In his work
Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism Johannes Bronkhorst suggests that Brahmanism was
able to secure long-term political influence and power in India in
the face of other religious-social ideologies at the time because it
offered not only useful priestcraft sought after by rulers, but
because Brahmins themselves offered both sound political advice and
practical social theories. This is why much of the subcontinent came
to adopt Sanskrit as a
lingua
franca. Until that time states and people, including
Buddhists, had little reason to use Sanskrit, especially in Greater Magadha.
However, when Brahmins gained for themselves influence and power they
also introduced Sanskrit as a new medium of official communication
which in turn ended up as the language of elites, who were the
primary benefactors of religious institutions.
Buddhism in India co-existed among
plenty of other well developed and stable traditions. When the Buddha
walked the earth Magadha was enjoying the fruits of sophisticated
civilization following the “second urbanization” of the
subcontinent. After the demise of the Indus Valley Civilization
(3300-1300 BCE) there was a period of ruralization and eventually
nomadic pastoralism led to agriculture and finally to cities once
again. In the Buddha's time states were already established and
functioning. In later centuries given the lack of political utility
afforded by Buddhism it was eclipsed by Brahmanism despite the
widespread popularity of the former. This started to change somewhat
after the demise of the Gupta empire (550 CE) when Buddhist
institutions adopted new strategies to contend with a feudal order,
but by then Indian Buddhists had become thoroughly brahmanized.
However, in a realm where neither
centralized state nor systematized ideologies existed, did Buddhism
possess any utility? To answer this question I want to take a
comparative look at how and why the elites of Tibet and Japan adopted
Buddhism. Early Tibet and Japan share a number of common features
which make this comparison especially pertinent to understanding how
Buddhism affected the development of cultures in Asia. The most
notable common feature was that in the seventh century both were
loosely organized tribal confederations on the periphery of much
larger and advanced societies. They made active attempts, in
emulation of neighboring powers, to form centralized states and
overcome a number of internal challenges. We might consider some further
similarities between them in the 6th to 9th centuries:
- A lack of a cohesive centralized
state in a disorderly multi-tribal society with fringe cultures
unwilling to assimilate or accept regal authority.
- A landed aristocracy with their own
interests often at odds with those of the royal family.
- Unorganized native polytheist
traditions often connected with political interests at odds with the
struggling central state.
- A fear of China, which in the
Sui-Tang period (589-907) was visibly expansionist, well organized
and extremely wealthy.
In such a context, Buddhism offered an attractive model for
social cohesion and in turn state consolidation. It moreover had a
proven track record of doing so in China. Some scholars believe this
utility of Buddhism explains the initial promotion of the religion in
Tibet. In The History of Tibet,
edited by Alex McKay, this is stated plainly in the introduction:
Thus, while we may
acknowledge genuine piety among the community of believers and the
attraction of the coherent world view offered by the Buddhist
message, we must conclude that Buddhism provided a unifying
socio-cultural model that was promoted by Yarlung dynasty kings for
political purposes.1
Early on Buddhism was as a component of state prescriptions for
commoners. Songtsän Gampo (Srong-btsan sGam-po) (d. 649), who had
wed the Chinese princess Wencheng
文成公主
in 641, established a “Sixteen Article Law”
as follows:
1. Take refuge in
the Buddha, in the Dharma (law), in the Sangha (monks).
2. Practise
persistently the Dharma of these Three Treasures
3. Observe filial
piety.
4. Preserve
morality.
5. Respect the
aged and the noble.
6. Get rid of
selfishness in friendly relations.
7. Give assistance
to neighbours and the helpless.
8. Rectify the
mind without being influenced by gossip.
9. Imitate the
behaviour of the superior ones (monks).
10. Go to no
extremes in taking food and in personal conduct.
11. Never forget
the favours done by others.
12. Use standard
measures for outgoing and incoming goods.
13. Harbour no
grudge against anybody.
14. Phrase words
so as to please others.
15. Pay no
attention to the words of women and those of bad company.
16. Be patient and
determined, for neither the code of the mundane world nor that of the
supramundane world is easy.2
This law comprised ethical law for men (
mi-chos), which
differs from the religious law of gods (
lha-chos). Together
they form a system of law (
chos-lugs). On that basis the
Tibetans had laws and rulings (
rgyal-khrims). It was under
Songstän-Gampo that laws were established to punish adultery, murder
and theft. He taught popular morals meant for the common people.
3
Interestingly around the same time a figure named Prince Sh
ōtoku
聖徳太子
(572-622), a
statesmen credited for establishing a centralized state in what is
now Japan, drafted a “Seventeen Article Constitution” 十七條憲法
which
likewise shows political interest in Buddhism. As recorded in the
Nihon Shoki
日本書紀 (compiled in 720),
the constitution was personally drafted by him in 604 under the reign
of Empress Suiko 推古天皇
(554-628).
Articles two and three are as follows (for a bilingual version of the
entire text see here).
二曰、篤敬三寶。々々者佛法僧也。則四生之終歸、萬國之禁宗。何世何人、非貴是法。人鮮尤惡。能敎従之。其不歸三寶、何以直枉。
II. With all our
heart, revere the three treasures. The three treasures, consisting of
Buddha, the Doctrine, and the Monastic Order, are the final refuge of
the four generated beings, and are the supreme objects of worship in
all countries. Can any man in any age ever fail to respect these
teachings? Few men are utterly devoid of goodness, and men can be
taught to follow the teachings. Unless they take refuge in the three
treasures, there is no way of rectifying their misdeeds.
三曰、承詔必謹。君則天之。臣則地之。天覆臣載。四時順行、萬気得通。地欲天覆、則至懐耳。是以、君言臣承。上行下靡。故承詔必愼。不謹自敗。
III. When an imperial command is given, obey it with reverence. The
sovereign is likened to heaven, and his subjects (
yatsuko) are
likened to earth. With heaven providing the cover and earth
supporting it, the four seasons proceed in orderly fashion, giving
sustenance to all that which is in nature. If earth attempts to
overtake the functions of heaven, it destroys everything. Therefore
when the sovereign speaks, his subjects must listen; when the
superior acts, the inferior must follow his examples. When an
imperial command is given, carry it out with diligence. If there is
no reverence shown to the imperial command, ruin will automatically
result.
4
It is clear here that Buddhism is
promoted alongside calls for obedience to the sovereign and his
political institution. This served an important function in the state
ideology as it bound both secular and religious forces together to
secure power for the imperial head and his central government. Delmer
Brown describes the constitution as follows:
Most of these
injunctions are studded with Confucian words and phrases enjoining
officials (even priestly ones) to honor their superiors and perform
duties in a loyal and efficient manner. As is clearly stated in the
Confucian Classics (on which instruction in the ancient university
system was based), any lower-ranking person (whether son, official,
vassal, or imperial subject) was obligated to obey his higher-ranking
superior. Thus any leader's control was increased - and priestism was
made an even more active field of cultural energy - by teachings that
ensured obedience from those standing on lower rungs of the
aristocratic ladder.5
It seems likely that there was a common
inspiration behind both constitutions, which was mostly likely from
China. When Buddhism was transmitted to Japan it was not just the
religion that arrived, but also Chinese literacy and all the
accompanying political ideologies which seek centralized autocracy
and unity. The Sui Dynasty (589-618) history even records this fact
in the section on Wakoku 倭國
(the former name of Japan):
隋書/卷81：無文字，唯刻木結繩。敬佛法，於百濟求得佛經，始有文字。
They had no
letters and just carved wood or tied ropes together. They venerate
the Buddhadharma. It was in Paekche [Korea] that they sought and
obtained the Buddhist sūtras,
which is when they first came to have letters.
Prince Sh
ōtoku's
constitution articles are directed at ministers and members of the
state while Songstän Gampo's are a common set of ethical
standards for common men, though both emphasize harmony and
cooperation. Both the Japanese and Tibetan states were successfully
established only after contending with many inter-tribal conflicts,
which consequently led both to emphasize harmony and community.
As noted above, “Buddhism provided a
unifying socio-cultural model that was promoted by Yarlung dynasty
kings for political purposes.” How much was this also true in
Japan?
Shimode Sekiyo
下出積与
in his article
(see here)
concerning the position of Buddhism in the Japanese Ritsury
ō
aristocracy, specifically between c650-750 which he identifies as the
manyōgana
period, points out that Buddhism indeed flourished in said period, so
much that in 749 the Emperor Shōmu
聖武 visited
Tōdai-ji
(prior to the "eye opening ceremony" in 752) and stated the
following as recorded in the Shoku Nihongi 続日本紀:
白仏，三宝乃奴止，仕奉流，天皇羅我命，盧舍那仏像能大前仁奏賜部止奏久。
Addressing the
Buddha I the emperor, servant to the Triple Gem and serving it, do
hereby issue a proposal before the great presence of the image of
Vairocana Buddha.
This senmyōtai 宣命體 or senmyōgaki 宣命書
passage is rendered into classical Japanese as follows:
三宝の奴と仕奉る天皇らが命盧舍那仏像の大前に奏賜ふと奏く。
Here
天皇羅我
is the native Japanese
すめらぎ
(an alternative
kun-yomi reading for
天皇)
with
我
functioning phonetically as a genitive particle.
Shimode suggests two aspects of a
common view about Buddhism in this period. Firstly, Buddhism was an
overwhelming alien force that came to dominate much of the culture.
Secondly, it is widely believed that Buddhism was received
unconditionally, especially by the aristocratic elites. Shimode takes
issue with the latter point. He indicates that Buddhism was formally
introduced to Japan in the sixth century from the Paekche court for
strictly political reasons. It became a component of the Ritsury
ō
state apparatus whereby Buddhism was regarded as a means of
preserving and protecting the country (see an earlier post Buddhist Sorcery and Astrology in East Asia for an outline of the key texts on this matter). There was
already a precedent for this in China where in the north Buddhism
had been used an ideological support for regal authority and
furthermore seen as useful for its more mundane sorcery and material
culture.6
According to Shimode, it was not until such figures as Saichō
最澄
(767–822) and
Kūkai 空海
(774–835) that
genuine spirituality was to be the primary motivating factor in Japanese
Buddhism.
However, Buddhism was not entirely
welcomed by everyone in Japan. The
Nihon Shoki 日本書紀 records
the initial hesitation on the part of some nobles and later hostility
towards Buddhism during the reign of Emperor Kinmei
欽明天皇
(509-571), resulting in the destruction of the first
official Buddhist icons and temple in Japan in 552:
是日、天皇聞已、歡喜踊躍、詔使者云、朕從昔來、未曾得聞如是微妙之法。然朕不自決。乃歷問群臣曰、西蕃獻佛相貌端嚴。全未曾有。可禮以不。蘇我大臣稻目宿禰奏曰、西蕃諸國、一皆禮之。豐秋日本、豈獨背也。物部大連尾輿・中臣連鎌子、同奏曰、我國家之、王天下者、恆以天地社稷百八十神、春夏秋冬、祭拜爲事。方今改拜蕃神、恐致國神之怒。天皇曰、宜付情願人稻目宿禰、試令禮拜。大臣跪受而忻悅。安置小墾田家。懃修出世業爲因。淨捨向原家爲寺。於後、國行疫氣、民致夭殘。久而愈多。不能治療。物部大連尾輿・中臣連鎌子、同奏曰、昔日不須臣計、致斯病死。今不遠而復、必當有慶。宜早投棄、懃求後福。天皇曰、依奏。有司乃以佛像、流棄難波堀江。復縱火於伽藍。燒燼更無餘。於是、天無風雲、忽炎大殿。
It was on this day that the emperor heard [this prophecy of the
Buddhadharma going east] and was overjoyed. He addressed the
emissaries, “I have never heard of such a profound teaching as
this, but I will not decide myself.” He then enquired about this to
his ministers and said, “The western realm has offered us the
Buddha, most sublime in appearance, of which we have never had. Do we
venerate him?” The great minister of the Soga clan Iname Sukune
said, “The countries of the western realms all venerate him. How
could abundant autumn Japan alone turn its back on this?” Mononobe
Ōmuraji
Okoshi and Nakatomi Muraji Kamako together stated, “The sovereign
of our country has always made sacrifices to and venerated the
hundred and eighty gods (
kami) of heaven and earth throughout spring,
summer, autumn and winter. Now to change to venerating a foreign god
might invoke the wrath of the gods of this country.” The emperor
said, “It should be given to the willing man, Iname Sukune, and we
shall try worship.” The great ministers all knelt and accepted this,
pleased. He [Iname] placed the image in a house in Oharida and
diligently cultivated himself in renunciate activities as cause [for
liberation] while purifying his house at Mukuhara to make it a
temple. Later the country was subject to pestilence from which the
people died prematurely. The longer it went on the worse it became.
They were unable to remedy it. Mononobe
Ōmuraji
Okoshi and Nakatomi Muraji Kamako together stated, “In days past
you did not require our counsel, which had lead to this plague. Now should you recover things before it is too far there
will certainly be blessings. We should promptly cast [the image] away
and diligently pursue future fortune.” The emperor said, “As you
say!” The officials then abandoned the Buddha image in the Naniwa
Canal and then set fire to the temple and burnt it to ashes until nothing
remained. Thereupon there was neither wind nor cloud in the sky and
suddenly the great palace was aflame.
According to the text the Paekche king highly recommended Buddhism
primarily because it was said to offer great blessings and rewards,
the likes of which neither Confucius nor Confucian texts could
provide. Despite destroying the images and temple, the following year
two new statues were ordered to be crafted. While this story has been
subject to editorial revisions, it nevertheless likely reflects that
mixed opinions existed at the time about the foreign religion.
7
There was yet another suppression of Buddhism in 585 where after the
country suffered a pestilence two ministers, who were chiefs of
traditional clans, suggested a ban on the religion again. Buddhist
images, a hall and pagoda were torched and three nuns flogged. Still
the pestilence continued and the emperor permitted Soga no Umako
alone to continue practicing Buddhism. Curiously the
Gangō-ji
Engi 元興寺縁起
reports that it was not the two ministers who
instigated the ban as the
Nihon Shoki does, but rather it was
the Emperor Bidatsu
敏達天皇
(reigned 572-585) who was the chief priest, native and
not immigrant, and charged with
kami veneration.
In 587 the chief ministerial opponent
of the Soga clan was killed and then in 592 Emperor Sushun 崇峻天皇 was slain
in a court coup. Empress Suiko had the throne in 593 whereupon the
Soga clan had firm control of the state and the introduction of
Buddhism and Chinese culture could continue without outstanding
resistance from opposing elites. The Soga clan were immigrants to
the Japan and thus favoured Buddhism more than the natives who were
understandably in favor of their agricultural deities (
kami). In due
time Buddhism became the official religion as endorsed by Prince
Shōtoku in his constitution drafted in 604. The highly organized and
well developed religion from the mainland brought with it not only
supermundane means of preserving the state, but also advanced forms
of arts and crafts. More importantly perhaps is that by virtue of the
state becoming the primary benefactor of the religion any devotees of
it would be less likely to side with forces opposed to the central
government and ruling family.
This narrative has many parallels to the problems faced by Buddhism
when it entered Tibet. As the Chinese histories note, before the
unification of Tibet under Namri Löntsen (gNam ri slon mtshan) and
Songtsän Gampo the individual tribes of Tibet were autonomous and
not subject to any political organization aside from brief alliances
for raids and so on.
8
As Eva K. Dargyay notes, “Recorded Tibetan history started when by
the 7th century CE the country arose as an empire from instable
tribal confederations. Within two generations it made the transition
from a tribal society enveloped in mythic and oral traditions to a
political power in Asia to be reckoned with.”
9
Buddhism had some role to play in such a development. Along with
foreign technology and arts, there was a decided interest in the
early Tibetan empire to raise the state of its culture from
barbarism. It was under Songstän Gampo that the first monasteries
were constructed which included the Rasa Trulnang (the future
Jo-khang) in Lhasa and the Ramoche. The borderland temples for
civilizing the frontiers are also traced back to this period. The
architecture for early temples developed from ancient fortresses with
defensive bulwarks with inward-sloping thick walls and narrow
crenelated windows.
Despite a degree of Buddhism being introduced, Songstän Gampo's
reign was marked by continual violent expansion and conflict. He
inherited the throne from his father Namri Löntsen between 625-627.
In the days before his father's reign central Tibet had been
controlled by a confederacy of clans including the dBas, Myang and
mNon. Namri Löntsen had obtained oaths of allegiance from these
tribes with which to expand his territories to the north and east of
Lhasa and to Kong Po. Later the Dagpo rebelled and had to be
reconquered. Following Namri Löntsen's death these problems mounted.
The histories differ on what later transpired.
The Tun-Huang Chronicles state
the following:
...the paternal
subjects rebelled; the maternal subjects revolved. ... The father
gNam ri was given poison and died. The son Srong btsan firstly wiped
out the families of the rebels and the prisoners.
Meanwhile
Butön Rinchen Drup (Wyl. bu ston rin chen grub)
(1290-1364) relates the following:
...Thirteen years
of age he ascended the throne and, brought under his power all the
petty chiefs of the borderland who offered him presents and sent
their messages (of submission).10
The former would be the earlier history
from a time before Buddhism had thoroughly penetrated Tibetan
culture. The king is honestly presented as ruthless in crushing a
rebellion, while in the latter he is portrayed in much more charitable
terms at a time when said king had become a mythic Buddhist figure of the past and revenge killings would not have reflected so positively on him.
 |
| Songtsän Gampo with Wencheng and Bhrikuti Devi |
Nevertheless, by c636 Songstän Gampo was in a position to attack
China, or at least subject Chinese governors in frontier Gansu to
extortion. During his reign he consolidated his territories, added
new ones and received wives as tribute, including the famous Chinese
princess married in 641. This is significant because, as the
traditional story goes, she brought with her an image of Śākyamuni
and sought to have a monastery built. The king was unable to do this
and then perceived Tibet to be a "suprine demoness" which
was to be pinned down with twelve temples. Scholars rightfully
question whether it really happened like this, but assuming such
temples were built, some were presumably built on recently conquered
territories who did not already host Buddhism. The king conquered and
subjugated foreign tribes, which was not at all unlike the Yamato
court in Japan which subjugated the Hayato
隼人
and Emishi
蝦夷
peoples early on.
Despite Songstän Gampo being credited as the Buddhist king
introducing the religion to Tibetans, it seems quite minor as even
some decades later during the reign of Tride Sugten
(Khri-lde-gtsug-btsan) (704–755) a certain Korean monk named Hyecho
慧超
(704–787) kept a journal of his journey
throughout India, the Middle East and Central Asia from 723-728, and
made the following brief remarks on Tibet as follows:
已東吐番國,
純住氷山雪山川谷之間,
以氈帳而居,
無有城墎屋舍.
處所与突厥相似,
隨逐水草.
其王雖在一處,
亦無城,
但依氈帳以爲居業.
土地出,
羊馬猫牛毯褐之類.
衣着毛褐皮裘,
女人亦爾.
土地極寒,
不同餘國.
家常食麨,
少有餠飯.
國王百姓等,
惣不識仏法,
無有寺舍.
國人悉皆穿地作坑而臥,
無有床席.
人民極黑,
白者全希.
言音与諸國不同.
多愛喫虱,
爲着毛褐,
甚饒蟣虱.
捉得便抛口裏,
終不棄也.
East of here is
Tibet where they live in wool tents pitched between gorges and
mountains totally frozen and covered in snow. With no town walls or houses, their
dwellings are like those of the Turks. They move in rhythm with the
grasslands and waters, while the king alone lives in one place. Yet
even he has no castle, residing simply in a woolen tent. Their land
produces sheep, horses, and yaks, as well as carpets and hemp. They
wear clothes of fur, hemp, and leather, men and women alike. The
weather is very cold, more so than in other countries. At home, they
always eat barley flour, and a small amount of breads. Neither the
royalty nor commoners know anything of the Buddha’s teachings and
there are no monasteries. They dig pits in the ground, lying there to
sleep, using neither chairs nor beds. The people are very dark, with
those of fair complexion exceedingly rare. Their language is quite
different from the other countries. They love catching and eating
lice, and since they wear furs and hemp, such creatures are very
common. When they notice one, they catch it and immediately toss it
in their mouths. They would never let it go.11
Here we have a contemporary witness reporting
what appears to be hearsay, though nevertheless it is significant
given that he states there is no Buddhism in Tibet. In this period
the Tang empire, which included the satellite kingdom of Silla (the
Korean peninsula), had uneasy relations with Tibet and moreover
thought ill of its culture. Hyecho's remarks may have been colored by
such sentiments, though it is remarkable he notes they have no
monasteries. Even if this was just a popular notion in the territories he
was traveling through west of Tibet, it does speak about an apparent
lack of Buddhist influence in Tibetan culture at the time from an outsider's perspective.
In fact there was resistance to
Buddhism around this time. In 739 there was a smallpox epidemic.
Buddhist monks had been banished from Khotan, Kashgar, Gilgit and
Kashmir. They were allowed into Tibet at the urging of the king's
Chinese wife, whereupon three or four years later the smallpox
epidemic broke out and the anti-Buddhist elites seized their chance
to expel the Buddhist monks.12
Again, this is not unlike the Japanese history as quoted above where
plague was indirectly associated with the introduction of
Buddhadharma into the country, whereupon some elites could seize the
opportunity to undermine the new religion.
Buddhism only later started to play a more significant role in
Tibetan politics, though it was still not deeply engrained in the
fabric of society. The parallel with Japan is obvious where Buddhism
there was initially for a few centuries an institution largely
promoted by the central authorities for their own purposes rather
than being a popular religion. In the case of Tibet, the promotion of
Buddhism in the later half of the eighth century under Trisong Detsen
(reigned 755-797) is seen by modern scholars as a coordinated attempt
by the king to counter the power of the nobility, at which time there
being seemingly little widespread adoption of the religion despite
there being both patronage of translation projects and a Tibetan
monastic community.
13
Helmut Hoffman notes,
Although the new
bTsan-po ostensibly observed a strict neutrality and supported both
the Buddhists and Bon-po, in fact he favored the Buddhists and sent
his confidants to India and China to obtain Buddhist scriptures and
invite outstanding teachers to Tibet. He also relied on the Buddhist
clergy as allies against the nobles in order to consolidate his
position as emperor. When one of his emissaries, sBa gSal-snang,
brought scriptures from China he found it was necessary to conceal
them. Fearing for the safety of his accomplice, he provisionally
removed him from the intrigue-ridden centre of the empire and
appointed him governor of the southern province of Mangyul on the
Nepalese border. From Nepal gSal-snang was able to travel to India,
visit Bodh-Gaya, and make the first contacts with the outstanding
Buddhist philosophers of the time.14
In 779 Buddhism was declared the state
religion. An imperial edict simultaneously ordered support for
monasteries along with the monks. Families were in specific numbers
were assigned the task of providing for the needs of a monk (three
households to each monk according to one source). Despite earlier
Tibetan rulers drawing their spiritual authority from their
indigenous religious practices and their exclusive position therein,
it begs the question why at this point in Tibetan history Buddhism
was to be embraced at the zenith of the Tibetan empire. This was
likely due to the fact that older models that sanctified imperial
power were less and less useful in a mature empire where clan and
even ethnicity were less of a concern for people. Karénina
Kollmar-Paulenz explains:
It is maybe more
than just historical coincidence that the same king who brought the
Tibetan empire to its broadest expansion also proclaimed Buddhism as
the new state religion. The question arises whether with the
expansion of the empire the power of the king needed to be
legitimised other than by referring to the indigenous beliefs in his
divine origin. As already stressed, the cult of the mountain is
deeply grounded in the indigenous belief in a pho-lha (“male
god”), bound to the ruling clan, and the yul-lha (“deity
of the territory”), who was merged with the pho-lha. A
society which no longer is bound to clan structures clearly needs
other, clan-extending elements to shape a collective socio-cultural
identity. Buddhism as a religion not bound to ethnicity certainly
provided the necessary unifying authority in a broader socio-cultural
context. This observation could serve as an explanation for the
interest and active support Khri-srong lde-btsan gave Buddhism and
its protagonists.15
This adoption of course was not universally endorsed. The Buddhist
teacher Śāntarakṣita was invited to Tibet, yet there was still
much opposition and his visit lasted a mere four months. It is said
that at his departure he advised the emperor to invite Padmasambhava,
who would be more adept at dealing with the Bon-po. Padmasambhava
dealt with the evil spirits, which scholars believe refers to the
refractory Bon-po. The construction of Samye Monastery (bSam-yas)
proceeded and in due time Śāntarakṣita could return to ordain
seven young Tibetan males as probationary monks. Nevertheless the Bon
religion still had to be acknowledged, which is demonstrated by the
fact that persons from the former Zhang Zhung state were invited to
translate their texts into Tibetan.
This is not unlike the early conflict
in Japan as noted above between kami worshipers and fledgling
Buddhists. In the early
Japanese state as the power of the imperial court grew they
found themselves having to justify their rule in an environment with
multiple sources of spiritual authority. So while Buddhism was able
to provide an transcultural sanctification of authority, they still
had to acknowledge the power that kami
worship entailed. The parallels with Tibet on this point are quite
remarkable.
In Tibet the
bTsan-po or emperor enjoyed privileges both as an
unquestionable figure in the Bon religion as well as a benefactor of
Buddhism. Later emperors who favored Buddhism still observed sacral
customs for coronation, in funeral rites and when signing treaties.
This is quite similar to the position of
mikado 帝
or emperor in
Japan where he (or she) was effectively high priest or priestess and expected to fulfill the appropriate rites
related to kami
worship, yet at the same time could be a devout Buddhist and even
declare themselves servant to the Triple Gem as noted above. Chief
Buddhist priests at key temples were charged with performing rites
which directly benefited the ruler and his family as well as protected
him from defeat in battle and other such calamities. Political
leaders assigned the Buddhist clergy political responsibilities and
ranks within the imperial order for their services.
Another striking parallel is that of
the position of Vairocana Buddha in Japan and Tibet around the same
decades. When Samye Monastery was consecrated in 779 an image of
Vairocana was installed as the central image on the second storey
with the four-faced Sarvavid Vairocana on the uppermost shrine and an
image of Śākyamuni on the lowest storey indicating a
nirmaṇakāya or
emanation body of Vairocana. Vairocana was apparently associated with
the royal cult in Tibet. Curiously an image of Vairocana was
consecrated at Tōdai-ji
in the Japanese capital of Heijōkyō
平城京
(Nara)
in 752. The image is surrounded by nirmaṇakāyas
emanating from him. This speaks to the influence and
popularity of Vairocana in Asia in this period. The
image was built at great expense, but was done so alongside the
development of statewide temples administered by priests in the
capital, and pressing pleas for people to offer worship to Vairocana
three times daily.
The
Vairocana at Tōdai-ji
is
probably based on the Brahma
Net Sūtra
梵網經
(the
scripture appears in fifth century China), though Vairocana also
figures prominently in literature directly from India such as the
Mahāvairocana
Sūtra
大日經
as
translated by Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏
in
724. It
is reasonable to assume based on the popularity of Vairocana in Tibet and East Asia that said buddha figured prominently in India as well.
Tibet
and Japan after becoming strong states continued to invest heavily in
Buddhism, though in the case of the former it ended unwell. The
nobles and common people ended up revolting, at least in part, at the
privileges of the clergy. Some monks were even punished by having
their fingers chopped off or their eyes torn out. The imperial court
had mistakenly forced unto the people Buddhist virtues which they
were not willing to favor ahead of their ancestral code of ethics.
The Bon-po nobility took advantage of the situation and murdered the
emperor in his chambers. The infamous Lang Darma (gLang-dar-ma) was
put on the throne from 838 to 842. Earlier it was Buddhists who had
apparently controlled the emperor Ralpacan, though now it was the Bon-po in
charge of the throne. The later histories describe a persecution of
Buddhism – foreign monks were ejected from the country and
translation projects ended. However, this was a period of disorder
and chaos as the empire came to an end. Even the Chinese histories report on it. Finally in 842
Lang Drama was assassinated by a Buddhist hermit. Thereafter the Tibetan
empire disintegrated, though Buddhism was never lost.
Curiously,
in 845 under Wuzong 武宗
(814-846) there
was a vast purge of Buddhism across the Tang empire. In both Tibet
and China Buddhist institutions in the preceding decades had acquired
abundant resources and influence, but not without irritating certain circles of
power. This did not extend to the Korean peninsula or Japan, however,
as Ennin 圓仁
(794-864) the
Japanese Tendai monk was received well in both Silla and Japan when he returned.
Buddhism in Japan thrived in the ninth century, though the country
became isolationist owing to the political situation on the mainland.
The Tang empire collapsed in 907 and even with the Song Dynasty
established in 960 the north was held by the Khitan or Liao Dynasty
(907-1125) followed by the Jurchen or Jin Dynasty (1115-1234).
Regardless of the political situation on the mainland, Buddhism was
well-established in Japan by the late ninth century. Ultimately,
however, in the 12th century Japan came to be ruled by military men
whose authority was predictably not so much derived from Buddhism.
To sum things up,
when Tibet and Japan were emerging states around the same time they faced
similar difficulties. They were loosely organized confederations on
the edges of other much more sophisticated and technologically
advanced cultures. Predictably, both sought to emulate their superiors
and Buddhism was adopted alongside other forms of culture. Some of the landed
aristocracy with their indigenous religions (Bon in Tibet, kami worship or
Shintō in Japan) resisted Buddhism, at times even violently, yet as
these two emerging empires developed away from clan-based
confederacies towards being centralized empire states subjugating
refractory peoples, both domestic and foreign, their leaders gained
great spiritual authority by becoming primary benefactors of state-organized Buddhist institutions. Other alternatives such as
Brahmanism or Daoism in this period (c6th-9th centuries) did not offer
as transcultural and readily adaptable a religion as Buddhism did.
Finally, it would have been clear that the religion had already aided state
consolidation in the great dynasties of China.
That
Buddhism was used primarily for political purposes early on in Japan
and Tibet is recognized by scholars, though at the same time we
should not overstate this. There were of course many devoted
practitioners and masters who sought to benefit immeasurable sentient
beings. Buddhist institutions were able to secure resources and
priveleges to carry out their activities only by virtue of having the
sanction and trust of courts. Historically it has often been the case
that Buddhist traditions cannot thrive without state support, which
is ironic given that the Buddha himself was a homeless apolitical
mendicant living on donations of food and cloth. Nevertheless, as
Buddhism matured and developed, there emerged institutions which managed not only
monastics but also money and other resources like land. Organized religion when having
anything to do with money and power is inevitably used for worldly
ends which benefit both the benefactor and beneficiary. This is a
historical truth that always needs to be kept in mind.
------
Footnotes:
Buddhist pieces also depict romantic scenes. The following from the Āyāga Frieze, which depicts scenes from the Buddha's life and from the Jātakas, shows an amorous couple (third century CE). This sort of thing is seen elsewhere, such as at Nālandā (see Dhammika Bhante's blog post here).
There are also pieces from Central Asia in the public collection. This piece is from the third to fourth centuries CE. It resembles a Greco-Roman fresco. Here we see the Buddha with a moustache, which is a common feature on images from Gandhāra. He is accompanied by six monks, one of which is on the right.
There are many superb late period (post-tenth century) pieces on display. In the lobby of the museum there is an image of Sarasvatī, the goddess of knowledge, music, arts and sciences. It dates to the twelfth century, Rajasthan.
