On Japanese Buddhism and Power

Tsukushashima

From a historical perspective, there is no denying the connection between religion and power (political power), and that religion has committed, or is doing, negative acts due to desires and afflictions, such as wars and interests using political power.

Why is this?

In short, it is due to disputes within religion or between different religions.

In Buddhism, it is due to the fact that they split into factions and began fighting after Shakyamuni Nirvana.

In other words, such disputes have been inevitable since the Indian era.

There is also Buddhism in Japan.

This is because it was convenient and necessary for sects and religious groups to use the political power of the time in order to increase their respective forces, that is, to gather followers and devotees. Sometimes they also use armed violence.

This is true not only in Japan, but also in the history of Tibetan Buddhism, and there are many stories where denominations fight for blood over blood due to political power...

It's only recently, and in the Tibetan Buddhist world, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has clearly retreated from the position of top political authority (government in exile), but depending on sectarian disputes, political power may also be necessary.

Of course, Buddha kept his distance when it came to political power and was in a centrist position. I think the reason they intervened in politics themselves was probably stopped by simply sitting quietly three times under a dead tree near the border. Of course, there were times when someone in power asked for a sermon, but in terms of involvement, it's no different from normal people in particular, and it feels like they are preached when asked to teach.

For the Buddha, those in power were not evil or not, but I think they were viewed equally as a sentient being who directed mercy in the reincarnation of loss and suffering.

This is where future generations began using it for their own interests, preservation, and expansion of power.

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

Hello.
I was also familiar with the previous 2 questions.

It's a question only because I'm learning a lot.

I think “depraved because it was compliant” can also be described as “people with specific ideas that dislike power are just exaggerating,” as you say. That's because I think it's always a one-sided view.

Should it be called “compliance” in the first place?
For instance.

In the Sengoku period, the town of Terauchi, centered around Hongan-ji Temple, was originally established at present-day Osaka Castle. Nobunaga confronted the injustice of ordering the Hongan-ji side to move out. A war broke out against this, and the Honganji forces were defeated. There is a record that many people on the Honganji side lost their lives without resistance due to vassals such as Maeda Toshiie on Nobunaga's side despite surrendering.

After that, the Kojun faction for the survival of Honganji Temple became the branch of Nishi Honganji Temple. Had they not been obedient (“compliant” in a negative way) here, the later establishment of the Jodo Shinshu sect would have been in jeopardy. Or was it better not to “accept” and fight until they were destroyed?

In the Meiji period, a policy of shrines being superior and temples being lower was carried out in order to establish a nation centered on Shinto, and there was also an era of intense oppression against temples and Buddhism called abolition of Buddhism. In this era, the number of temples decreased and their position became very weak.

However, after this, a certain position was recognized due to too biased reaction, but even so, if they kept pace with the government of the time (“acceptance” in a negative way) and did not do the same during World War II that followed, the survival of each sect of Buddhism would have been in jeopardy. Or was it better to fight against “power” until it was destroyed?

Of course, I don't unequivocally deny the term “compliance.”
It is also a fact to reflect on that from time to time, disputes were affirmed and misunderstandings about teachings occurred.

However, in each era, there is a history where people who were in an extreme situation of survival or extinction, or whether to live or take their lives, made painful decisions. Is it OK for people in an age where freedom of speech and guarantees of life are sufficient to unilaterally say “compliance” or “corruption” from the theory of consequences? I think there should be a certain amount of moderation.

The problem of “evil” is as described last time.
It is not limited to those in power, but it indicates everything that is not in line with the path of attaining Buddhism.

appending
Thanks for your reply.
Glad to help you.

Even though Buddhism has the commandment of immortality
Very few monks opposed World War II.
Who are those monks
I was stripped of my monk status and died in prison.
Make sure that the head temple of each denomination is not destroyed
They glorified and supported the war and inspired the parishioners.

There is also an aspect where the power side took advantage of the dominance of religion (Yasukuni Shrine, etc.).
Therefore, politics must not involve religion.
Conversely, religion is allowed to act as a brake on politics.