As General Renondeau indicates, there was an evolution in policy in Japan toward the valorization of all these social trends. This policy evolution was, of course, nothing more than a reflection of these social trends, as the Marxists assert. At this time, around 1200, the shei were booming; sects of the common people began to appear in reaction to the aristocratic Buddhists from the Heian monastery, where esoteric, extravagant ritualism (Shingon sect) was blended with verbose scholasticism (Tendai sect).
The first of these new sects was at Heian, and was of the Pure Land (Jdo), founded by Hnen (1133–1212). It claimed to follow the Chinese patriarchs (from the Tang dynasty, more than three or four centuries old). In essence, however, it was no less Japanese. None of its principal characters had ever been to China to seek out the sacred doctrine. It taught a very simple method for attaining salvation. “Easy” is what they even called it themselves, and accessible to everyone. It was a fideism that had faith only in the Buddha Amita, to the detriment of texts and practices. These were reduced to devotional orations, even to the simple oral invocation of the name Amita which, if done with the necessary faith entailed, was deemed sufficient to assure rebirth in his Pure Land, in his paradise in the west.
The second sect was the one founded by Nichiren (1228–1282) in the north during the thirteenth century. He was a fisherman’s son whose name meant “Sun Lotus” or, with the intended double meaning “Lotus from Japan.” This is the only Japanese sect that does not claim to follow any Chinese patriarchy. Its doctrine is an apocalyptic interpretation of the Lotus of the True Law stra (Saddharma-pundarka stra) and is characterized by a virulent appeal to popular passions and to nationalism. War didn’t take long to rage between the adepts of these two sects. One branch of the Jdo sect was the so-called true branch (Shin)—all dissidents claim to be the only “true” one—[and] must have been particularly combative. Founded in the thirteenth century by Shinran (1173–1262), it soon became much more important than the Jdo sect itself. The Shin branch had abolished the monastic rule, which it considered to be of no use since the texts themselves were useless. The only thing that counted was grace.
Marriage was allowed, as was the consumption of meat and alcohol. The renunciation of celibacy allowed the leaders of this school to be succeeded by their progeny, no longer by just their spiritual successors but by their own blood descendants, which likens them to hereditary feudal lords, but clothed in the prestige of religion.105 As complete fanatics, the followers of the Shin sect went into combat. They were convinced that the faith they were defending was true and right and that the paradise of Amita was worth their death. The entire “Warring States period” (Sengoku-jidai), in the sixteenth century, was beset with eruptions of violence by “single-minded leagues,” ikko-ikki as the Shin sect’s warrior-monks were designated.106 Many laypersons and rebel peasants integrated themselves with them as well, stresses General Renondeau.107 This was also the case in China regarding most of the Buddhist uprisings.
Emerging at the same time as feudalism, the militarization of Buddhist clergy faded along with it. When the Tokugawa regency (the military dictators who were reestablishing unity in Japan) was preparing for war, it had no adversaries more tenacious than the monastic armies who took refuge in fortresses they turned into Buddhist convents. These fortresses bore witness to Oda Nobunaga’s unforgettable siege, which lasted from 1570 to 1580. The siege of the Osaka castle was the siege of the Shin sect, the Hongan-ji or the temple of the original vow. These are the incidents upon which the city of Osaka, now the financial center of Japan and one of the largest emporia of the world, has been founded.
Its origins are from a fortified convent around which an urban agglomeration sprang into existence. After the destruction of this convent, Toyotomi Hideyoshi erected a new and formidable castle on the very same site, which he chose to be the seat of government. The center of the Shin sect, or more precisely of the Otani branch, was transferred to Kyoto into two new Hongan-ji, where it still exerts a powerful hold over the popular masses. The filial leaders of the sect, now related by marriage to the imperial family, were granted nobility in 1884. When I was in Japan thirty years ago, they were the “high-and-mighty” which brought to mind the prelates of the Italian Renaissance. In 1938 one of them was minister of foreign affairs. Another was a sergeant in the transportation services. This was not surprising because the clergy enjoyed no statutory privileges and the ecclesiastical personnel had been subject to the draft in Japan from the Meiji restoration. Throughout the Sino-Japanese conflict, Buddhist sects were under the control of the Office of Religious Affairs, which reported to the Ministry of the Interior. The Buddhist sects officially participated in the “spiritual mobilization” declared on September 9, 1937.108
Another sect played an important role in Japan’s military history, but not as much in the actual fighting of wars (as they did in China). They were integral in the training of the warriors. This was the Dhyna sect (Zen). Not long after being introduced in Japan from China at the end of the twelfth century, monks from the Zen sect would take arms in an attempted coup d’état of the Hojo government in 1303, and later the Ashikaga government in 1340.109 In 1339, Soseki Mus encouraged his fellow Zen practitioners to not carry weaponry because, he noted with uncommon good sense, “If one truly observes Buddhist law, one does not amass worldly goods. Therefore, one has no need to defend them with arms in hand.”110 As a result, in 1345 and 1368, during the Tenryji and Nanzenji sieges, the resident Zen monks did not defend these Zen monasteries against the Tendai monasteries’ shei. It was the troops from the imperial court of Kyoto and from the Kamakura bakufu who mounted a defense.111 During the Muromachi period, between the fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries, the Zen sect was an exceptionally cultured, literate, and artistic elite. In this they were similar to the Tchan masters from the Yuan and Ming dynasties, the recipients of Zen in China who in turn came to teach it in Japan. The Zen sect exerted its influence through diplomacy, commerce, and especially through education, in which it excelled.112 Yet the Dhyna school’s method of training personnel by encouraging instinctive immediate responses, and by encouraging simple actions to come directly from the depths of the unconscious, lent itself well to military regulation. If jd or jjitsu is fighting “fluidly” (and take [their] name[s] from Taoism to which Dhyna is much indebted), in Japan Dhyna is usually associated with its particular tactical methods of combat in areas such as archery and fencing.113 Fencing manuals were written by Zen masters and conceived completely in Buddhist terms.114 During the last world war, when Paris was under the German occupation, a Japanese film was showing in the theaters. It told the story of the formation of a soldier, from the moment he enlisted until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The methods that were used were glaringly from Zen.
Men are made in such a way that they need reasons to justify bending their principles. Consequently, when they eschew a bad habit, it too often comes back, masked as a virtue. Buddhists have taken many alternative routes trying their utmost to legitimize many habits that run completely counter to the Buddhist precept of no-killing. This precept is the basis of their entire code of ethics. Along these lines, we might add an interesting paragraph to the chapter on “logical derivations.” It is interesting to note that Vilfredo Pareto took a perverse pleasure in collecting examples consistent with the Machiavellian or Voltairean traditions.115 I will only indicate a few of these supporting arguments. Most of them date back all the way to India; however, they have not lost their relevance. Furthermore, at the time of the recent Sino-Japanese conflict I only had to leaf through the news publications of the day from the Far East to find nearly all of these arguments still being used for external and internal propaganda. I also found that journalists lacked anything new to add.116
The main, peremptory argument that we extract from the former Buddhist apologists is that the Real Law must be protected from its enemies. This idea is dramatically manifested in its folklore and in its iconography, wherein we find a
ll sorts of divinities taken from the pantheon in India outside Buddhism. These were integrated into Buddhism as protectors of the Buddha, his law, and his community. Indra (akra Devendra) for example, the lord of the celestial gods, was one such co-opted lord. Among the celestial gods, the Buddhists are the sworn enemy of Malin. The four god-kings (devarja) who were specifically assigned to guard the four regions of space, were even included along with many others in imagery decorating armor, weaponry, and all the trappings of warriors. In conjunction with this imagery we see such military epithets as “victorious, divine generals,” etc. In fact, a mere visit to a Buddhist sanctuary in the Far East, especially if it is affiliated with the Tantric school of Buddhism, belies a religion that is more harsh than sweet in nature. Vairavaa is one of the four god-kings; he presides over the north. Vairavaa is shown as the armored warrior holding an umbrella or parasol in one hand and a stpa in the other. For the Buddhists in the north, notably in Serindia, [he] had become a veritable god of war.
Even in China, at the time of the Tang dynasty there were Vairavana rituals and Tantric practices to assure victory on the battlefield. It was believed that he “followed the armies to protect the Real Law,” like a Homeric god.117 In Japan, Vairavana has become the appointed patron of warriors, who like carrying his image as their amulet. It was reported that, in 587, when Shtoku Taishi went off to war to establish Buddhism in Japan, he carried a little wooden figurine of Vairavana he made with his own hands, stuck in his bun.118 After returning victorious, he dedicated his first Buddhist establishment in Japan, the Shitenn-ji Temple in Naniwa (Osaka), to the four god-kings, Vairavana and the others. Even more recently, while in China the Japanese troops preparing for combat would bow before the icons of the four god-kings in the Chinese temples.119 Furthermore, Chinese and Japanese Buddhists have no qualms about annexing their native war gods into their pantheon. Also, Kouan-ti, of whom there is often a statue in the Buddhist temples in China and Japan, was bestowed the title of “Buddha Protector of the State” by imperial decree.120 Finally, in Japan, Hachiman—the Shinto god of war—became a bodhisattva, an avatar of the Buddha Amita.121
These warrior figures protect the Real Law. They are usually defending deities. War is justified if it is in defense, is it not? This is a widely held belief in the Far East, where war is generally presented as a form of repression used to reestablish peace. The enemy is perceived as nothing but a troublemaker, and is given labels that mean bandit, rebel, etc. Everyone knows that, according to the etymological play of words of Tso-tchouan, war is engaged in order to stop war, to “stop the halberds.” Moving from defensive to offensive combat is an easy shift to make when engaging in a preventive war. Heresy must be prevented and evil crushed in utero. General Renondeau cites a speech attributed to Rygen more than four centuries before his death.122 In it, this illustrious superior of the temples on Mount Hiei, near Kyoto, tolerated and even encouraged the arming of his subordinates. Everyone agrees that the arguments, which a writer from the Ashikaga period in 1409 claimed came from Rygen’s lips, were fabricated. However, at that time, the shei were in complete full force. It is interesting to see how a contemporary sought to justify these arguments. Here is the author’s essential argument.
General Renondeau quotes only one of the two sentences:
While the great master Jie [Rygen’s posthumous name] was governing the mountain [Hiei, from 966], he explained things in this way. Without letters, there aren’t any rites to make one worship one’s superiors. Without weapons, the superiors have no virtù to impose on their inferiors. Thus, the world is only well ordered if letters and weapons equally supplement each other. With that accepted, why do we turn to monks [today] who lack intelligence and talent as ranking warriors to make up the shuto troops?123 It is because the Real Law is deficient and is no longer the essential Real Law. In high antiquity, in the time of the Counterfeit Law, everyone still respected the Real Law. But, in our time of degeneration [in other words, in our time, the time of the decline of the Law],124 it is rare for people to have faith. And yet, if, on this high mountain, one lacks oil for the lamp of the Real Law, how could it last very long? Similarly, the troops of the four god-kings protect akra Devendra, just as our warring troops use force to prevent all sorts of disorder in the land we were given. Through their bravery, they protect us from heretic and depraved sects, thus assuring the preservation of the Real Law and the subsistence of the practitioners of the Dhyna who safeguard the method.125
Moreover, in another of Rygen’s biographies, also dated in the fifteenth century, we see the following line of thought:
In 975 …, the master [Rygen] said: “The time of the Counterfeit Law has come. These reeds who are the listeners [rvaka, the followers of the Lesser Vehicle], these bamboos who are the lone Buddhas [pratyeka-buddha, second of the vehicles and different from the Great Vehicle, which is the one of the bodhisattvas], abound like a forest. It is hard to know where to stop this proliferation of undergrowth. Brush does not let itself be eliminated: and still further, the two Vehicles [the lesser ones, the vehicle of rvaka and the vehicle of the pratyeka-buddha, in other words, all the heresies, the adversarial sects, the doctrines, and the practices running counter to those of the Great Vehicle as the Tendai sect on Hieizan understood it]. If we left the bows in their sheaths and neglected the arrows, we would not be ensuring the duration of the Real Law. Didn’t the stra say this? Mañjur has two symbolic attributes (samaya): the pointed sword and the Brahmic poth [a Sanskrit book]. … This is what our monks study; they are the only Sanskrit books. … If we add to this the pointed sword, will we not have hundreds of thousands of living Mañjurs? And henceforth the monks [on Hieisan] began to carry a bow and an arrow.126
In the thirteenth century, in his Treatise on Securing the Peace of the Land through the Establishment of the Correct Buddhist Law and other writings, Nichiren strongly advocates against adversarial sects.127 He references numerous passages from the Mahpariniva stra. Interestingly, neither the passages in the aforementioned work on the death of kyamuni, nor his last teachings (which were in accordance with the tradition of the Lesser Vehicle) interested Nichiren. His interest concerned the treatise on the Great Vehicle, which had to have been composed in India (or in Serindia) at or near the end of the fourth century. It is worth noting that this rather racy doctrine borders on heresy. In it we read in particular what happened to the Buddha in one of his previous existences. It says that he had heretic Brahmans put to death, and then gives two reasons for doing so.
We are told that the first reason was out of pity, to help the Brahmans avoid the punishment they had accrued by committing evil deeds while continuously slandering Buddhism. The Buddha’s second reason for putting them to death was to defend Buddhism itself. Regardless, these Brahmans were predestined to infernal damnation (icchantika); it was not a sin to put them to death in order to preserve the Real Law, even if it was for their own good [compelle intrare].128 In another passage, this same stra (scripture) declares that there is no reason to observe the five precepts, or even to practice good behavior, if protecting the Real Law is in question. In other words, one needed to take up the knife and the sword, the bow and the arrow, the spear and the lance. “The one that observes the five precepts is not a follower of the Great Vehicle! Do not observe the five precepts—if it concerns protecting the Real Law, it concerns the Great Vehicle!”129 Along these lines, the Buddha sings the praises of a king named Yeou-tö, who went to war to defend the bhiku (monks).130
We also find more subtle justifications for killing in Buddhist literature. First, we find statistical justification; killing is permitted if, in killing one man alone, one saves many. For example, this was the case with a particular Brahman who had converted to Buddhism. While he was traveling with a caravan, he approached a canyon where five hundred outlaws were ready to ambush. The one outlaw who seemed to have had some previous relations with the Brahman was sent by his companions on reconnaissance. Taking advantage of this opportun
ity, the outlaw warned the Brahman of the impending danger to the caravan. The Brahman made the following argument: if I warn my five hundred traveling companions, they will not miss the opportunity to kill the “snitch” outlaw. They would incur considerably painful karmic retributions from this act. If I say nothing, it will be the five hundred outlaws who kill the caravan and reap the terrible fruits of this crime. Consequently, the Brahman decides to kill the outlaw who had warned him. Not seeing him return, the other outlaws decide not to attack the travelers. Thus the Brahman takes upon himself the karmic consequences of the killing, while saving both the outlaws and the travelers. Apprised of the situation after the killing, the outlaws and the travelers convert. It is therefore for the good of nine hundred and ninety-nine people that he killed one. Therefore, his killing was an act of charity.131
The following is an even better story. The Yogcrabhmi by Asaga, the masterpiece of Buddhist epistemology and psychology, makes it the bodhisattva’s duty to commit the sin of killing so as to prevent another from doing so. In other words, it is better to sin than to let the other sin.132 If a bodhisattva sees an outlaw preparing to kill many men or to commit some other sin, that would be cause for immediate retribution (nantarya). He would say to himself, “If, in killing this man, I go to hell, so be it. This being must not be doomed to hell.” And after waiting for the moment when the outlaw has one good thought or at least a neutral thought from a moral point of view, the bodhisattva would kill him. This is both horrific with regard to sin, and yet merciful with regard to the sinner. Once done, not only has the bodhisattva not committed any wrongdoing, instead he has earned a lot of merit.133
The same doctrine is found in another treatise by Asaga, the Mahynasamgraha. The commentary relates once again this story of the bodhisattva and the outlaw, using it as an example of “deep-rooted” morality (gmbhriya-la).134 In 841, while in Tibet, the king Lang Darma, who had been hostile toward Buddhism, was assassinated by a zealot of the Real Law. The historian Bu-ston reports that the assassin set out “with thoughts of commiseration” toward the king.135 In a note on his translation of Bu-ston, Obermiller refers to Tantra and cites the Tantric text of the Tanjur, which reiterates Asaga’s argument without naming him. It is true that Tantra went far in the “overthrowing of the established values” that characterize late Buddhism.136 Yet the moral justification of killing precedes the invasion of Buddhism by Tantra. We see this justification as early as the fourth century, in the works of one of the most classic and rational philosophers to which India has ever given birth, Asaga, founder of the school of Buddhist philosophy known as the Knowledge Way (vijnnavda).
Buddhist Warfare Page 6