National Happiness, edited by The Centre for
Bhutan Studies. Thimphu, 2008, pp. 135–166.
25

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Watts, Jonathan S. (ed.). Rethinking Karma: The Dharma of Social Justice. Chiang Mai:
Silkworm Books, 2009.
Welzer, Albrecht.“Sanskrit paṇḍá- / páṇḍaka-.” Zeitschrift
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 148, 1998, pp. 261–276.

derDeutschen

White, Jennifer, Marsh, Ian; Kral, Michael J. and Morris, Jonathan (eds.). Critical
Suicidology: Transforming Suicide Research and Prevention. Vancouver: UBC
Press, 2016.
White, Jennifer. “Shaking Up Suicidology.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply
Collective 4(5), 2015, pp. 1–4.
Widger, Tom. “‘Suicidology as a Social Practice’: A Reply.” Social Epistemology Review
and Reply Collective 4 (3), 2015, pp. 1–4.
Wilson, Jeff. ““All Beings Are Equally Embraced by Amida Buddha”: Jodo Shinshu
Buddhism and Same-Sex Marriage in the United States.” Journal of Global
Buddhism 13, 2012, pp. 31–59.
Wiltshire, Martin G. “The “Suicide” Problem in the Pāli Canon.” Journal of theInternational Association of Buddhist Studies 6(2), 1983, pp. 124–140.
Zwilling, Leonard. “Homosexuality as Seen in Indian Buddhist Texts.” In Buddhism,
Sexuality, and Gender ed. by José I. Cabezón. Albany: State University of New
York Press, 1992, pp. 203–213.

26

Mrigendra PRATAPThe Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita's Work

❖ Articles 2 ❖The Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk
nor Layman” View in Shinran, Ambedkar, andSangharakshita’s Work

Mrigendra PRATAPAssistant Professor (Contractual),
Department of Pali and Buddhist Studies, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune

27

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Abstract
In the annals of Buddhist history, the terminology of “neither monk nor layman” firstfound articulation through the teachings of Shinran (1173-1263), the venerable founderof Jōdo Shinshū, a prominent Buddhist tradition in Japan. Notably, during the 20th
century, this very notion resurfaced in the modern context in the discourses of twoeminent Buddhist leaders, B. R. Ambedkar (1891-1956) and Urgyen Sangharakshita(1925-2018), who adeptly incorporated it into their works and propagated its relevancewithin their respective Buddhist movements. This scholarly inquiry explores thehistorical origins and evolution of the “neither monk nor layman” view within the Jōdo
Shinshū tradition. It also examines how this view has developed in modern Japanese
Buddhism. Additionally, this study explores similar ideas within contemporary Indian
Buddhist movements, particularly those promoted by B. R. Ambedkar and Urgyen
Sangharakshita. The analytical foundation of this article is built upon the meticulous
examination of English translations of Shinran’s primary treatises and supplementary
scholarly works related to his literary corpus. Moreover, this study draws upon primaryand secondary source materials derived from the oeuvres of Ambedkar andSangharakshita, enhancing the comprehensive understanding of the term “neither monk
nor layman.”28

Mrigendra PRATAPThe Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita's Work

❖ Articles 2 ❖The Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk
nor Layman” View in Shinran, Ambedkar, andSangharakshita’s Work ∗Mrigendra PRATAP

Keywords: Jōdo Shinshū, neither monk nor layman, Shinran, Ambedkar, Sangharakshita

1. Introduction
Within the annals of Buddhist history, the term “neither monk nor layman” can be
attributed to Shinran (1173-1263), 1 the esteemed progenitor of Jōdo Shinshū, aninfluential Buddhist tradition originating in Japan. 2 Shinran’s teachings dispelled thenotion that a layman’s life represented an impediment to the pursuit of spiritual progress,
laying the foundation for the enduring idea of “neither monk nor layman” within the Jōdo
Shinshū tradition. 3 This innovative term, which essentially posits the equivalency ofmonastic and lay practitioners, has, over time, become a hallmark of Modern Buddhism
in Japan, India, and the broader Buddhist world.
It is paramount to recognize that this paradigm of “neither monk nor layman” did
not remain confined to the precincts of Jōdo Shinshū. It found resonance andreinterpretation in diverse Buddhist contexts, epitomized by the discerning insights of
two towering Buddhist leaders, B. R. Ambedkar and Urgyen Sangharakshita. In his
profound exploration of Buddhist principles, Ambedkar advanced a concept akin to“Japanese married Buddhist priests.” 4 When Ambedkar embraced Buddhism withmillions of followers on October 14, 1956, we observed a shift where lay Buddhist
movements gained more popularity than monastic Buddhism in India.
At the same time, Urgyen Sangharakshita deftly employed the “neither monastic∗ This research was completed as a Numata Research Fellow at the Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures,

Ryukoku University, Kyoto, Japan, from June 2022 to August 2022. I sincerely thank the Numata Fellowship
Committee of Ryukoku University for providing a grant for this research and my guide, Prof. Dake Mitsuya, for his
support and guidance in completing this research. I also express my gratitude to Gouranga Charan Pradhan and the twoanonymous reviewers at the Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures of Ryukoku University.
1 Shinran, The Collected Works of Shinran (vol. I1), p. 11.
2 Hongwanji, Jodo Shinshu A Guide, p. 45.
3 Ibid., pp. 45-46.
4 Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (Vol.17, Part I), p. 447.

29

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7nor lay” term in his doctrinal treatises and endeavored to weave it seamlessly into thetapestry of his Buddhist movement. Sangharakshita has made an invaluable contribution
to the contemporary world by creating the modern saṅgha. This community transcends
traditional distinctions between monastic and lay life, making it accessible and relevantin today’s context. Typically, the term “saṅgha” denotes the Buddhist monastic Order,
separate from the laity (upāsaka). Nevertheless, Sangharakshita’s modern saṅgha,represented by the Triratna Buddhist Community, is well-suited for Buddhists of all walksof life, regardless of their chosen lifestyle. 5This article begins by exploring the view of “neither monk nor layman” in
Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhist literature and its relevance to the ideas of Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita. Secondly, it aims to examine the emergence anddevelopment of the “neither monk nor layman” view in Jōdo Shinshū and its parallel inmodern Japanese and Indian Buddhism.
2. The Historical Context of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Buddhist
Literature
In a superficial examination, the view of “neither monk nor layman” may lead to
misconceptions, such as equating it solely with married or meat-eating monks. However,this terminology underscores a fundamental principle that lay life is not intrinsicallyinferior to monastic life in terms of comprehending and practicing the teachings of the
Buddha. A closer examination of the historical establishment of monastic and lay
communities reveals that the Buddha accorded nearly equal significance to the lay saṅgha
during his era.
While it is often assumed that the Buddha focused more on forming a monasticsaṅgha, it becomes evident that establishing a devoted lay following was equallyimperative. It is documented in the Mahāvagga of the Vinayapiṭaka that the news of
wealthy merchant Yasa’s ordination reverberated throughout the city of Benares.
Subsequently, four householder merchant friends 6 and their fifty friends 7 approachedthe Buddha, and they all joined the saṅgha and attained the arahantship.
Nonetheless, the Mahāvagga of the Vinayapiṭaka does not provide any details
regarding the familial background of the fifty-four merchants who attained the status ofarahants. It stands to reason that the family members of these fifty-four perfected ones
(arhats), who were close associates of Venerable Yasa, likely sought an audience with the
Buddha. It is plausible that the Buddha imparted similar teachings and instructions tothese family members, akin to his guidance provided to Venerable Yasa’s family.
According to the Vinayapiṭaka, there is a documented account of Venerable Yasa’s
family approaching the Buddha and receiving his teachings. 8Remarkably, these teachings
fostered a profound comprehension of the Buddha and his doctrinal teachings andinstigated a transformative process within them. Importantly, it is noteworthy that
Pratap, A Critical Study of Modern Buddhist Literature of Venerable Sangharakshita, p. 203.
Horner, (tr.). The Book of the Discipline (Vinaya-piṭaka), vol. IV, p. 27.
7 Ibid., p. 28.
8 Ibid., p. 26.
5
6

30

Mrigendra PRATAPThe Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita's Work

❖ Articles 2 ❖Venerable Yasa’s parents and former wife did not express opposition to his decision toordain as a monk (bhikkhu). They entered the “stream-enterer” (sotāpanna), leading to
nibbāna after listening to the Buddha. They have eradicated the first three fetters(saṃyojana) that bind beings to the cycle of birth and death (saṃsāra). This event holds
substantial significance in providing valuable insights into the Buddha’s pedagogicalmethods for imparting the teachings (dhamma). This historical account underscores thevital role played by committed lay followers in the early propagation of Buddhism,
highlighting their equal potential for spiritual attainment alongside their monastic
counterparts. 9
A pivotal aspect is that a family unit represents an integral component of thebroader societal structure. When a family embraces and begins to adhere to the teachings,
exemplified by the observance of principles such as the five precepts, it is not only thefamily that reaps the rewards. Instead, the broader society also stands to benefit
significantly. In this manner, the socially engaged facet of the Buddha’s teachings comesto fruition and manifests its impact on the collective welfare of society.
Hence, it is entirely plausible that the Buddha maintained a substantial contingent
of dedicated lay adherents who provided unwavering support to both the Buddha himself
and the monastic community (saṅgha). While the Buddha directed a significant portionof his attention and teachings toward the committed arhats and monastic community, it
is evident that he did not neglect the lay followers. Instead, it appears that the Buddha
placed a heightened seriousness on those followers who committed to supporting themonastic community (saṅgha) throughout their lives.
During the era of the Buddha, historical accounts chronicled in both Theravāda andMahāyāna Buddhist literature illuminate the presence of exceptional lay followers. One
such exemplar is found in the Citta-saṃyutta of the Saṃyutta-nikāya, where thehouseholder Citta is portrayed as imparting doctrinal teachings to esteemed gatherings ofsenior monks and lay disciples of the Buddha. “The portrait of Citta we find in this chapter
evinces a genuine historical personality, a layman with a wide knowledge of the teaching,
deep experience in meditation, sharp wisdom, and a mischievous sense of humour.” 10
Citta, a layperson, earned the distinction from the Buddha as the foremost male lay
disciple among those “proficient in expounding the Dhamma” (dhammakathika). 11
An illustrative instance from Mahāyāna scripture, namely the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra, serves to exemplify the reticence of Bodhisattvas and Arhats in approaching thehousehold of Vimalakīrti, a layperson distinguished for his profound understanding of the
Buddhadharma. 12 In this narrative, both Citta and Vimalakīrti, despite their nonmonastic status, emerge as luminaries whose wisdom surpasses that of ordained monks
and lay individuals. Furthermore, this thematic strand of “neither monk nor layman” isdiscernible in various Buddhist literary works, wherein eminent lay practitioners,
including Citta and Vimalakīrti, offer compelling embodiments of this view. These
Horner, (tr.). The Book of the Discipline (Vinaya-piṭaka), vol. IV, pp. 21-28.
Bodhi, (tr.). The Connected Discourse (Saṃyutta Nikāya), vol. 2, pp. 1130-1131.
11 Ibid., p. 1130.
12 Robert, The Holy Teaching of Vimalakīrti: A Mahāyāna Scripture, pp. 24-41.
9

10

31

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

remarkable householders exemplify the view that transcends conventional monastic andlay distinctions, resonating across diverse epochs in Buddhist history, from antiquity to
the medieval and modern eras.
3. The Evolution of “Neither Monk nor Layman” in Jōdo Shinshū
Shinran was born into the Hino family in 1173 in Kyoto. At age nine, Shinran commenced
his monastic journey within the Tendai sect at Mt. Hiei, Kyoto. Despite two decades ofdedicated practice as a monk, he still needs to realize Buddhahood. In 1201, Shinran
decided to depart from Mt. Hiei and undertook a solitary retreat lasting one hundred daysat Rokkaku-dō in Kyoto. During this seclusion, he experienced a revelatory dreamfeaturing Prince Shōtoku, who conveyed that the Bodhisattva Kannon would serve as
Shinran’s spiritual companion and guide him toward Pure Land Buddhism. 13
Galvanized by this visionary encounter, Shinran became a disciple of Honen (11331212), a former Tendai monk who founded the inaugural Pure Land school (Jōdo Shu inJapan). Hōnen’s teachings, characterized as non-orthodox, garnered criticism from theTendai sect and other Buddhist denominations. The repercussions of this criticism became
pronounced in 1207 when the ruling authorities compelled Hōnen and his followers,
including Shinran, to renounce their monastic affiliations. As part of the punitive
measures, the status of monkhood was rescinded, and they were subjected to exile. This
pivotal event marked a turning point in Shinran’s spiritual journey, setting the stage forthe subsequent development of his distinctive interpretation of Pure Land Buddhism
within Jōdo Shinshū.
Shinran introduced the term “neither monk nor layman” during a pivotal period
when his monastic status was revoked as part of efforts to suppress the nembutsu 14
teaching. 15 During Shinran’s exile, deep reflection led him to adopt the self-reference“Gutoku,” signifying an “ignorant, stubble-haired one.” Positioned neither as arecognized monk by the Imperial Court nor an ordinary layperson, Shinran embraced thenembutsu truth independent of courtly or religious affiliations. 16 During this phase,
Shinran chose to live among ordinary people, an experience that afforded him profoundinsights into their spiritual needs and aspirations. Subsequently, Shinran consciously
decided to enter into marriage and establish a family. Remarkably, even after theconclusion of his exile, he opted not to return to monastic life. Instead, through innovative
thinking, a distinctive lifestyle, and an evolving religious identity, he forged a unique pathwithin Pure Land Buddhism (Jodo kyo), Jōdo Shinshū, which translates to “The True
Essence of Pure Land Buddhism.” Shinran’s profound belief that lay life presented no
Jaffe, Neither Monk nor Layman: Clerical Marriage in Modern Japanese Buddhism, p. 50.
The term “nembutsu,” or “Namu-amida-butsu,” carries multiple meanings in Buddhist history, derived from various
interpretations of "nen" (meditating, thinking, pronouncing). These interpretations encompass meditating on the
Buddha's features, maintaining thoughts of the Buddha, and vocalizing the Buddha's name. Honen emphasizes
nembutsu as the vocalization of the Name, considering it the core of the Pure Land path. Shinran extends this, teachingthat reciting the Name is synonymous with the Name itself (the call of Amida), actively working within individuals andawakening shinjin (deep faith) in them. As individuals realize shinjin, it naturally results in the spontaneous recitationof the nembutsu (Shinran, The Collected Works of Shinran, vol. II, p. 195).
15 Hongwanji, Jodo Shinshu A Guide, p. 45.
16 Ibid.
13
14

32

Mrigendra PRATAPThe Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita's Work

❖ Articles 2 ❖intrinsic impediment to spiritual advancement was central to this new paradigm.
Shinran realized that, as a layperson, he possessed more opportunities todisseminate the nembutsu teaching than a monk confined to the confines of a monastery. 17
Shinran’s deliberate choice to marry and identify himself as “neither monk nor layman”
represented a pioneering path toward establishing a non-monastic variant of Pure Land
Buddhism in Japan. This conceptual framework also served as a means of addressing thedual challenges of embodying the ideal qualities of a priest while remaining a fully
engaged member of society. 18 By adopting this distinctive identity, he fostered a deeper
connection with ordinary individuals, effectively bridging the gap between himself andhis audience. Shinran’s approach entailed living among the people, emulating their wayof life, and, in doing so, he effectively propagated Amida Buddhism. It is irrefutable that
nembutsu teaching proved exceedingly productive within this context.
Nonetheless, Shinran’s deliberate self-identification as “neither a monk nor alayman” held profound implications and resonated significantly within the consciousnessof the populace. As a result, individuals from diverse backgrounds, without regard tosocial discrimination, were drawn to the fold of Jōdo Shinshū. Following Shinran’spassing, Kakunyo (1270-1351) assumed a central role in establishing the Hongan-ji
Temple, overseeing and formalizing the development of Jōdo Shinshū. Subsequently,
Rennyo (1415-1499) undertook a transformative role in revitalizing the Hongan-ji
Temple and laying the foundational framework for the modern Hongan-ji Order, 19 which
burgeoned into one of the largest Buddhist sects in Japan. 20 As Jaffe aptly observed, “In
contrast to clergy in many other Buddhist denominations, Shin clerics traditionallyembraced marital life and openly practiced the patrilineal inheritance of the dôjô, whichfunctioned as the epicenters of Shin religious activity.” 21“Neither Monk nor Layman” challenges the conventional binary distinction
observed in many Buddhist traditions between monastic clergy and lay non-clergy. Within
traditional Buddhist contexts, a pronounced demarcation exists between monastic
practitioners, comprising monks and nuns, who commit themselves to religious pursuits
within the confines of monastic life and lay practitioners, who navigate secular existence
while concurrently engaging in Buddhist practices. Monastic adherents adhere to
stringent codes of conduct, engage in intensive meditation, and frequently forsake
worldly attachments. Conversely, lay practitioners simultaneously manage familial,
occupational, and worldly commitments, varying in the degree to which they incorporate
Buddhist practices into their lives.
The notion of “Neither Monk nor Layman” challenges this traditional bifurcation
by underscoring that one’s spiritual journey is not exclusively contingent upon externalroles or social standing. Within the framework of Jōdo Shinshū, it is posited that all
sentient beings, irrespective of their monastic or lay roles, find themselves equally
Ibid., p. 47.
Borup, Handbook of Contemporary Japanese Religions, p. 126.
19 Blum, Yasutomi, Rennyo and the Roots of Modern Japanese Buddhism, p. 164.
20 Dobbins, The Biography of Shinran: Apotheosis of a Japanese Buddhist Visionary, p. 192.
21 Jaffe, Neither Monk nor Layman: Clerical Marriage in Modern Japanese Buddhism, p. 37.
17
18

33

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7enveloped by the boundless compassion of Amida Buddha and can attain liberation
through genuine entrustment in Amida’s vow. 22
Shinran notably accentuated the inherent inability of individuals to attainenlightenment through their endeavors, asserting that it is solely through the benevolenceof Amida Buddha that they may experience rebirth in the Pure Land—a realm uniquely
conducive to the realization of enlightenment. This doctrine effectively diminishes thesignificance of one’s monastic or lay status while accentuating the importance ofcultivating profound faith and unwavering trust in Amida’s vow. 23
Essentially, the concept of “Neither Monk nor Layman” within the context of Jōdo
Shinshū underscores the fundamental insignificance of conventional distinctions anddivisions when confronted with the boundless compassion of Amida Buddha and thejourney toward enlightenment. It posits that every individual, irrespective of their societal
roles, possesses the inherent capacity to achieve liberation through the transformative
influence of Amida’s vow and the sincerity of their entrusting heart, often referred to as“shinjin.” 24 This perspective challenges hierarchical paradigms and fosters a broader,more inclusive, and egalitarian framework for approaching spiritual practice and the quest
for awakening.
4. The View of “Neither Monk nor Layman” in Modern Japan
During the Meiji period (1868–1912), Japan underwent a profound transformation as it
opened its doors to the world and grappled with the influences of Western culture andtechnology. The Meiji Restoration sought to reconfigure Buddhist institutions, alteringmonastic norms and precepts while bolstering native Shinto practices to serve nationalist
aspirations. In a pivotal development in 1872, the “nikujiki saitai” law was enacted, which
stipulated that “From now on, Buddhist clerics shall be free to eat meat, marry, grow theirhair, and so on. Furthermore, they are permitted to wear ordinary clothing when notengaged in religious activities.” 25 Notably, one of the pivotal figures involved in the
decriminalization of “nikujiki saitai” was Ôtori Sessô (1814–1904), representing the Sôtôschool of Buddhism. Jaffe’s analysis underscores that Ôtori Sessô’s endeavors aimed toharmonize Buddhist practice with the imperatives of modernity and human adaptability. 26
Notably, this legal development was met with diverse responses from Buddhist
leadership. Figures like Fukuda Gyôkai, Shaku Unshô, and Nishiari Bokusan initially
opposed this law. Conversely, others endeavored to reconcile Buddhist doctrine andpractice with modernist discourses encompassing science, sexuality, individual rights,
and nationalism. 27 The ongoing debate surrounding the “nikujiki saitai” law reverberates
within Japanese society.
However, in contemporary Japan, decriminalizing “nikujiki saitai,” along with theShinran, The Collected Works of Shinran (vol. II), pp. 84-85.
Hongwanji, Jodo Shinshu A Guide, p. 73.
24 Ibid., p. 78.
25 Jaffe, Neither Monk nor Layman: Clerical Marriage in Modern Japanese Buddhism, p. 72.
26 Ibid., p. 96.
27 Ibid., p. 7.
22
23

34

Mrigendra PRATAPThe Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita's Work

❖ Articles 2 ❖practice of marriage by Buddhist clerics, has become a defining feature of Japanese
Buddhism. Remarkably, approximately 90 percent of the Buddhist clergy in Japan are
married. 28 This paradigm shift demonstrates how the idea of “neither monk nor layman,”initially introduced by Shinran in Japan, has served as a wellspring of inspiration, directly
or indirectly, prompting individuals to align with this concept during the modern era.
5. The Emergence of the View of “Neither Monk nor Layman” in Modern Buddhism
In the mid-19th century, traditional Buddhist societies found themselves confronted withthe challenges posed by colonialism and the arrival of Christian missionaries, and in
response to these profound shifts, scholars, monks, and leaders representing various sects
within traditional Buddhism initiated efforts to harness the capabilities and resources of
their respective traditions. These endeavors were aimed at effectively addressing theencroachment of modernity and safeguarding their religious heritage. Consequently, thisperiod marked the genesis of what we now recognize as Modern Buddhism. 29
It is noteworthy that Modern Buddhism did not seek to eliminate monastic concerns.
Instead, it excelled in narrowing the gap between monastic and lay adherents, asevidenced by the notable increase in lay individuals actively engaging in the study andinterpretation of Buddhist scriptures, as well as the practice of Buddhism itself. In thismanner, Modern Buddhism shifted its focus, making the layperson the central figure, as
opposed to the traditional emphasis on the monastic community.
6. Modern Buddhism in India
Following a prolonged period of obscurity, Buddhism experienced a renaissance asarchaeologists and scholars began unearthing its concealed treasures in India during the
mid-nineteenth century. This intellectual and archaeological revival set the stage forAnāgārika Dharmapāla, a missionary hailing from Sri Lanka, who arrived at Bodh Gayain 1891, spearheading an active resurgence of Buddhism within India. From 1891 to 1955,
the revival movement progressed at a measured pace, gradually gaining momentum.
However, it took a monumental leap forward when B. R. Ambedkar and millions offollowers embraced Buddhism on October 14, 1956. After this watershed moment, it
became evident that lay Buddhist movements gained ascendancy and popularity in India,
eclipsing the prominence of monastic Buddhism.
7. B. R. Ambedkar’s Path to Buddhism
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, renowned as Dr. Babāsāheb Ambedkar, was born on April 14,
1891, into a modest yet educated Mahāra family, formerly categorized as untouchablesin the Indian caste system. Ambedkar’s intellectual journey unfolded across two
significant phases: first, his extensive studies in India, and later, his scholarly pursuits in
28
29

Ibid., p. 1.
McMahan, The Making of Buddhist Modernism, p. 7.

35

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

the United States and England, spanning the years 1908 to 1923. 30 This period is atestament to his comprehensive intellectual development, during which he acquired
profound knowledge encompassing Buddhism and global history, including Japan.
Upon returning to India, Ambedkar initiated a series of movements to challenge theentrenched practice of untouchability and the systemic injustices ingrained in Indiansociety. He launched campaigns advocating for the rights of untouchables to access Hindu
places of worship, exemplified by the Kalaram Temple in Nashik, and to utilize publictanks and wells, notably the Chowdar Tank in Mahad. 31 In 1927, he posited that
Brahmins were unlikely to rebel against the caste system, given the privileges and preeminence it bestowed upon them within the hierarchical structure of Hinduism.
Ambedkar said, “It would be too much to expect them to resign all their privileges as the‘Samurais’ of Japan did.” 32
Ambedkar’s astute observations extended beyond the boundaries of India. In his
1945 work, “What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables,” he provided
an in-depth examination of the four social classes in Japanese society, offering the opinion
that the governing class in India was in stark contrast to its Japanese counterpart, assertingthat the latter embraced a more egalitarian ethos. 33 These statements offer compelling
evidence of Ambedkar’s familiarity with Japanese history and admiration for its societal
structures.
In 1935, recognizing the insurmountable challenges in reforming the restrictive,
unjust, and illogical aspects of Hinduism, B. R. Ambedkar made the pivotal decision todisengage from Hinduism and embark on a quest to identify an authentic spiritual path. 34
Notably, Ambedkar convened a conference, known as the Presidency Mahāra Conference,on May 31, 1936, to deliberate upon the declaration of his intent to convert, a declaration
he had initially made in 1935. During this conference, he delivered a renowned address
titled “What Way to Liberation,” citing a notable passage from the Mahāparinibbānasutta. 35 Concluding his speech, Ambedkar invoked the guidance of the Buddha to his
disciple Anand, encouraging his followers to “be their refuge, with no other refuge.” 36This reference serves as a testament to Ambedkar’s profound understanding of Buddhism
and illuminates his contemplation regarding which religious path would be most suitablefor himself and his followers.
Between 1948 and 1950, it became evident that B. R. Ambedkar had firmly
resolved to embrace Buddhism as his chosen path, excluding any consideration of otherreligions. In 1948, Ambedkar took the initiative to republish P. L. Narasu’s work, titled“The Essence of Buddhism,” and composed a preface in which he lauded Narasu’s
insightful comprehension of Buddhism. 37 He also commended Narasu’s active
involvement in the “National Fund and Industrial Association,” an organization dedicated
Sangharakshita, Ambedkar and Buddhism, pp. 51-52.
Ibid., p. 53.
32 Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 17 Part I), p. 23.
33 Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 9), pp. 225-226.
34 Sangharakshita, Ambedkar and Buddhism, pp. 60-61.
35 Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 17 Part III), p. 147.
36 Ibid.
37 Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 17, Part II), p. 86.
30
31

36

Mrigendra PRATAPThe Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita's Work

❖ Articles 2 ❖to assisting students aspiring to pursue advanced technical education abroad. 38
Notably, Ambedkar praises Narasu’s understanding of Buddhism and active
participation in the “National Fund and Industrial Association,” which helped students
particularly drawn to Japan. 39 This nation appealed to aspiring students eager to acquire
expertise in various small-scale industries and manufacturing processes. These pursuits
encompassed areas such as soap production, enameling techniques, paint manufacturing,and other related endeavors. 40 This reference underscores the prevailing enthusiasm of
the era for acquiring technical knowledge and skills in Japan, which played a significant
role in Ambedkar’s intellectual journey and his growing affinity for Buddhism. 41
It becomes evident that B. R. Ambedkar developed his comprehension of
Buddhism with the primary aim of revitalizing it within the contemporary context during
the 1950s. His awareness extended to Japanese society and modern Buddhist scholars andleaders, both in India and across the globe, whether through direct or indirect channels.
Ambedkar’s authorship of the preface to Narasu’s book, “The Essence of Buddhism,” isa notable instance of his engagement with modern Buddhist literature. 42 Additionally,Anāgārika Dharmapāla had previously advocated for using this text in Ceylon, further
illustrating its influence within the Buddhist community. 43
The dissemination of Buddhist thought was connected to modern Buddhist leadersfrom the USA, India, and Japan, where D.T. Suzuki, a disciple of Shāku Soen, translated
Narasu’s text into Japanese. This translated work eventually found its place within the
curriculum of the Tokyo Imperial University. 44 Notably, D.T. Suzuki’s intellectual
development had been significantly shaped by his studies with Paul Carus in La Salle.
Many of Suzuki’s perspectives on topics, such as the Compatibility of Buddhism andScience, as well as the absence of ritual and the supernatural in Zen, were influenced by
the teachings of Paul Carus. 45 Dwight Goddard, in turn, dedicated his work, “A Buddhist
Bible,” to D. T. Suzuki. Ambedkar displayed a comprehensive knowledge of the writingsof modern Buddhist scholars, including Paul Carus’s “The Gospel of Buddha” (1894) and
Dwight Goddard’s “A Buddhist Bible” (1932).
Sangharakshita, a prominent figure in Modern Buddhism, identified several
noteworthy similarities between Paul Carus’s “The Gospel of Buddha” and B. R.
Ambedkar’s The Buddha and His Dhamma. 46 This alignment of ideas is further
underscored by including Dwight Goddard’s name in the epilogue of The Buddha and
His Dhamma. 47 This interconnectivity among Modern Buddhist leaders is symbolic of
the reciprocal influence they exerted on each other’s literary works, philosophicalIbid., p. 87.
Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 17, Part II), pp. 86-88.
43 Narasu, Essence of Buddhism, p. vii.
44 Donald, A Modern Buddhist Bible: Essential Readings from East and West, p. 25.
45 Ibid.
46 Sangharakshita, Ambedkar and Buddhism, p. 147.
47 Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 11), p. 597.
38
39

37

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

outlooks, and activities, finding inspiration in the contributions of their peers.
B. R. Ambedkar profoundly understood a pivotal hallmark of modern Buddhism:
its orientation towards the laity. This orientation, which emphasizes the active
participation of lay individuals in Buddhist practice and dissemination, aligns well with
the needs and sensibilities of contemporary Indian society, rendering it more suitable andpalatable within this modern context.
7.1 The Idea of “Japanese Married Buddhist Priests” in Ambedkar’s Writingsand Movement
In the writings and movement of Ambedkar, the concept of married Buddhist priests
emerges as a significant idea. In 1950, Ambedkar proposed a “three-step formula” forspreading Buddhism in the modern world. These steps encompassed:(i) The creation of a Buddhist Bible containing the fundamental tenets of Buddhism.
(ii) The restructuring of the organizational framework and the redefinition of objectives
within the Bhikkhu Saṅgha.
(iii) Establishing a global Buddhist Mission aimed at disseminating Buddhism
worldwide. 48
Ambedkar’s vision included the formation of an exemplary Buddhist saṅgha orcommunity that would embody the principles of Buddhism and serve as a model forlaypeople. Subsequently, he authored his magnum opus, The Buddha and His Dhamma,
drawing inspiration from these three-step formulas.
Following a mass conversion event, Ambedkar responded to a letter from
Venerable Valisinha, the General Secretary of the Maha Bodhi Society of India.
Ambedkar articulated the importance of disseminating knowledge of Buddhism among
the newly converted masses in his reply. He emphasized, “We have to consider ways andmeans of imparting knowledge of Buddhism to the masses who have accepted His
Dhamma — We should no doubt train a large number of workers to teach Dhamma to thepeople, but the best agents for carrying out the same are the Bhikhus.” 49
Further, he says, “The only difficulty with the Bhikhus is that they don’t care tolearn the language of the people. I am afraid the Sangh will have to modify its outlook,and instead of becoming recluses, they should become like … the social workers andsocial preachers. As I told you today, they are neither Arhats nor useful members ofsociety. This fact must be hammered into them and make them realise that they could
serve the Buddha well by becoming preachers of His Dhamma.” 50
Additionally, Ambedkar pointed out, “So far as my reading of the mind of the
Indian youth is concerned, it is very difficult to make them turn to learn the monastic
ideals. The best way is that we can create like Japanese married priests …. For that, weshall have to find means for their support during their educational period and after they
go out public life as priests.” 51
The citations within Ambedkar’s works suggest his anticipation of an active role
Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 17, Part II), pp. 105-108.
Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (Vol.17, Part I), pp. 446-447.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.
48
49

38

Mrigendra PRATAPThe Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita's Work

❖ Articles 2 ❖for the laity in disseminating Buddhist teachings. In his perspective, the laity would serve
not only as adherents but also as exemplary figures and preachers. Demonstrating an
informed awareness of the roles undertaken by “married Buddhist priests in Japan,”
Ambedkar characterized them as social workers and preachers. This characterizationsuggests a potential influence from the “neither monk nor layman” concept intrinsic toJōdo Shinshū, initiated by Shinran and evolving in modern Japan. It appears plausiblethat during his academic vocations in the USA and the UK, Ambedkar may have engaged
with and found resonance in the notion of a “married Buddhist priest” and the concept of“neither monk nor layman” in Japan. He mentioned that while studying in the USA, he
took his studies of Buddhism seriously, which likely allowed him to understand thedifferences between Hinduism and Buddhism more deeply. 52 Furthermore, Ambedkar’s
participation in the World Fellowship of Buddhists during the 1950s is noteworthy, 53
where Japanese master Ven. Riri Nakayama also participated in the World Fellowship of
Buddhists in Sri Lanka in 1950.
Ambedkar delineated two distinct categories of conversion, namely the conversionof the Bhikkhus and the conversion of the Upāsakas. He emphasized a significant
disparity between them, noting that the absence of a formal ceremony for the laity orUpāsaka distinguished the latter. In his analysis, Ambedkar attributed the gradual declineof Buddhism in India to the lack of a distinct identity among the laity or Upāsakas as
Buddhists. 54 Consequently, during the momentous mass conversion event in 1956,
Ambedkar sought to reconcile this division by formulating a list of 22 vows administered
to his adherents. Notably, he accorded nearly equal importance to the conversion of theUpāsakas and the Bhikkhus in his efforts.
From Ambedkar’s perspective, there exists no distinction in the mode of living
between the Bhikkhu and the Upāsaka. Ambedkar, asserting the fundamental unity of theentire Buddhist spiritual community, administered the “Three Refuges” and “FivePrecepts” to his adherents. Furthermore, he integrated the twenty-two vows as an essential
component of the conversion ceremony. 55
Ambedkar references Amitābha’s Western Pure Land (Sukhāvatī) in his work,
notably in the Epilogue section of his book, The Buddha and His Dhamma. The
composition titled “A Vow to Spread His Dhamma” is extracted from the Mahāyānasutras, specifically the renowned four-fold Vow of the Bodhisattva. Sangharakshita
elucidates that this vow encapsulates Ambedkar’s commitment to liberate all beings from
suffering, eradicate all passions, master the teachings of the Buddha, and attain Supreme
Enlightenment. 56
The prayer, a devotional chant dedicated to Buddha Amitābha, finds its roots inVenerable Vasubandhu’s commentary, “Sukhāvatīvyuha-sūtra,” also known as the “Arrayof the Happy Land” sūtra. Sangharakshita notes a distinction in Ambedkar’s depiction ofAmbedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 18, Part III), p. 427.
Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 17, Part III), p. 407.
54 Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 11), p. 451.
55 Sangharakshita, Ambedkar and Buddhism, p. 141.
56 Ibid., p. 160.
52
53

39

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7Sukhāvatī, aligning it with India rather than the traditionally associated Western Pure
Land of Amitābha. Sangharakshita further asserts that Ambedkar’s utilization of
Venerable Vasubandhu’s aspirations for rebirth and propagation of the Truth mirrors his
profound desire to be reborn in his homeland and persist in advancing the revival of
Buddhism in India. This Vow, as interpreted by Sangharakshita, manifests Ambedkar’s
patriotism for his country and his enduring commitment to the future of the Dhamma in
India. 57 However, it is evident that Ambedkar found merit in the concept of Sukhāvatī,
underscoring his affiliation with Amida Buddha and Japanese and Mahāyāna Buddhist
ideals.
7.2 A Married Buddhist Priest, Bauddhācārya: Neither Monks nor Layman
In 1955, Ambedkar founded the “Buddhist Society of India,” a social, cultural, andreligious organization to spread and promote Buddhism across India. 58 Among its ten
objectives was establishing a new order of priests if necessary. Following Ambedkar's
passing, his son Yashwant Ambedkar assumed the presidency of the Buddhist Society ofIndia. Under his leadership, the society introduced a new order of priests, called
Bauddhācāryas, in 1968. 59 These married, trained Buddhist priests were tasked withperforming Buddhist rites and rituals to foster Buddhist culture within the Ambedkarite
Buddhist community.
In the contemporary landscape, this organization plays an instrumental role in theongoing Dhamma revolution throughout the country. The married Buddhist priests,
Bauddhācāryas, and, subsequently, an independent monastic order have been establishedwith the aim of promoting Buddhism within society. Notably, the married Buddhist priests,
the Bauddhācāryas, are observed to be particularly active.
This initiative by Ambedkar and the Buddhist Society of India reflects a deliberate
effort to cultivate lay-married Dhamma preachers inspired by Japanese Buddhism tailoredto both Indian and modern contexts, embodying a distinctive identity that is “neither
monks nor laymen.”
8. The Concept of “Neither Monk nor Layman” in the Works and Movement ofSangharakshita
8.1 The Life of Sangharakshita
Buddhist leaders have historically endeavored to contribute to the modern Buddhist
movement by reinterpreting the teachings of the Buddha in alignment with theirunderstanding. Urgyen Sangharakshita occupies a distinctive position among theseleaders, as some of his interpretations of the dhamma (the teachings of the Buddha) areboth extraordinary and unparalleled. Born in London, U.K., in 1925, Sangharakshita’s
early affinity for Eastern culture and philosophy was crucial in shaping his spiritualjourney. His definitive identification as a Buddhist crystallized during his formative years
Ibid., p. 161.
Ibid., p. 480.
59 Ambedkar, Bauddha Jīvana Saṃskāra Pāṭha, p. 7.
57
58

40

Mrigendra PRATAPThe Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita's Work

❖ Articles 2 ❖upon encountering the Vajracchedikāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Diamond Sutra). 60
He embarked on a journey to India, where he immersed himself in the life of anitinerant mendicant for two years. Subsequently, Sangharakshita underwent ordination as
a Therāvadin Buddhist monk under the guidance of Bhikkhu U Chandramani. 61 His
initial mentor in this transformative phase was Bhikkhu Jagdish Kashyap, from whom
Sangharakshita acquired proficiency in Pāli, Abhidhamma, and logic. 62 Following thistraining period, Bhikkhu Jagdish Kashyap parted ways with Sangharakshita in Kalimpong,West Bengal, India, advising him to dedicate himself to the cause of Buddhism. 63
For the ensuing 14 years, Sangharakshita resided in the Himalayan town ofKalimpong, where he not only delved into the teachings of Tibetan Buddhist instructors
but also engaged in comprehensive studies under seven eminent Tibetan teachers
representing diverse Buddhist sects. During this tenure, Sangharakshita underwent
initiation rites from the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna sects, garnering inspiration from thebreadth of Buddhist philosophical perspectives. 64
After spending two decades in India, Sangharakshita returned to the United
Kingdom to disseminate Buddhist teachings. His seminal contribution to Modern
Buddhism manifested in establishing a new Buddhist movement named the Friends ofthe Western Buddhist Order in 1967 65 (later renamed the Triratna Buddhist
Order/Community). This movement garnered widespread acclaim and extended its
influence globally. In 1978, the Triratna Buddhist Order’s branch, Trailokya Bauddha
Mahāsaṅgha Sahāyaka Gaṇa (TBMSG), was inaugurated in India, 66 actively endorsing
Ambedkarite Buddhism in the country. Sangharakshita’s endeavors significantly
contributed to the resurgence of Buddhism in India, particularly among the adherents ofAmbedkar.
Sangharakshita’s literary legacy includes over 50 books, complemented by morethan 200 lectures elucidating Buddhist teachings from a contemporary perspective forWestern audiences. He founded the Triratna Buddhist Community/Order (TBC/TBO) byapplying fundamental Buddhist principles adapted to the demands of the modern world. 67
8.2 Factors Influencing the Development of Sangharakshita’s Modern Buddhist
Ideology
Sangharakshita’s conceptual evolution unfolded in three discernible phases. 68 The initial
phase comprised a brief residence in India alongside spiritual companions and mentors,
during which he assumed the role of a wanderer. This period gave him profound insights
into the intrinsic mechanisms of Indian spirituality, philosophy, and culture, laying a
Subhuti, Bringing Buddhism to the West: A Life of Sangharakshita, p. 24.
Ibid., p. 35.
62 Ibid., p. 36.
63 Ibid., p. 38.
64 Ibid. pp. 76-85.
65 Ibid., p. 114.
66 Ibid., p. 154.
67 Subhuti, A New Voice in the Buddhist Tradition. p. 25.
68 Pratap, A Critical Study of Modern Buddhist Literature of Venerable Sangharakshita, pp. 221-222.
60
61

41

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

foundation for his comprehension of Indian Buddhism.
The second phase of Sangharakshita’s intellectual journey transpired during his
extended stay in India after his formal ordination into Buddhism. This interval, centeredin Kalimpong, West Bengal, witnessed his maturation as a Buddhist educator. Here, he
actively engaged in diverse roles as a practitioner, scholar, leader, and editor of various
Buddhist publications.
The third and pivotal phase of his doctrinal framework, notably the concept of“neither monk nor lay,” crystallized entirely in the United Kingdom following theestablishment of his Buddhist movement, the Triratna Buddhist Community. This phasemarked the formalization and articulation of key aspects of his modern Buddhist ideology.
8.3 The View of “Neither Monk nor Layman” in Triratna Buddhist Order
Sangharakshita’s contemplations on his Śrāmaṇer (novice) and Bhikkhu ordinations led
him to critically examine the conventional understanding of Going for Refuge (triśaraṇagamana) within the framework of Theravāda Buddhism. Central to Sangharakshita’s
perspective is that “Going for Refuge” constitutes a fundamental aspect of every
Buddhist’s life. He offered a critique of orthodox Buddhism, contending that undueemphasis was placed on the lifestyle of monks and nuns at the expense of acknowledging
the significance of the lives of lay individuals or upāsakas/upāsikās. According to
Sangharakshita, whether one adopts the monastic or layperson’s lifestyle isinconsequential; what matters is the extent to which an individual prioritizes the act of“Going for Refuge” in their life. 69 He explicitly stated, “Commitment to the Three Jewels
is primary; the leading of a particular lifestyle is secondary.” 70 Sangharakshita’s nuanced
reinterpretation of Going for Refuge (triśaraṇa-gamana) harmonizes traditional withexperiential insights, significantly contributing to understanding the “neither monk nor
layman” notion.
In 1961 and 1962, Sangharakshita penned two articles in The Mahā Bodhi journal
titled “Wanted: A New Type of Bhikkhu” and “Wanted: A New Type of Upāsaka.” 71 He
advocated for a new generation of Bhikkhus and Upāsakas in these articles, asserting theirnecessity for Buddhism’s global survival and dissemination. In retrospect, these articles
serve as precursors to his conceptualization of “neither monk nor layman” and lay thegroundwork for his modern Buddhist movement, the Triratna Buddhist Community.
A paramount contribution by Sangharakshita to the modern world lies in theestablishment of a modern saṅgha. This distinctive assembly transcends the traditional
dichotomy of monastic and lay distinctions and is designed to be accessible and relevant
in a contemporary context. Traditionally, the term “saṅgha” has denoted the Buddhist
monastic Order, restricted from the laity. Contrary to this conventional understanding,
Sangharakshita’s conceptualization of the modern saṅgha, exemplified by the Triratna
Buddhist Community, is conceived as an inclusive and ideal community for Buddhists,
irrespective of their chosen lifestyle. The trajectory of training, study, and practice,
Ibid., p. 145.
Sangharakshita, A Guide to the Buddhist Path, p. 115.
71 Sangharakshita, Beating the Drum, pp. 269-276.
69
70

42

Mrigendra PRATAPThe Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita's Work

❖ Articles 2 ❖commencing
fromtheMitra 72
phaseandprogressing
through
73
74
Dhammacārī/Dhammacāriṇī /Anāgārika/Anāgārikā stages, is meticulously designed
by Sangharakshita. Through this structured progression, Sangharakshita endeavors tocultivate committed Buddhists who aspire to tread the path of a Bodhisattva, actively
engaged in their spiritual development and that of others. The spiritual hierarchy within
the Triratna Buddhist Community (TBC) is delineated among the Mitras, Dhammacārīs,Dhammacāriṇīs, and Anāgārikas based on their levels of commitment, knowledge, andexperiences about the act of Going for Refuge (triśaraṇa-gamana). This community
functions as a collective, with its members—Mitras, Dhammacārīs, Dhammacāriṇīs, andAnāgārikas—engaging in shared Dhamma practices. They collaboratively support andencourage each other, striving to foster conditions conducive to their collective spiritualadvancement. In this context, the Triratna Buddhist Community exemplifies Shinran’s
concept of “neither monk nor layman” in a modern context.
Sangharakshita crafted a “Refuge Tree” specifically for members of the Order,
incorporating Shinran among the inspirational Buddhist figures for the movement. 75
Within the Triratna Order, there is a significant emphasis on the devotional aspects of
Buddhism. In his autobiography, Sangharakshita acknowledged that his decision toundergo ordination was influenced by a visionary experience of Amitābha Buddha, whichtranspired during a meditation session in a cave in South India. 76 Members of the Triratna
Buddhist Order (TBO) adorn themselves with a kesa (stole) around their necks,
reminiscent of the kesa (hogu) worn by Shin priests in Jōdo Shinshū. Sangharakshita drew
inspiration from and sought guidance across the entire spectrum of the Buddhist tradition,encompassing Jōdo Shinshū. Sangharakshita’s conceptualization of “neither monk nor
layman” reflects the influence of Shinran, and this notion finds exemplification in themembers of his saṅgha, notably the Dhammacārīs and Dhammacāriṇīs, who actively
embody this concept in both Indian and Western contexts.
9. Conclusion
Shinran, facing persecution and the revocation of his monastic status during exile,
conceptualized the idea of “neither monk nor layman” in response. This concept held
profound significance for Shinran, evident in his decision not to return to monastic life
Mitras publicly declare their commitment to Buddhism in a ceremonial setting and demonstrate a sincere desire toadhere to the ethical precepts known as the five sīla. They perceive the Triratna Buddhist Community/Order as a fitting
spiritual community supporting and aligning with their aspirations.
73 Following the Mitra stage, the Dhammacārī/Dhammacāriṇī ordination represents a lifelong commitment. This
commitment necessitates substantial self-awareness, significant experience along the Buddhist path, and theestablishment of meaningful friendships with Order Members. Each Order member solemnly vows to adhere to a setof 10 sīlas (precepts) governing actions of the body, speech, and mind. During the ordination ceremony, every new
Order member receives a new name derived from Sanskrit or Pāli. Notably, a common practice among Order members
is wearing a white “kesa.”
74 If any Order member, whether a Dhammacārī or Dhammacāriṇī, opts for a celibate lifestyle, they will assume thedesignation of “Anāgārika/Anāgārikā.” An “Anāgārika/Anāgārikā” distinguishes themselves by wearing a goldenyellow “kesa” around their neck, symbolizing their public commitment to a celibate way of life.
75 Kulananda, Teachings of Enlightenment, p. 220.
76 Sangharakshita, The Rainbow Road, p. 338.
72

43❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7after exile. Shinran’s contemplation on Mahāyāna Pure Land scriptures in Buddhist
literature led him to embrace the role of “neither monk nor layman” for his spiritualprogress and that of ordinary people. This notion subsequently became integral to Jōdo
Shinshū and, over time, gained acceptance in various Buddhist sects, evolving into afundamental aspect of modern Japanese Buddhism. This is exemplified by the widespread
acceptance of marriage among Buddhist priests in contemporary times, inspiring modern
Buddhists to practice Buddhism as lay followers rather than monks worldwide.
Following a comprehensive examination of traditional and contemporary
Buddhism, Ambedkar sought solutions to the problems of his marginalized community
and, overall, the development within the Buddhist framework. His conclusion favored thepracticality of “married Buddhist priests in Japan,” a concept initially introduced by
Shinran. This perspective led Ambedkar to envision a new Buddhist Order, and later, hisson, Yashwant Ambedkar, the president of the Buddhist Society of India, actualized thisvision by creating a new order of priests, the Bauddhācāryas. These priests were married
and trained Buddhists. They were neither monks nor laymen but were tasked withperforming rites and rituals to foster Buddhist culture within the Ambedkarite Buddhist
community. This approach was considered more viable than the role of ordained priests
in Indian society.
Drawing from his experiences as a monk in diverse Buddhist schools,
Sangharakshita established Buddhism in the U.K. in the 1960s. Perceiving the limitationsof the traditional Buddhist saṅgha for modern individuals, he emphasized the importanceof commitment to the three jewels over specific lifestyle choices. Consequently, heformulated a novel Buddhist order — “neither monastic nor lay,” known as Dhammacārīs
and Dhammacāriṇīs — designed to be accessible and applicable in a modern context.
This innovative approach reflects a shift in focus from traditional distinctions to a more
inclusive and adaptable model for contemporary practitioners.
In summary, Shinran, Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita, each emerging in distinct
temporal and geographical contexts, significantly contributed to the evolution of Buddhist
concepts and practices rooted in traditions tailored for their respective societies andfollowers. A unifying theme among these three Buddhist luminaries is the notion of“neither monk nor layman.” This shared thread underscores a collective emphasis on theimportance of commitment within Buddhism, transcending conventional distinctions ofmonkhood or laymanship. The commonality among their teachings lies in the recognition
that dedication to Buddhist principles holds greater significance than adherence to a
specific monastic or lay lifestyle.

44

Mrigendra PRATAPThe Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran,Ambedkar, and Sangharakshita's Work

❖ Articles 2 ❖Bibliography

Ambedkar, B. R.. “The Buddha and His Dhamma.” Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writingsand Speeches (vol. 11). New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, 2014 (1957).
–––––. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 17, Part II). Eds. Hari
Narake, N.G. Kamble, M.L. Kasare and Ashok Godghate. New Delhi: Dr.
Ambedkar Foundation Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Governmentof India, 2003.
–––––. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol. 9). Ed. Vasant Moon. New
Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Government of India, 2004.
–––––. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol.17, Part I). Eds. Hari
Narake, N.G. Kamble, M.L. Kasare and Ashok Godghate. New Delhi: Dr.
Ambedkar Foundation Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Governmentof India, 2003.
_____. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol.18, Part III). Eds. VasantMoon, Hari Narake, N.G. Kamble, M.L. Kasare, and Ashok Godghate (firstedition) and Avinash Dolas (second edition). Mumbai: Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar,
Source Material Publication Committee, Govt, of Maharashtra, 2016 (2002).
–––––. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (vol.17, Part III). Eds. Hari
Narake, N.G. Kamble, M.L. Kasare and Ashok Godghate. New Delhi: Dr.
Ambedkar Foundation Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Governmentof India, 2020.
Ambedkar, Yashwant. Bauddha Jīvana Saṃskāra Pāṭha. Mumbai: Buddha Bhushan
Printing Press, 2014 (1968).
Blum, Mark L., and Shin’ya Yasutomi, eds. Rennyo and the Roots of Modern Japanese
Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Bodhi, Bhikkhu (tr.). The Connected Discourse (Saṃyutta Nikāya), vol. 2. Boston:Wisdom Publication, 2000.
Borup, Jorn. Handbook of Contemporary Japanese Religions. Leiden: Brill Publishers,
2012.
Dobbins, James C. “The Biography of Shinran: Apotheosis of a Japanese Buddhist
Visionary.” History of Religions 30, no. 2 (1990): 179-196.
45

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Hongwanji International Center. Jodo Shinshu A Guide. Kyoto: Hongwanji Shuppansha,
2002.
Horner, I. B. (tr.). The Book of the Discipline (Vinaya-piṭaka), vol. IV. (Mahāvagga).
London: Luzac and Company Ltd., 1971
Jaffe, Richard M. Neither Monk nor Layman: Clerical Marriage in Modern Japanese
Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Kulananda. Teachings of Enlightenment. Birmingham: Windhorse Publications, 2000.
Lopez Jr, Donald S., ed. A Modern Buddhist Bible: Essential Readings from East andWest. Boston: Beacon Press, 2002.
McMahan, David L. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Narasu, P. L.. Essence of Buddhism. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1907.
Pratap, Mrigendra. “A Critical Study of Modern Buddhist Literature of Venerable
Sangharakshita.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Pali,
Savitribai Phule Pune University, 2016.
Robert, A. F. Thurman. The Holy Teaching of Vimalakīrti: A Mahāyāna Scripture. London
and University Park: Penn State, 1976.
Sangharakshita. A Guide to the Buddhist Path. Birmingham: Windhorse Publications,2011.
–––––. Ambedkar and Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1986.
–––––. Beating the Drum. Birmingham: Ibis Publications, 2012.
–––––. The History of my Going for Refuge. Glasgow: Windhorse Publications,1988.
–––––. The Rainbow Road. Birmingham: Windhorse Publications, 1997.
Shinran. The Collected Works of Shinran (vol. I1). Kyoto: Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha,
1997.
Subhuti, Dharmachari. Bringing Buddhism to the West: A Life of Sangharakshita.
Birmingham: Windhorse Publications, 1995.
–––––. Dharmachari. Sangharakshita: A New Voice in the Buddhist Tradition.
Birmingham: Windhorse Publications, 1994.

46

Avery MORROWThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering SaintThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin:Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a Wandering Saint

Avery MORROWPhD Candidate, Brown University

47❖ Articles 3 ❖❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Abstract
Ippen Shōnin (1234–1289) was a preacher of Pure Land Buddhism who traveled throughout
the country offering tokens of rebirth in the Pure Land. Although he insisted that he had no
personal power to guarantee good rebirth, the historical record seems ambiguous on this point.
To analyze this, I first examine stories in the scroll Ippen hijiri-e attributing magical powers
to Ippen. Ippen is sometimes described as if people saw him as a miracle worker, withdescriptions of purple clouds and flowers falling from the sky, but the Hijiri-e depicts thiswith a deceptive agnosticism, as if its authors were unclear to whom the miracles ought to be
attributed. I then look at two caricature scrolls critical of Ippen which provide records of aman manipulating the people around him. Ippen’s ecstatic nembutsu dances are illustrated in
an antagonistic way, and he is described as using his own urine as medicine, with the
implication that he was defrauding his followers. These caricature scrolls were longconsidered irrelevant to Japanese scholarship on Ippen, until a radical outside interpretation
forced scholars to consider them seriously. Viewed together, the caricatures and the Hijiri-epresent Japanese high society conflicted over Ippen’s legacy, unsure whether they had
witnessed a madman or a god-man.

48

Avery MORROWThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering Saint❖ Articles 3 ❖The Traces of Ippen Shōnin:Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a Wandering Saint
Avery MORROW

Keywords: Pure Land Buddhism, Kamakura period, picture scrolls, contagion, urine
therapy
1. Denials and Erasures
Ippen (一遍, 1234–1289) was a medieval Japanese preacher of the nembutsu 念仏,
calling on the name of Amida Buddha for salvation. Large crowds would gather around
him in marketplaces as he handed out paper slips called fuda 札 bearing Amida’s name,which scholar Ōhashi Shunnō memorably dubbed “tickets to heaven.” His followers,
called Ji-shū 時 衆 or “people of the hours” after their regular nembutsu chanting
sessions, danced ecstatically with him in public spaces to celebrate Amida’s gift ofsalvation. Ippen intended to leave no impression on the world except for reciting thenembutsu, and he instructed the Ji-shū to only continue that great work and do nothing toremember him. Yet those who knew him well were unable to erase his memory from theirthoughts and deeds, and he became a posthumous star. His half-brother Shōkai (聖戒,1261–1323) memorialized his life in a set of twelve scrolls called the Ippen hijiri-e (一遍聖絵, 1299), which is considered a masterpiece of medieval art, perhaps even thegreatest landscape painting made by any human being of the thirteenth century. 1
The Hijiri-e always shows Ippen as a small, sometimes hard-to-distinguish figure
in a vast landscape. It never portrays him doing anything extraordinary, even when
depicting a miracle. 2 Shōkai’s accompanying text similarly describes the locations Ippen
visited as well as Ippen’s own words and contains frequent digressions unrelated to Ippen.
The scroll visually and textually tries to honor Ippen’s desire to erase his uniqueness,even as it follows his life for twelve gorgeous volumes. Both text and art seem to struggle
with what they are trying to accomplish. If the Hijiri-e is to be respectful andconscientious in its tribute to Ippen, it must deny that it is part of Ippen’s legacy, because
he desired to have no legacy, as described in an anecdote handed down by his followers:
Someone asked: What have you decided should be done to preserve traces of yourself after
your demise?
Foard, “Ippen Shonin and Popular Buddhism”, p. 72, citing Toda, Japanese Scroll Painting, pp. 105-6.
Foxwell, “The Pulled Back View: The Illustrated Life of Ippen and the Visibility of Karma in Medieval Japan,” p.
31.
1
2

49

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Ippen answered: After my death, the absence of traces shall be my traces. What does itmean to leave traces behind? I have no idea. The traces of people in worldly life aretreasures and property. Since they make traces into objects of attachment, these becomesources of error. I have no treasures or property. I take leave of any mind of attachment.
My traces lie solely where the nembutsu is said by all sentient beings. Namu-amida-butsu. 3

In this answer, Ippen oscillates between hope that his absence of traces will become alegacy in itself, and uncertainty, not knowing what it means to leave or not leave a trace.
Is it really possible to erase every trace of oneself? It appears that Ippen was at least
willing to try, since he burned whatever works he had with him in the final weeks of hislife. The Hijiri-e contains the following explanation for why he did so:
Ippen gave a few of the sutras he possessed to a monk from Mount Shosha. He had always
said, “My propagation is for this lifetime only,” and now, while chanting the Amida Sutra,
he burned the writings he possessed with his own hands. Seeing this, people deeply grievedthat there was no one to transmit the teaching and that it would perish with the teacher, but
Ippen said, “All the sacred teachings of Shakyamuni’s lifetime have wholly become
Namu-amida-butsu,” in the spirit [of the statement in the Pure Land classic Fashizan 法事
讃] that “when Shakyamuni finished his sermon, out of his kindness he bequeathed Namuamida-butsu [to future generations],” for “in the age of mappō 末法 many will doubt andslander the Buddha’s teachings, and monastics and laypeople will dislike the Dharma andnot bother to listen to it.” [Ippen] taught [us] this point well. 4
3FThe burned texts might have been other sutras, as Tachibana Shundō argues, 5 or theymight have been manuscripts written by Ippen, which the Hijiri-e is analogizing to the
Buddha’s own teaching through the above Fashizan quotation. The mention of “a monkfrom Mount Shosha” spiriting away certain texts out of the hands of Ippen’s followers,
and the explicit reference to the failure to name a successor “to transmit the teaching,”
implies a concern by Ippen that his more ambitious followers would show off books once
possessed by Ippen as proof that they were operating as his successor, rather than using
them as texts to read. We can therefore read this statement alongside what the Hijiri-e
claims to be Ippen’s desires for his own burial:
After I die, my disciples are not to mourn with funeral rites. I should be exposed in the open
fields [for animals to feed on]. There is no need, however, to apply this prohibition tolaypeople who seek to effect bonds with Dharma [by holding a funeral].6

Fujiwara, Ippen Shōnin goroku, 92-3. Translation adapted from Hirota, No Abode, p. 117. This anecdote is only foundin Goroku.
4 Ippen hijiri-e, section 45 (scroll 11), text given in Tachibana, Ippen shōnin zenshū, 109. First half of translation isadapted from Dennis Hirota, “The Illustrated Biography of Ippen,” in Buddhism in Practice, ed. Donald Lopez(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 577.
5 Tachibana, “Ippen to shinbutsu shūgō,” p. 4.
6 Ippen hijiri-e, section 48 (scroll 12), text given in Tachibana, Ippen shōnin zenshū, 118. Translation adapted from
Hirota, No Abode, p. 124.
3

50

Avery MORROWThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering Saint❖ Articles 3 ❖No funeral meant no chosen successor to officiate; a body left in a field meant nogravestone to build a temple around. But Shōkai, the author of the Hijiri-e who attended
to Ippen at his deathbed, made full use of the supposed exemption for laypeople, granting
a group of local devout laity the right to officiate over a formal funeral and cremation.
The final panel of the massive scroll shows monks bowing and chanting before two
objects of worship: Ippen’s bones enshrined in a stone pagoda, and what appears to be
Ippen himself standing inside a small structure, probably representing a painted statue ofhim but with an uncanny vividness, as if he were still alive. Was it really Ippen’s will toallow the laity to create such a legacy for him, an eternal resting place for a lifelong
wanderer?
Ippen desired to erase his own record and deny the ambitious among his followers
an inheritance to build on or claim legitimacy from. The Hijiri-e acknowledges this andis carefully written so that none of the acts taken by his followers after his death seem torun directly against his will. But in the end, despite his protest that “my propagation isfor this lifetime only,” a new sect of Buddhism was eventually founded, the Ji-shū 時宗.
This presents us with a problem. With Ippen’s confidence in his own salvation and thesalvation of those he was able to present with fuda, why did he worry about questions ofsuccession and inheritance? Were there indeed traces of himself that he regretted andwished to extinguish? Despite the Hijiri-e’s acclaimed realism, does it conceal suchtraces?
In this essay I will argue for the existence of such traces and the instability that theycreated for his followers. First, I will look at the way in which the world of the Hijiri-e
seems to derive some enchantment from Ippen’s presence, ensuring that the embers of
his saintly mark would still burn in Japanese society after his departure. Following this, I
will look at two caricature scrolls critical of Ippen that seem to have been produced basedon eyewitness accounts. These caricatures record an Ippen whose power is twisting the
behaviors of people around him. Viewed together, the caricatures and the Hijiri-e present
Japanese high society conflicted over Ippen’s legacy, unsure whether they had witnesseda madman or a god-man.
2. Explaining the Enchanted World
Ippen’s desire was for salvation to be a matter of simple fact, originating from neither
specific activities nor a heart of pure faith. For this reason, the Hijiri-e records him as
rejecting the appearance of purple clouds above him and flowers falling from the sky,which in the symbolism of the time would have served as proof that he was destined for
the Pure Land. The text describes the purple clouds but does not depict them visually, andoffers an explanation from Ippen as follows:51❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Someone asked anxiously about their significance. Ippen replied, “concerning the flowers,
ask the flowers, about purple clouds ask the clouds: I do not know.” 7

In a letter attributed to Ippen, he elaborates: “Further, do not purple clouds and flowers
falling from the heavens … lie beyond the reckoning and comprehension of foolishbeings?” 8 The Hijiri-e does not omit the story of the purple clouds, but rather offers boththe clouds and his agnostic reaction to them. His concern seems to be that relying on
outward signs of salvation would lessen the undeniable, natural fact of rebirth in the Pure
Land.
In 1998, James Foard offered an excellent theoretical argument on the specificcontribution that Ippen made to Buddhism of his time. Rather than simply reject theovereager 20th-century analogy between New Kamakura Buddhism and the Protestant
Reformation, Foard closely investigated the types of changes being made. Showing how
Ippen decided to offer a fuda to a monk who read many Buddhist texts and had come todisbelieve the nembutsu, and how the deity of Kumano appeared before Ippen to affirm
the correctness of this decision, Foard found that Ippen was thus given the authority toreject “both an expressive and an instrumental understanding of nembutsu practice.” 9
Foard points out that when Ippen decided to offer this fuda to someone with nofaith, he is disavowing the idea that salvation comes from expression of faith. Instead,
Ippen “presents the nembutsu as a ritual that is done for itself and that expresses itself,
and in this sense only is instrumental and expressive. It has no other end or reference.” 10This image of the “nembutsu expressing itself” is virtually drawn from Ippen’s own
words: “Saying the Name from moment to moment, then, is the nembutsu saying thenembutsu.” 11 One modern writer, Watanabe Yoshikatsu 渡辺喜勝, distinguishes Ippen
from the other famous Kamakura Pure Land preachers in this way: Hōnen saw thenembutsu as man crying out for Amida, Shinran saw it as Amida crying out to man (hence
the emphasis on not saying but “hearing the nembutsu” among Shin Buddhists), but Ippen
saw it as Amida speaking to himself. 12
If we take this to be an accurate summary of Ippen’s beliefs, then his ideal holy
man would be not different from Amida in any way, and would not leave behind any
traces that did not come from Amida. Certainly, one whose very teachings dissolved into
namu-amida-butsu would not be generating any sanctity from his own person other thanthat which originated in Amida. In agreement with this reading, Foard observes that in
the Hijiri-e, sacred locations retain the ability to produce miracles only because Ippen isable to summon the miraculous power of the nembutsu. 13 He concludes that Ippen’s
mission was to detach Buddhism from sacred locations and feudal patronage to make ituniversally accessible: “the replacement of localized hierarchies with some systematic,
Ippen hijiri-e, section 22 (scroll 6), text given in Tachibana, Ippen shōnin zenshū, 43-4; translation adapted from
Hirota, No Abode, p. 121.
8 Ippen Shōnin goroku, translated in Hirota, No Abode, p. 31.
9 Foard, “What One Kamakura Story Does: Practice, Place, and Text in the Account of Ippen at Kumano,” p. 106.
10 Foard, “What One Kamakura Story Does,” pp. 107-9.
11 Ippen Shōnin goroku, translated in Hirota, No Abode, p. 79.
12 Nagashima, “Nenbutsu ga nenbutsu o mōsu shinkō”, p. 66.
13 Foard, “What One Kamakura Story Does,” p. 111.
7

52

Avery MORROWThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering Saint❖ Articles 3 ❖ahistorical, replicable means of salvation.” 14 Describing this as the “delocation” of
Buddhism, he analogizes it not to the Protestant Reformation, but to the rise of
Christianity in late antiquity.
The truth of Foard’s assertion about the “delocation” of salvation is borne out in
Ippen’s wanderings throughout the country and his ability to bring enlightenment to every
type of place, but parts of this analogy apply better to other Kamakura Buddhists thanthey do to Ippen. Christianity really did replace and displace prior beliefs about localized
spirits and deities with the power to punish and reward, by providing Europeans with anew, universal, replicable soteriology. Nichiren, and to a lesser extent Hōnen, pushed fora similar displacement. These monks considered their own practices to be the “exclusive”
road to salvation—Foard here offers the Japanese keyword senju as an equivalent.
But the Hijiri-e is written from a different angle. As it tells the story of Ippen, it
illustrates the shrines and temples he visited and goes to seemingly unnecessary length totell stories of their miraculous origins (engi), reaffirming the sanctity of these preexisting
places and the miracles associated with them. Since these details do not tell us anything
new about Ippen, it feels as if the author and artist are protesting against an unspoken
claim of “delocation” by their contemporaries. 15
While the Hijiri-e’s Ippen is radically destructive in his desire to erase social
distinctions and his own traces, crediting every miracle to Amida, he is also radicallyaffirmative. He brings the power of the nembutsu out of the temples and into themarketplace, but he also acknowledges the residences of the kami in the ancient shrines,
and the kami come to greet him, especially the deity of the Kumano shrine whose descentfrom above is actually illustrated in the scroll. The Hijiri-e shows Ippen visiting eighteen
shrines in total, praying at each one. He also affirms the meaning of temples andreawakens the Buddhas living within them.
In 1293 Ippen visited the Shingon temple Jimoku-ji 甚目寺, located in Ama City,and began a seven-day fast in front of the golden Kannon. As the fast neared its conclusion
his followers’ health began to fail, but he promised them that they would not die. Scroll
6 of the Hijiri-e explains what happened next.
That night, two lay believers sleeping in the Kiyosu inn had the same dream. The Bishamon
statue next to the Kannon came to their inn and announced, “These visitors are dear to me.
You must make an offering.” [The next day,] when they came with an offering of food andliquor, a breeze blew away the curtain and they were shocked to see that just as in their
dream, the Bishamon statue had left his seat and was now in a standing position. 16
15F

The Hijiri-e illustration shows Ippen’s followers amazed to see the statue standing
upright. We can see, through the resistance against showing Ippen effecting somemiraculous change on the world or summoning purple clouds above him, something that
Foard, “What One Kamakura Story Does,” p. 114.
Kaufman, “Nature, Courtly Imagery, and Sacred Meaning in the Ippen Hijiri-e,” p. 64.
16 Tachibana, Ippen shōnin zenshū, p. 52, my translation.
14
15

53

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7superficially resembles a modern naturalism or agnosticism: the miracle is presented in
the text, the artist portrays the incident with naturalism, and the reader is permitted toview Ippen from a serene, objective distance and consider the miracle as an example ofthe saving power of the nembutsu.
But it would be incorrect to see Ippen and his Ji-shū as cool, disinterested preachersof salvation, and we can see this in the way another category of miracle is systematically
downplayed or omitted from the text: the type seen as emanating from Ippen himself.
Tales of such occurrences may have accounted for some of Ippen’s popularity among
common people, but before a Canadian First Nations activist brought it to the attentionof Japanese scholars in 1987, this category of miracle was scarcely taken seriously as areading of Ippen.
3. Miracles of the Body
Our story begins with a rather crude caricature of Ippen in the comic scroll Tengu zōshi
天狗草紙, which may have been completed as early as 1296, before the Hijiri-e itself.
The scroll, which is still extant today, depicts Ippen dropping his robes to urinate into a
tube being held by one of his followers, while a crowd reacts in a delightful variety ofways. A nun covers her eyes, but two monks look on gleefully. Other townspeople turnto look at the scene with astonishment, and the author has clearly relished writing up
imaginary conversations around their heads like a modern-day comic book:“Look at all these people begging for some piss!”“This is Ippen Shōnin’s beloved piss, it cures every ailment!”“What a crowd! I hope he’s got a full bladder!”“The nun can’t see, so she’ll wash her eyes [with piss]!”“I’m drinking Shōnin’s piss for my stomach issues.”“Hey, this man needs some too!” 17

Tengu zōshi is one of two contemporary texts offering a critical view of Ippen, calling his
Ji-shū movement “the height of stupidity” (the other, Nomori kagami 野守鏡, refers to
him more plainly as a “madman”). It vividly illustrates the Ji-shū’s nembutsu dances toshow the crazed effect Ippen had on uneducated people around him. 18 It was basically
hot off the press as soon as Ippen died, and was in fact produced in the same studio thatmade Ji-shū’s official narrative scroll, the Yugyō Shōnin engi e (遊行上人縁起絵, circa
1303-07). 19
It is not quite accurate to say that Tengu zōshi and Nomori kagami were totally
unknown to modern Ippen scholars. A study authored during World War II used Tengu
zōshi’s wild portrayals of Ippen and the Ji-shū in order to dismiss the movement as adisorderly abuse of Buddhism. However, after the war, new interpretations emerged,
Translated from Sunagawa, Ippen Hijiri-e kenkyū, 177, compared with suggested readings from Kanai,“ Ippen
Shōnin no nyōryōhō”.
18 Kuroda, Sugata to shigusa no chūseishi: ezu to emaki no fūkei kara, p. 16.
19 Tsuchiya, “Tengu zōshi no sakuga kōbō”.
1754

Avery MORROWThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering Saint❖ Articles 3 ❖seeing Ippen as a dramatic figure and the Ji-shū as influential to the reform and revival of
medieval Buddhism. 20 During this period, Ippen scholars conspicuously ignored Tengu
zōshi, despite the fact that it is a primary source that possibly predates the Hijiri-e. Foard’s
1977 dissertation, written in consultation with Japanese Ippen scholars, omits it entirely
from his list of biographical sources for Ippen, even though he lists a source that he finds“virtually useless” for the sake of completeness. 21 Evidently it was seen as a meaninglessand baseless slander.
The coming of a paradigm shift could be seen in 1986, when the historian Kuroda
Hideo (黒田日出男, b. 1943) started to look more closely at the meaning of the caricature
as part of a study of illustrated scrolls. 22 But it was an article in Daihōrin magazine by a
non-academic named Miyamatsu Hiroyuki (宮松宏至, b. 1940) that forced the hand of
scholars. Miyamatsu argued that urine therapy was common in premodern times and was
mentioned in religious texts such as the New Testament. Critiquing a description of Tengu
zōshi given by an academic biographer, he reasoned that Ippen could not have been sucha “rock star” based on his chanting and dancing alone and suggested that the Ji-shū
frequently drank Ippen’s urine for health purposes just as the scroll depicts, and that thiswas simply omitted from the major hagiographical sources by elite monks who found it
embarrassing or inconvenient. 23
Some Ippen scholars refer to Miyamatsu Hiroyuki as a “doctor” but this is nottechnically true. Miyamatsu is best described as an indigenous rights activist turned urine
therapy advocate. Emerging as an activist from Japan’s New Left student movement, hespent two years living with Asabiinyashkosiwagong people in Northwestern Ontario who
suffered mercury poisoning from a Canadian factory upstream of their reservation. Whenpoisoning victims came to him for medical advice due to their inability to access Canadian
health care, he became invested in-home therapies. After initially opening a freeacupuncture clinic, he learned about urine therapy from a Tanzanian refugee and began
drinking his own urine while in Canada. 24 Encountering strong cultural resistance to thishome remedy upon return to Japan, he spent some time researching premodern medicine.
His article in Daihōrin makes a connection that prior scholars had missed, namely theprominence of urine therapy in an era when most people had few other medicines
available to them, and extols Ippen’s healing power.
It may seem dubious that such an eccentric individual was responsible for a majorintervention in Ippen studies, so I will note that multiple Ippen specialists haveacknowledged their thought was shaped by Miyamatsu’s article, starting with Kanai
Kiyomitsu in 1988, followed by Foard’s mentor Ōhashi Shunnō in 2001, then Sunagawa
2F

Sakurai, Ippen to Ji-shū no nazo, pp. 22-37.
Foard, “Ippen Shonin and Popular Buddhism,” p. 87. Tengū zōshi does receive mention in a footnote, at 259n51, as
an example of popular literature mocking the dancing nembutsu.
22 Kuroda, Sugata to shigusa, pp. 15–29. Kuroda analyzes the urine distribution, but he devotes more space to a
depiction of two Ji-shū women in an apparent lesbian relationship. As far as I can tell, of the later Ippen scholars only
Sunagawa Hiroshi has read Kuroda’s analysis closely.
23 Miyamatsu, “Ippen Shōnin no myōyaku”.
24 Miyamatsu, Start Your Day with a Glass of Urine.
20
21

55

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Hiroshi in 2002. 25 The magazine which published Miyamatsu, Daihōrin, was a nonsectarian space where Buddhist practitioners, spiritual seekers, and other kinds ofbelievers could interact with sympathetic scholars; it was discontinued in July 2020. 26
The scholar Kanai Kiyomitsu ( 金 井 清 光 , 1922–2009) was the most openly
enthusiastic about Miyamatsu’s article and urine therapy generally. Taking to the pagesof Daihōrin to offer his assent, he declared that Miyamatsu has “raised a new problem in
Ippen studies,” that Tengu zōshi is indeed based on real events, and that past scholars
overlooked it only because of their squeamish modern sensibilities. As evidence, heprovided medieval Japanese and Chinese medicine texts which discuss drinking the urineof children or babies to cure certain diseases. 27 Such medical texts were often preserved
and used by Buddhist specialists and drew on Chinese and Indian knowledge. The use of
excrement in particular was legitimated through Ayurvedic beliefs that anything can beused as medicine, although “there is ambiguity concerning the vile or unclean nature ofthese products in the Buddhist context.” 28
In 2001, Ōhashi Shunnō (大橋俊雄, 1925–2001) quoted from one of Kanai’s
sources but jumped to a novel conclusion, saying that anyone’s urine would have worked
equally well, so such medical practice would not have been so unusual at the time. 29 This
does not seem like a natural conclusion to draw from the sources being discussed.
Presumably, the texts specify children rather than adults because their urine was believed
to have fewer impurities. Furthermore, Tengu zōshi portrays the practice in order tobelittle Ippen and his followers, as if he was offering himself to them as a god-man whose
waste fluids are not only pure but have healing properties.
In his initial response to the three preceding opinions, Sunagawa Hiroshi (砂川博,
b. 1947) investigated Tengu zōshi more closely, finding that it associates four activities
with Ippen: dancing nembutsu, fuda distribution, purple clouds and flowers from theheavens, and urine distribution. Because the other three incidents are affirmed by the
Hijiri-e, and on the strength of Kanai’s argument that the blind, lepers, and other outcastes
were likely seeking some physiological healing from Ippen, Sunagawa concluded that
Tengu zōshi’s bawdy caricature probably expresses some “truth” that Ippen acquired
knowledge of herbal medicine during his time in the mountains. Sunagawa also opinedthat this was omitted from the Hijiri-e because physiological medicine was considered insome sense an “unclean” activity for monks akin to drinking urine. He rejected the ideathat Ippen actually offered his urine as a medicine, but he did not explain why. 30
Following his initial foray into the subject, which seems to me incomplete,
Sunagawa wrote two further articles further investigating the reliability of Tengu zōshi
and what conclusions can be reasonably drawn from it. Sunagawa points out that Tengu
zōshi gets a number of basic facts wrong about Ippen. It refers to his followers “IkkōImai, Ippen, 171, also refers to Miyamatsu in a more dismissive way.
Tangentially, it is notable that the decline of such non-sectarian spaces has pushed people into sectarian spaces; asof 2024, Miyamatsu is now a member of the new religious group Happy Science, even as he continues his indigenous
activism online.
27 Kanai,“ Nyōryōhō.”28 Despeux, “Chinese Medicinal Excrement,” p. 162.
29 Ōhashi, Ippen hijiri, pp. 91–3.
30 Sunagawa, Hijiri-e kenkyū, pp. 277-282.
25
26

56

Avery MORROWThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering Saint❖ Articles 3 ❖shū” rather than Ji-shū, and incorrectly says that Ippen refused to pray at kami shrines.
Both of these mistakes are casually confusing Ippen with other street preachers of theperiod. On the other hand, Tengu zōshi accurately portrays dancing nembutsu, which the
Ji-shū seem to have deemphasized after Ippen’s death. 31 We are led to wonder about theexact target of Tengu zōshi’s critique. Was it Ippen in particular, or unsettling new
developments in Japanese Buddhism generally?
Haruko Wakabayashi’s (b. 1967) groundbreaking 2012 monograph on Tengu zōshi
concludes that it is both. Tengu zōshi elaborates on the classical image of the tengu, an
impure monster “associated with the privy and feces,” as well as the dark realm of ma,devils or delusion. While all of Japanese Buddhism is depicted as infested with tengu,
Ippen in particular is portrayed as the “chief of the tengu” who deceives people with false
miracles. His faith in Amida alone is portrayed as splitting Japanese Buddhism into sects,
threatening the health and security of the nation. In essence, the authors of the Tengu
zōshi sensed the coming of a disturbance in court Buddhism, and Ippen was the mostprominent representative of this. 32
Wakabayashi sees urine distribution as central to Tengu zōshi’s attack on Ippen in
two ways. First, it associates Ippen with the impurities of bodily waste, and thereby withtengu. Ippen is polluting the dharma by mixing purity with impurity. Second, urine
distribution is contrasted against fuda distribution, which is caricatured elsewhere in thescroll with the same ironic tone. Wakabayashi sees Tengu zōshi as accusing Ippen of
distributing fuda only to elites in a self-serving way, summarizing its depiction as follows:“To commoners he gives out his urine, to the wealthy he offers fuda.” 33
The anonymous creators of the Tengu zōshi scrolls were defenders of a court
Buddhism that was on its way to anachronism. In the words of Abe Yasurō (阿部泰郎,
b. 1953), they “belonged to a world that was collapsing from within.” The scrolls portray
Japan’s Buddhist education and law as being established “through the vows of emperors,”
and monks as transforming into tengu through lack of humility towards the court and selfcentered arguments about the dharma. 34 In characterizing Ippen as “chief of the tengu,”
the authors were aiming to situate him within this polemical worldview rather thanmaking a faithful record of his actual stated beliefs or practices, and they indeed may haveconfused rumors about him with other preachers.
Nevertheless, Wakabayashi believes that urine distribution actually did happen,
since other practices which Tengu zōshi attributes to Ippen have been borne out as
correct. 35 For instance, the official record of Ippen’s sayings passed down by the Ji-shū
did not mention Ippen’s ecstatic dances celebrating the nembutsu, suggesting that the sectwas embarrassed by the practice. 36 The Hijiri-e corrects the record, giving a history
lesson to readers by explaining that the dancing nembutsu was introduced by the ancientSunagawa, “Shōkai wa Ippen, Jishū hihan to dō mukiatta ka,” see pp. 6 and 16-18.
Wakabayashi, Seven Tengu Scrolls, see pp. 113, 116 and 167.
33 Wakabayashi, Seven Tengu Scrolls, p. 116.
34 Abe, “The Book of Tengu,” see pp. 216 and 225.
35 Wakabayashi, Seven Tengu Scrolls, p. 116.
36 Sunagawa, “Jishū hihan,” p. 6.
31
32

57

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

master Kūya, and that “Kūya’s words imbued [Ippen’s] heart and were constantly at his
lips.” 37 Here, we can see how Tengu zōshi forced suppressed aspects of Ippen’s life into
the foreground and seemingly engendered a response from the authors of the Hijiri-e,similar to the response that Miyamatsu’s quotations from Tengu zōshi elicited from Ippen
scholars hundreds of years later.
I recognize two separate claims by which we can assess the reasonability of the
Tengu zōshi caricature. The first is the generic association of Ippen’s form of Pure Landteachings with healing power. Sunagawa and other researchers have found that althoughthe Hijiri-e never explicitly supports such an argument, it does give us circumstantial
evidence that Ippen was seen as a healer. The second is a more specific claim that Ippen’s
body was believed to be uniquely pure, so that contact with the traces of his body could
heal disease. The Japanese scholars have not closely investigated this thread of the
caricature, but I will show that this is also supported circumstantially by the Hijiri-e. I
will argue that the embodied, karmic nature of purity, impurity, and contagion is in facta key point of contention between the Tengu zōshi and the Hijiri-e.
4. Ippen the Healer?
Although Ippen is never described as healing anyone in the Hijiri-e, in a few instances
the text implies that he was understood to have healing powers, while still leaving his
agency in the healing ambiguous. First, it makes some pointed references to locations in
Kyoto: a Yakushi temple named Inabadō 因幡堂 and a house of charity called Sanjō
Hiden’in 三条悲田院. Ippen came to Inabadō and used it as a headquarters around 1279,
and a monk who tried to keep him from lodging there was visited by the medicine Buddha
Yakushi Nyorai in a dream, who warned that Ippen was a “valued guest.” Sunagawa
argues that it would not have been lost on a period reader that Ippen was being favoredby a Buddha associated with medicine. Furthermore, Sunagawa writes, it is notable that
Ippen spent a day and night meditating in Sanjō Hiden’in, a charity house associated withthe blind, lepers, and other people rendered impure through contagious illness. The text
does not say that he met with any of the residents, but because he stayed the night, it is
implied that he was not afraid of the contagion. 38
Another anecdote from the Hijiri-e tells of a specific healing incident. This story,
found in scroll 5, runs as follows:
When he entered the land of Hitachi, there was a villainous samurai there who tried to rape
one of the Ji-shū nuns [but failed to catch her and went home]. In a dream, the scoundrel
saw a monk holding a split branch who said to him, “Unthinkable to impede a nembutsu
practitioner!” and hit him with the branch. When he awoke he was paralyzed and could not
make his body move. His father ran to Ippen and pleaded with him to rescue his son. Ippen
said, “I don’t know anything about this; I will not interfere,” but the father pleaded again

37
38

Hirota, No Abode, p. xxxvi, xxxix.
Sunagawa, Hijiri-e kenkyū, pp. 273–5.

58

Avery MORROWThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering Saint❖ Articles 3 ❖and again, so eventually Ippen said, “very well, let us go,” and upon arriving [at the house]the man's paralysis was quickly cured. 39

Sunagawa calls this story an affirmation of Ippen's healing powers, but as Caitilin
Griffiths points out, another modern commentator, Shinmura Taku 新村拓, reads the
text as affirming only the power of the nembutsu to punish those who impeded its
practitioners. 40 The text is ambiguous, and when read carefully we see that it is structured
to preserve the ambiguity. The scoundrel sees a “monk” in his dream, not a Buddha or
bodhisattva, but it is unclear who the monk is, and Ippen denies that it was him. The father
pleads with Ippen to provide healing, but it is unclear whether Ippen did any specific act
to cure the paralysis or if Ippen’s presence simply provided some emotional relief. We
are led to believe that there is some sort of karmic punishment involved and that people
believed Ippen could both inflict and cure severe maladies, but the text does not tell us
whether this was actually the case.
All of this may sound deceptively modern and agnostic to our ears. The text’s
concern, however, is not to reject the idea of healing power. Rather, the author Shōkai issqueamish over explicitly asserting Ippen’s agency. We see direct textual evidence of thissqueamishness in scroll 5, which offers the story of a woman known as “the sister of Ōi
no Tarō,” who invites Ippen to dance in her home, and of her eventual rebirth in the Pure
Land:
Since several hundred people had danced round and round, they had trodden down andbroken the floorboards. But when people said, “You had better repair them,” the sister
replied, “These will be keepsakes of Ippen the holy man. I won't repair them,” and she leftthem as they were. We should consider this in the way that we consider that time long ago
when Emperor Cheng of Han refused to repair the balustrade broken by Zhu [Yun], in orderto remember the words of that loyal retainer. After this, that woman practiced only thenembutsu and in the end attained birth in the Pure Land.41

The broken floorboards leave a physical trace, but of what? According to the text, it is a
“keepsake [katami] of Ippen the holy man [hijiri].” Laura Kaufman notes that in theillustration, above the scene flies a flock of wild geese, which provides a subtle
symbolism: “the geese flying toward the house of Ōi no Tarō and his sister suggest their
hopeless desire for Ippen's return.” 42 Yet the text seems slightly hesitant to clarify themeaning of such “keepsakes.” Might this woman have seen Ippen’s footprints as relics
with special powers, like the Buddha’s footprints? In the text, Shōkai offers an obscure
Chinese analogue for using unrepaired broken objects to preserve a memory and explains
the benefit to the householder in terms of her rebirth.
Ippen hijiri-e, section 20 (scroll 5, section 4), original given in Tachibana, Ippen shōnin zenshū, 39, my translation.
Griffiths, “Tracing the Itinerant Path: Jishū Nuns of Medieval Japan,” p. 70.
41 Ippen hijiri-e section 17 (scroll 5), Japanese text given in Tachibana, Ippen shōnin zenshū, 35-6, translation partially
adapted from Kaufman, “Nature,” p. 55. (The Confucian analogy is my translation.)
42 Kaufman, “Nature,” p. 55.
39
40

59

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Like the historical precedent, Shōkai cites for the dancing nembutsu, the purposeof this unexpected and jarring reference to Chinese history appears to be to make Ippen’s
footprints into a rational memento of virtue rather than one aspect of Ippen’s traces that
could provide a special power. The benefit of this memento is not physical healing but
rebirth in the Pure Land, although one wonders how Shōkai is so confident of this, given
Ippen’s own skepticism of such signs as purple clouds and flowers. And as with thescoundrel of Hitachi and the two temples in Kyoto, the question of Ippen’s own agency
in bringing about that rebirth is carefully avoided.
Another, even more obscure moment in the Hijiri-e suggests that aspects of Ippen’s
healing power are being excluded from primary sources. A long-acknowledged mysteryof the Hijiri-e is the unclear connection between Ippen and saunas. At the end of scroll 3,
we see a depiction of a monk using a sauna at a point in the narrative corresponding to1276. The Hijiri-e explains that when Ippen met his Pure Land teacher Shōdatsu in thecity of Dazaifu, a few days’ trip from the famous hot springs town of Beppu, a sauna wasbuilt for them, which they shared together while having long and happy conversations
about Buddhist practice. At this point, the narrative leaves a gap of several months.43
Following Ippen’s death, his self-appointed successor Shinkyō became involved inmanaging saunas for the care of wounded samurai, and it is today claimed that Ippen
founded an eponymous healing sauna in Beppu in this missing year 1276. 44 The earliest
written record of this claim dates to 1742; it is not found in the Hijiri-e or other early texts(although the 1742 document predates one of the primary sources for Ippen, Ippen Shōnin
goroku, by more than two decades). The sauna was said to have been “revived” by a Jishū leader in 1374, but we do not know if this was some kind of invention. 45
At this time, it was considered an act of Buddhist merit to fund public bathhouses
for lepers and other karmically impure people, so if Ippen founded a healing sauna, its
absence from the Hijiri-e is noteworthy. 46 Perhaps the discomfort lay in portraying Ippen
using the sauna himself. A fear of contagion pervades the Hijiri-e, which earnestly
mentions Ippen’s stay in the house of charity and depicts lepers and outcastes among the
Ji-shū following Ippen around but never shows them receiving a fuda. 47 We know that
Ippen would have done nothing to prevent them from receiving one because he says to
his Ji-shū followers in scroll 3 of the Hijiri-e:Distribute your fuda regardless of whether people have faith or not, and without
discriminating between the pure and the impure. 48

There is therefore an implication that ritually polluted were receiving fuda which is forsome reason never actually portrayed in the scroll. If Ippen had founded a sauna, might
the lepers have wanted to use it alongside him for a chance, no matter how slim, at being
Tachibana, Ippen shonin zenshu, 23-4; Kohaku Tateya, “Ji-shū jiin Shōju-ji ni tsuite,” p. 3.
Kurita, Ippen Shōnin: tabi no shisakusha, p. 95.
45 Kohaku, “Shōju-ji.”
46 Moerman, “The Buddha and the Bathwater,” p. 80.
47 Sunagawa, Hijiri-e kenkyū, p. 32.
48 Tachibana, Ippen shonin zenshu, 19, translated in Hirata, No Abode, p. xxxv.
43
44

60

Avery MORROWThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering Saint❖ Articles 3 ❖cleansed of the untold centuries of karma that created their pollution, and perhaps healedof their worldly illness by the physical presence of his pure and powerful body? Besides
Ippen’s instructions regarding the fuda, we also have his deathbed statement that “among
the five aggregates there is no sickness afflicting sentient beings,” suggesting that hewould not have prevented lepers from touching him. 49
We arrive, then, at one of the central tensions in depictions of Ippen as a healer: hewas surrounded by people socially deemed impure, but he denied their impurity. If
impurity was a contagion, he would get it on himself, which Shōkai would obviously
reject. Contrariwise, if his purity was contagious, activities like distributing fuda to lepers,
giving out his urine, or sharing a bath or sauna would distribute his purity to others—but
depicting such a miraculous act of purification would run contrary to Ippen’s own denialof miraculous powers.
It is easy to understand why this would have been a conundrum for Ippen’s
biographer Shōkai, and even perhaps for Ippen. Any depiction of Ippen that could be readas using his body to heal others could have led to a situation in which his traces, either
his body or objects he had touched, could be used to offer or withhold healing from others,
and thereby to accumulate personal power and displace the centrality of Amida. Hencethe text must either erase such traces, as was perhaps done for the Beppu sauna or theurine distribution, or explicitly deny their meaning, as with the purple clouds, or finallyrender them ambiguous, as with the “keepsake” footprints and the healing of the Hitachi
scoundrel. This strategy seen in the Hijiri-e may also explain Ippen’s own decision toburn the books in his possession.
In order to ensure that the boundaries of karmic purity are not disturbed, the Hijirie cannot depict any activity which might imply that someone has changed states from
impure to pure, or vice versa. Only at the very end of the final scroll is there an unwritten,
but moving and bold, statement about such things. Here, after Ippen’s death, we see aleper drown himself alongside four other Ji-shū. The suicidal believers’ striking lack ofconcern for sharing the river with lepers is an affirmation of Ippen’s own proclamation:
Amida has opened a Pure Land to all, and worldly impurity will not follow one there. Yet
this leap of faith is simultaneously a leap into death, and the Hijiri-e does not pass over
the tragedy of this fact. Consistent with Ippen’s teachings, the scroll does not portray thesuicides as honorable martyrdoms. Rather, in a moving scene, it shows a group of youngmonks trying to physically prevent one of their friends from drowning himself. In theabsence of Ippen’s traces, the problem of whether the other Ji-shū will be afflicted byritual or social impurity can be resolved only by the sorrowful termination of their worldly
existence, and as we reach the very last image in the Hijiri-e scroll, this shocking
recognition of the impossibility of overcoming worldly pollution and other karmic debts
leads us to a depiction of monks throwing themselves at an image of Ippen, against his
dying wishes.

49

Tachibana, Ippen shonin zenshu, 108, translated in Hirota, No Abode, p. 35.

61

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

5. Conclusion: On the Regulation of Traces
Alongside his declaration that “the absence of traces shall be my traces,” his burning ofbooks, and his request that his body be exposed to the elements without funeral rites,
Ippen supposedly requested that his followers not commit suicide after his death. The
Hijiri-e has him saying that “if your self-attachment has not been exhausted, you must
not take your own life. It is rare and difficult to receive an existence in which you
encounter the Buddha-way. How lamentable it would be to cast it away in vain!” 50
Like the association of relics with this-worldly attachment, this message reiterates
standard Buddhist doctrine. Yet the Hijiri-e depicts that some Ji-shū did end up
committing suicide. My reading suggests that among his followers were those who
believed less that Amida had promised universal salvation, and more that Ippen’s
embodied presence had purified them and readied them for the Pure Land, and that theircontinued existence after his death could only lead to an accumulation of impurities andkarma. The Hijiri-e struggles to cope with this seemingly unintended legacy of Ippen’s.
We may see that struggle as part of what compelled Shōkai to produce such a gorgeously
detailed and realistic work.
Recent scholarship has suggested that the Hijiri-e is possibly a response to Tengu
zōshi, or at least to the elite attitudes towards Ippen that it depicts. Such an explanation
explains many mysteries about the text. For example, Abe Yasurō suggests that the Hijirie’s anomalous discussion of purple clouds and falling flowers, contradicting Ippen’s
explicit protest that such phenomena are not necessarily connected to him, became
necessary to answer Tengu zōshi’s depiction of Ippen and his tengu cronies manufacturing
these miracles to deceive the public. 51
Sunagawa points out how the Hijiri-e spends an extravagant amount of time on
Ippen’s prayers at various kami shrines, numbering eighteen in total. This does not seemto give us much information about Ippen’s character, but it does effectively refute thecharge made in Tengu zōshi that Ippen rejected kami worship, simultaneously asserting
the orthodox nature of such worship by placing the shrines and their engi in a sacredlandscape. The repetitive depiction of dancing nembutsu in various towns across thecountry, and Hijiri-e’s justification for the practice by reference to Kūya, may also be
intended to refute Tengu zōshi’s accusation that such behaviors were disruptive andchaotic novelties, the repetition serving to normalize the dancing and reject the elite reflex
for embarrassment. 52
The ridicule and contempt that Tengu zōshi has for Ippen, combined with theextreme amount of resources poured into the high-quality materials and design of theHijiri-e, suggest a Kyoto intellectual world divided against itself in its opinion of Ippen.
This does not tell us whether Ippen actually distributed his urine as medicine, a questionthat may never be resolved. But it does suggest anxieties lying behind both of thesescrolls: the Hijiri-e suggests an anxiety that Ippen’s legacy of compassion and message
Ippen hijiri-e, scroll 9, translated in Hirata, No Abode, p. xliv.
Abe, Chūsei Nihon no sekaizō, p. 478.
52 Sunagawa, “Jishū hihan.”
50
51

62

Avery MORROWThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering Saint❖ Articles 3 ❖of salvation will be tarnished by small-minded detractors, and Tengu zōshi suggests a
parallel anxiety that new Buddhist movements, accompanied by purple clouds, dancing,and other wild new practices, could displace the stable forms of court Buddhism.
Following Ippen’s death, the traces of an obscene god-man, a dangerous revolutionary,
and a liberatory saint haunted the Kyoto imaginary in the form of these rival scrolls.
In the smoldering embers of this bitter battle over Ippen’s legacy, one feels like wehave a hint of why Ippen desired so strongly to destroy all traces of himself upon his
death. The way in which Ippen would be remembered, as a saint or as a disruptive faith
healer, could cause people to doubt the validity or applicability of his approach to Pure
Land salvation. To me, there still remains a mystery of how Ippen believed that the way
he would be remembered would relate to the security of being reborn. Did Ippen thinkthat his traces were going to have an effect on his karma and his rebirth? Or was his
concern purely a compassionate desire for the salvation of unseen others, whose
understanding of their salvation in the Pure Land might be diminished by his own
followers’ misuse of his traces? Perhaps it is the latter, compassionate instinct that shook
Ippen’s aristocratic followers so deeply that they decided to create the Hijiri-e, pouring
their souls into an epic work of art that affirms for all time the memory of a man who
worked tirelessly for the salvation of all living beings. Yet beneath the Hijiri-e’s elaborate,
beautiful portrayals of shrines, temples, and dancing nembutsu, there is still an argument
being carried out with long-dead interlocutors, a whisper of a trace.

Bibliography

Abe Yasurō. “The Book of Tengu: Goblins, Devils, and Buddhas in Medieval Japan.”Cahiers d'Extrême-Asie 13, 2002.
——. Chūsei Nihon no sekaizō 中 世 日 本 の 世 界 像 . Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku
Shuppankai, 2018.
Despeux, Catherine. “Chinese Medicinal Excrement: Is There a Buddhist Influence on
the Use of Animal Excrement-Based Recipes in Medieval China?” Asian
Medicine 12, 2017.
Foard, James. “Ippen Shonin and Popular Buddhism.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford
University, 1977.
——. “What One Kamakura Story Does: Practice, Place, and Text in the Account of
Ippen at Kumano.” In Re-Visioning “Kamakura” Buddhism, ed. Richard K.
Payne. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1998.
63❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7Foxwell, Chelsea. “The Pulled Back View: The Illustrated Life of Ippen and the Visibilityof Karma in Medieval Japan.” Archives of Asian Art 65, nos.1-2, 2015, pp. 25–56.
Fujiwara, Tadashi, ed. Ippen Shōnin goroku 一遍上人語録. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten,
1934.
Griffiths, Caitilin.“ Tracing the Itinerant Path: Jishū Nuns of Medieval Japan.” Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Toronto, 2011.
Hirota, Dennis. “The Illustrated Biography of Ippen.” In Buddhism in Practice, ed.
Donald Lopez. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995, pp. 563–577.
——. No Abode: The Record of Ippen. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1997.
Imai Masaharu. Ippen: Hōrō suru Ji-shū no so 一遍: 放浪する時衆の祖. Tokyo:
Sanshōdō, 1997.
Kanai Kiyomitsu.“ Ippen Shōnin no nyōryōhō” 一遍上人の尿療法. Daihōrin, April
1988.
Kaufman, Laura S. “Nature, Courtly Imagery, and Sacred Meaning in the Ippen Hijiri-e.”
In Flowing Traces: Buddhism in the Literary and Visual Arts of Japan, ed. James
Sanford et al. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2014.
Kohaku Tateya. “Ji-shū jiin Shōju-ji ni tsuite” 時宗寺院松寿庵について. Beppu shidan
11, 1997.
Kurita Isamu. Ippen Shōnin: tabi no shisakusha 一 遍 上 人 : 旅の 思索 者 . Tokyo:
Shinchōsha, 1977.
Kuroda Hideo. Sugata to shigusa no chūseishi: ezu to emaki no fūkei kara 姿としぐさの中世史: 絵図と絵卷の風景から. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1986.
Moerman, D. Max. “The Buddha and the Bathwater: Defilement and Enlightenment in
the Onsenji engi.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42, no. 1, 2015.
Miyamatsu Hiroyuki. “Ippen Shōnin no myōyaku” 一遍上人の妙薬. Daihōrin, June
1987.
——. Start Your Day with a Glass of Urine. Self-published on Amazon.com, 2020.
Nagashima Shōdō. “Nenbutsu ga nenbutsu o mōsu shinkō” 念仏が念仏を申す信仰. In
Yugyō no sutehijiri Ippen, ed. Imai Masaharu. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan,
2004.
Ōhashi Shun’nō. Ippen hijiri 一遍聖. Tokyo: Kodansha gakujutsu bunkō, 2001.
Sakurai Tetsuo. Ippen to Ji-shū no nazo 一遍と時衆の謎. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 2014.

64

Avery MORROWThe Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a
Wandering Saint❖ Articles 3 ❖Sunagawa Hiroshi. Ippen Hijiri-e kenkyū 一遍聖絵研究. Tokyo: Iwata Shoin, 2003.
——. “Shōkai wa Ippen, Jishū hihan to dō mukiatta ka” 聖戒は一遍・時衆批判とどう向き合ったか. Jishū bunka, 11, 2005.
Tachibana Shundō. “Ippen to shinbutsu shūgō” 一遍と神仏習合. Nihon bukkyō, 60-61,
1984.
——. ed. Ippen shōnin zenshū 一遍上人全集. Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1989.
Toda Kenji. Japanese Scroll Painting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935.
Tsuchiya Takahiro 土屋貴裕. “Tengu zōshi no sakuga kōbō” 「天狗草紙」の作画工
房. Bijutsu kenyū 403, 2011, pp. 25–57.
Wakabayashi, Haruko. The Seven Tengu Scrolls. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press,
2012.

65

Book Review

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7

Book Review
Geismar, Haidy, Ton Otto, and Cameron David Warner, eds.,
Impermanence: Exploring continuous change across cultures.
London: UCL Press, 2022, 364 pages
ISBN 9781787358713. £30.00 (paperback) | US $50.00 (hardcover)

Gouranga Charan PRADHAN(Postdoctoral Fellow,
Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures,
Ryukoku University)

The notion of impermanence (Pali: anicca, Sanskrit: anitya, Japanese: mujō) is afoundational principle in Buddhist discourse upon which complex metaphysics, ontology,
and epistemology have developed over the last two millennia. Impermanence in
Buddhism implies that all compounded phenomena are constantly in a state of flux andhence unreliable, unstable, and lacking substantiality. The English word “impermanence”
may not sufficiently express the complete meaning with all its connotations, but it
captures the notion’s core: that constant change constitutes a fundamental reality. There
has been a whole body of literature within Buddhist philosophic traditions exploring
various aspects of the notion. Likewise, there has been an equally large body of works inthe various Asian literary and aesthetic fields exploring the notion as it appears in formsof poetry, prose, paintings, and other artistic genres.
In classical Japanese literature, there is an entire genre called mujō bungaku (無常文学, literature of impermanence), and the notion is found prominently in classical Indianand Sinitic literature too. 1 These artistic works portray phenomenal ephemerality, issuesof attachment and nonattachment, and how to reconcile with constant change. As
somebody with a keen interest in this theme, the present reviewer found the volume underreview highly intriguing. This interest is not so much due to a new addition to the existing
body of works on the issue but precisely due to the volume’s ambitious aim tocomplement the lack in the existing body of works. Edited by Haidy Geismar, Ton Otto,
and Cameron David Warner Impermanence: Exploring continuous change acrosscultures carries the conceptual kernel from Buddhism but examines impermanence fromfields as varied as anthropology, sociology, history, performing arts, museology, medical
anthropology, digital humanities, poetry and so on which we usually don’t associate with
the notion of impermanence. The book’s approach to the problem from a transdisciplinary
schema makes this study unique.
1 The pre-war Japan witnessed a sort of boom in both philosophical as well as literary debates concerning various

aspects of mujō which continued well into the 1960s. Scholars from the Kyoto School (Kyōto-gakuha) like Nishida
Kitarō, Kobayashi Hideo, Miki Kiyoshi, Karaki Junzō, and others took active interest in these debates.

68Gouranga Charan PRADHAN
Review of Impermanence: Exploring continuous change across cultures.

❖ Book Review ❖Besides the exhaustive introduction and epilogue, this volume is constituted ofnineteen chapters of which sixteen chapters are scholarly essays, and the rest three include
an English translation of a Tibetan poetry, a Melanesian painting, and a cross-genre
inspired fabric and embroidery artwork. Unlike the usual academic books, this volume
includes both academic essays and artworks by artists. This is perhaps because this bookresulted from a conference entitled “Inevitable Ends, Meditations on Impermanence,”
held at Aarhus University in May 2019. Whether this is intentional or not, the format does
offer a holistic vision of the notion of impermanence other than the usual Buddhist and iseven useful to ponder over the issue of presenting research output in comprehensible
formats.
The nineteen chapters are further clubbed into four thematic parts: 1. Living withand against impermanence, 2. States of being and becoming, 3. Structures and practicesof care, and 4. Curating impermanence. The introduction sets the stage for theforthcoming chapters by offering a literature review of major theoretical frameworks,
mainly from the fields of Buddhism, anthropology, sociology, and philosophy but also
briefly touches upon psychoanalytic, biosemiotics, and other recent theoreticalinterventions, which help to sail through this otherwise voluminous volume.
The first part “Living with and against impermanence” includes four essays andone poem. The poem “Heavy curtains and deep sleep within darkness” by Tsering Woeser
is followed by essays, which explore four different geographical areas of Tibet,
Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, and Tanzania and show how subjects from different parts of theworld cope with constant flux, both material and spiritual, in their different life worlds.
Carole McGranahan’s essay on Tibet offers a case study of a prominent Tibetan family’s
sudden yet unprecedented rise followed by an abrupt fall from power and the way thisintergenerational tragedy unfolds forcing the family members to handle the materialchange in rather paradoxical ways. Then Maria Louw studies how the new generation of
Kyrgyzstan youths perceive their religious orientation and the way it shapes their viewsof their material and virtual afterlives. While the case study of a small community inNorthern Thailand by Julia Cassaniti, explores a subject’s struggle with alcoholism,changing familial relationships, and gender orientation, the last essay in this part by Cecil
Marie Schou Pallesen, investigates the way the Indian diaspora in Tanzania confronts theloss of property, negotiate their fleeting identities and more importantly, how these
ruptures and momentary suspension of ordinary lives opens up other future avenues, theoutcomes of which are contingent and open-ended.
The second part “States of being and becoming” includes one artwork, a Melanesian
painting by New Papua Guinean artist Joe Nalo that appears to depict a complex
interconnectedness between human and non-human beings, artifacts, and even science.
The three essays in this part cover independent case studies but are closely linked to thetheme of the state of being and becoming. Hermkens and Timmer’s essay explores the
Asmat people for whom the act of destruction of material objects – like woodcarvings
made for transporting the dead’s soul – has traditionally been a way of maintaining life
forces but now increasingly becoming untenable as a result of colonization, the influenceof western cultures and permeation of western emphasis on preservation and permanence.

69

❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Vol. 7Ton Otto in his Papua New Guinean case study employs the recent theoreticaldevelopments to understand the complicated conception of world-making. Otto
demonstrates how subjectivity and world-making are dialogical rather than a dialectic
process and “life is as an autopoietic process based on the principle of ‘changing to staythe same.’” (p.132). The following essay by Warner studies the contemporary Tibetan
fashion designer’s conscious striving to simultaneously preserve Tibetan culture all thewhile embracing changes as a liberatory practice. In that sense, Warner’s aim is somewhat
similar to Otto’s essay, for he too focuses on the way subjects with multiple identities try
to maintain sameness and continuity by adopting changes.
The third part “Structures and practices of care” presents three essays and two
artworks with explanatory notes. The essays are again independent studies of threedifferent aspects of contemporary societies but are inextricably linked to the theme ofcare and ephemerality. Henry Llewellyn focuses on the theme of life and death from theperspective of oncology and palliative vision of care and invites us to ponder over thevital question of “recognition” of the inevitable and how reconciliation with reality shapes
the way a subject chooses her vision of care. Unlike Llewellyn, in the following essay,
Haidy Geismar moves her attention to non-human objects housed in museums andelsewhere. She argues that these objects are not mere material collectibles but things withimmense immateriality requiring us to reconsider museums as “affective spaces” that are“committed to the notion of public sphere, social justice and identity construction.” (p.
207) Removed from an anthropocentric conception of temporality, Geismar’s arguments
force us to rethink flux from the perspective of multiple conceptions of temporalities.
Laura McAtackney then brings up a contentious part of human history, the Magdalene
laundries of Ireland, and argues that “what remains of the Magdalene Laundries may haveto change to facilitate a memorial function,” which will allow these historical sites “notsimply become fossilised reliquaries but can be living meaningful memorials in thepresent and future.” (pp. 229-230)
The last part “Curating impermanence” includes four essays each of which invarying degrees discusses the themes of artwork, museums, art installation andexhibitions, artistic performances, and even digital humanities, and in so doing they
approach the problem of impermanence from a perspective that we usually don’t associatewith this notion. The essay by Pip Laurenson and Lucy Bayley on self-destructive
artworks by Gustav Metzger shows the contradictions of an artist’s intention of producing
an ephemeral piece of art that ironically found a permanent house in a museum resulting
in diametrically opposite outcomes than what the artist envisioned. Martin Grünfeld’s
essay questions our anthropocentric delusion to retain the “authenticity” of artifacts by
forcibly blocking their natural life processes so that we can prolong their lives (p. 273), a
practice still very normal in museums everywhere. Our obsession with prolonging
artifacts’ lifespan is, more often than not, appropriated for commodification andnationalism. Grünfeld rather provocatively asks us to “rethink museum objects as partsof an all encompassing ecological cycle, and to consider whether the ‘end’ of these objects
could be turned into a site for becoming and multiplication.” (p. 273)

70

Gouranga Charan PRADHAN
Review of Impermanence: Exploring continuous change across cultures.

❖ Book Review ❖The following essay by Winnie Soon and Sarah Schorr questions the issue of(im)permanence of digital objects from a “post-digital culture” (p.293) perspective in the
backdrop of artistic creations and installations. In the penultimate chapter, Ulrik Høj
Johnsen, Ton Otto, and Cameron David Warner, the curators of the exhibition “Museumof Impermanence: Stories from Nepal, Papua New Guinea and Tibet,” (Moesgaard
Museum in Aarhus, Denmark, 9 Feb - 19 May 2019), who are also the editors this volume,reflect on the said exhibition, its ambitions, design concepts, and future issues. The
epilogue by Caitlin DeSilvey, who was also part of the above-mentioned exhibition andhas worked extensively on the theme of the cultural significance of change andtransformation, nicely closes the volume by mentioning that “moments of rupture andsuspension can provide opportunities for radical reconfiguration,” with the further“possibility for the creation of new cultural forms, and new expressions of self,” (p 338).
A “moment of suspension” like the one we experienced during COVID-19 made us
realize that contingency is the only truth. COVID-19 not only laid bare the ephemeralityof human existence but, above all, the socioeconomic systems and structures that we werealways made to believe as impregnable and unshakable were too fragile and malleable torely upon.
As the editors briefly mention in the introduction and then taken up further by someof the contributors, the conception of change is inextricably linked to the idea of
temporality which makes this volume even more important in our highly commodified
society where everyone is made to wrestle against time for more and more productivity.
Rather than facilitating reconciliation with fluxes and contradictions, as Hegel has argued,
our socioeconomic systems reward commodity fetishism and alienation. More worryingly,
the conceptions of impermanence and change have now been appropriated and promoted
by profit-seeking corporations as a life-enriching self-help habit to enhance employee
productivity. The volume tries to tackle many such difficult questions that lead to further
critical questions. How do we, for instance, articulate impermanence in a highly
consumerist society in which big corporations not only decide product lifecycles but
increasingly so of human and non-human organisms? Does impermanence have apractical utility in resisting the capitalist trap of unabated growth, endless desire, andensuing suffering? Or is the human obsession for fixity and permanence a result of a
Lacanian drive that brings a kind of jouissance or even deliverance from the very lack of
the object’s substantiality and permanence?
Most of the studies covered in this book employ extensive field studies. All
chapters are well annotated and come with an extensive bibliography that seasoned
scholars, as well as students interested in social theory, anthropology, philosophy, andBuddhist studies, will find very useful. Even general readers might find some of theessays interesting. Each chapter has comprehensive explanatory notes and is wellreferenced and the volume also has an index which is equally helpful to wade throughkey concepts and unfamiliar names. This book undoubtedly deserves a place in all
university libraries.

71❖ 2024.3 ❖Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

Bibliography
Kobayashi, Hideo. Mujō to iu koto 無常といふ事. Sōgensha, 1946.
Miki, Kiyoshi. “Shinran” 親鸞. Tenbō vol.1, 1946.
Karaki, Junzo. Mujō 無常. Chikuma Shobō,1964.

72

Vol. 7

Journal ofWorld Buddhist Cultures

Purpose of the Journal
The Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures at the Ryukoku University in Kyoto, Japan wasestablished with the aim of forming an international research institute for Buddhism, which could respondto the serious challenges facing the modern world. An important mission of the center is to accomplish awide variety of academic projects on Buddhism and thereby contribute to an increasingly globalized society.
All knowledge is expected to be transformed into information in a globalized society. Thus, at its
inauguration last year, the center also decided to publish an electronic journal to disseminate the center’s
research results more widely in order to fulfill its main purpose—in line with global trends ofinternationalization and informatization. Electronic journals have become indispensable platforms tointeract with researchers, Buddhists, and adherents of other religious traditions outside Japan, and tocooperate with foreign universities and research institutes.
The Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures has started a new electronic journal, Journal ofWorld Buddhist Cultures. In its long history, the Ryukoku University has accumulated a large body ofknowledge on Buddhism. The center hopes to develop this knowledge further and actively disseminate
it all over the world by means of this electronic journal, through which the center will also attempt toencourage international intellectual exchange and seek solutions to various problems facing people incontemporary society.
In contemporary society, people’s values are significantly diversified and complicated, and we areindeed hardly able to recognize what is “true.” Journal of World Buddhist Cultures will include not only
scholarly articles on Buddhism, but also articles that respond as a guide to urgent problems that arise inevery part of the world. Buddhism has been practiced all over the world for more than 2 500 years. The
journal will invite submissions in which this universal religion is discussed from a global perspective.
In addition, Journal of World Buddhist Culture will also include reviews of books on Buddhism,
records of lectures organized by the center, and a wide variety of translated works. It especially welcomes
papers written in English. Through this electronic journal, the center hopes to establish an international
platform for Buddhist studies and contribute to Buddhism’s further development.

73

Objective of the Research Center for World
Buddhist Cultures at Ryukoku University

1. Comprehensive Academic Research of Buddhism
Our objective is to contribute to the advancement of academic research on Buddhist philosophy,
history, culture, and other relevant fields while searching for ways to respond to the challenges facing
our modern world. By using effective and appropriate research methodologies, we aim to explore
Buddhist topics that meet the needs and concerns of our modern world.

2. Interdisciplinary Research that Combines the Fields of Humanity, Science, andReligion and the Creation of New Wisdom
By combining the three fields of humanity, science, and religion, we will explore the prospects ofcreating a new wisdom for the 21st century. We will aim to become a global research hub wherescholars from both Japan and abroad can converse and interact in order to provide guidelines that canhelp address social issues and global crises from a Buddhist perspective.

3. Building a Global Platform for Buddhist Studies
By collaborating with universities and research institutions in Asia, the Americas, and Europe, wewill carry out projects with overseas scholars, Buddhist priests, and academics of religion. We will
publish our research results through our website and publications and provide them in English andother languages. Also, by using information and communication technology (ICT), we will collaborate
with overseas universities and research institutions in real time in both the graduate and undergraduate
programs. In addition, we will build a system that can quickly respond to requests from overseas
research institutions who may ask for information about local historical sites by employing various
views from across the university.

4. Research Results that will Benefit the Undergraduate and Graduate Schools
By collaborating on the curriculum for each academic area, we aim to build an integrated
program that spans across all the departments. We will also promote participation in educational
collaboration programs—not only within our university, but with other educational institutions as
well. We will recruit short-term research fellows from graduate and post-graduate programs inand outside of our university, by providing research grants (scholarships) and publishing theirfindings online or on print.

74

Significance of the Publication of Journal of World Buddhist Cultures

The

ResearchCenterfor World

Buddhist Cultures consists of following
three research divisions: Basic Research,
Applied Research, and International
Research. Among them, the International
Research Division plays a central role in
the publication of the electronic journal.

International Research Division
The International Research Division will be responsible for sharing information about the activitiesof the center with the international community while continuing the project of translating andpublishing Buddhist canons and texts that was originally carried out by the Research Institute for
Buddhist Culture. In addition to the publication of the e-journal and the management of the center’s
website, the division will also promote exchanges with overseas scholars, other Buddhists, andreligious specialists through ICT. The division will encourage collaboration with universities andresearch institutes in different parts of the world, and sponsor international symposiums and invite
scholars from overseas to attend them.
As religion becomes more global and multi-dimensional in contemporary society, there has been agrowing awareness of a need for inter-religious dialogue. The division will encourage theseconversations and interactions by collaborating with various religious research institutions abroad.
Under the theme “Inter-Faith Education” the division will carry out research at institutions of higher
education.
In the international context of inter-religious dialogue, this division will explore how Japanese
Buddhist ideology is viewed by the outside world and what Japanese Buddhism can do to contribute
further to inter-religious education. Through these activities, the division’s core focus will be todevelop young scholars’ understanding of the importance of having an international mindset and to
facilitate global interaction between scholars.

75

Contributors
Bee SCHERER

Professor of Buddhist Studies,
Faculty of Religion and
Theology, Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam

Buddhist Studies, Religious
Studies, Gender Studies

Mrigendra PRATAPAssistant Professor,
Department of Pali and Buddhist
Studies, Savitribai Phule Pune
University, Pune

Buddhist Studies, Indian
Buddhism

Avery MORROWPhD Candidate, Brown
University

Buddhist Studies, Religious
Studies

Gouranga Charan PRADHAN Postdoctoral Fellow,

Research Center for World
Buddhist Cultures, Ryukoku
University

Japanese literature, Japanesestudies

執 筆 者 一 覧

Bee SCHERER

Professor of Buddhist Studies,
Faculty of Religion and
Theology, Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam

Buddhist Studies, Religious
Studies, Gender Studies

Mrigendra PRATAPAssistant Professor,
Department of Pali and Buddhist
Studies, Savitribai Phule Pune
University, Pune

Buddhist Studies, Indian
Buddhism

Avery MORROWPhD Candidate, Brown
University

Buddhist Studies, Religious
Studies

Gouranga Charan PRADHAN Postdoctoral Fellow,

Research Center for World
Buddhist Cultures, Ryukoku
University

76

Japanese literature, JapanesestudiesEditorial Board

Editorial Board
Kenichi WAKITA（Editor-in-Chief）

Aya HONDA

Mami IWATA

Junshi NOMI

Kosuke SHIMIZU

Markus RÜSCH

Eisho NASU

Sei NORO

Junshin UCHIDA

Yasuro ABE

Micah AUERBACK

Mitsuya DAKE

Yasuko FUKUYAMAPaul GRONER

Janet GYATSOCharles HALLISEY

Dennis HIROTA

Shoryu KATSURA

Hideaki NAKATANI

Chon-hak KIM

Seiji KUMAGAI

Eiichi OTANI

Wenliang ZHANG

Masaaki NONIN

Jacqueline STONE

Eric SCHICKENTANZ

Chih-yu SHIH

Jong-min SUH

Fumihiko SUEKI

Kenneth TANAKA

Hideaki NAKATANI

Yozo TANIYAMA

Yusho WAKAHARA

Assistant Editor
Gouranga Charan PRADHAN

Advisory Board

77

Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures, Ryukoku University

Journal of World Buddhist Cultures~ Vol. 7 ~March 31, 2024
EditorResearch Center for World Buddhist Cultures, Ryukoku University, Editorial Board

Publisher

Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures, Ryukoku University
125-1 Daiku-chō, Shichijō-dōri Ōmiya
Higashi-iru, Shimogyō-ku, Kyoto 600-8268
Hakuakan (Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures)
Phone Number：075-343-3812 (domestic)
International：+81-75-343-3812
E-mail: rcwbc-ejournal@ad.ryukoku.ac.jp
URL: http://rcwbc.ryukoku.ac.jp

Printer

Kawakita Printing Co., Ltd.

© 2024 by Research Center for World Buddhist Cultures, Ryukoku University, JapanAll rights reserved.

世界仏教文化研究
第7号
コンテンツ
❖

論 文 ❖

◆ “I did not kill Kyaw Zin Win….”: Queer Suicide and Buddhist Social Thought
Bee SCHERER◆ The Emergence and Evolution of the “Neither Monk nor Layman” View in Shinran, Ambedkar, andSangharakshita’s Work
Mrigendra PRATAP◆ The Traces of Ippen Shōnin: Healing, Contagion, and the Disputed Legacy of a Wandering Saint
Avery MORROW❖ 書 評 ❖
Review of Impermanence: Exploring continuous change across cultures Ed. by Haidy Geismar, Ton Otto
and Cameron David Warner
Gouranga Charan PRADHAN

龍谷大学世界仏教文化研究センター

2024.3