Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 4th, 2018, 06:46 PM   #11
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 114

The answer may depend on what is considered oppression.

Based on Williams' article, the Bakufu seemed to have *control* over multiple clergies. Is 'autonomous decision-making authority, but only under the ultimate control of the regime' oppression? Preventing the monks from militarizing ('prohibitions on warrior monks') could be viewed as oppression. And if Ieyasu imitated Toyotomi policies, then he extorted the clergies into praying for him.

Some may view the Tokugawa cutting the voices and defenses of their monks as oppression.

As far as an actual armed conflict between the Tokugawa and monks go, I can't find one. If it happened, the hostile clergy was probably Toyotomi aligned. So come siege of Osaka, the monks were under control.

Conclusion: I thought that if Buddhism was oppressed, it would have come from conflict against Zhu Xi Confucianism.

Instead, if we view the above policies as hostile, it looks like Buddhism is not the actual enemy, but instead, the potential of the clergies getting regional autonomy, something the centralized Tokugawa Bakufu didn't want.
nakamichi is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 4th, 2018, 06:47 PM   #12
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 114

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
Given that Ieyasu was deified as a Buddha (Daigongen).
Did all of the clergies agree with this?
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 11:44 PM   #13

sparky's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Sydney
Posts: 1,486

.
There is a certain analogy with European politics ,
powerful monasteries and bishops were often (nearly always) the scions of some great family .
this led to some kings taking control of those positions , though burning them down was rare

you can take the religion out of the gentry but it's harder to take the gentry out of the religion
the Sohei warrior monks have some parallel with the crusading monastic orders
those last created plenty of troubles for the reigning monarchs

Last edited by sparky; January 4th, 2018 at 11:48 PM.
sparky is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 03:33 PM   #14

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,261

Quote:
Originally Posted by nakamichi View Post
Did all of the clergies agree with this?
No idea. I'm not familiar with the protocol, so it's entirely possible that they didn't need the agreement of all the priests. I can't think of any instances of deifications being refused on religious grounds. Even the class A war criminals are enshrined as kami even if not every priest agrees with it.

A number of temples prospered during the Tokugawa period. Both the Enryakuji and Negoroji were rebuilt, the latter by a Tokugawa branch family.

So long as the temples remained apolitical and supportive of the shogunate, there's no reason to they would have faced any restrictions, in common with most powerful groups.

A number of daibutsu date to the Edo period, so there was no specific curtailment of Buddhism.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 04:35 PM   #15
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 114

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
No idea. I'm not familiar with the protocol, so it's entirely possible that they didn't need the agreement of all the priests. I can't think of any instances of deifications being refused on religious grounds. Even the class A war criminals are enshrined as kami even if not every priest agrees with it.

A number of temples prospered during the Tokugawa period. Both the Enryakuji and Negoroji were rebuilt, the latter by a Tokugawa branch family.

So long as the temples remained apolitical and supportive of the shogunate, there's no reason to they would have faced any restrictions, in common with most powerful groups.

A number of daibutsu date to the Edo period, so there was no specific curtailment of Buddhism.
I don't think arbitrary clergies had anything to do with the protocol if they weren't part of the Imperial Court. The Emperor posthumously deified the people. Maybe better would've been 'Did all clergies *accept* the deification?' I was hoping to see a hint of clergies acting hostile against the Shogun.

All of the posts I'm seeing are stating the same things stated back in posts 2/3, just with different forms of evidence. If the clergy plays by the shogunate's rules, then they'll be fine. I think we all got that by now. But by the same logic, Oda and Toyotomi didn't oppress Buddhists. They only attacked those who were against them. Neither launched a crusade against Buddhism. Further, if the Shogunate shows preference for 'reward for his support', then concerning preferential treatment, is it fair that certain clergies do not benefit because they didn't kiss up to the shogun?

And they were not 'apolitical', they were 'political' in favor of the Shogun. Maki's example of using Temple's to conduct government registration is clear example of the temples being involved in politics.

Last edited by nakamichi; January 5th, 2018 at 04:38 PM.
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 05:08 PM   #16

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,261

Quote:
Originally Posted by nakamichi View Post
And they were not 'apolitical', they were 'political' in favor of the Shogun. Maki's example of using Temple's to conduct government registration is clear example of the temples being involved in politics.
That was a matter of administrationm not politics. Temples were best placed to collect that information, given that they were based in the communities, and since registration with one religion in theory disqualified one from practising another religion, registration at a temple made a lot more sense than at a census office.

Perhaps you haven't found the evidence that you are looking for because there isn't any, which rather supports everything that has been said so far in this thread. If you are contending otherwise, then it's up to you to find that evidence.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 07:10 PM   #17
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 114

Quote:
Originally Posted by nakamichi View Post
Conclusion: I thought that if Buddhism was oppressed, it would have come from conflict against Zhu Xi Confucianism.

Instead, if we view the above policies as hostile, it looks like Buddhism is not the actual enemy, but instead, the potential of the clergies getting regional autonomy, something the centralized Tokugawa Bakufu didn't want.
My stance is the above quote, and yes, Iíve given evidence of this in post 2. I donít understand what other evidence you think it is that Iím Ďlooking forí. What else do you think Iím trying to prove? Your post 14 seems to be another argument that there was no curtailment of Buddhism. But Iím telling you Iíve been saying this since post 3 and I said it a second time in post 9.

**I am arguing that temple autonomy was restricted and they were regulated and utilized by the central government.**

And if you have evidence against this I am interested.

Many examples of Buddhism flourishing were given on this thread, and I agree with no argument. But I am wondering how cozy these individuals were with the Tokugawa.

I think what will change my opinion on the temple/census issue is whether or not the temples were *required* to participate in registering citizens. Did the Shogunate also use Shinto Shrines for registration(Or Ďinsteadí of the temples, since the shrineís probably next to the temple anyway)? They could accomplish most of what you mentioned. But an answer may be the Shogunate already had the setup to more easily manipulate the temples.

To some, thatís an issue, but this thread is now going nowhere because whether or not these actions are viewed as Ďoppressioní is subjective based on how right or left the reader is. I now live in the United States and imagine if tomorrow the Federal Government decided to regulate how church members were to obtain priesthood. Some US citizens would view as the worst act of tyranny and others couldnít care less.

I donít want contemporary political arguments anywhere on the forum, so Iíll stick with my double star statement but drop considering whether or not itís Ďoppressioní.
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 6th, 2018, 10:55 AM   #18
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 114

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
A number of temples prospered during the Tokugawa period. Both the Enryakuji and Negoroji were rebuilt, the latter by a Tokugawa branch family.
The Negorogumi were aligned with the Tokugawa even before Toyotomi destroyed them, and their remnants went on to fight for Ieyasu. As for Enryakuji, we have this:

Quote:
The Tokugawa government was officially established in 1603 when Tokugawa Ieyasu received from the imperial court the title of shogun, and it very quickly set out a series of religious policies. It would suffer no interference in the politics of the realm from temples like Enryakuji, but their thriving would be sanctioned within the stateís clearly defined, legitimizing parameters. Those parameters were set down in law, and underwritten by the threat of violence. The Tokugawa government duly followed up the 5,000-koku benefaction to Enryakuji with ďRegulations on TendaiĒ (1608).

Breem, John and Teeuwan, Mark. A New History of Shinto. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Page 93
Their book goes on to mention how the Tendai were well connected with the Tokugawa and Ieyasu, with Tenkai being a counselor to Ieyasu and charged with proposing deification to the Emperor. I don't know how Tenkai first got Ieyasu's good side, but my guess is it involved Tenkai's connection to the Court.

But though they had a good relation with Shogunate, the Tokugawa had the upper hand, through coercion, backing my conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
registration at a temple made a lot more sense than at a census office.
Did census offices exist in 1635? The Tokugawa Era of 1635 is not the same as the Tokugawa Era of 1735. Fumie at temples, yes, sounds logical, but my conjecture is that temples were chosen over the likes of shrines for they were the most centralized structure available for the Shogunate, and yes, in every community.

I still do not see how an institute can be loyal to a government body, participate in the Governmentís political agenda, yet be apolitical. Iím guessing not too many people on Historum are familiar with Algerian politics, so Iíll stick with USA politics for the following analogy. ďThe apolitical church always cooperates with conservative agendas.Ē

Maybe itís just a matter opinion. And if being Ďapoliticalí is defined as engaging beliefs against the ruling government, then OK they were apolitical.
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 6th, 2018, 01:11 PM   #19

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,635

The temple registration system was put in place instead of an official census since everyone was obligated to register at a temple and thus the registration records would provide the list of all citizens, providing that there were no Christians refusing to register at the temple, but that would only help the bakufu locate them. In 1671, the shogunate ordered that the registries must include the number of men and women in each village, district and province. People who left the area because of marriage or for anything else were also to be included. And a report was to be sent to the bakufu. The temples would also produce death registries, reports about changes of residence etc. So, for all intents and purposes, the temple registration system produced census results even before Yoshimune officially introduced it.
Maki is offline  
Old January 6th, 2018, 01:23 PM   #20
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 114

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
The temple registration system was put in place instead of an official census since everyone was obligated to register at a temple
Isn't this sentence cyclic? Was there a temple registration system prior to sakoku?

Do you mean "The temple registration system was put in place instead of an official census since everyone *would be* obligated to register at a temple"?
nakamichi is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
bakufu, buddhism, oppress, tokugawa



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion: The Japanese Bakufu leakbrewergator Asian History 76 January 15th, 2018 03:48 PM
Tokugawa Japan leakbrewergator Asian History 11 February 4th, 2016 05:54 AM
Buddhism and Indology (why Upanashads before Buddhism in the west) Piccolo Asian History 5 January 30th, 2016 07:14 AM
Tokugawa's Japan Musubi History Help 1 October 30th, 2015 02:34 AM
Tokugawa Shoganate ncwillus Asian History 11 September 14th, 2009 05:55 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.