Paper short abstract:

The Ōbaku monk Chōon was responsible for the printing of Taisei-kyō in 1679. Although the text had been forbidden by the bakufu in 1681, he still promoted it. In my presentation, I will discuss why he did this, and which aspects of the text he stressed.

Paper long abstract:

The Ōbaku monk Chōon Dōkai 潮音道海 (1628-1695) was involved in the printing of Sendai kuji hongi taisei-kyō in 1679. For this involvement, he was punished, albeit lightly, when the bakufu prohibited the book in 1681 and again in 1683. Nevertheless, he continued to study and promote Taisei-kyō until his death.

In my presentation, I will analyse two texts Chōon composed after the prohibition of Taisei-kyō, namely Fusō gobusshin-ron 扶桑護仏神論　(3 fasc.; pref. 1687) and Fusō sandō ken'yo roku 扶桑三道権輿録 (2 fasc.; pref. 1694). Like Taisei-kyō itself, both texts are written in Kanbun, which implies that they were addressed to an audience of educated intellectuals. To judge by the number of surviving copies, both texts did not spread widely: Gobusshin-ron survives in the form of three manuscripts, and Ken'yo-roku, of two manuscripts and two printed copies.

Gobusshin-ron is a polemic against Honchō jinja-kō 本朝神社考 and other writings by the Confucian scholar Hayashi Razan 林羅山 (1583-1657). In every section, a passage from Razan's works is quoted and criticised. In his comments, Chōon routinely quotes passages from Taisei-kyō that, he claims, contain the truth that Razan had wilfully ignored. Ken'yo-roku consists of long quotations from Taisei-kyō, followed by "assessments" (評) by Chōon. It seems to be intended as an introduction to Taisei-kyō, for those who could not spare the time to read the complete work.

The question I will try to answer in my presentation is, which aspects of Taisei-kyō Chōon thought that he could successfully bring to the attention of his fellow-intellectuals within the Buddhist, Shinto, and Confucian communities. Evidently, he was a believer himself, and he wanted to impress on his contemporaries that Taisei-kyō contained knowledge that was true, important, and useful. The question is, what kind of knowledge he selected.