Nichiren, not nationalism?

IN A REVIEW WELL WORTH READING, translator and essayist Hiroaki Sato profiles the remarkable 1988 book Kejo no Showa Shi (A History of Showa as a Phantom City) by Daikichi Terauchi in this article in the Japan Times . (Showa is the posthumous name of Emperor Hirohito and is thus the era name denoting the time of his reign.)

Most works examining the history of Imperial Japan in the first half of the 20th century cite nationalism as the driving force. Terauchi instead emphasizes the influence of Nichiren Buddhism on many important people of the period. Nichiren is one sect of Japanese Buddhism and is itself split into several sects, some of which have widely varying beliefs. It is perhaps most well known in the West for the adherents’ chanting of the title of the Lotus Sutra, its core scripture—Namu Myoho Renge Kyo (“I Take My Refuge in the Lotus Sutra”).

In the modern era, Nichiren’s influence is primarily through lay movements that have formed popular religious organizations. These are diverse; some believe in faith healing, some promise benefit in this life, and some have shamanistic practices. Most of the sects aggressively proselytize. One of the most prominent today is the Soka Gakkai, who have formed their own political party, the New Komeito. This party is the junior coalition member of the administration currently ruling Japan, led by the Liberal-Democratic Party. (In fact, the organization’s ability to mobilize voters has been the critical factor in keeping the LDP in power for a few years now.)

Terauchi’s interest in the sect’s influence in Imperial Japan began when he spotted the phrase Namu Myoho Renge Kyo written on a banner that appeared in a photo taken during a conference convened to create the Manchukuo puppet state in Mongolia in the 30s and 40s. He discovered that one of the men in the photograph, army officer Kanji Ishihara, was a Nichirenist and one of the instigators of the Manchurian Incident.

Other members of the sect were responsible for political assassinations that plagued Japan during the unrest of the 30s. Terauchi notes that the four junior officers who spearheaded the attempted coup on February 26, 1936 (now known as the 2-26 Incident) were also Nichirenists. This coup attempt was an important event in modern Japanese history, as the army gained the upper hand in national politics in the wake of the coup’s failure.

As a reviewer, Sato’s reach exceeds his grasp when he inserts some comments that would compare the Nichirenists with Christians in the U.S. who believe in the Rapture. In a backhand swipe, he claims the latter are responsible for invading Iraq. Despite this silliness, the review is worth reading for the light it sheds on a seldom-explored aspect of the nexus between religion and politics in Imperial Japan.