<論説>法然没後の専修念仏教団と「嘉禄の法難」事件

Abstract

法然没後の専修念仏教団にとって最大の法難事件とされる「嘉禄の法難」事件において、張本として処罰された専修念仏者はそれぞれ青蓮院門跡と関係があり、逆に京都近郊に居ながら処罰を免れた法然有力門弟は、法然からの円頓戒相承が窺えるという共通項があった。まず後者について、これは山門衆徒を主導し得る存在であった証真との戒脈上の繋がりを示しており、この事件で主導的役割を担ったのは証真門下であったことから、処罰から除外されたのはこういった法系の主張によるものと考えられる。逆に前者については、法然墓所が青蓮院門跡の管轄する地にあり、ここで専修念仏者が再生産されていたことを衆徒が問題視していた故に、青蓮院門跡関係の専修念仏者が選択的に処罰されたものと思われる。このように、この事件は山門内のセクショナリズムに依る部分が大きく、また事件の一連の経過を見ても、国家による思想弾圧であると理解することは難しい。

By deepening our understanding of the incident known as the Karoku no Honan 嘉禄の法難, literally the persecution of Buddhism in the Karoku era, which was the greatest incident of religious persecution against the senju nenbutsu kyodan 専修念仏教団 (the congregations who practiced the nenbutsu exclusively)after the death of Honen法然, this article reconsiders the place of the senju nenbutsu kyodan during the period in question. Many senju nenbutsu adherents were punished during the Karoku no Honan incident, and the cause of the incident is said to have been a theological dispute between Ryukan 隆寛, a senju nenbutsu adherent, and the monk Josho 定照. Ryukan was identified during the persecution as an instigator of the senju nenbutsu kyodan, but prior to his reclusion, he often participated in esoteric Buddhist rites led by Jien 慈円, then head of the Shoren-in 青蓮院 monastery, and as Ryukan's name is seen among monks attached to the Daisenbo-in 大懺法院cloister that was built at Jien's Yoshimizu-bo 吉水坊, he can be considered a Shoren-in monk as well. Moreover, it is presumed that Ku-Amidabutsu 空阿弥陀仏, Kosai 幸西 and others who were also considered instigators in this incident and were punished along with Ryukan, and Shoku 証空, who was also suspected of similar involvement, all had some sort of relationship with Shoren-in. On the other hand, at the time of Karoku no Honan incident, Honen's influential disciples such as Shin'ku 信空, Tan'ku 湛空, Genchi 源智, who were not punished despite the fact that they were resident in Kyoto, had each received, or are presumed to have received, the entonkai 円頓戒 (sudden precepts) from Honen. In addition, some remaining discourse indicates that Genchi, Bencho 弁長 and Hochibo Shoshin 宝地房証真 received the entonkai from Eiku 叡空, just as Honen had done. If such records are followed, it becomes clear that Shoshin 証真 belonged to the same precept lineage as Shin'ku, Tan'ku, and Genchi. Hochibo Shoshin was a scholar of the Tendai school as well as being in a leadership position representing the will of the monks of Enryakuji, moreover, those monks who played a leading role in seeking punishment of the senju nenbutsu followers during this incident were followers of Shoshjn. At this time, where the percepts were received was considered a vital factor, and as monks who were disciples of Shoshin, it is surmised that Shin'ku, Tan'ku, and Genchi who were in the same precept linage as their master would have seen themselves as distinct from other senju nenbutsu adherents. The fact that these senju nenbutsu adherents escaped punishment was likely due to their words and deeds. Then why were the senju nenbutsu adherents who were punished tend to be associated with Shoren-in? If we trace the course of events that make up this incident, there are two points that can be specified. The first point is that the sanctions imposed on the senju nenbutsu adherents by Enryakuji were at first limited to those from sub-temples and territories of Enryakuji, and the swift destruction of the tomb of Honen was due to the fact that it was in Enryakuji's territory, and particularly since it was within the jurisdiction of Shoren-in itself The second point is the reaction of the court to this incident merely ratified the position advocated by Enryakuji, and it cannot be concluded that an order prohibiting the senju nenbutsu movement was the religious policy of the state. The first point is particularly important. At that time the problems associated with the senju nenbutsu kyodan by their critics, monks of Enryakuji, were first that words and deeds of the senju nenbutsu adherents slandered Buddhism, and that when new followers were created at venues where senju nenbutsu adherents congregated, such slanders would continue to be carried on. Monks and lay people who sought rebirth in the Pure Land would congregate at the tomb of Honen in particular, and it is thought that this is the site where new senju nenbutsu adherents would be created. In other words, this meant that their new followers were being produced at site under the jurisdiction of Shoren-in Under these circumstances, due to the theological dispute between Ryukan, who was both a senju nenbutsu adherent and from Shoren-in, and Josho, who was a follower of Shoshin, it is thought that the close relationship and overlap between the group of monks from Shoren-in and senju nenbutsu kyodan was reconfirmed to the monks of Enryakuji. For that reason, it is probable that only the senju nenbutsu adherents who were related to Shoren-in were singled out for punishment. In this manner, it was factionalism within Enryakuji that was responsible in large measure for this incident, and it cannot be judged to have been repression of thought by the state. The break down of the senju nenbutsu kyodan into many factions after the death of Honen occurred nationwide. In terms of the kenmitsu taisei 顕密体制 theory, the senju nenbutsu kyodan is understood to have compromised theoretically with exoteric Buddhism and become systematized. However, as can be seen in the Karoku no honan incident, the discord between kenmitsu Buddhism and the senju nenbutsu kyodon, was not resolved simply by the senju nenbutsu side making theoretical compromises; it must be understood as having passed through many complex stages that included the circumstances and logic of groups of monks from the kenmitsu Buddhist side. It is thus necessary to rethink the process of senju nenbutsu kyodan's establishment in Japanese society.