Textual analysis reveals how Ashizu Jitsuzen conceptualized Buddhist scriptures as world literature in Meiji Japan, highlighting efforts to establish Buddhism as a universal global religion.
Following the Meiji Restoration, Japanese Buddhism underwent a profound transformation as it confronted the rise of State Shinto, the spread of Christianity, and the emergence of modern concepts such as “religion” “civilization” and “philosophy”. Against this background, this paper examines the concept of “world literature” (sekai bungaku 世界文学) within the intellectual context of Meiji Buddhism, with particular attention paid to Ashizu Jitsuzen’s (1850–1921) discussion of the concept in Genuine Philosophy of Killing and Giving Life (1890). The paper first explores the formation of the modern religious order in Meiji Japan and the challenges Buddhism faced in redefining its social and cultural legitimacy. It then examines Ashizu’s religious thought and public activities, focusing on how he articulated the significance of Buddhism within the emerging modern public sphere and global order of knowledge, as well as the relationship between his notion of “world literature” and contemporary discussions of religion, civilization, and the emerging discourse of “world religions”. This paper argues that Ashizu’s notion of “world literature” sought to demonstrate that Buddhist scriptures possessed systematic structures of knowledge, interpretive methods, and mechanisms of transmission, enabling Buddhism to transcend national and regional boundaries and claim universal significance. At the same time, it shows that Ashizu regarded the realization of this potential as requiring Buddhist practitioners to develop new forms of learning, practice, and global propagation. By examining the tension between the inherited textual resources of the Buddhist tradition and modern Buddhism’s efforts toward global engagement, this paper reveals how Meiji Buddhist thinkers sought to reconstruct Buddhism’s position within a rapidly changing modern world order.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiaoyao Ye (2026) studied this question.