黒田俊雄、「一向一揆の政治理念」－「仏法領」について pp.99-118　(Kuroda Toshio, “The political ideals of the Ikkō Ikki and the “Land of the Buddha Law”, pp.99-118)

Basic summary of this article states that the concept of `Land of the Buddha Law` is - 中世的宗教思想の成熟を表示するものであり、and thus has a close relationship with the often-discussed true nature of the ikkō ikki. The words `Land of the Buddha Law` themselves only appear in three places within the historical documents under our scrutiny. The first of those relates to the Ofumi of the 18th day of the 4th month of the 7th year of Bunmei, which at the end of the sermon states:
それ当流といふは仏法領なり、仏法力を持てほしゐままに世間を本として、仏法のかたはきはめ疏略なること、もてのほかあさましき次第なり
The next derives from the Atogaki of Ōmi Katata Honpukuji, which states
仏法領ニモノヲシカヘハ、上々御内衆モ用求シタマイ、アレカコレカトコトバヲカケタマフ.
The final comes from the 蓮如上人御一代記聞書：
蓮如上人御廊下を御とほり候て、紙切のおちて候ひつるを、御覧ぜられ、仏法領の物をあだにするかやと仰せられ、両の御手にて御いただき候と云々.(99-100)

One needs to look into the backgrounds of these documents in order to better understand the concepts behind them and the local changes that were occurring at the time. The first Ofumi, the 帖外御文, was written when Rennyo had left Yoshizaki after his residence there during the 5th and 6th years of Bunmei. The only question is that this Ofumi was written to 幸子房. According to this document and the commentaries on it, the Honganji Monto in the region of Ōtsu at this stage of proceedings was undertaking a period of revision. In order to address the question of the `lack of legitimacy` (正体なき) held by 幸子房, Rennyo wrote this letter. In order to understand what Rennyo meant by the term `Land of the Buddhist Law` in this context, one needs to understand the circumstances under which it was written.(100-101)

When Rennyo had first arrived in Yoshizaki, he had addressed it as being `a necessary yet pleasant location`. Yet such was its attraction that it drew a large following from among the population both near and far. At the same time that `rōnin` were agitating for action from villagers, Yoshizaki found itself being drawn into an ever-more tense political situation. In order to address this, Rennyo set out in the okite Ofumi of Bunmei 5 what he regarded as necessary in defence of the Buddhist Law, a point he addressed again in the Ofumi of the tenth month of the same year. In the eleventh month, the Ofumi set out against what was proscribed under Honganji rules. Thus from the period of the tenth to eleventh months of Bunmei 5, Rennyo had undergone a turning point. In sum, in order to uphold the Buddhist Law, according to the situation one should risk one`s life in battle in defence of that Law. Yet in order to avoid the `variety of theories` regarding faith from the insistent teaching of the rōnin, an emphasis was made on the efficacy of tariki, and the need to avoid becoming embroiled in the conflicts of this world.
In other words, Rennyo had undergone another change, from one of encouragement of action against the enemies of Honganji, to an insistence of cooperation with authority and the mores and strictures of the secular world.(101)

The author is of the opinion that the concept of `the Land of the Buddhist Law` emerged in Rennyo`s writing as a result of the secular conflicts. For starters, the words themselves included the noun `land` (領) or territory, which was used in contrast to the secular concept of territory. Hence `the Land of the Buddhist Law` came to be used in the context that in a world that was beset by strife between secular land owners over possession of territory, the followers of Honganji would be a collection of believers that would remain dissuaded from using the methods of the secular world within their own world, their own territory, if you will.(102)

The phrase `Land of the Buddhist Law` had many interpretations, yet we might offer three that seem most relevant here. The first has to do with facing the secular definition of territory. Within feudal society, war and conflict became an almost standard practice of society, part of its identity. Within this society, stability and security for one`s life depended on the securement of territory and human resources – this was taken for granted within secular thinking. Yet what about the `Land of the Buddhist Law`? In this case, securing one`s peace of mind and security had nought to do with secular laws, yet would be brought about by belief in the saving grace of Amida. In the same manner as secular territory, the `Land of the Buddhist Law` would be built upon the foundations of society, in this case meaning its ideological foundations – this was the first aspect to the meaning of the `Land of the Buddhist Law`.(104)

The second aspect to `Land of the Buddhist Law` referred to the fact that the Buddhist Law controlled everything, thus humanity was protected by the Buddhist Law, or else it would be punished by it. This was main more plain in Rennyo`s definition outlined to the Ōtsu area Monto in the Honpukuji Atogaki, where in reference to what would occur if the Monto forgot their obligation to their `lord` (meaning Amida) 「今世後世トリハツスヘシ、冥加ヲ存セハ」云々. In sum, absolute belief in the efficacy of tariki as espoused by Amida (or else the sect`s founder and the head of the sect) would mean that the believer could expect infinite assistance, a point of view in accordance with the idea of total control as was commonly emphasized in secular matters. This control could thus either protect one, or it could inflict punishment. It was thus a concept in keeping with the logic of feudal control.(104)

The next example, taken from the 蓮如上人御一代記聞書, illustrates this further:
聖人の御一流は、阿弥陀如来の御掟なり
朝夕（の勤行）は如来聖人の御用にて候
Both of these sentences speak of the absolute nature of Buddhist rule within the Land of the Buddhist Law. The principle attitude one had to take in order to be saved in the Land of the Buddhist Law was:
仏法をあるじとし、世間を客人とせよ
我が身をば、法にひでておくべき
南無阿弥陀仏に身をばまるめたる
Thus implying that respect and veneration of the Buddha would provide protection and a reward of salvation.(104-105)

The third aspect requires some word of caution, particularly as it deals with the idea that the Land of the Buddhist Law referred not to the ethereal next life, but to life in this world, in the here and now. This didn`t mean that the control of Buddhist Law extended over all beings and concepts within this world and into the next, but more realistically meant adherence to the precepts of the Honganji faithful in this life.「当流といふは仏法領なり」was said in the same vein as「聖人の御一流は、阿弥陀如来の御掟なり」(蓮如上人御一代記聞書　七五). This ultimately became the 御掟 as espoused by Rennyo (namely, that the Honganji sect itself was the realization of the `Land of the Buddhist Law`).(105)

When did the Honganji temple followers come to emphasize a belief in the precepts of Ōbō? This requires us to divide up Bunmei 6 to 8, and again separate this from Bunmei 9. The earlier era of Bunmei saw explanations on the `Land of the Buddhist Law` made separately to that of Ōbō, the creation of a consciousness that equated Ōbō with a separate world. This idea eventually came to be expressed through the context of Buppō. Yet what about the latter Bunmei era? At this point, the existence of the Ōbō was bound to that of Buppō, with an emphasis made on the aspects of this thought. The meaning of Ōbō did not fundamentally act at odds with the concept of Land of the Buddhist Law, yet the secular definition of `land` and the rule of Ōbō over this was at least ideologically denied. Judging by the outlook that was first given to the `Land of the Buddhist Law`, this attitude was something of a setback.(108)

Fundamental difference in ideology regarding the efficacy of profit and the need for this world between Shinran and Rennyo – As far as Shinran was concerned, the problem of pursuit of wealth and comfort within this world did not stem from the use of Buddhist law for political or secular purposes, but rather whether Buddhist law would be used to attempt transcend secular control and relations with authority. The followers of Shinran, those 「自信教人信」, did not mean to transform the state into a realm of Buddhism, neither did they mean to escape from the caste system in place within society. Those 「凡夫」and 「悪人」of the group of 非僧非俗 weren`t going to be involved with the esoteric sects and their believers (and who had tied themselves to figures of national authority) and weren`t going to become just another group of lay followers. Yet by observing society at the time more objectively, those people that followed Shinran were no more than persons of no status, or of an anti-authority status within the socio-political relations of the time. What is important here is to realize that a person who existed within society and was recognized as such could still be part of a movement in which he or she denied the efficacy of this world. A belief in the saving grace of gods or buddhas was, for the units and groups of followers of the Nenbutsu at the time, a means to reinforce a guarantee of protection in this world. Rennyo`s insistence that the Land of the Buddhist Law was 「身をば法にひででおく」 and 「南無阿弥陀仏に身をばまるめたる」was not at odds with this thought.(109)

Where a more significant difference between the two did emerge was in regards to the concept of 「如来聖人の御罰」. Shinran did not emphasize this point. To those 「凡夫」to whom 「地獄は一定すみか」, any punishment that could surpass this was simply not a problem (for nought could surpass hell). The development in the ideal of the Land of Buddhist Law in the eras between Shinran and Rennyo made this fundamental distinction (although it was not a qualitative difference, merely one of stages of development).(109)

In relation to the Okite Ofumi – at first glance, they may seem to be no more than strictures on secular living. Yet these are no mere outlines of moral guidance within the secular world. As was emphasized earlier by the concept of 「造悪無碍」, when the group of believers was in danger of being attacked through its relations with outside forces, these Okite were written in order to create a foundation for the actions of the group of believers. These particular precepts of action were, in the case of the group of believers, most definitely explained in conjunction with precepts on faith. This would then tie the believers with the doctrinal authority of the clergy. It was also based upon the character of `laws as religious tenets`. The restless, or insecure teachings of `Senjū Kanzen` could also be found touching upon such issues (as outlined on pg.111) 

Hence those `okite` that were applied conveyed the harshness of doctrinal laws but were not aware of any sense of `absoluteness` or `practicality`. Moreover, if a person broke one of the precepts this would invite their expulsion from the group of followers, which meant that violations of the okite would mean a loss of the conditions necessary for salvation. This is one of the apparent contradictions in the message conveyed by Honganji, for whilst it was a faith that espoused a removal from the concerns of this world, its development as a medieval faith was based on those persons in society (such as the peasantry) who could not remove themselves from the secular world, and thus needed to be instructed in the manner of secular behaviour as they would should they belong to any other medieval institution.(112-113)

To sum up, the words of Land of the Buddhist Law as used by Rennyo were by no means accidental nor original, yet had existed since Shinran set about resolving the fundamental problems of the early groups of believers. It was definitely related to the peculiar characteristics of the Shinshū faithful.(113)