Editing SG33SHS-T (section)

=== 19. The Rise and Fall of Religious Organizations and Their Relationship to Society ===

==== a. The Rise and Fall [of Buddhism] in India and China ====

The next topic is a social analysis of the development of religious organizations. As we delve into this historical examination, we will undoubtedly witness the definitive defeat of so-called abstract faith and spiritualism, leaving no room for debate.

First, it is a fact that during the time of the Buddha, the Buddhist monastic community thrived in direct proportion to the involvement of kings, wealthy individuals, and their power and economic resources. In the third year after the Buddha began his preaching, King Bimbisāra of Magadha embraced Buddhism and donated the Veluvana Bamboo Grove Monastery. With this, the influence of Buddhism rapidly expanded, spreading throughout the entire kingdom of Magadha, with the city of Rājagṛha as its center. It was during this time that Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, and hundreds of disciples entered the monastic order under the leadership of the Buddha. Prior to this, there were only around fifty or sixty disciples, but now their numbers swiftly grew to one thousand two hundred and fifty. Furthermore, there is the famous case of Anāthapiṇḍika, a wealthy merchant from Kosala who became a devotee and established the renowned Jetavana Monastery in the city of Savatthi. This grand construction consisted of sixteen large buildings, each with sixty chambers, accommodating more than a thousand Buddhist disciples. The magnificence of this monumental architecture, funded by immense wealth, initially moved the heart of Prince Jeta, who offered the land for the monastery. Subsequently, his father, King Prasenajit, also became a Buddhist believer. It goes without saying that the conversion of kings and influential individuals played a crucial role in gaining the support of the masses throughout the country.

Next, looking at the history of Buddhism after the passing of the Buddha, it can be observed that its golden age was ushered in during the reigns of Emperor Aśoka (ca. 300–232 BCE; r. ca. 269–232 BCE) and King Kaniṣka (r. 127–150). In the case of Emperor Aśoka, Buddhism started to decline around forty years after his death due to the persecution by the anti-Buddhist minister Pushyamitra, resulting in a revival of Brahmanism. Similarly, after the passing of King Kaniṣka, the fate of Buddhism was not as glorious. In China, Buddhism took root through the introduction and translation of scriptures by eminent figures such as Xuanzang 玄奘 (602–664) and Kumārajīva (Ch. Jiumoluoshi 鳩摩羅什; 344–414). However, it is undeniable that this significant undertaking also had the support of influential kings.

==== b. The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Buddhist Sects ====

This relationship [with power and wealth] was also true for Japanese Buddhism. Let’s briefly discuss the development of Buddhism in Japan. It is commonly believed that Buddhism was introduced to Japan in the sixth century, in the fourteenth year of the reign of Emperor Kinmei 欽明 [552], when Buddhist statues and scriptures were sent from the kingdom of Baekje 百濟 by King Seong 聖 [ca. 504–554; r. 523–554]. However, it is well-known that Buddhism was already nurtured by the powerful Soga clan during this early period. Regarding the sects of Japanese Buddhism, the Sanron 三論 sect was established by the [Goguryeo 高句麗] monk Hyegwan 慧灌 [Jp. Ekan; fl. 7th c.] in the second year of the Taika era [646] at the imperial court under Emperor Kōtoku 孝徳 [596–654; r. 645–654]. Then, the Hossō 法相 and Kusha 倶舎 sects were propagated by Dōshō 道昭 [629–700], and the Jōjitsu 成実 sect was established by Dōzō 道蔵 [fl. late 7th c.]. During the reign of Emperor Genmei 元明 [r. 707–715], Nara became the capital and the Kegon 華厳 sect was promoted by [the Korean monk] Simsang 審祥 [Jp. Shinjō; ?–742], while the Ritsu 律 sect was introduced by [the Chinese monk] Jianzhen 鑑真 [Jp. Ganjin (688–763)]. These six sects, known as the “six Buddhist schools of Nara,” gained popularity. However, it should be noted that all of these sects were nurtured solely by successive emperors or the nobility.

The flourishing of Heian 平安 period [794–1185] Buddhism can be attributed to the Tendai 天台 sect, centered around Mount Hiei 比叡, and the Shingon sect, centered around Mount Kōya, both of which were greatly supported by the patronage and protection of emperors Kammu 桓武 [r. 781–806] and Heijō 平城 [r. 749–758]. Thus, each of these religious organizations owned the vast temple lands (or temple fields) that were bestowed upon them, and the temples themselves expanded their territories further through acquisition and cultivation. As their economic power grew, they extended their religious networks in all directions. Regarding this matter, Hosokawa Kame’ichi 細川亀市 writes in the preface of his work, ''An Economic History of Japanese Temple Buddhism'':

<blockquote>
The temples, which clothed themselves in the guise of religion, stood firmly on a solid material foundation, possessing vast fields and facing the world. They wielded exclusive administrative and policing powers, exercising absolute control over the people without fear of anyone. This is nothing short of a remarkable spectacle in our social and economic history.

Indeed, the temples, as feudal lords, obtained such a position primarily through the temple estates, which were the very source of their activities.<ref>Hosokawa Kame’ichi, ''Nihon jiin keizai shiron, Chūsei jiryō no kenkyū'' 日本寺院経済史論・中世寺領の研究 (Tokyo: Keimeisha, 1930), p. 3. Seno’o erroneously gives the title of the book as ''Nihon jiin bukkyō keizai shiron'' 日本寺院仏教経済史論.</ref>
</blockquote>

Let’s examine a few examples to illustrate this point.

===== (i) Donations =====

In the fourteenth year of Enryaku 延暦 [795], Emperor Kammu donated one hundred ''cho'' 町 [a unit of measurement for agricultural land] of paddy fields in Ōmi 近江 to the temple of Bonshakuji 梵釈寺. Emperor Seiwa 清和 [850–881] made a donation in the sixth year of Jōgan 貞観 [864], contributing one hundred sixty-four ''cho'' of land in the Nagakami 長上 District of Tōtōmi 遠江 Province to Jōganji 貞観寺 temple. Emperor Shōmu 聖武 [701–756] made a significant donation in the first year of Tempyō 天平 [729]. He granted five thousand households and ten thousand ''cho'' of paddy fields to Tōdaiji 東大寺 temple.

===== (ii) Land Acquisition and Cultivation =====

Tōdaiji temple, in the third year of the Tenpyō-shōhō 天平勝宝 period [751], acquired four ''tan'' 反 [a unit of land measurement] and one hundred forty ''bu'' 歩 [a subunit of land measurement] of cultivated land in Takushoku 拓殖 Village, Ahai 阿拝 District, Iga 伊賀 Province. In the second year of Tenpyō-hōji 天平寶字 [758], they also purchased ten ''chōbu'' 町歩 [a unit of land measurement] of newly cultivated land in the same area for nine ''kanmon'' 貫文 [a unit of currency]. In the first year of Tenpyō-shōhō [749], Gangōji 元興寺 temple acquired seven ''dan'' 段 [a unit of area] of rice paddies in Kanda 神田 for eight ''kan'' 貫 [a unit of currency]. And in the first year of Tenpyō-shōhō, Kōfukuji 弘福寺 temple purchased twenty-one ''chōbu'' of cultivated land in Ōmi 近江 Province for two hundred and thirty ''kan''.

Furthermore, another thought-provoking matter is that temples received donations of servants and engaged in money lending at high interest rates. Here are some examples:

# Empress Kōken 孝謙 [718–770], in the first year of Tenpyō-hōji [757], donated two hundred government-owned slaves to Konkōmyōji 金光明寺. In the same year, the court noble Ōyake no Kasemaro 大宅可是麻呂 donated sixty-one slaves to Tōdaiji on two separate occasions. In the second year of the Tenpyō-jingo 天平神護 era [766], two hundred slaves, which he had purchased from the five provinces of Mino 美濃, Ōmi, Tango 丹後, Tajima 但馬, and Kawachi 河内 were sent to Tōdaiji.
# On the twenty-second day of the third year of Chōroku 長禄 [1459], a passage from the promissory note taken by Muryōjuin 無量寿院 states, “The interest rate is to add forty ''mon'' 文 per month to the principal. Next autumn, it should be returned as part of the annual tribute from the southern provinces along with the principal.”

With an interest rate of forty ''mon'' per month for every one ''kan'' of borrowed money, this is an exorbitant interest rate of 48 percent. Furthermore, it is stated that if the principal and interest are not repaid, the borrower’s fields will be confiscated. Even the awe-inspiring Great Buddha of Nara and the magnificent architecture of Hōryūji 法隆寺 were products of immense economic power derived from squeezing the impoverished farmers and their boundless labor. It is evident that the society of the Heian period developed into a feudal society ruled by the warrior class as the estates flourished.

The primary characteristic of feudal society was that each lord privately owned land and peasants. In its early stages, temples also occupied vast tracts of lands and [owned large numbers of] peasants, making them virtual rulers in the secular realm and powerful landowners. However, the wheels of history spare no prosperity from eventually declining and perishing. Even the flourishing Heian Buddhism gradually had to yield its religious authority to the emerging sects of the Kamakura period, such as Jōdo 浄土, Zen, and Nichiren. What was the reason for this shift?

One reason for the shift from Heian Buddhism to Kamakura Buddhism can be attributed to the contrast in their approaches. Traditional Buddhism in the Heian period often relied on mystical formalism and intricate speculative philosophy, while Kamakura Buddhism adopted a more straightforward and accessible approach that resonated with the contemporary needs of the people. However, an even more significant reason lies in the evident movement of economic and social relations. According to historians, the protectors dispatched by the Kamakura shogunate—who later became the warlords of the Sengoku 戦国 period—unjustly exercised their power, usurping the estates and, as a result, temples gradually lost their economic strength as their lands were taken away. Another major reason was a backlash against the oppressive tribute imposed by the imperial temples acting as local landlords. One example of this occurred in the fifth year of the Eikyō 永享 era [1434], when the inhabitants of Mount Kōya petitioned for a reduction in their tribute due to famine. In response, the temple ordered, “Pay as you have always done.” To which the peasants replied:

<blockquote>
Since we have been instructed to pay as we have always done, we will submit two ''koku'' 斗 and six ''shō'' 升 of rice, one ''koku'', eight ''shō'', and five ''gō'' 合 of miscellaneous grains, and one ''kanmon'' for public taxes. Apart from this, we make no claims to even a single portion of land from any ulterior motives.
</blockquote>

There are numerous examples like this where the circumstances led to the decline of the Buddhist institutions associated with the imperial court while Kamakura Buddhism gained popularity among the masses, received support from the feudal lords, and gradually expanded. During the tumultuous Sengoku period, when intense conflicts prevailed, Buddhist sects were also engaged in sectarian disputes. However, as the Tokugawa 徳川 shogunate entered a period of unification, the internal conflicts subsided, especially during the reign of the third shogun, Iemitsu 家光 [1604–1651], when a registry policy was implemented to suppress Christianity. In response to this policy, Buddhist [priests] gradually became civil servants of the Tokugawa government serving in the capacity of official religious practitioners. For over two hundred years, the Buddhist sects continued to indulge in decadent dreams. However, the great upheaval of loyalty to the emperor and the movement to overthrow the shogunate also manifested as a wave of anti-Buddhist sentiment. As a result, Japanese Buddhism lay in ruins before the Meiji reforms. Subsequently, under the influence of the Meiji government’s emphasis on nationalism and modernization, Japanese Buddhism experienced a revival and played an active role. However, with the recent upheaval in the social hierarchy, the Buddhist movements of the Meiji and Taishō eras are once again being pushed toward a period of reassessment as is evident in the current circumstances.

I have attempted to explore the rise and fall of Buddhist sects over a span of two thousand five hundred years, but what does this tell us? As Education Minister Shōda suggested [above], was it truly possible to “overcome materialism” through the intensification of spiritualism? No, the facts seem to have shown precisely that the opposite is the case.