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 13th, 2018, 12:19 PM   #41

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,792

I never gave you a source on the whole censorship thing: James L. Huffman, Creating a Public: People and Press in Meiji Japan.

And to answer your question about when the Tokugawa accepted neo-Confucianism. Well, from the very beginning, to be more precise it was Hayashi Razan who was noticed by Ieyasu and served in the government of the first four shoguns, although the Kansei Edict of 1790 made it truly official. One interesting thing: it was the Imjin War that was responsible for the rise of neo-Confucianism in Japan, because many neo-Confucian books were taken by the Japanese from Korea and many neo-Confucian scholars were also taken to Japan, Kang Hang being an example of one such scholar.
Maki is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 14th, 2018, 08:28 AM   #42
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

The trio Totman listed seem to be a trio in every publication. They're in my Tsunayoshi book, and in the case of Mitsumasa, acted against Shogunate policy.

Quote:
Mitsumasa, together with Mito Mitsukuni and Hoshina Masayuki, later became reverently known as one of the Three Wise Lords (san kenko), owing to their early sponsorship of Confucianism, and the fact that at the time he stood in open opposition of the government was conveniently forgotten. Yet there is evidence that what Kaempfer heard is historically correct.

Like Mito Mitsukuni and Hoshina Masayuki, Ikeda Mitsumasa chose precisely the year of Sakai Tadakaiyo’s accession to the position of grand councilor (Kanbun 6, 1666) for what historians generally describe as the “weeding out” (tota) of Buddhist clergy and temples. Of the existing 1,044 temples in his domain, 583 were closed, while the number were reduced to less than half from 1,957 to 847. At the same time he permitted, in defiance to the central government orders, that the registration required under the Laws for the Examination of Sects take place in either at Shinto shrines or at Buddhist temples, and that burials could also take place according to Shinto shrines. Mitsumasa personally showed his opposition to the bakufu's order limiting burials to Buddhist temples by removing the remains of his father and grandfather in that year from the temple Myôshinji in Kyoto. Instead they were laid to rest in a Confucian burial place Mitsumasa constructed at Wa'itani, Wakigun, on a remote hillside in the country.

Mitsumasa was careful to explain to his retainers that he did not stand in opposition to the Tokugawa regime, but only to the orders of the present government leaders. Ieyasu had intended to have Shinto, Confucianism, and Buddhism equally revered, he explained and his measures were necessary since Buddhism had become too powerful and had declined morally.

Mitsumasa sought to recify this by establishing Confucian schools open equally to both samurai and commoners, including primary schools (tenarai) to replace Buddhist tera koya. Protest from the Buddhist clergy of the domain to the bakufu led to several confrontations between Mitsumasa and the grand councilor Sakai Tadakiyo.

Bodart-Bailey Beatrice M. The Dog Shogun: The personality an Policies of Tokugawa Tsunayoshi. The University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. Page 64-65
I'm pretty bad with Tokugawa politics (more of a Sengoku guy), so any comments on this Sakai Tadakaiyo?

I pulled a book on funerals after seeing the comment Confucian funerals.

Quote:
“Confucian scholars propagated their anti-cremation stance among the educated classes of the Tokugawa period; as a consequence, elite families who had burned their dead for generations, including the imperial family, gave up the Buddhist custom. Persuaded that banning cremation would, in the words of Otsuki Risai (1674-1734). “certainly generate morality and filial piety.” Several domains also tried to curb the practice among commoners, though it is unclear how successful they were. Leading the way in this effort was Nonaka Kenzan (1615-1663), the dynamic administrator of the Tosa domain. Nonaka apparently tried to ban the practice several times but was unable to halt it until he mandated the cremation of executed criminals. This stigmatization reportedly ended cremation a–that is, of the voluntary sort–in Tosa. In 1663 Hoshina Masayuki (1611-1672), daimyo Aizu, also declared a ban on cremation in his domain, though it is unclear to what extent it was actually enforced.

Some tried not only to end cremation, but to replace Buddhist death rites entirely with Confucian ones. Ikeda Mitsumasa (1609-1682), daimyo of Okayama domain and Kumazwa’s patron of ten years (1647-1657), decided to enforce a registration system using Shinto shrines instead of Buddhist temples, thereby opening the door for the adoption of non-Buddhist funerals. Judging from detailed domain records kept on formerly Christian families, it appears that Confucian funerals did make some headway. Between 1669 and 1687, documents show, eleven people from forcibly converted families were given Confucian instead of Buddhist funerals. However, a much greater number of former Chrisitans in this period, fifty-eight, were buried according to Buddhist rites; and after Ikeda himself died in 1682, the Buddhist establishment applied pressure to reverse his policies. Accordingly, the temple registration system was reininstuted in 1687, snuffing out the spread of Confucian funerals in Okayama.

Confucian-style funerals found favor several other daimyo, perhaps the most notable being Tokugawa Mitsukuni (1628-1700) of the Mito domain. Mitsukuni was a strong advocate of both Shinto rites and Confucian teachings. Drawing from the tenants of Ise Shinto, which had traditionally excluded Buddhist influences, Mitsukuni set out to purge shrines of Buddhist coloring, foreshadowing the Meiji policy of shinbutsu bunri (separation of kami and buddhas). Accordingly when his wife dies in 1658, she was buried according to Confucian ceremony spelled out in Zhu Xi’s Kobun karei (Household rites). Mitsukuni was given a Confucian funeral, as were later Mito lords; moreover, before he died, he established two cemeteries where retainers wishing non-Buddhist funerals could be buried. Nevertheless Mito commoners remained locked into the Shogunate’s system of temple registration, and even though Mitsukuni released Shinto priests and their families from Buddhist funerals, thirty-two years after his death, the shogunate once more bound them to their family temples.

Other daimyo also had difficulty escaping the Buddhist death grip. Tokugawa Yoshinao, daimyo of Bishu domain, had indicated before his death in 1650 that he wanted to be buried according to Confucian rites, but in deference to the shoguante’s policy, his family first sponsored a Buddhist funeral involving hundreds of priests before burying him according to Confucian norms. Despite growing anti-Buddhist sentiment in the imperial court, emperors also continued to receive Buddhist obsequies throughout the Tokugawa period. In 1654 Emperor Gokomyo was buried whole, breaking a centuries-long tradition of cremation in the imperial house, and yet rituals were performed to make it appear as if he had been cremated. This initiated “the dissembling convention of faux cremation and secret corporal burial” that was not exposed until the death of Emperor Komei in 1867, when it was finally rejected in favor of publicly acknowledged, full-body buriel.

Bernstein, Andrew. Modern Passings: Death Rites, Politics, And Social Change in Imperial Japan. University of Hawai’i Press, 2006. Page 46-47.
Mitsukuni was deified with the Buddhist posthumous name Giko. I think it was 'red tape'. With only local separation of Kami and Buddha, the Imperial Court deified him as a Buddha to get him (what I guess he wanted) his Shinto monument for the shrines.

I believe that in Zhu Xi Confucian tradition, you perform some sort of annual ceremony at a monument for your ancestor, a Shinto monument should satisfy. Is someone on this forum familiar with Joseon domestic funeral rites? How does that work?

I figured that there were temples with no Shinto influence, but I'm surprised there were shrines with no Buddhist influence during this time. I viewed the general attitude of the time as all kami are Buddha and all Buddha are kami. If anyone here saw the samurai literacy thread, remember that I questioned an Uesugi samurai with atheist views towards Shinto kami. In theory, denial of kami implies denial Buddha implies denial of Bishamonten implies denial of Kenshin Uesugi.

Last edited by nakamichi; January 14th, 2018 at 08:52 AM.
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 08:38 AM   #43
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
I never gave you a source on the whole censorship thing: James L. Huffman, Creating a Public: People and Press in Meiji Japan.

And to answer your question about when the Tokugawa accepted neo-Confucianism. Well, from the very beginning, to be more precise it was Hayashi Razan who was noticed by Ieyasu and served in the government of the first four shoguns, although the Kansei Edict of 1790 made it truly official. One interesting thing: it was the Imjin War that was responsible for the rise of neo-Confucianism in Japan, because many neo-Confucian books were taken by the Japanese from Korea and many neo-Confucian scholars were also taken to Japan, Kang Hang being an example of one such scholar.
Thank you for the reference, I'll check when I have time.

My question asked about legitimacy, not adoption. We'll start this discussion from scratch. How did neo-Confucianism justify/legitimize the rule of the Tokugawa shogunate?
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 08:46 AM   #44
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

So what, we have a three pronged pitch fork hindering Tokugawa Buddhism? They are the Hideyoshi-Ieyasu regulations, the political rise of the neo-Confucians, and the kokugaku movement which severs them from the shrines.

Were they related? Or did they develop independent of one another.

The common theme in these writings is the view that Buddhism was a 'corrupt' institution.
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 15th, 2018, 08:11 AM   #45
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by nakamichi View Post
How did neo-Confucianism justify/legitimize the rule of the Tokugawa shogunate?
I love this Dog Shogun book.


Quote:
Japan’s leadership was confronted with serious questions. Northern China had more or less peacefully capitulated to the invading Manchu forces, abruptly ending the supremacy of the nearly three-hundred-year-old Ming dynasty. From Shoho 3 (1646) onwards over some forty years the bakufu received requests for military assistance from the supporters of the beleaguered Ming holding out in South China. These served as a constant reminder of the fallen giant. Chinese scholars seeking refuge in Japan readily pointed out that the Chinese imperial house in no small way had been brought down by misgovernment and the discontent of the commoners. The question of how Japan would stand up to a Manchu threat could not be ignored. We know that the senior councilor Matsudaira Nobutsuna probed Kumazawa Banzan on this topic. The latter feared that last-minute preparations for battle would create enormous logistical problems with regard to food supplies. Shortage of rice would cause mutiny and riots, making it easy for the invaders to conquer Japan. Even if the invaders were repelled, the social and economic havoc resulting from the attempted invasion would leave Japan in a state of anarchy and civil war.

A solution in accord with Confucian concepts was to better the lot of the commoners so that they would rally behind their government. This was to be achieved by Confucian-style benevolent government (jinsei), where the commoners were administered with increased expertise, efficiency, and dedication on the part of samurai officials. Education brought enlightenment and reduced violence. Yet education and appointment commensurate with performance challenged the inherited birthright of the samurai. Moreover such benevolent government often required financial sacrifice. Especially at times of natural calamities, the military was expected to forgo tax collection and contribute to relief funds.

In opposition stood the resolve to maintain the political status quo by consolidating the privileges of the ruling class. This strategy meant adherence to Ieyasu’s maxim that farmers were to be taxed so that they barely retained enough grain for seeding and burdened with corvée leaving just enough energy to produce good crops. Education encouraged insubordination. As Sakai Tadakiyo had advised Ikeda Mitsumasa, in these troubled times expenditures on military and public duties were more appropriate.

This opposition showed complex variations according to circumstance and the personal ambitions of the players. Confucians were divided among themselves, with, for instance, Kumazawa Banzan denigrating the Hayashi family as clerics and the latter accusing Banzan of unorthodoxy and rebellion. Sakai Tadakiyo patronized the Hayashi family, frequently calling the head of the house to his mansion. Yet in spite of this patronage, Tadakiyo was not prepared to accord Confucians a political role beyond that of watchdog over ideologically dangerous thought and editors of historical records. For their part, those rulers subscribing to the classical Chinese pattern of benevolent government were, nevertheless, generally not prepared to accord their Confucian advisers the respect and emoluments due them in the perfect Confucian world order. They also differed from the ideal in their unwillingness to be admonished by their Confucian tutors. Such discrepancies created criticism and friction. In turn samurai Confucians were reluctant to give up their traditional warrior prerogatives. The Confucian scholars Arai Hakuseki and Ogyu Sorai were at variance on what constituted good Confucian government but were in agreement in counting the life of a commoner for little, lacking the essential Confucian compassion for their fellow men.

In spite of these variations, we can see two distinctive political patterns of governance, with the Confucian pattern being followed by men such as Tokugawa Yoshinao, Mito Mitsukuni, and Ikeda Mitsumasa, while opposition to their policies is voiced by Sakai Tadakatsu and Tadakiyo on behalf of the bakufu. An appreciation of this confrontation in political ideology is essential for understanding the administration of the fifth shogun and the opposition it encountered. Evidence of this split in political ideology well over a decade before Tsunayoshi’s government explains the disagreement over his succession.

Bodart-Bailey Beatrice M. The Dog Shogun: The personality an Policies of Tokugawa Tsunayoshi. The University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. Page 67-68
Looks like an example of how neo-Confucianism solidified itself in the Shogunate, and it didn't happen overnight. I think in times of conflict, the neo-Confucians always produced the best answer. IIRC, jinsei is from classical Confucius, so any monk could have recommended reforms through jinsei. (whether they tried, I don't know).

My point is that it's not like neo-Confucianism introduced Japan to jinsei.

What does matter is that the neo-Confucians sold their interpretation to certain higher ups of the Shogunate.

After they enough 'sales', they assume more advisor roles, giving a neo-Confucian state.

I cited so much because of Sakai Tadakiyo. He does not look amicable to neo-Confucianism, but I want a better understanding of his feud with Mitsumasa. Why did Tadakiyo's pushback, in particular, with returning registrations to the temples? Was it to deter Tozama autonomy (apparently the bakufu considered annexing Okamaya) and to protect their centralized temple infrastructure? Was it out of Buddhist loyalty? Was it out of Confucian distrust? I don't see how shrine registration involves Confucianism, tough.
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 15th, 2018, 08:18 AM   #46
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
And to answer your question about when the Tokugawa accepted neo-Confucianism. Well, from the very beginning
Are you sure of this statement, given Tadakiyo's tenure as tairo?

Is there a point where the shogunate's 'inner circle' consists of no Buddhists (and I would assume solely of neo-Confucians)?

What about the imperial court? I figured that would've been a safe haven for the monks, but apparently the Court too experienced anti-Buddhist sentiment. I've heard of dozens famous neo-Confcuians who advised the daimyo and Shogun, but never the Emperor.

Is there a point where the liaisons between the Court and Shogunate no longer consisted of clergy, and just neo-Confucians?
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 15th, 2018, 09:47 AM   #47
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

Is there a thread on Historum that discusses Yamaga Soko and 'bushido'? (i.e. the theory that Bushido was derived from neo-Confucianism)
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 16th, 2018, 02:38 PM   #48
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

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.
How many? Which temples, beyond the given three?
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 16th, 2018, 02:39 PM   #49
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Did the Buddhism declined under the Tokugawa and lose some of its influence? Yes, undoubtedly so. But the bakufu never outright oppressed it, in fact they used the Buddhist temples when it suited them. For example, all people were compelled to registrate at a temple to prove that they had no Christian affiliation and this increased number of people associated with sects like the Nichiren or Pure Land Buddhism. The government also sponsored the scholarly pursuits of the Buddhist clergy which led to the boom of scholarship in the 17th and 18th centuries. And new Buddhist schools came to Japan, such as Obaku which was established in 1620s and spread through Japan thanks to the efforts of people like Itsunen Shoyu and Ingen. Tokugawa Japan would also be a home to other important Buddhist thinkers representing other schools: Rinzan school included people like Takuan Soho, Bankei Yotaku and Hakuin Ekaku.
Are other examples of Tokugawa utilizing temple to regulate citizen population? Could Tokugawa citizen can register at any temple? How Tokugawa lock Tokugawa citizen into Buddhist funeral with temple registration?

Is anymore to say on scholarship? ‘Government’ mean (central) Bakufu?
nakamichi is offline  
Old January 16th, 2018, 02:53 PM   #50
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
A number of daibutsu date to the Edo period, so there was no specific curtailment of Buddhism.
I don't understand this sentence. Was the assault on negoroji a 'specific curtailment of Buddhism'?
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 02:48 PM
Tokugawa Japan leakbrewergator Asian History 11 February 4th, 2016 04:54 AM
Buddhism and Indology (why Upanashads before Buddhism in the west) Piccolo Asian History 5 January 30th, 2016 06:14 AM
Tokugawa's Japan Musubi History Help 1 October 30th, 2015 01:34 AM
Tokugawa Shoganate ncwillus Asian History 11 September 14th, 2009 04:55 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.