Deguchi Onisaburō’s Oomoto-kyo religion embodied the tensions of nationalism and internationalism in 20th century Japan, blending Japan’s traditional beliefs with a vision of universal harmony to adapt to the fluctuating circumstances and trends of his time. Onisaburō’s teachings expressed a unique fusion of nativist pride and internationalist ideals, illuminating his complex vision for both Japan, as a spiritual beacon, and the world, to collectively unite in peace. Oomoto-kyo emerged as an unrecognized sect of Shinto from a wave of ‘new religions’ in early 20th century Japan, imbued with nativist beliefs in Japanese spiritual superiority and the people’s call for a proper reform of the Meiji government.1 It was from this environment that Onisaburō shaped Oomoto-kyo into a version of Neo-Nativism that retained utopian characteristics of earlier teachings whilst placing Japan in a global context.2
A key part of this process was his interpretation of saisei itchi–the unity of religion and governance, particularly in the upholding of the divine laws found in the classics–which clashed with Japan’s utilization of Shinto for strictly nationalistic purposes. Onisaburō saw Oomoto-kyo’s role as leading a moral transformation that could benefit all of humanity, yet the teachings themselves aligned directly with the elevation of the Japanese self as superior.3 This is further exemplified by his redefinition of yamato damashii–the ‘Japanese spirit’ or Japaneseness–which usually denoted the racial superiority of Japaneseness but was redirected to align with spiritual values of activism and humanitarianism.4 Onisaburō reshaped existing nationalist terms and mythology to align with internationalist ambitions within his religious teachings, exposing the complex web of influence on Oomoto-kyo philosophy and the ambiguous position it held in political discourse during a time of modernization and contact with imperial powers.
The spirit world within Oomoto-kyo’s ideological frameworks occupied a noteworthy place in this dialogue, resituating traditionalist beliefs in modern contexts and threatening the political order in its authority over spiritual truths and even undermining Japan’s divine imperial heritage. Onisaburō claimed that Oomoto-kyo provided the authority to speak for the gods primarily through spiritual possession and the practice of chinkon kishin5 Chinkon invited a spirit into a person as a receptacle for their knowledge, enabling kishin for the communication with the deities.6 This promotion of traditionally modeled spiritual practices appealed to the Japanese population which was faced with global contact and influence, providing a wholly Japanese practice that reconnected them with a national culture.7 It seems counterintuitive, then, that these practices and frameworks could be utilized in an internationalist mission to emphasize universal equality and advocate for peace.
Onisaburō’s ‘Mongolian expedition’, however, outlines exactly how the contradictory national and nativist religious beliefs fit into his movement for international appeal. This was done primarily through a combination of universalist and spiritually imperialistic orientations of Oomoto-kyo. Onisaburō could foster world peace and happiness, yet it would be situated in an expansionist spiritual framework which was specifically pioneered by Japan and connected to Japaneseness.8 Onisaburō wanted to bring spiritual relief to the Mongolians, yet he also wanted to reform them, highlighting the superiority of Oomoto-kyo’s belief structure and the inferiority of the Mongolians while claiming to provide them with an ideology that would permit universal equality and happiness.
In this sense, Onisaburō shaped the Oomoto-kyo religion to adapt to his own personal mission as well as the climate he operated within. With Japan’s increasingly imperial military activity, Onisaburō employed his universalist yet national religious structure to justify their expansion in the 20th century. He went so far as to claim that “Japan had received a mission from heaven to guide the development of Manchuria and Mongolia”, clearly embracing Japan’s superior status stemming from Nativism and identified through his own traditionalist spiritual practices.9 Because Onisaburō developed Oomoto during a time of political change, international contact and conflict, Oomoto reflected the shifting needs of the Japanese population and Onisaburō’s own universalist ideals. This climate resulted in a constant fluctuating tension between universalism and nationalism, tying directly to Nativist roots in Oomoto’s philosophy and Onisaburō’s desire for spiritual equality and peace.
Skip to content