Japan before 1800
Christoph Kleine
As in most premodern societies, prior to the accelerated
modernisation of Japan under Western influence in the 19th century,
concepts of societal differentiation were primarily focused on the relationship between religious and political institutions. It is important
to note, however, that the conceptual distinctions found in discursive
statements do not necessarily reflect or represent the actual state ofsocietal differentiation. In many cases, these concepts were, in all likelihood, normative ideals that were only partly realised.
Having said this, a very brief and generalising narrative of therelationship between ‘religion’ and ‘the secular’ would run as follows.
Buddhism as a state cultBefore the arrival of Buddhism in Japan (or Yamato 大和/倭 as thestate was called then) around 538, the Emperor, or ‘heavenly ruler’(tennō 天皇), claimed to belong to the ‘descendants of heaven’ (tenson 天孫). Originally only one of a number of powerful clans (uji 氏),
the ‘descendants of heaven’ had by then achieved a leading position,in which they monopolised positions of power. The ‘heavenly ruler’
was both the state’s ruler and high priest, allowing us to characterise
the religio-political system as ‘caesaropapism’. This is reflected in theJapanese concept of ‘unity of ritual and rule’ (saisei itchi 祭政一致),
a concept that was deliberately and strategically revived by the Meiji
reformers in the 19th century. In order to legitimise eternal rule bythe ‘descendants of heaven’, the meritocratic Chinese ideal that a ruler is endowed with a ‘mandate of heaven’ (tianming 天命), which
is dependent on his virtue and success, was replaced with the concept of ‘hereditary charisma’. In order to legitimise the peculiar
concept of eternal rule by descendants of one particular clan, two
mytho-historical records were eventually compiled by imperial order:
Kojiki 古事記 (‘Record of Ancient Matters’; completed in 712) andthe Nihon shoki 日本書紀 (‘Chronicles of Japan’; completed in 720).

Clans and Emperor

Caesaropapism
Unity of ritual and rule

Hereditary charismaof the Tennō
Legitimation by
mytho-historical
records

1
Companion to the Study of Secularity – Christoph Kleine: Japan before 1800
Leipzig University –HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2018www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Introduction of
Buddhism

Indian concept of dual
rule by (1) the ksatriyas
and (2) the brahmins

Interdependence ofruler’s laws and theBuddha’s law

JAPAN BEFORE 1800

“Like the two wings of a bird” – The medieval concept of dual
rule by the ‘ruler’s laws’ and the ‘Buddha’s law’With the advent and eventual establishment of Buddhism as a state
cult that was primarily responsible for conducting powerful rituals
for the sake of national welfare (which often simply meant healing
sick members of the court), competing or at least complementary
concepts of legitimate rule were introduced. Buddhists had adopted
the Indian concept of dual rule by the kṣatriyas, ‘secular’ rulers
who exercised their domination by means of military power andpunishment and were responsible for worldly affairs and (2) the
brahmins, who exercised their power by means of rituals and spiritual
guidance and were responsible for communication with transcendent
powers. In Buddhism, this concept of dual rule was adopted in aparticular way. It was claimed that national welfare rested on two
pillars or was based on the complementary functioning of two
interdependent ‘nomospheres’1 or ‘value spheres’ (cf. Max Weber’s
Wertsphären) represented by the ‘ruler’s laws’ (Skt. rāja-dharma; Jap.
ōbō 王法) and the ‘Buddha’s law’ (Skt. buddha-dharma; Jap. buppō
佛法).
It was not before Buddhist institutions achieved a certain amountof autonomy and power, however, that this concept of dual rule was
openly propagated by Buddhist monks and eventually adopted by
the secular ruling elite. In the 7th and 8th centuries, Buddhist monks
served mainly as ritualists and advisors to the state, and temples wereeffectively state organs. By the middle of the 8th century, however, thepolitical influence of Buddhist monks had increased considerably,
and a ‘buddhocracy’ was barely prevented. Among other things,
the interference of Buddhist monks in politics resulted in Kanmu
Tennō moving the capital from Nara to Kyōto in 794 and restricting
monks’ access to state institutions. The outcome of these measures
was ambiguous: While monks were kept at a distance, the monastic
institutions gained more and more autonomy.
1

2

Please note that I use this neologism a little differently from David Delaney, theprofessor of law who first coined the term. For lack of a better term, I use it to signify an imagined and accepted system of moral values, legal codes, social conventions, rites and etiquette deemed imperative for all involved. Used in this way, theterm nomosphere to a certain degree resembles Max Weber’s terms “Wertsphäre”
and “Lebensordnung” or a combination of the two.

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Christoph Kleine: Japan before 1800
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2018www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Economic changes, such as the gradual establishment of private,tax-free, and often autonomous estates or manors (shō’en 荘園), further
contributed to the growth of the economic and even military power oflarge temples and monasteries. By roughly the 11th century, these Buddhist institutions had become one of three dominating power blocks(kenmon 権門), the other two being the court aristocracy (kuge 公家)
and the warrior clans (buke 武家). It is certainly no coincidence that it
was in this epoch that Buddhist virtuosi successfully propagated the concept of the ‘interdependence of the ruler’s nomosphere and the Buddha’s
nomosphere’ (ōbō buppō sō’i 王法仏法相依). While claiming an autonomous sphere of influence for the Buddhist institutions, this concept ofdual rule simultaneously acknowledged the legitimacy of the Emperor’srule. What is more, the fate of the two autonomous nomospheres wasindissolubly linked.
By the late 12th century, the concept of the ‘interdependence of theruler’s nomosphere and the Buddha’s nomosphere’ was firmly established and widely accepted by the elite. A clear distinction between twosocial spheres was made on the basis of a peculiar dualistic Buddhist
interpretation of the world. In Buddhist discourse, the nomosphere of
the Buddha Dharma is responsible for all things that are deemed ‘supramundane’ (Skt. lokottara; Jap. shusseken 出世間) while the nomosphereof the ruler’s law is only concerned with the ‘mundane’ (Skt. laukika; Jap.
seken 世間). It is worth noting in this context, and especially with a mind
to making distinctions or drawing boundaries, that Buddhism not only
introduced a new notion of strong or ‘absolute transcendence’ (lokottara)
but explicitly relates this to a concept of basic social differentiation. A
purely theoretical or theological distinction between things belonging to
the realm of birth-and-death (saṃsāra) and being subject to the laws ofkarmic retribution (i.e. laukika) and things which completely transcendthe ‘three spheres of existence’ or the ‘six paths [of rebirth]’ (i.e. lokottara) becomes relevant in a socio-structural dimension as responsibility
for ‘transcendence’ and ‘immanence’ is divided between the Buddha’s
nomosphere (represented by the Buddhist institutions) and the ruler’s
nomosphere (represented by state institutions) respectively. The conceptof dual rule remained the standard interpretation throughout the medieval period and even beyond.

Establishment ofprivate manors
Economic and military
power of temples andmonasteries
Buddhist institutions
one of three dominating power blocks

Buddhism responsible
for supramundane,ruler for mundane
affairs

Buddhist concept ofabsolute transcendence

3
Companion to the Study of Secularity – Christoph Kleine: Japan before 1800
Leipzig University –HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2018www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Establishment of a military junta in Kamakura
Civil war
Christian missionaries

Encounter with
Christianity andEuropean powers

Mutual acknowledgmentof Buddhism and Christianity to belonging to
the same class of social
institutions

4JAPAN BEFORE 1800

As the political situation changed, e.g. with the establishment of amilitary junta in Kamakura (1185–1333), a civil war from roughly 1467 to
1603, and the arrival of European merchants and Christian missionaries
from 1549, tensions between the increasingly powerful monastic complexes and the state grew. Large monasteries such as Enryakuji, Negoroji, and Ishiyama Honganji became a major obstacle to attempts to unify
the war-stricken country and reconstitute a central state. But even here,
the concept of the ‘interdependence of the ruler’s nomosphere and theBuddha’s nomosphere’ was at times used strategically in order to avoid religiously framed rebellion and corresponding pressure from feudal lords.
For instance, Rennyo, the famous leader of the Honganji, used ‘parish
newsletters’ to urge his followers to obey the ruler’s laws outwardly in theirsocietal activities while being loyal to the Buddha Dharma inwardly. Nevertheless, the unification of Japan under the single rule of the Tokugawa
clan (1603–1868) was not achieved before the power block of temple-shrine complexes was vanquished by massive military force.
Several developments in the 16th century changed the course of Japanese history dramatically. Broadly speaking, there were two major events
that forced the Japanese to rearrange the boundaries between ‘religion’ and‘non-religion’. First, the arrival of Christian missionaries in 1549 and second, Buddhist institutions being deprived of power.
Encounter with Christianity. Establishment of the polythetic class‘religion’?
When Francis Xavier (1506–1552) and his successors began to spread theChristian gospel in Japan, the Japanese were forced for the first time inhistory to systematically compare two well-institutionalised missionary
traditions with a universal claim to validity. For both sides – the Christianand the Buddhist – it was absolutely clear from the outset that Buddhism
and Christianity belonged to the same class of social institutions, striving
for dominance in the same field of activity. As the first missionaries
arrived from Goa in India, many of the Japanese even believed that theJesuits had come to spread a new form of the Buddha Dharma. Oncethey realised that Christianity was a different yet functionally equivalent
tradition, a fierce competition commenced. The letters of the Jesuits
and other missionaries as well as anti-Christian treatises written by theJapanese provide extremely interesting information on how a discrete
polythetic class of social institutions was conceptualised in a way that goes

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Christoph Kleine: Japan before 1800
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2018www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

beyond the mere distinction between ‘religion’ and ‘the state.’ In Japan,
the somewhat traumatising encounter with the Christian missionaries
resulted in a policy of isolation (sakoku 鎖國) and in the production ofanti-Christian pamphlets, such as the Ha daiusu 破提宇子 (1620) by theconvert and later apostate Fukansai Habian 不干斎ハビアン (1565–1621)
or the Ha kirishitan 破吉利支丹 (1642) by the Zen monk Suzuki Shōsan
鈴木正三 (1579–1655). Both adhere to the idea of the ‘interdependenceof the ruler’s nomosphere and the Buddha’s nomosphere’ and thus stressBuddhism’s responsibility for the welfare of the nation while defining
Buddhism as a core element of Japan’s national identity. At the same time,awareness of the mutual interchangeability of Buddhism and Christianity
sharpened awareness of a distinct, internally differentiated category ofsocietal activities focused on moral instruction and cultivation of theindividual, providing normative and cognitive orientation for the sakeof domesticating the populace. Buddhism, Brahmanism (present only in
Buddhist texts), Daoism, and Confucianism were subsumed under thisone category as early as the 9th century. From the 16th century onwards,
these traditions were complemented by Christianity and Shintō. All these
traditions were seen as functional equivalents belonging to a category
sometimes designated as hō 法 (law, order, nomos), sometimes as dō 道(way, path), sometimes as kyō 教 (teaching), or more specifically, referring
to social formations as shū 宗, shūshi 宗旨, shūtei 宗低, etc.
State control over Buddhism, secularisation and the rise of antiBuddhist sentiments
After powerful monastic or sectarian institutions such as Enryakuji 延暦寺, Honganji 本願寺, and Negoroji 根来寺 were finally defeated by military force, the new centralised power of the Tokugawa bakufu, located in
Edo (present-day Tokyo), sought complete control over all Buddhist institutions. Whereas in ancient and medieval Japan, the boundaries between ‘religion’ and ‘the state,’ were drawn by Buddhists or in Buddhist discourses inorder to claim autonomy for the monastic complexes, from the 17th century,
it was the Tokugawa regime that distanced itself from the Buddhist institutions and tried to restrict their power while simultaneously using them asstate agencies in order to eradicate Christianity once and for all from Japanese soil. In order to achieve the first objective, i.e. to fence in Buddhism,
a number of so-called ‘temple regulations’ (jiin hatto 寺院法度) were

Policy of Isolation

Mutual interchangeability of Buddhism
and Christianity
sharpens awareness ofa distinct category ofsocietal activities

Powerful monastic
institutions defeatedby military force

Effort to eradicate
Christianity
Temple Regulations

5
Companion to the Study of Secularity – Christoph Kleine: Japan before 1800
Leipzig University –HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2018www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Denominationalisationof Buddhism
System of main andbranch temples

Temple registration
systemBuddhism loses
influence on many
aspects of society

Domination of Zhu Xischool of Song Dynasty
Confucianism
Secularisation of
education

6

JAPAN BEFORE 1800

issued. These regulations led to an increasing ‘denominationalisation’ of
Buddhism. A pyramidal ‘system of main and branch [temples]’ (honmatsu
seido 本末制度) was established. A head temple was selected for each denomination. All other temples in the country were assigned to a particulardenomination and put under the control of the relevant head temple. The‘temple regulations’ also determined all particularities of ranks, education,
principle texts and doctrines, rituals, etc. for each denomination, thus alsodelineating the proper obligations and responsibilities of Buddhist institutions. The boundaries between ‘religious’ and ‘non-religious’ activities werethus more clearly demarcated than ever before.
The second objective, i.e. eradicating Christianity, was achieved by establishing a ‘temple registration system’ (terauke seido 寺請制度). Throughout the country, every household member, including babies, was forced
to register at a Buddhist temple and thus to swear allegiance to Buddhism,
which excluded adherence to the ‘evil doctrine’ (jakyō 邪教) of Christianity.
Despite this, Buddhism lost much of its influence on many aspects of society such as art, the economy, literature, justice and politics. Even education,
often the last refuge where religious institutions can maintain ‘plausibility
structures’ (Berger/Luckmann) and dominate the ‘social construction ofreality’, gained a high degree of independence from Buddhism during the
Tokugawa period. Cognitive and normative orientation was mainly provided by the Zhu Xi school of Song Dynasty Confucianism. The Confucian
temple Yushima Seidō 湯島聖堂 was designated as a training centre for bureaucrats and thus gained a status as the education centre of Japan. Although
the institution of terakoya 寺子屋 (literally: temple child houses) as schools
for common citizens was continued, these focused on secular learning, despite their name, and were not necessarily headed by priests. In most cases,
the schools were located in the private homes of samurai, Buddhist priests
or common citizens. Most teachers (shishō 師匠 or tenarai shishō 手習い師匠) were commoners; only some were samurai and Buddhist clerics.
That being said, the ‘secularisation’ of education may be said to have started
in the 8th century when the Daigakuryō 大学寮 was established in accordance with the Taihō code. It is important to highlight that even in medieval
Japan, when Buddhist priests were heavily involved in education, this did
not necessarily mean that Buddhist subject matters figured prominently inthe curriculum.
Further remarkable evidence of the increasing secularity of Japan under Tokugawa rule is the emergence of a distanced and critical or even hostile discourse on religion or, to use Charles Taylor’s term, the emergence ofCompanion to the Study of Secularity – Christoph Kleine: Japan before 1800
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2018www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

the “secular option”. The most famous example of an autonomous rational thinker who criticises all of Japan’s religious traditions (thusclassifying them as belonging to the same social institution) as inappropriate without himself referring to any traditional authority(religious or secular) is Tominaga Nakamoto 富永仲基 (1715–1746).
Searching for the ‘way of ways’ (michi no michi), i.e. a system of cognitive and normative orientations for the Japanese to follow, he concludes that Buddhism, with its irrational predilection for magic, wassuitable for India, but rubbish for the Chinese, not to mention theJapanese. Confucianism, with its esteem for language and literature,
was fine for China but rubbish for Japan. And finally, Shintō was finefor the ancient Japanese but not for the present day. As such, the ‘wayof the three teachings’ (sankyō no michi 三教の道) cannot be the basis of the society of 18th century Japan.
Another striking example of a secular criticism of ‘early modern secularism’ (Teeuwen 2013) is the text Seji kenbunroku 世事見聞録 (Matters of the World: An Account of What I Have Seen andHeard) written by a samurai calling himself Buyō Inshi 武陽陰士
in 1816. The text harshly criticises the priests at temples and shrines
as non-productive idlers who are potentially a danger to societal
development and political stability. The author takes a purely innerworldly perspective, maintaining that if religion does not serve thestate through ‘domesticating the masses’ by controlling human action– which he sees it failing to do – it is of no use whatsoever. The author’s
position can be characterised as ‘legalistic’ in a very strict sense thathas no place for religion at all. Legalist positions were by no means
uncommon in Tokugawa Japan which was otherwise dominated by
Zhu Xi’s philosophy. The famous Ogyū Sorai (1666−1728), for instance, rejected the Neo-Confucian stance that moral cultivation of theindividual should be the main purpose of education. In his view, menwere not to be domesticated by moral instruction but by establishinginstitutions.

Searching for the ‘wayof ways’Anti-Buddhist and‘secularist’ critique

7
Companion to the Study of Secularity – Christoph Kleine: Japan before 1800
Leipzig University –HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2018www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

JAPAN BEFORE 1800

Conclusion

It is evident that the Buddhist notion of dual rule (complemented by Chinese notions of the absolute sovereignty of the ruler) provided a rationale
for a functional differentiation between two autonomous – though interdependent – value spheres or normative systems which eventually led toan accelerated secularisation of Japan under Tokugawa rule. For the Japanese, Western ideas of a secular state or a clear differentiation between state and religion were by no means incompatible with indigenous concepts.
They could easily be adopted for the sake of building a modern nation
state while maintaining or creating a distinct cultural identity.
Quoted and Further Reading
Kleine, Christoph. „Religion and the Secular in Premodern Japan from the Viewpoint of Systems Theory.“ Journal of Religion in Japan 2, no. 1 (2013): 1–34.
Paramore, Kiri. „Premodern Secularism.“ In Formations of the Secular in Japan.
Edited by Aike P. Rots, and Mark Teeuwen, 21–37. Japan Review (Special Issue)
30. Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies, 2017.
Rots, Aike P., and Mark Teeuwen, eds. Formations of the Secular in Japan. Japan
Review (Special Issue) 30. Kyoto: International Research Center for JapaneseStudies, 2017.
Teeuwen, Mark. „Early Modern Secularism? Views on Religion in Sejikenbunroku(1816).“ Japan Review 25 (2013): 3–19.

Th is text is part of the Companion to the Study of Secularity. The intent of theCompanion is to give scholars interested in the concept of Multiple Secularities,
who are not themselves specialists in particular (historical) regions, an insight
into different regions in which formations of secularity can be observed, as wellas into the key concepts and notions with respect to the study of secularity.
It is published by the Humanities Centre for Advanced Studies “Multiple Secularities− Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”. For as long as the HCAS continues to exist,
the Companion will be published and further expanded on the HCAS’ website. Towards the end of Multiple Secularities project, all entries will be systematised and edited in order to transform the Companion into a completed Open Access publication.
Please cite as:
Kleine, Christoph. “Japan before 1800.” In Companion to the Study of Secularity.
Edited by HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”.
Leipzig University, 2019. www.multiple-secularities.de/media/
css_kleine_japanbefore1800.pdf

8Companion to the Study of Secularity – Christoph Kleine: Japan before 1800
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2018www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion