No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2025
In July 1934, the Second General Conference of Pan-Pacific Young Buddhists’ Associations was held in Tokyo and Kyoto. Despite the event’s grand scale, with roughly a thousand participants attending from across Asia and North America, and its aspiration to use Buddhist solidarity to promote international goodwill, only a handful of delegates represented the Republic of China. The general absence of Chinese Buddhist leaders was due to widespread anger over the conference organizers’ treating Manchukuo, Japan’s puppet state in Manchuria, as an independent nation in conference materials. Yet conference attendees (including Japanese, Chinese, and others) were not necessarily collaborationists who supported Japan’s imperial expansion, as some used the platform to criticize Japanese imperialism and the conference’s normalization of Manchukuo.
This article uses this 1934 conference as a lens through which to examine the complex relations between Buddhists from Japan and China (and elsewhere) and Japan’s early wartime empire. It argues that many occupied a kind of ‘grey zone’ between collaboration and resistance, hoping that Buddhist institutions could promote genuinely peaceful international relations, but also aware that their involvement in Japanese projects could be used to help justify Japanese imperialism. It first provides an overview of the colonial and anti-colonial politics of international Buddhist conferences in the early twentieth century (with particular attention given to the First Pan-Pacific Young Men’s Buddhist Associations Conference held in Honolulu in 1930) before closely examining the organization of the second conference, especially the controversies that developed around the Chinese delegation that led to a near-boycott by Chinese Buddhists.
1 Taixu, ‘Lun di er ci fan taipingyang fojiao qingnian hui dahui’, in Taixu dashi quanshu (Taipei: Taixu dashi quanshu chuban weiyuanhui, 1956), vol. 15, p. 118. Originally in Zhengxin, vol. 4, no. 5, 1934.
2 Stein, Justin B., ‘Nationalism and Buddhist youth groups in the Japanese, British, and American empires, 1880s–1930s’, Journal of Global Buddhism, vol. 22, no. 2, 2021Google Scholar. Trans-imperial history focuses on ‘connections, cooperation, and competition’ between empires: Hedinger, Daniel and Heé, Nadin, ‘Transimperial history: Connectivity, cooperation, and competition’, Journal of Modern European History, vol. 16, no. 4, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Ilmee Kim, Hwansoo, Empire of the Dharma: Korean and Japanese Buddhism, 1877–1912 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2013)Google Scholar; Ilmee Kim, Hwansoo, The Korean Buddhist empire: A transnational history (1910–1945) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018).Google Scholar
4 Judith Snodgrass, Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism, Occidentalism, and the Columbian exposition (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003).
5 Okamoto, Yoshiko, ‘An Asian religion conference imagined: Okakura Kakuzō, Oda Tokunō, Swami Vivekananda and unwoven religious ties in early twentieth-century Asia’, Japanese Religions, vol. 41, no. 1–2, 2016, p. .Google Scholar
6 Vann, Michael G., ‘“All the world’s a stage,” especially in the colonies: L’Exposition de Hanoï, 1902–3’, in Empire and culture: The French experience, 1830–1940, (ed.) Evans, Martin (Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), p. Google Scholar. For the conference delegates and attendees, see Compte rendu analytique des séances: Premier Congrès international des études d’Extrême-Orient, Hanoi, 1902 (Hanoi: Congrès international des études d’Extrême-Orient, 1903), pp. 10–12.
7 Bocking, Brian, ‘“A man of work and few words”? Dhammaloka beyond Burma’, Contemporary Buddhism, vol. 11, no. 2, 2010, pp. 241–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mami, Iwata, ‘Takanawa Bukkyō University and the International Buddhist Young Men’s Association: International networks at the turn of the twentieth century’, Japanese Religions, vol. 41, no. 1–2, 2016, pp. 34–35Google Scholar.
8 The English name does not reflect this, but this conference’s Japanese name (J. Bankoku bukkyō taikai) was modelled after that of the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions (J. Bankoku shūkyō taikai).
9 Yoshiko Okamoto, ‘Buddhism and the Twenty-One Demands: The politics behind the international movement of Japanese Buddhists’, in The decade of the Great War: Japan and the wider world in the 1910s, (eds) Tosh Minohara, Tze-ki Hon and Evan Dawley (Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 395–396. See also Kōnen, Tsunemitsu, Nihon bukkyō tobei shi (Tokyo: Bukkyō shuppankyoku, 1964), pp. 51–65.Google Scholar
10 Pittman, Don A., Toward a modern Chinese Buddhism: Taixu’s reforms (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001), pp. 105–114Google Scholar; Kim, Korean Buddhist empire, pp. 116–118.
11 The term ‘bishop’ is often used in North American Jōdo and Jōdo Shinshū as an English translation of the regional sect administrator, a position called kantoku in the pre-war period and sōchō in the post-war period.
12 Davis, Winston, ‘Buddhism and the modernization of Japan’, History of Religions, vol. 28, no. 4, May 1989, pp. 319–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tomoe, Moriya, Amerika bukkyō no tanjō: nijū seiki shotō no bunka hen’yō (Tokyo: Gendai shiryō shuppan: 2001)Google Scholar; Baraka Thomas, Jolyon, Faking liberties: Religious freedom in American-occupied Japan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019), pp. 95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; George Tanabe, Jr., ‘Grafting identity: The Hawaiian branches of the Bodhi tree’, in Buddhist missionaries in the era of globalization, (ed.) Linda Learman (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005), pp. 85–89.
13 Tsunemitsu, Nihon bukkyō tobei shi, p. 65.
14 ‘Buddhists are planning pan Pacific parley’, Honolulu Advertiser, 10 July 1929.
15 The conference proceedings list 36 delegates from Japan, one from Korea, 10 from the mainland United States, 136 from Hawai‘i (129 Nikkei and seven white members of the ‘English Mission Department’ or eigo dendōbu). See Han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinen taikai narabi ni kaigi kiyō (Tokyo: Han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai renmei, 1931), pp. 65–69. Hunt was included both as a member of the Betsuin’s English Department and as the sole ‘Indian delegate’, a role he was asked to fill by the Nepalese Buddhist nationalist Dharmaditya Dharmacharya (1902–1963), who had founded the All-India Buddhist Conference in 1928.
16 ‘Buddhists to make this focal point’, Honolulu Advertiser, 24 July 1930.
17 The First Pan-Pacific Y.M.B.A. Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 21–26, 1930. Proceedings of the conference (Tokyo: Han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai renmei, 1931). This hymn, written by Dorothy Hunt, would also appear in the influential text, The vade mecum: A book containing an order of ceremonies for use in Buddhist temples together with gathas expressing the teaching of the Buddha (Honolulu: International Buddhist Institute of Hawaii, 1932; 5th edn), pp. 52–53. Interestingly, all five gathas in the Vade mecum’s ‘Y.M.B.A. meetings’ section (four by Hunt and one by Paul Carus) use the metaphor of young Buddhists being soldiers or warriors. For more on this subject, see Wells, Keiko, ‘Shin Buddhist song lyrics sung in the United States: Their history and expressed Buddhist images (1) 1898–1939’, Tōkyō daigaku Amerika taiheiyō kenkyū, vol. 2, 2002, pp. 93–94Google Scholar. A Japanese translation appears in the opening pages of the Japanese-language proceedings.
18 See Proceedings of the conference, pp. 13, 22, 24. For the conflict over the Vesak dates at the 1925 conference and in Korea, see Kim, Korean Buddhist empire, pp. 80–81, 90–91.
19 Imamura Yemyō, A message to the delegates to the First Pan-Pacific Y.M.B.A. Conference (Honolulu: Hawaii Hompa Hongwanji Mission, 1930); Tomoko Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific: The United States, Japan and the Institute of Pacific Relations in war and peace, 1919–45 (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), pp. 39, 66, 102; Azuma, Eiichiro, ‘“The Pacific era has arrived”: Transnational education among Japanese Americans, 1932–1941’, History of Education Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, 2003Google Scholar; Korhonen, Pekka, ‘The Pacific age in world history’, Journal of World History, vol. 7, no. 1, Spring 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Kim, Korean Buddhist empire, pp. 1–3, 61–62.
21 Ibid., pp. 3–5.
22 See Y. [Yemyō] Imamura, A short history of the Hongwanji Buddhist Mission in Hawaii (Honolulu: Publishing Bureau of the Hongwanji Buddhist Mission, 1931), p. 15; Tabrah, Ruth M., A grateful past, a promising future: Honpa Hongwanji Mission of Hawaii, 100 year history (Honolulu: Honpa Hongwanji Mission, 1989), p. Google Scholar; Louise Hunter, Buddhism in Hawaii: Its impact on a Yankee community (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1971), p. 164; Moriya, Amerika bukkyō no tanjō, p. 126.
23 Taixu, ‘Lun di er ci fan taipingyang fojiao qingnian hui dahui’.
24 Lei Kuan Rongdao Lai, ‘Praying for the Republic: Buddhist education, student-monks, and citizenship in modern China (1911–1949)’, PhD thesis, McGill University, 2013, pp. 161–163.
25 Hironaka Issei, ‘Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai ni okeru Chūgoku daihyōdan shōchi mondai: Fujii Sōsen kenkyū no ikkan toshite’, Aichi daigakushi kenkyū, vol. 3, 2009, pp. 121–122. For more on Buddhist debates around the Republican-era miaochan xingxue movement, see Lai, ‘Praying for the Republic’.
26 Han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinen taikai narabi ni kaigi kiyō (Tokyo: Han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai renmei, 1931), p. 53.
27 See Richard Jaffe, Seeking Śākyamuni: South Asia in the formation of modern Japanese Buddhism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019), p. 155. Ironically, the conference was unable to perform a ceremony to celebrate this auspicious anniversary as the Shin and Nichiren sects were unable to affirm Takukusu’s calculation. See Tokusui Kotani, ‘Reminiscences and birds-eye’, in The proceedings of the Second General Conference of Pan-Pacific Young Buddhists’ Associations (Tokyo: Zen Nihon bukkyō seinenkai renmei, 1935), p. 90.
28 Stone, Jackie, ‘A vast and grave task: Interwar Buddhist studies as an expression of Japan’s envisioned global role’, in Culture and identity: Japanese intellectuals during the interwar years, (ed.) Rimer, J. Thomas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
29 Devapriya Valisinha, ‘Reminiscences’, in The proceedings of the Second General Conference, p. 83.
30 Hironaka, ‘Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai’, p. 119.
31 Unless otherwise indicated, Mizuno’s biography comes from Hironaka Issei, ‘Nihon no Chūgoku shinryaku to Mizuno Baigyō’, Aichi daigaku kokusai mondai kenkyūjo kiyō, vol. 146, 2015.
32 Hironaka, ‘Nihon no Chūgoku shinryaku’ asserts that Mizuno was in the Tōa Dōbun Shoin’s first graduating class in 1904, but Ishida Takuo argues that Mizuno’s name does not appear in the official student registration records, so he may have simply been an employee of the school who took Chinese language courses. Ishida Takuo, ‘Mizuno Baigyō narabi ni Fujii Jōsen (Sōsen) to Tōa dōbun shoin: hiseiki gakusei kara miru Tōa dōbun shoin no issokumen’, Dōbun shoin kinen, vol. 25, 2017.
33 Hironaka, ‘Nihon no Chūgoku shinryaku’, pp. 43–44.
34 Mizuno Baigyō, ‘Yo no mitaru Manshūkoku’, Minsei, vol. 8, no. 1, 1934, p. 86.
35 Welch, Holmes, The Buddhist revival in China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
36 Hironaka, ‘Nihon no Chūgoku shinryaku’ says the school was called Yunhexuan but elsewhere it is simply called the Hunan Sangha School (Hunan Seng Xuetang). See Welch, Buddhist revival, p. 12.
37 Welch, Buddhist revival, p. 12.
38 Ishida, ‘Mizuno Baigyō’, p. 57.
39 Shibata Mikio, Ōtani Kōzui no kenkyū: Ajia kōiki ni okeru shokatsudō (Tokyo: Bensei shuppan, 2014), pp. 26–33, 60–61.
40 Hironaka, ‘Nihon no Chūgoku shinryaku’, p. 50.
41 Ibid., p. 53.
42 Mizuno Baigyō, Shina ni okeru ōbei no dendō seisaku (Tokyo: Bukkyōto yūshi taikai, 1915). See also Okamoto, ‘Buddhism and the Twenty-One Demands’, pp. 408–409; Shin Kawashima, ‘The propagation of Japanese Buddhism in China, 1910s–40s: Japan as the guardian of East Asian “traditions”’, International Journal of China Studies, vol. 11, no. 2 (December 2020), pp. 219–221.
43 Ishida, ‘Mizuno Baigyō’, p. 41.
44 Tsujimura Shinobu, ‘Kantō Daishinsai-ji ni okeru shūkyōsha no katsudō’, Shūkyō kenkyū, vol. 339, 2004, p. 285; Welch, Buddhist revival, p. 167. See also Kim, Korean Buddhist empire, pp. 116–118.
45 This position was known as ‘Shidehara diplomacy’ after the divisive Foreign Minister Shidehara Kijūrō, who served from 1924–1927 and 1929–1931 (and would serve as Japan’s first post-war prime minister from 1945–1946).
46 Ishida, ‘Mizuno Baigyō’, pp. 48–49.
47 See Hironaka, ‘Nihon no Chūgoku shinryaku’, pp. 56–57; Shibata Mikio, ‘Mizuno Baigyō to Nichiman bunka kyōkai’, Bukkyō shi kenkyū, vol. 38, 2001.
48 Zen-Nihon Bukkyō seinenkai renmei (JYBA), Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai taikai junbi keika gaiyō (Tokyo: Zen-Nihon bukkyō seinenkai renmei, 1934), pp. 13–14.
49 Japan Center for Asian Historical Resources (JACAR), file H-0749, ‘Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai taikai shussekisha ichiran’ and ‘Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai taikai ni shusseki suru Manmōshi daihyōsū’, pp. 14–15, 99; Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai taikai kinen (Tokyo: Bukkyō shashin tsūshinsha, 1934). Despite travelling with a translator, the Mongolian Buddhists apparently ‘remained in utter ignorance of the proceedings throughout the Conference’ due to their poor comprehension of the three official languages (Japanese, English, and Chinese). Shunshi Takagai, ‘Weaving of the Pan-Pacific Y.B.A. League’, in Proceedings of the Second General Conference, p. 89.
50 Mizuno, ‘Yo no mitaru manshūkoku’, p. 87.
51 Along with Nishi Honganji (mentioned earlier), Higashi Honganji is the other major denomination of Jōdo Shinshū (True Pure Land Sect). Fujii’s biography comes from Yukiko Sakaida, ‘Buddhist friendship under occupation: Daxing, Kanda Eun, and Fujii Sōsen during the Sino-Japanese War’ in this Forum; and Sakaida Yūkiko, ‘“Shinatsū” sōryo: Fujii Sōsen to Nitchū sensō’, Momoyama gakuin daigaku kirisutokyō ronshū, vol. 52, 2017.
52 Parks M. Coble, Facing Japan: Chinese politics and Japanese imperialism, 1931–1937 (Cambridge, MA: Council on East Asian Studies, 1991), pp. 153–155; Christopher W. A. Szpilman and Sven Saaler, ‘Japan and Asia’, in Routledge handbook of modern Japanese history, (eds) Christopher W. A. Szpilman and Sven Saaler (New York: Routledge, 2018), pp. 38–39.
53 ‘Han-Taiheiyō bussei taikai ni Shina daihyō no kesseki: Fujii Sōsen-shi kansetsu ni tokō ka’, Chūgai nippō, 22 February 1934.
54 ‘Han-Taiheiyō kaigi ni Shina-gawa no shusseki kibō ooshi’, Chūgai nippō, 25 February 1934.
55 See André Laliberté and Stefania Travagnin, ‘Epistemic communities of Buddhist scholarship in modern China: Narratives and paradigms’, in Concepts and methods for the study of Chinese religions I: State of the field and disciplinary approaches, (eds) André Laliberté and Stefania Travagnin (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019), pp. 126–127. Mochan apparently received some Boxer Indemnity funds to help defray the cost of his Tokyo study. See Dongchu, Zhong-Ri fojiao jiaotong shi (Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1970), p. 751.
56 For more on Daxing, see Sakaida, ‘Buddhist friendship’.
57 Cai was born Cai Qicheng, which is the name used in conference materials, but he generally went by the name Cai Jitang. This Chūgai nippō article mixed up the characters from his two given names, writing it as Cai Qitang. For more on Cai, see Sakaida, ‘Buddhist friendship’.
58 Yinguang (1861–1940; also sometimes Romanized as Yingguang) was another famous monk who contributed to the revival of Chinese Buddhism. He is often considered as part of a conservative camp opposed to Taixu’s reforms, but Yinguang and his colleagues also engaged in reform and their projects were intertwined with those of Taixu. See Lianghao Lu, ‘The press as a medium for change: Periodical publications and the shaping of modern Chinese Buddhism’, PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 2019.
59 JYBA, Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai taikai junbi keika gaiyō, pp. 14–15.
60 Fujii Sōsen, ‘Shina bukkyōto shōtai ni tsuite (Jō)’, Chūgai nippō, 6 May 1934; ‘Shina bukkyōto shōtai ni tsuite (ka)’, Chūgai nippō, 8 May 1934.
61 Fujii, ‘Shina bukkyōto shōtai ni tsuite (Jō)’.
62 Brian Daizen Victoria, ‘The “negative side” of D. T. Suzuki’s relationship to war’, The Eastern Buddhist, vol. 41, no. 2, 2010, pp. 114, 134.
63 Fujii, ‘Shina Bukkyōto shōtai ni tsuite (ka)’.
64 Fujii Sōsen, ‘Nankyō yori’, Chūgai nippō, 12 June 1934. These included Shanghai’s four major commercial dailies: Shenbao, Shibao, Shishi xinbao, and Xinwenbao.
65 For more about the stigma attached to Daxing from being publicly named as a potential delegate, see Sakaida, ‘Buddhist friendship’.
66 ‘Canjia ru guo dahui zhen xiang: quan xi Taixu zhi tu yu Riren goujie er cheng’, Shenbao, 26 May 1934, p. 12.
67 Taixu, ‘Zhi Wang Yiting jushi shu’, in Taixu dashi quanshu, vol. 17, p. 248.
68 Taixu, ‘Lun di er ci fan taipingyang fojiao qingnian hui dahui’. The final part of this article was translated in Japanese and reprinted in the Chūgai nippō on the opening day of the conference. See ‘Han-Taiheiyō bussei kaigi no soshiki o henkō seyo: Taikyo hōshi no hyōron’, Chūgai nippō, 17 July 1934.
69 See Hironaka, ‘Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai’, p. 123.
70 Fujii, ‘Tendō yori Aikuō he kiri: En’ei hōshi ni kaisu (Jō)’; Fujii Sōsen, ‘Tendō yori Aikuō he kiri: En’ei hōshi ni kaisu (ka)’, Chūgai nippō, 13 June 1934.
71 Fujii, ‘Tendō yori Aikuō he kiri: En’ei hōshi ni kaisu (Jō)’.
72 Wang would later lead a collaborationist regime in occupied Nanjing from 1940 to 1945.
73 Fujii Sōsen, ‘Ō Chōmei inchō to kaiken su’, Chūgai nippō, 14 June 1934.
74 The government officials made some remarks near the beginning of the meeting and each agenda item had to be approved by them. Hironaka, ‘Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai’, p. 124.
75 For more on the Kuramoto incident, see Coble, Facing Japan, pp. 175–178; Coble calls this the ‘the most dangerous’ of frequent ‘incidents’ between Chinese and Japanese in China in the summer and autumn of 1934.
76 Hironaka, ‘Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai’, p. 124.
77 This was Yoshii Hōjun, subject of the article by Eric Schicketanz, ‘Between idealism and geopolitics: Yoshii Hōjun and the Sino-Japanese Society for the Study of Esoteric Buddhism in 1930s North China’ in this Forum. Yoshii personally recruited Xu Dan, one of the six ethnically Chinese ROC delegates.
78 Kim, Korean Buddhist empire, pp. 29–30. For more on Kanda Eun, see Sakaida, ‘Buddhist friendship’.
79 The remaining three—Shi Haicang, Shi Zheyin, and Hudan—require further investigation. Given the potential repercussions of attendance, it is possible that one or more of these names were pseudonyms.
80 See ‘Shina daihyō aisatsu: Ōsaka daihyōshakai de’, Chūgai nippō, 15 July 1934; ‘Shanhai, Amoi, Taiwan no Hantaibussei shussekisha o mukaete Ōsaka no kajō zadankai’, Chūgai nippō, 19 July 1934.
81 ‘Hantai bussei taikai ihō: Han-Taiheiyō bussei fusanka no Chūgoku bukkyōkai ketsugi yaburaru’, Chūgai nippō, 14 July 1934.
82 ‘Chūka minkoku daihyō shusseki mondai’, Chūgai nippō, 22 July 1934.
83 Lewis W. Bush was listed as a delegate from Singapore, but he appears to have been a British professor of English literature living in Japan. See Tomoko Matsunaga, ‘Multiple public spheres in the Japan Times during World War II: Focusing on the Asama Maru incident’, Lifelong Education and Libraries, vol. 11, 2011, p. 140.
84 Tsujimura Shinobu and Sueki Fumihiko, ‘Nitchū sensō to bukkyō’, Shisō, no. 943, 2002.
85 Hirota later became prime minister and was executed in 1948; Shigemitsu received a relatively light sentence of seven years. Hattori Ryūji, Hirota Kōki: ‘higeki no saishō’ no jitsuzō (Tokyo: Chūō kōron shinsha, 2008); Anthony Best, ‘Shigemitsu Mamoru, 1887–1957: Critical times in a long, ambivalent career’, in Japanese envoys in Britain, 1862–1964: A century of diplomatic exchange, (ed.) Ian Nish (Kent: Global Oriental, 2007).
86 Shigemitsu Mamoru, ‘Gaimu jikan shukushi’, in Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai taikai kiyō (Tokyo: Zen-Nihon bukkyō seinenkai renmei, 1935), pp. 32–33. He also sent these remarks in a congratulatory message to the organizers on Foreign Ministry stationery. JACAR, file H-0749, Shigemitsu Mamoru, ‘Shukushi’, p. 72.
87 ‘Gaimushō shōtaikai’, in Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai taikai kiyō, p. 37.
88 JACAR, file H-0749, Correspondence between Shibata Ichinō and Hirota Kōki, pp. 7–13. This amount constituted 5 per cent of the 100,000 yen raised for the conference. See ‘Taikai yosan’, in Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai taikai kiyō, p. 5.
89 Shibata, Ōtani Kōzui no kenkyū, pp. 26–27, 150 n.13; Yamamoto Kunihiko, ‘1920-nendai chosen ni okeru kangoku kyōkai no ichi kōsatsu: kinrō no kyōchō o megutte’, Bukkyō daigaku daigakuin kiyō, vol. 38, 2010.
90 Shibata, Ōtani Kōzui no kenkyū, pp. 141–145.
91 Yamamoto, ‘1920-nendai chosen ni okeru kangoku kyōkai no ichi kōsatsu: kinrō no kyōchō o megutte’, pp. 79–83.
92 Shibata, Ōtani Kōzui no kenkyū, p. 150 n.13; Meyers, Ramon H., ‘Creating a modern enclave economy: The economic integration of Japan, Manchuria, and North China, 1932–1945’, in The Japanese wartime empire, 1931–1945, (eds) Duus, Peter, Myers, Ramon H. and Peattie, Mark R. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 163–164Google Scholar; Ōtani Son’yū, Shintei seijika jinmei jiten: Meiji–Shōwa (Tokyo: Nichigai Asosietsu, 2003).
93 Ōtani Son’yū, ‘Aisatsu’, in Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai taikai kiyō, p. 31.
94 See The proceedings of the Second General Conference, pp. 11–12. The Japanese version is on p. 11 of the Japanese-language section of the same proceedings. It is unclear which Chinese newspaper article it quotes.
95 Ibid., pp. 51–52.
96 Ruan Ziyang, ‘Dai-A shinzen to bukkyō’ and Ruguang, ‘Bukkyō wa anraku no hōmon nari’, in Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai taikai kiyō, pp. 122–123, 125–126. The versions in the English-language proceedings (whose titles I used in the body text) are only partial translations. Ruguang was the head priest of Jile Temple in Harbin, the largest temple in Heilongjiang province, and would later head the Manchurian Buddhist Association (Ch. Manzhouguo fojiao zonghui) and be involved in the attempt to have Manchukuo host the third PYBA conference. Kiba Akeshi, ‘“Gi Manshūkoku” shuto Shinkyō no Nihon bukkyō ni yoru Manshū bukkyō soshikika no mosaku: 1935-nen (Kangde 2-nen) no yōsō’, Ōtani gakuho, vol. 81, no. 4, November 2002, pp. 6–10; Nose Eisui, ‘Kindai Chūgoku tōhokubu ni okeru Nicchū bukkyō kankei-shi no ichi danmen’, Shūkyō kenkyū, vol. 87, no. 5, 2014, pp. 260–261. Most official delegate lists the name Wang Xingyi, the director of Rites and Education in Manchukuo’s Ministry of Culture and Education, as the ‘leader’ (J. insotsusha) of the Manchurian delegation, but one also names Ruguang as the ‘group head’ (J. danchō). JACAR, file H-0749, ‘Dai-nikai han-Taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai ni shusseki suru Manmōshi daihyōsū’, p. 14.
97 Ruguang, ‘Bukkyō wa anraku no hōmon nari’, p. 125.
98 Ruan, ‘Dai-A shinzen to bukkyō’, p. 123.
99 Christopher W. A. Szpilman and Sven Saaler, ‘Pan-Asianism as an ideal of Asian identity and solidarity, 1850–present’, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, vol. 9, issue 17, no. 1, 25 April 2011, pp. 7–9.
100 Ruan Ziyang, ‘Dai-A shinzen to bukkyō’, Chūgai nippō, 17 July 1934.
101 Sakaida, ‘“Shinatsū” sōryo’, pp. 49–51.
102 Dongchu, Zhongri fojiao jiaotong shi, p. 751.
103 Sakaida, ‘“Shinatsū” sōryo’, p. 52.