The formation of sectarian Shinto in the Meiji era was promoted primarily by religious policies of the Meiji government. However, the formation of each sect was realized based on various religious ideas and thoughts, rituals, practices and organizing principles transmitted in Japan up to that point.

I have previously suggested that the forms of organization within sectarian Shinto can be categorized into two models, namely, the takatsuki (“offering-stand”) model, and the “tree” model. In this paper I place primary focus on the takatsuki model. In analyzing the boundaries between sects of this type, I introduce recent research in neuroscience and cognitive science to consider the effect of cognition transmitted genetically and culturally on the inner-outer division of the organization, focusing on the class of group leaders and core members.

Influential cognitive frames relating to culturally transmitted elements include differences between Shinto or Buddhism, whether the teachings are original to Japan or not, judgments as to whether the religion was viewed as suitable for a cultivated society or not, and others influenced by Japan's cultural inheritance. At the same time, I suggest that unconscious, genetically inherited cognitive processes also worked to fortify the unity of believers. While referring to the findings of research in neuroscience and cognitive science which have had influence on the humanities since the late twentieth century, I also analyze the dynamism of fusion and exclusion characterizing sect Shinto of the takatsuki model.

The Meiji government in the early stage adopted a policy to establish Shinto as the state religion and promulgated the separation of Buddhism and Shinto. However, the government changed direction because of confusion caused by the Haibutsu-kishaku and the stagnation of missionary work. Then, the Daikyōin was established for social edification. However, the edification policy insisted on the “supremacy of Shinto over Buddhism” and caused the movement, led by Jōdo-shin priests, to separate from the Daikyōin, which was dissolved in 1875.

In this paper, I would like to introduce a case which reflects the discontent of Buddhist priests at the time by closely reading Hanaya An'ne's Tenmon sanji kyō (1874) and consider the meaning of the curious criticism on the cosmological discourse of National Learning made by Buddhist intellectuals, which focused on the theory of Mt. Sumeru as found in Buddhist scriptures.

An'ne insisted on the homogeneity between Buddhism, Confucianism and Shintoism at the level of cosmological discourse. On the other hand, he severely criticized the cosmological discourse of Hirata Atsutane as being teachings under the influence of Western knowledge. An'ne's evaluation of Hirata Atsutane and his teachings seems to reflect strife between Buddhist thought and the teachings of the Daikyōin in this period.

The concept of the Separation of Rituals and Doctrines (saikyō bunri) made it possible for the modern Japanese State to establish the Unity of Ritual and Political Rule (saisei itchi) and to claim that Shinto was not a religion (Jinja hi shūkyō ron).

In this paper, to clarify the process of forming the basis for saisei itchi in the modern Japanese State, I will focus on the concept of saikyō bunri observed in the segregation between the administration of rituals and that of Shinto indoctrination in 1872, which was closely related with the process of the re-establishment and abolition of the Meiji Jingikan.

To act as the highest counsel on Imperial rituals, the Meiji Jingikan built its shrine in the palace, which was dedicated to the eight deities (Hasshin), the spirits of former Emperors (Kōrei), and the Kami of heaven and earth (Tenjin Chigi), and developed the rituals related to these deities. Through performing such rituals, the Meiji Jingikan consolidated the modern Jinja (shrine) system.

Saikyō bunri was made in the process of the abolition of the Meiji Jingikan. On the one hand, the Imperial rituals performed in the Imperial court were centralized and segregated from Shinto indoctrination. On the other hand, the prime minister became the highest counsel on the Imperial rituals. Thus, the process resulted in forming the basis of saisei itchi of the modern Japanese State.

However, as the highest counsel on the Imperial rituals was suspended, the Imperial rituals were exclusively centralized to the Emperor himself. At this point, saikyō bunri became a concept which enabled to coexist saisei itchi and the separation of church/religion and state (seikyō bunri) in the modern Japanese State. Furthermore, it led to the theory that Shinto was not a religion.

The purpose of this paper is to avoid generalizing about modern Shinto policy and the history of Shinto shrines after the Meiji Restoration (1868). Instead, I examine local community shrines. It is held that modern Shinto shrines were protected under the national system and played an important role in the religious life of the Japanese. At first glance this argument has validity, but we also need to consider that the situation was more complicated. Hence, I discuss three topics for further research and make arguments based on a case study. They are: A) How local residents who venerated small shrines reacted as these informal shrines disappeared from their daily life; B) Why the local government permitted the unusual treatment of the late-Meiji shrine merger policy; and C) The nature of mutual influence between the modern idea of landscape and the environmental design of local shrines.

In conclusion, I emphasize the necessity for further research on local community shrines and the need to rethink modern Shinto and the state from such a perspective.

In the early stages of the Meiji era, Buddhist statues, such as those of Jizō (Ksitigarbha), were removed or destroyed. In this paper, I focus on specific localities and analyze the reasons for the removal or destruction of these Buddhist statues.

In three areas (Kyoto, Osaka, and Shiga Prefecture), statues of Jizō―all of which were located on roadsides―were removed as part of the so-called “civilization policy.” However, perhaps due to this “civilization policy,” in all of these three areas Jizō statues were re-installed in the mid-Meiji era.

In Kaga-han and Toyama-han the separation of Shinto-Buddhist-deities was originally enacted without trouble. Subsequently, in Toyama-han the reduction of temples was undertaken as part of economic policy and Buddhist statues were melted down. For the purpose of securing sources of water, Ishikawa Prefecture―Kaga-han's successor―removed Buddhist statues from Mt. Hakusan and also destroyed a number of them.

In Tokyo's Mikurajima, an area grounded in Shinto, Buddhist temples were abolished and statues of Jizō were destroyed.

There were two reasons that Buddhist statues were removed or destroyed in the early stages of the Meiji era. One was the aforementioned “civilization policy” and another was the Shinto-based anti-Buddhist movement.

This paper reexamines the early Meiji religious policy that brought great changes to the spiritual culture of the Japanese people. The series of legislations known as the “Edict for the separation of kami and buddhas” issued after March 1868 was a result of restorationist fundamentalism that aimed to “purify” Shinto by “clarifying” the kami-buddha admixture that then prevailed. The purpose of these edicts was to make Shinto the Japanese state religion, but an anti-Buddhist movement ensued that saw the violent destruction of Buddhist statues and temples. Shugendō was banned in 1872 by order of the Dajōkan (The Great Council of State). Shugendō, considered the epitome of kami-buddha admixture, was dismembered and eliminated as if a scapegoat. As many as 170,000 shugen were laicised to then become Shinto priests, became ordained as Buddhist monks affiliated to one sect or another, or simply left the religious life entirely many taking up farming. Those responsible for the violence against Buddhism in the early years of the Meiji period were chiefly nativist scholars called Kokugakusha, former Buddhists who had laicised and became Shinto priests, and also lower-ranking Shinto priests. Though their ideas may have been subtly different, they were united in what they held to be the noble cause of obeying the Emperor's orders, which they adroitly reinterpreted, upsetting the traditional value system. In this paper we examine case studies of a number of Shugendō headquarters, such as Mt. Haguro, Mt. Yoshino, Mt. Hikosan, and localized Shugendō in villages. This study of the change is clearly exemplified by the eradication, revival, reconstruction and recreation of Shugendō, and by the revival and decline of confraternities associated with making pilgrimage to sacred mountains.

In this paper, I set out two agendas, based on the cosmology-ideology complex theory presented by Dr. Shimazono Susumu. The first is shifting the focus from the cosmology-ideology complex itself to society and examining changes of the position of the cosmology-ideology complex. The second point―beginning in the 19th century―is to understand both the continuity and discontinuity in the history of the Meiji Restoration and seeing it as a kind of boundary. In the first section I point out that urban intellectuals founded Honmon Butsuryū Kō and that the cosmology-ideological complex changed to a rational one based on Western learning. In the second section, I show that there was an attempt to overcome magical elements through the separation of Shinto and Buddhism (shinbutsu bunri) and that the destruction of Buddhism (haibutsu kishaku), and that the principle of separation of public and private space was introduced. These ideas, which can be found in Tenrikyō, conformed with Meiji government policy and modernity.

An old question is the subject of this survey: Did the nativism of the Hirata School bring about the Meiji Restoration?

There are major three points to this issue.

Firstly, post-war researchers favored viewing Atsutane as a spiritualist and avoided examining the nationalistic side of the Hirata School. However, scholars were not be able to deny the influence of Atsutane on the nationalistic movement during the Restoration.

Secondly, Hirata Atsutane's writings and other related artifacts in the National Museum of Japanese History have given us so much richer information on him, his family, and his disciples. Thus, research without the aid of these materials has lost much of its validity.

Thirdly, the Tsuwano School and the Satsuma School, which were in conflict with the Hirata School (and also each), and also the successors to Atsutane need to be taken into account. Hence, we must not mythicize the fall of the nativism of Atsutane.