Web
and Book design,
Copyright, Kellscraft Studio 1999-2015 (Return to Web Text-ures) |
Click
Here to return to
Japan: An Attempt at Interpretation Content Page Return to the Previous Chapter |
(HOME)
|
The Introduction of
Buddhism As the
oldest extant Japanese texts — with the probable exception of some Shintō
rituals — date from the eighth century, it is only possible to surmise the
social conditions of that earlier epoch in which there was no form of religion
but ancestor-worship. Only by imagining the absence of all Chinese and Korean
influences, can we form some vague idea of the state of things which existed during
the so-called Age of the Gods, — and it is difficult to decide at what period
these influences began to operate. Confucianism appears to have preceded
Buddhism by a considerable interval; and its progress, as an organizing power,
was much more rapid. Buddhism was first introduced from Korea, about 552 A.D.; but
the mission accomplished little. By the end of the eighth century the whole
fabric of Japanese administration had been reorganized upon the Chinese plan,
under Confucian influence; but it was not until well into the ninth century
that Buddhism really began to spread throughout the country. Eventually it
overshadowed the national life, and coloured all the national thought. Yet the
extraordinary conservatism of the ancient ancestor-cult — its inherent power of
resisting fusion — was exemplified by the readiness with which the two
religions fell apart on the disestablishment of Buddhism in 1871. After having
been literally overlaid by Buddhism for nearly a thousand years, Shintō
immediately reassumed its archaic simplicity, and reestablished the unaltered
forms of its earliest rites. But the
attempt of Buddhism to absorb Shintō seemed at one period to have almost
succeeded. The method of the absorption is said to have been devised, about the
year 800, by the famous founder of the Shingon sect, Kūkai or "Kōbōdaishi"
(as he is popularly called), who first declared the higher Shintō gods to be
incarnations of various Buddhas. But in this matter, of course, Kōbōdaishi was
merely following precedents of Buddhist policy. Under the name of Ryōbu-Shintō,1
the new compound of Shintō and Buddhism obtained imperial approval and support.
Thereafter, in hundreds of places, the two religions were domiciled within the same
precinct — sometimes even within the same building: they seemed to have been
veritably amalgamated. And nevertheless there was no real fusion; — after ten
centuries of such contact they separated again, as lightly as if they had never
touched. It was only in the domestic form of the ancestor-cult that Buddhism
really affected permanent modifications; yet even these were neither fundamental
nor universal. In certain provinces they were not made; and almost everywhere a
considerable part of the population preferred to follow the Shintō form of the
ancestor-cult. Yet another large class of persons, converts to Buddhism,
continued to profess the older creed as well; and, while practising their
ancestor-worship according to the Buddhist rite, maintained separately also the
domestic worship of the elder gods. In most Japanese houses to-day, the
"god-shelf" and the Buddhist shrine can both be found; both cults
being maintained under the same roof.2... But I am mentioning these
facts only as illustrating the conservative vitality of Shintō, not as
indicating any weakness in the Buddhist propaganda. Unquestionably the influence
which Buddhism exerted upon Japanese civilization was immense, profound,
multiform, incalculable; and the only wonder is that it should not have been
able to stifle Shintō forever. To state, as various writers have carelessly
stated, that Buddhism became the popular religion, while Shintō remained the
official religion, is altogether misleading. As a matter of fact Buddhism
became as much an official religion as Shintō itself, and influenced the lives
of the highest classes not less than the lives of the poor. It made monks of
Emperors, and nuns of their daughters; it decided the conduct of rulers, the
nature of decrees, and the administration of laws. In every community the
Buddhist parish-priest was a public official as well as a spiritual teacher: he
kept the parish register, and made report to the authorities upon local matters
of importance. By
introducing the love of learning, Confucianism had partly prepared the way for
Buddhism. As early even as the first century there were some Chinese scholars
in Japan; but it was toward the close of the third century that the study of
Chinese literature first really became fashionable among the ruling classes.
Confucianism, however, did not represent a new religion: it was a system of
ethical teachings founded upon an ancestor-worship much like that of Japan.
What it had to offer was a kind of social philosophy, — an explanation of the eternal
reason of things. It reinforced and expanded the doctrine of filial piety; it
regulated and elaborated preexisting ceremonial; and it systematized all the
ethics of government. In the education of the ruling classes it became a great
power, and has so remained down to the present day. Its doctrines were humane,
in the best meaning of the word; and striking evidence of its humanizing effect
on government policy may be found in the laws and the maxims of that wisest of
Japanese rulers — Iyéyasu. But the
religion of the Buddha brought to Japan another and a wider humanizing
influence, — a new gospel of tenderness, — together with a multitude of new
beliefs that were able to accommodate themselves to the old, in spite of
fundamental dissimilarity. In the highest meaning of the term, it was a civilizing
power. Besides teaching new respect for life, the duty of kindness to animals
as well as to all human beings, the consequence of present acts upon the
conditions of a future existence, the duty of resignation to pain as the
inevitable result of forgotten error, it actually gave to Japan the arts and
the industries of China. Architecture, painting, sculpture, engraving,
printing, gardening — in short, every art and industry that helped to make life
beautiful developed first in Japan under Buddhist teaching. There are
many forms of Buddhism; and in modern Japan there are twelve principal Buddhist
sects; but, for present purposes, it will be enough to speak, in the most
general way, of popular Buddhism only, as distinguished from philosophical Buddhism,
which I shall touch upon in a subsequent chapter. The higher Buddhism could
not, at any time or in any country, have had a large popular following; and it
is a mistake to suppose that its particular doctrines — such as the doctrine of
Nirvâna — were taught to the common people. Only such forms of doctrine were
preached as could be made intelligible and attractive to very simple minds.
There is a Buddhist proverb: "First observe the person; then preach the
Law," — that is to say. Adapt your instruction to the capacity of the listener.
In Japan, as in China, Buddhism had to adapt its instruction to the mental
capacity of large classes of people yet unaccustomed to abstract ideas. Even to
this day the masses do not know so much as the meaning of the word "Nirvâna"
(Néhan): they have been taught only
the simpler forms of the religion; and in dwelling upon these, it will be
needless to consider differences of sect and dogma. To
appreciate the direct influence of Buddhist teaching upon the minds of the common
people, we must remember that in Shintō there was no doctrine of
metempsychosis. As I have said before, the spirits of the dead, according to
ancient Japanese thinking, continued to exist in the world: they mingled
somehow with the viewless forces of nature, and acted through them. Everything
happened by the agency of these spirits — evil or good. Those who had been
wicked in life remained wicked after death; those who had been good in life
became good gods after death; but all were to be propitiated. No idea of future
reward or punishment existed before the coming of Buddhism: there was no notion
of any heaven or hell. The happiness of ghosts and gods alike was supposed to
depend upon the worship and the offerings of the living. With
these ancient beliefs Buddhism attempted to interfere only by expanding and
expounding them, — by interpreting them in a totally new light. Modifications
were effected, but no suppressions: we might even say that Buddhism accepted
the whole body of the old beliefs. It was true, the new teaching declared, that
the dead continued to exist invisibly; and it was not wrong to suppose that they
became divinities, since all of them were destined, sooner or later, to enter
upon the way to Buddhahood — the divine condition. Buddhism acknowledged likewise
the greater gods of Shintō, with all their attributes and dignities, — declaring
them incarnations of Buddhas or Bodhisattvas: thus the goddess of the sun was
identified with Dai-Nichi-Nyōrai (the
Tathâgata Mahâvairokana); the deity Hachiman was identified with Amida (Amitâbha). Nor did Buddhism deny
the existence of goblins and evil gods: these were identified with the Pretas and
the Marâkâyikas; and the Japanese popular term for goblin, Ma, to-day reminds us of this identification. As for wicked ghosts,
they were to be thought of as Pretas only, — Gaki, — self-doomed by the errors of former lives to the Circle of
Perpetual Hunger. The ancient sacrifices to the various gods of disease and
pestilence gods of fever, small-pox, dysentery, consumption, coughs, and colds
— were continued with Buddhist approval; but converts were bidden to consider
such maleficent beings as Pretas, and to present them with only such food-offerings
as are bestowed upon Pretas — not for propitiation, but for the purpose of
relieving ghostly pain. In this case, as in the case of the ancestral spirits,
Buddhism prescribed that the prayers to be repeated were to be said for the sake of the haunters, rather
than to them.... The reader may be
reminded of the fact that Roman Catholicism, by making a similar provision,
still practically tolerates a continuance of the ancient European ancestor-worship.
And we cannot consider that worship extinct in any of those Western countries
where the peasants still feast their dead upon the Night of All Souls. Buddhism,
however, did more than tolerate the old rites. It cultivated and elaborated
them. Under its teaching a new and beautiful form of the domestic cult came
into existence; and all the touching poetry of ancestor-worship in modern Japan
can be traced to the teaching of the Buddhist missionaries. Though ceasing to
regard their dead as gods in the ancient sense, the Japanese converts were
encouraged to believe in their presence, and to address them in terms of
reverence and affection. It is worthy of remark that the doctrine of Pretas
gave new force to the ancient fear of neglecting the domestic rites. Ghosts
unloved might not become “evil gods" in the Shintō meaning of the term;
but the malevolent Gaki was, even more
to be dreaded than the malevolent Kami,
— for Buddhism defined in appalling ways the nature of the Gaki’s power to harm. In various Buddhist funeral-rites, the dead
are actually addressed as Gaki, — beings
to be pitied but also to be feared, — much needing human sympathy and succour,
but able to recompense the food-giver by ghostly help. One
particular attraction of Buddhist teaching was its simple and ingenious
interpretation of nature. Countless matters which Shintō had never attempted to
explain, and could not have explained, Buddhism expounded in detail, with much
apparent consistency. Its explanations of the mysteries of birth, life, and
death were at once consoling to pure minds, and wholesomely discomforting to
bad consciences. It taught that the dead were happy or unhappy not directly
because of the attention or the neglect shown them by the living, but because
of their past conduct while in the body.3 It did not attempt to
teach the higher doctrine of successive rebirths, — which the people could not
possibly have understood, — but the merely symbolic doctrine of transmigration,
which everybody could understand. To die was not to melt back into nature, but
to be reincarnated; and the character of the new body, as well as the
conditions of the new existence, would depend upon the quality of one's deeds
arid thoughts in the present body. All states and conditions of being were the
consequence of past actions. Such a man was now rich and powerful, because in previous
lives he had been generous and kindly; such another man was now sickly and
poor, because in some previous existence he had been sensual and selfish. This
woman was happy in her husband and her children, because in the time of a
former birth she had proved herself a loving daughter and a faithful spouse;
this other was wretched and childless, because in some anterior existence she
had been a jealous wife and a cruel mother. "To hate your enemy,” the
Buddhist preacher would proclaim, "is foolish as well as wrong: he is now
your enemy only because of some treachery that you practised upon him in a
previous life, when he desired to be your friend. Resign yourself to the injury
which he now does you: accept it as the expiation of your forgotten fault.... The
girl whom you hoped to marry has been refused you by her parents, — given away
to another. But once, in another existence, she was yours by promise; and you
broke the pledge then given.... Painful indeed the loss of your child; but this
loss is the consequence of having, in some former life, refused affection where
affection was due.... Maimed by mishap, you can no longer earn your living as
before. Yet this mishap is really due to the fact that in some previous existence
you wantonly inflicted bodily injury. Now the evil of your own act has returned
upon you: repent of your crime, and pray that its Karma may be exhausted by
this present suffering."... All the sorrows of men were thus explained and
consoled. Life was expounded as representing but one stage of a measureless
journey, whose way stretched back through all the night of the past, and
forward through all the mystery of the future, — out of eternities forgotten
into the eternities to be; and the world itself was to be thought of only as a traveller's
resting-place, an inn by the roadside. Instead
of preaching to the people about Nirvâna, Buddhism discoursed to them of
blisses to be won and pains to be avoided: the Paradise of Amida, Lord of
Immeasurable Light; the eight hot hells called To-kwatsu, and the eight icy
hells called Abuda. On the subject of future punishment the teaching was very
horrible: I should advise no one of delicate nerves to read the Japanese, or
rather the Chinese accounts of hell. But hell was the penalty for supreme
wickedness only: it was not eternal; and the demons themselves would at last be
saved.... Heaven was to be the reward of good deeds: the reward might indeed be
delayed, through many successive rebirths, by reason of lingering Karma; but,
on the other hand, it might be attained by virtue of a single holy act in this
present life. Besides, prior to the period of supreme reward, each succeeding
rebirth could be made happier than the preceding one by persistent effort in
the holy Way. Even as regarded conditions in this transitory world, the results
of virtuous conduct were not to be despised. The beggar of to-day might
to-morrow be reborn in the palace of a daimyo; the blind shampooer might
become, in his very next life, an imperial minister. Always the recompense would
be proportionate to the sum of merit. In this lower world to practise the
highest virtue was difficult; and the great rewards were hard to win. But for
all good deeds a recompense was sure; and there was no one who could not
acquire merit. Even the Shintō
doctrine of conscience — the god-given sense of right and wrong — was not denied
by Buddhism. But this conscience was interpreted as the essential wisdom of the
Buddha dormant in every human creature, — wisdom darkened by ignorance, clogged
by desire, fettered by Karma, but destined sooner or later to fully awaken, and
to flood the mind with light. It would
seem that the Buddhist teaching of the duty of kindness to all living
creatures, and of pity for all suffering, had a powerful effect upon national habit
and custom, long before the new religion found general acceptance. As early as
the year 675, a decree was issued by the Emperor Temmu forbidding the people to
eat “the flesh of kine, horses, dogs, monkeys, or barn-door fowls," and
prohibiting the use of traps or the making of pitfalls in catching game.4
The fact that all kinds of flesh-meat were not forbidden is probably explained
by this Emperor's zeal for the maintenance of both creeds; — an absolute
prohibition might have interfered with Shintō usages, and would certainly have
been incompatible with Shintō traditions. But, although fish never ceased to be
an article of food for the laity, we may say that from about this time the mass
of the nation abandoned its habits of diet, and forswore the eating of meat, in
accordance with Buddhist teaching.... This teaching was based upon the doctrine
of the unity of all sentient existence. Buddhism explained the whole visible
world by its doctrine of Karma, — simplifying that doctrine so as to adapt it
to popular comprehension. The forms of all creatures, — bird, reptile, or
mammal; insect or fish, — represented only different results of Karma: the
ghostly life in each was one and the same; and, in even the lowest, some spark
of the divine existed. The frog or the serpent, the bird or the bat, the ox or
the horse, — all had had, at some past time, the privilege of human (perhaps even
superhuman) shape: their present conditions represented only the consequence of
ancient faults. Any human being also, by reason of like faults, might hereafter
be reduced to the same dumb state, — might be reborn as a reptile, a fish, a
bird, or a beast of burden. The consequence of wanton cruelty to any animal
might cause the perpetrator of that cruelty to be reborn as an animal of the
same kind, destined to suffer the same cruel treatment. Who could even be sure
that the goaded ox, the overdriven horse, or the slaughtered bird, had not formerly
been a human being of closest kin, — ancestor, parent, brother, sister, or
child?... Not by
words only were all these things taught. It should be remembered that Shintō
had no art: its ghost-houses, silent and void, were not even decorated. But
Buddhism brought in its train all the arts of carving, painting, and
decoration. The images of its Bodhisattvas, smiling in gold, — the figures of
its heavenly guardians and infernal judges, its feminine angels and monstrous
demons, — must have startled and amazed imaginations yet unaccustomed to any
kind of art. Great paintings hung in the temples, and frescoes limned upon
their walls or ceilings, explained better than words the doctrine of the Six
States of Existence, and the dogma of future rewards and punishments. In rows
of kakémono, suspended side by side, were displayed the incidents of a Soul's
journey to the realm of judgment, and all the horrors of the various hells. One
pictured the ghosts of faithless wives, for ages doomed to pluck, with bleeding
fingers, the rasping bamboo-grass that grows by the Springs of Death; another showed
the torment of the slanderer, whose tongue was torn by demon-pincers; in a
third appeared the spectres of lustful men, vainly seeking to flee the embraces
of women of fire, or climbing, in frenzied terror, the slopes of the Mountain
of Swords. Pictured also were the circles of the Preta-world, and the pangs of
the Hungry Ghosts, and likewise the pains of rebirth in the form of reptiles
and of beasts. And the art of these early representations — many of which have
been preserved — was an art of no mean order. We can hardly conceive the effect
upon inexperienced imagination of the crimson frown of Emma (Yama) Judge of the dead, — or the vision
of that weird Mirror which reflected to every spirit the misdeeds of its life
in the body, — or the monstrous fancy of that double-faced Head before the
judgment seat, representing the visage of the woman Mirumé, whose eyes behold
all secret sin; and the vision of the man Kaguhana, who smells all odours of
evil-doing.... Parental affection must have been deeply touched by the painted
legend of the world of children's ghosts, — the little ghosts that must toil,
under demon-surveillance, in the Dry Bed of the River of Souls.... But pictured
terrors were offset by pictured consolations, — by the beautiful figure of
Kwannon, white Goddess of Mercy, — by the compassionate smile of Jizō, the
playmate of infant-ghosts, by the charm also of celestial nymphs, floating on
iridescent wings in light of azure. The Buddhist painter opened to simple fancy
the palaces of heaven, and guided hope, through gardens of jewel-trees, even to
the shores of that lake where the souls of the blessed are reborn in
lotos-blossoms, and tended by angel-nurses. Moreover,
for people accustomed only to such simple architecture as that of the Shintō
miya, the new temples erected by the Buddhist priests must have been
astonishments. The colossal Chinese gates, guarded by giant statues; the lions
and lanterns of bronze and stone; the enormous suspended bells, sounded by
swinging-beams; the swarming of dragon-shapes under the eaves of the vast roofs;
the glimmering splendour of the altars; the ceremonial likewise, with its
chanting and its incense-burning and its weird Chinese music, — cannot have
failed to inspire the wonder-loving with delight and awe. It is a noteworthy
fact that the earliest Buddhist temples in Japan still remain, even to Western
eyes, the most impressive. The Temple of the Four Deva Kings at Ōsaka — which, though
more than once rebuilt, preserves the original plan — dates from 600 A.D.; the
yet more remarkable temple called Hōryūji, near Nara, dates from about the year
607. Of course
the famous paintings and the great statues could be seen at the temples only; but
the Buddhist image-makers soon began to people even the most desolate places
with stone images of Buddhas and of Bodhisattvas. Then first were made those
icons of Jizō, which still smile upon the traveller from every roadside, — and
the images of Kōshin, protector of highways, with his three symbolic Apes, — and
the figure of that Batō-Kwannon, who protects the horses of the peasant, — with
other figures in whose rude but impressive art suggestions of Indian origin are
yet recognizable. Gradually the graveyards became thronged with dreaming
Buddhas or Bodhisattvas, — holy guardians of the dead, throned upon
lotos-flowers of stone, and smiling with closed eyes the smile of the Calm
Supreme. In the cities everywhere Buddhist sculptors opened shops, to furnish
pious households with images of the chief divinities worshipped by the various
Buddhist sects; and the makers of ihai,
or Buddhist mortuary tablets, as well as the makers of household shrines,
multiplied and prospered. Meanwhile
the people were left free to worship their ancestors according to either creed;
and if a majority eventually gave preference to the Buddhist rite, this
preference was due in large measure to the peculiar emotional charm which
Buddhism had infused into the cult. Except in minor details, the two rites
differed scarcely at all; and there was no conflict whatever between the old
ideas of filial piety and the Buddhist ideas attaching to the new ancestor-worship.
Buddhism taught that the dead might be helped and made happier by prayer, and
that much ghostly comfort could be given them by food-offerings. They were not
to be offered flesh or wine; but it was proper to gratify them with fruits and
rice and cakes and flowers and the smoke of incense. Besides, even the simplest
food-offerings might be transmuted, by force of prayer, into celestial nectar
and ambrosia. But what especially helped the new ancestor-cult to popular
favour, was the fact that it included many beautiful and touching customs not
known to the old. Everywhere the people soon learned to kindle the hundred and eight
fires of welcome for the annual visit of their dead, — to supply the spirits
with little figures made of straw, or made out of vegetables, to serve for oxen
or horses,5 — also to prepare the ghost-ships (shōryōbuné), in which the souls of the ancestors were to return,
over the sea, to their under-world. Then too were instituted the Bon-odori, or Dances of the Festival of
the Dead,6 and the custom of suspending white lanterns at graves,
and coloured lanterns at house-gates, to light the coming and the going of the
visiting dead. But
perhaps the greatest value of Buddhism to the nation was educational. The Shintō
priests were not teachers. In early times they were mostly aristocrats,
religious representatives of the clans; and the idea of educating the common
people could not even have occurred to them. Buddhism, on the other hand,
offered the boon of education to all — not merely a religious education, but an
education in the arts and the learning of China. The Buddhist temples
eventually became common schools, or had schools attached to them; and at each
parish temple the children of the community were taught, at a merely nominal
cost, the doctrines of the faith, the wisdom of the Chinese classics,
calligraphy, drawing, and much besides. By degrees the education of almost the
whole nation came under Buddhist control; and the moral effect was of the best.
For the military class indeed there was another and special system of education;
but Samurai scholars sought to perfect their knowledge under Buddhist teachers
of renown; and the imperial household itself employed Buddhist instructors. For
the common people everywhere the Buddhist priest was the schoolmaster; and by
virtue of his occupation as teacher, not less than by reason of his religious
office, he ranked with the samurai. Much of what remains most attractive in
Japanese character — the winning and graceful aspects of it — seems to have
been developed under Buddhist training. It was
natural enough that to his functions of public instructor, the Buddhist priest
should have added those of a public registrar. Until the period of
disendowment, the Buddhist clergy remained, throughout the country, public as
well as religious officials. They kept the parish records, and furnished at
need certificates of birth, death, or family descent. To give
any just conception of the immense civilizing influence which Buddhism exerted
in Japan would require many volumes. Even to summarize the results of that
influence by stating only the most general facts, is scarcely possible, — for
no general statement can embody the whole truth of the work accomplished. As a
moral force, Buddhism strengthened authority and cultivated submission, by its
capacity to inspire larger hopes and fears than the more ancient religion could
create. As teacher, it educated the race, from the highest to the humblest,
both in ethics and in esthetics. All that can be classed under the name of art
in Japan was either introduced or developed by Buddhism; and the same may be
said regarding nearly all Japanese literature possessing real literary quality,
— excepting some Shintō rituals, and some fragments of archaic poetry. Buddhism
introduced drama, the higher forms of poetical composition, and fiction, and
history, and philosophy. All the refinements of Japanese life were of Buddhist
introduction, and at least a majority of its diversions and pleasures. There is
even to-day scarcely one interesting or beautiful thing, produced in the
country, for which the nation is not in some sort indebted to Buddhism. Perhaps
the best and briefest way of stating the range of such indebtedness, is simply
to say that Buddhism brought the whole of Chinese civilization into Japan, and
thereafter patiently modified and reshaped it to Japanese requirements. The
elder civilization was not merely superimposed upon the social structure, but
fitted carefully into it, combined with it so perfectly that the marks of the welding,
the lines of the juncture, almost totally disappeared. 1 The term "Ryōbu" signifies “two-departments” or "two
religions." 3 The reader will doubtless wonder how Buddhism could reconcile its
doctrine of successive rebirths with the ideas of ancestor-worship If one died
only to be born again, what could be the use of offering food or addressing any
kind of prayer to the reincarnated spirit? This difficulty was met by the
teaching that the dead were not immediately reborn in most cases, but entered
into a particular condition called Chū-U.
They might remain in this disembodied condition for the time of one hunched
years, after which they were reincarnated. The Buddhist services for the dead
are consequently limited to the time of one hundred years. |