In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

[The new religion] Aum is reproached for taking illegal offerings and selling supernatural powers, but there are temples that charge exorbitant prices for posthumous names and conduct rites for aborted fetuses.1 There’s nothing at all embarrassing [about the fact that fees for posthumous names play a large role in temple finances]. It’s only embarrassing when some priests think to use that money improperly.2 Regarding your question about a standard for donations, there is no such standard under Buddhist Law (the law of world-renouncers). But in Japan, which is a country ruled by law (worldly law), [temples] exist under the Religious Juridical Persons Law. And, I think, danka members have the duty to support their common property, “Religious Juridical Person xxx Temple,” and to protect the temple. In that sense, there are probably some temples that have set standards. You should definitely consult [about this] with the head priest of your temple. If that is too difficult, you can always reflect on the meaning of “donation” and offer what you feel comfortable with.3 I have identified a variety of difficulties in maintaining a world-renouncing institution while continuing householding practices. I will now explore the difficulties of maintaining a nonsecular institution, the temple, in a secular world. Much of the criticism currently aimed at Temple Buddhism stems from the economic activities of priests. Religion and money, it is commonly assumed, should not be overly familiar partners. And yet religious organizations, like the people who create and join them, need some measure of financial stability. I begin by reviewing the history of temple funding in Japan and then go on to examine the economic activities of temples today in this chapter and the next through the lenses of taxes and death, two things even Buddhist temples in Japan seem unable to escape. An examination of the taxation of temples will demonstrate how temples have come to be viewed as businesses and touristic sites rather than as religious organizations. Such an examination leads to a consideration of the changing nature of religious association in contemporary Japan. Money and the Temple Law, Taxes, and the Image of Buddhism 7 Approaching the temple from the perspective of death, and in particular, the granting of posthumous precept names, allows further exploration of the problems temples face today as they seek ways to remain financially solvent and to perform traditional ritual roles (despite changing perceptions of the meaning of those roles) while at the same time combating images of professionalization, privatization , and commercialization. Critiques of Buddhist affluence are nothing new. External and internal critics abound throughout the historical record. Buddhism in China, for example , was subjected to periodic persecutions, in which wealth amassed by temples was reclaimed by the state.4 Critiques of the economic activities of Buddhist temples also appear from early on in the record of Buddhism in Japan. The Tendai sect was not immune. In 1571, Oda Nobunaga burned the temples of Mt. Hiei to the ground and slew countless priests in an effort to erase Enryakuji’s political, military, and economic power. In the Edo period, Confucian and nativist critics chastised Buddhists for their wealth, claiming it was symptomatic of religious, if not legal, corruption. During the now famous Meiji persecutions of Buddhism, negative images of corrupt and wealthy priests were used to legitimize the seizure of temple properties and the defrocking of priests.5 In short, there is no lack of evidence that, throughout Buddhism’s history in Japan and elsewhere for that matter, the economic activities of priests and temples have been questioned.6 Questions regarding the economic activities of temples often arise from the assumption that Buddhist priests and temples are supposed to exist removed from the mundane realm of financial matters.7 However, priests must meet the financial requirements of their temples. Despite assumptions regarding their supramundane position, priests and temples exist in the lived world and, therefore , have fiscal and legal obligations that must be met. Ritual supplies must be purchased, land managed, and properties maintained, and even proselytizing efforts require funding. In many ways, temples today face even greater demands on their coffers than did their predecessors. Modern temple administrators must worry about fire, liability, and theft insurance and, because most temples are now connected to power, gas, and water lines, utilities bills must also be paid. Temples housing priceless works of art may need to install burglar alarms.8 Moreover, building or maintaining classically designed structures often requires hiring expensive...

Share