Editing SG33SHS-T (section)

===== (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.