Author: 丑 Purdy

After the Meiji government rose to power, State Shinto was implemented and was declared the national religion by the government. However, prior to the Meiji era, Buddhism had been the dominant religion in Japan and was seen in both the political and social strata’s. Therefore, when the Meiji government rose to prominence, there was a shift in the religious landscape. Shinto was brought to the forefront and was exploited and used as the basis for nationalism. This is a considerable change from the Tokugawa shogunate years because Shinto and Buddhism shared a close relationship and the Meiji government effectively split the two up.

 

Christopher Ives, in his article The Mobilization of Doctrine: Buddhists Contributions to Imperial Ideology in Modern Japan, explores the reason behind why Buddhists needed to defend their position in Japanese society. This need to defend their position in society is directly related to the elevation of Shinto. When Shinto was raised, every effort was made to facilitate its separate it from Buddhism. This was done due to the need for a pure Japanese ideology without the taint of foreign influence. Therefore, Buddhism was ousted from its original place in society. Buddhist’s felt the need to re-affirm their position as an important religion in society. Ives points out that the main reason for the separation of Shinto and Buddhism was because Buddhism clashed with the national essence of Japan (Kokutai). The article is split into separate sections that outline the defense of Buddhism. The multiple sections can be separated into three broader sections, the first being the Historical interpretation, secondly the similar values shared by both Buddhism and Shinto and thirdly the overlap between Buddhism and Confucianism. By trying to defend Buddhism, it almost seems as if Ives is trying to compare the make the two equal to one another. This thread undermines the original intent of the separation of the two. If the original intent is undermined, then the foundation of the Meiji era’s nationalism is no longer pure and was built on a false narrative.

 

This post argues that the second general section which links Buddhism and Shinto together by their shared values is the most critical in the overall article. The section is made up of three sections, Buddhism as a defender of the Japanese spirit, Buddhism similarities with Imperial ideology and its similarities with Japanese spirits. The broad consensus of these three sections is that Buddhism advocated the same values that Shinto did. Buddhism emphasizes central worship of figure, its advocacy for loyalty to ruler and country. These values were precisely what Shinto was advocating as well. By making this link, Ives is equating Buddhism to Shinto. However, by doing this, Ives is, in a way undermining the Kokutai movement and nationalism in Japan.

 

Nationalism in Japan set its foundation in Shinto. It drew from the strong values and Shrine Shinto in order to provide a base for an ethnic nationalism that would spur Japan on in imperialism. In a way, it can be argued the rise of imperialism is linked with the rise of Shinto. Therefore, by trying to equate Buddhism with Shinto Ives is directly undermining the foundation of imperial Japan, because the point of separating the two was to create a pure ethnic Japan that could rise up and take a dominant role in the Sino-sphere.

 

Various Japanese Buddhist sects sent missionaries to Korea under the notion that they were to protect Japanese citizens in Korea. Hwansoo Ilmee Kim proves this to be very much the opposite in Empire of the Dharma; Korean and Japanese Buddhism.  Throughput chapter 3, Kim explores three different sects of Buddhism and what their respective missionaries achieved. In order to answer the overarching question, a sub-question must be asked. Where the missionaries really missionaries or were they politician’s in disguise?

I will take the example of Okumura Enshin of the Higashi Honganji (Otani-ha) sect and Sano Zenrei of the Nichirenshu sect as my two case studies; these two studies will be compared and contrasted in order to find a suitable answer.

Okumura Enhsin was a prominent figure in the Korean court, and he went as far as converting Yi Tong’in who would later become a prominent  Korean official to Higashi Honganji. In this case, it can be argued that Enshin’s influence was that of a politician as he was able to exert control over a prominent official. However, this can be discounted because even though Yi did convert his name to a Japanese one because of Enshin. Yi still advocated for pro-Korean reform and tried to push Korean favor internationally. On the other hand, Kim does make clear that Enhsin had an aim of converting like-minded officials to Higasho Honganji. Overall, in this stance it can be argued that Enhsin was a political monk and that he aimed to exert political control in Korea, in terms of speaking of Japanese political control it can be clearly argued that Enshin’s main aim was to push the Japanese favor, Kim makes this very clear by quoting Elliot Griffs by stating “Christianity has made in its ranks in Japan, but is determined to forestall the exertions of Christian missionary in the Korean peninsula.” While the political influence may not seem evident at first when a historical narrative is added, it makes the political influence clear. Japan had outlawed Christianity as it was becoming too ingrained in their society and was beginning to encroach on their political system, and thus they went into isolation. When Japan re-emerged from isolation, they gradually became the dominant power in East Asia and Korea was its closest landmass, and therefore, in order to make its mark the most important. By trying to persuade another country to abandon an religion and to further your interests is a very political move. This is precisely what Enhsin is doing and what he succeeded to an extent to do, however when his main political alliances died and disappeared the Higashi Hinganji were then replaced by Nichirenshu. The fact that Enshin lost favor not because of religion but because of his political motive speaks volumes about his role as a politician. Therefore, it can be argued the Buddhist Missions to Korea was to gain political control.

 

Sano Zenrei was one of the most successful missionaries in the Buddhist missions. However, his achievements are considerably diminished in history. He paved the way for Japanese control and the success of Nishi Honganji (Honganji-ha). Unlike Enshin, Zenrei’s immediate aim was to gain the favor of the imperial family and get the anti-Buddhist law lifted. Zenrei was successful in this, even though the law was re-enacted three years later, this was the first significant breakthrough for the Japanese in the Korean court. The fact that Zenrei was able to lift the ban shows the amount of political clout that he had. His approach was looked down on by other monks. Who believed that monks should stay in their traditional roles instead of being invested in politics. Zenrei’s breakthrough in the Korean government was a success for the Japanese instead of the Koreans. With this being said, Zenrei is looked down on because he was a Japanese monk who succeeded while other Koreans did not. Once again, the Japanese political clout is being seen. This level of political clout can only really be attributed to a politician instead of a monk. While Zenrei was a monk, he had left Japan due to resistance of his own sect and came to Korea in order to preach. When taking this into account, as he was technically ostracised from his sect, he was not working for a religious aim but more for a political objective as he would not have succeeded as far as he did not have political backing. Therefore it can be concluded that Zenrei was more of a politician than a monk, and the Buddhist mission were more of a political move than a religious one.

Overall, when looking at the two case studies, there is strong political presences and religion is instead regulated to the background and is seen as more of a thinly veiled excuse for Japanese citizens to be in Korea. Therefore it is not out width the realm of possibility that the Buddhist Missions were more of political move on the Japanese’s part to gain some control of the government prior to the annexation of Korea.

 

Chi’iu Chin was a feminist that lived in the late nineteenth century and was executed in the early twentieth century. She lived a very liberal life and strongly protested the natural Chinese traditions and Confucian way of life. She travelled to Japan and began studying there and grew in prominence for her views on Feminism and reform. However, it is not her unique form of Feminism that she is most remembered for but instead her death.  An exploration of her background and martial ideology will be evaluated in order to show the spectrum of Feminism.

 

Ch’iu Chin’s independence and strong personality were fostered at a young age, her father encouraged her to learn and treated her as if she was a son. The treatment as an equal meant that Chin very much struggled in the martial sense, while she was a good wife by cultural standards, her independence never vanished, and she decided to leave her husband. At this time, leaving one’s husband was a very controversial decision as Chin had all but in name announced to society that she would not follow social norms. When comparing Chin’s early life to that of other women such as Kanno, the drive behind their aspirations are very much different. Kanno [1]had a difficult childhood and was not appreciated nor given the luxuries that Chin had. It can be argued that the inspirations behind both women were vastly different. For Kanko, it can be argued that it was her coping mechanism and her suffering that shaped her view. While for Chin, her aspiration came from a more naive background, therefore, her interpretation of Feminism was based on fair treatment, and she decided to rebel because she didn’t want the life she had. The stark contrasts in the background of the women very much accounts for Chin’s difference in interpretation of Feminism as hers was driven by more of an educated sense.

In contrast, Kanno was driven into archaism and Feminism in Japan due to reform. The drive behind the two is interesting as it lays a basis for the different approaches the women took but also shows how Chin’s particular view came about and what set her apart. While Kanno is only one woman out of many and she was Japanese, it is interesting to note that regardless of the country, the basis that set both women on their respective course is due to their background. The differences in the background also reflect a spectrum of Feminism. When looking at the overall comparison of the two women, Kanno and Chin sit on opposite ends of the spectrum. Kanno is looking for a way reform, while Chin was very active in politics and her main aim was to modernise and turn the old Confucian system over.

Broadly speaking, the aims are the same. However, there is a difference between reform and modernisation with the purpose of overturning the old traditions. Thus, the spectrum of Feminism is made clear by the active aims of both women, Kanno is looking for reform and acceptance while Chin is actively looking for modernisation.

 

Chin’s unrelenting pursuit of independence and equality enabled her to look at influential figures in the past, and she developed a very martial sense of Feminism. It is this sense that sets her apart from others. This martial sense of Feminism set her apart from others and is what she is most famous for apart from her death. It here that I will draw your attention to, according to Mary Backus Rankin, “The martial, self-sacrificing, sometimes superhuman and often tragic hero was well-defined in Chinese Culture.”[2]  Chin lived by these ideals, and her death reflected them. However, in terms of implementing them, her dressing in male clothing, riding astride, and carrying a weapon, endeared her to the public but also sometimes caused her to be scorned. This is where the spectrum of Feminism comes into play. Using the example just stated, Chin’s use of history gave her historical backing and furthered her cause and added legitimacy, and was accepted.

On the other hand, her controversial dress caused her to be alienated from the higher classes of society and by the more educated women. While the main problem was her controversial dress, an underlying thread is that most women her Chin’s background found it hard to relate to her, because they did not have the unconventional background she had. While the women were accepting of furthering Feminism and stopping foot binding, they were not able to leave their families or their fathers due to the Confucian system. Here we can see the broad spectrum.

 

Overall, while only two main topics were covered, it is clear that there is a spectrum of Feminism and that it can be seen in many different ways. Significantly, throughout the lives of  Chin and Kanno, it is clear that the background of these women is the most important as it forms the basis of the way they choose to interpret and further the aims of Feminism. While these are only two of many women, they are examples of women who lived roughly around the same time. Still, their approaches were vastly different, this is a point that should be kept in mind when evaluating women in Feminism.

 

 

 

 

[1] Mikiso Hane, Reflection on the way to the gallow: rebel women in pre-war Japan, (London:1993),

[2] Mary Backus Rankin, The Emergence of Women at the end of the Ch’ing: The case of Ch’iu Chin, Margery Wolf and Roxane Witike, “Women in Chinese Society,’ (California: 1975), p. 52.

This post will explore the religious foundations of China and Japan and how their indigenous religions were changed due to the introduction of other teachings. I have chosen to focus on these two countries as they both follow the same pattern of changing religious ethos to suit their needs. China and Japan are two very unique countries, as they were both heavily influenced by Buddhism, which was relied on by governments as a form of social, political, and religious control. As a result, the previous teaching, such as Shinto and Daoism, was compromised.

China, has a long and diverse history that had three main religions and schools of thought influencing its history greatly, these were; Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. To understand China’s religious landscape, the teachings cannot be isolated as there is a significant overlap. According to Thomas David DuBois in his Book Religion and the modern making of East Asia “three teachings,” as they are called, are inseparable parts of a single system of beliefs, morals, and rituals that pervades Chinese life.[1]” This is true because when looking at Chinese history from an intellectual view, there have been times when one teaching was heavily favored over the others. However, there were still significant themes of the remaining two present. Japan, on the other hand, had a very distinct national religion called Shinto, Shinto was the basis of Japanese everyday life and revolved around Kami. Kami is the worshipping of deities that witnessed the birth of Japan. Shinto has a long and complex history in Japan due to the influence of Buddhism and the loss of the Emperor’s role as political head to merely a symbolic figurehead during Sakoku and the shogunate’s preference of Buddhism. While both countries are mostly different from each other, they share similarities and differences. China was the central influence in East Asia due to its dynasties and geographical location. Also, China was situated near trade routes such as the silk roads. As a result, there was an intermingling of different teachings that bled into Chinese life. This allowed Chinese traditions and religions to be changed. While on the other hand Japan is an archipelago and most of its outside influence was passed mainly through Korea. The intermingling of Japan’s original Shinto religion with other teachings is more prominent than that of China. It is interesting to note that when Japan rose as China’s successor of being the dominant power in East Asia, instead of making use of other teachings, they fell back to their natural Shinto religion and nationalized it. Just by looking at an overview of both countries’ religious landscape, it is clear China had a complex landscape due to its geographical location and the variety of teachings available. In Contrast, Japan had a more mainstream landscape where the influence of other teachings was more gradual and distinct from their traditional religion; therefore, the religious landscape of Japan is less complex than that of China.

Shinto and Daoism were unique to Japan and China, respectively; it is these two religions that suffered the most when Confucianism and Buddhism made an appearance and altered the landscape of the two countries. Daoism was the basis of the Chinese way of life and contributed to it significantly. However, the spread of Buddhism affected the Daoist foothold in China greatly; this is due to their similar shared values. According to Tang Yijie, Hegel in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy, states “at the same time, Daoism is indigenous to China; it owes much of its development to the spread of Buddhism[2].” Here Hegel is arguing that while Daoism is indigenous to China, its foundation and growth is due to Buddhism. This is where overlapping becomes prominent, and it then becomes difficult to ascertain the differences between the two in a broad conceptual way. While there are various branches of Buddhism, that separate the two, intermingling has already occurred which means that the religious landscape is no longer able to distinguish Daoist values and Buddhist values there is now a hybrid form of the two. When comparing this to Japan, Shinto is the equivalent to Daoism as it is the basis of the Japanese way of life. However, the intermingling of other teachings such as Buddhism and Confucianism, are more easily detected and separated. This was made clear when Emperor Meiji chooses to promote a more traditional Shinto and separate it from Confucianism and Buddhism. However, during the isolation of Japan, Buddhism was heavily used by the Shogunate, in DuBois Chapter about Japan in the sixteenth century he states “Buddhism was integral to the state itself. Like Confucian morality in China, Buddhism became an important foundation of the evolving imperial institution. Other ideas, such as divine ancestry and ritual purity, were not forgotten, but integrated into a cosmology of kingship that placed Buddhism on an equal level,[3].” This once again shows how an indigenous religion is disposed of in favor of a new religion; DuBois’s mention that Shinto values were not entirely forgotten is the point that draws attention. Unlike Daoism in China, Shinto still managed to retain a degree of influence within the Japanese political and religious system. It clear that religion in Japan and China very much evolved and changed with the introduction of new teachings. The similarities that can be drawn between Daoism and Shinto are that they were very much put aside in favor of new teachings and their importance was severely decreased. On the other hand, the differences are far more prominent, unlike Daoism, Shinto managed to retain some degree of influence during the period of isolation and was brought back during the Meiji era. In contrast, Daoism’s impact was strongly affected by its close link to Buddhism, which meant it never reached the same resurgence that Shinto did.

In Conclusion, it is essential to note that the original religions of Japan and China that supported their mythic background was severely affected by the new teachings. However, it is Shinto’s individuality and dissimilarity to Buddhism and Confucianism that allowed it to remain unchanged and reappear very much intact during the Meiji era.

 

 

[1] Thomas David DuBois, The Making of Modern East Asia, (Cambridge University: 2012), p. 15.

[2] Tang Yijie, I-chieh T’ang, Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity, and Chinese Culture, (Peking, 1991), p.77.

[3] Dubois, The Making of Modern East Asia ,p 58,