53 replies to this topic

[Winchester]

Hi everyone, just wanna say first off this is a great forum, lots of good stuff here I'm gonna have to read through.


I have a research paper that I've been working on but the internet as well as first hand texts seem to be extremely sparse on the subject for what is seemingly a pretty straightforward question.

My question is: Although Japan borrowed an immense amount of culture from China in its beginnings of Wei why did it not adapt China's political theory?

Any information I could be directed to would be an IMMENSE help as I've scoured the net to no avail. Or if you could give a explanation of whatever lengths to help me try and comprehend the relationship and reasoning for it I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks guys and I look forward to contributing to the board!

[caocao74]

Broad question, but are you talking about Confucianism when you say "political theory"?? If so, the Japanese Court during the reign of Empress Suiko (under the regency of Shotku Taishi) did accept Confucianism (via Shiragi/Silla) , but failed to truly implement it.

[Winchester]

I think the question is centered more towards the 6th century with the Yamamto rule. After Japan's warring with Korea.

Korea sparked Japan's interest in buddhism following. Iname recognized that buddhism was a convenient method into infusing Chinese culture into Japan, which was highly successful because of the impressive status of the Han Dynasty and their success.

Iname attempted to import China's strong, centralized bureacratic government onto Japan. This would create dissent for decades between those who advocated the newly discovered buddhist values and the old supernatural diety religion Shinto. Buddhism then won out and a government based on buddhist values was created based on peace, etc...

I think my topic question given to me is more about why they took much from China but did not find its political theory appetizing, such as emperors and the likes. Where does Confucian value and form of government play a part in this? I do know I'm very confused, lol.

[caocao74]

I think the question is centered more towards the 6th century with the Yamamto rule. After Japan's warring with Korea.
Korea sparked Japan's interest in buddhism following. Iname recognized that buddhism was a convenient method into infusing Chinese culture into Japan, which was highly successful because of the impressive status of the Han Dynasty and their success.
Iname attempted to import China's strong, centralized bureacratic government onto Japan. This would create dissent for decades between those who advocated the newly discovered buddhist values and the old supernatural diety religion Shinto. Buddhism then won out and a government based on buddhist values was created based on peace, etc...
I think my topic question given to me is more about why they took much from China but did not find its political theory appetizing, such as emperors and the likes. Where does Confucian value and form of government play a part in this? I do know I'm very confused, lol.

Soga no Iname was a strong proponent of Buddhism, but he was also an advocate of a pro-Baekje foreign policy. Shotoku Taishi, being of Soga stock followed this same policy. If anything they were indirectly absorbing Tang dynasty (not specifically Han) ideals, with Baekje and later Silla adding their own modifications. Remember that Buddhism did not replace Shinto, but was seen as complementary, and thus the Yamato court adopted what was seen as beneficial totheir rule (state ownership of land, rankings for court members, and artisan groupings). Simply adopting outright concepts such as the Chinese Emperor's Mandate of Heaven would have been going in the face of at least two centuries of protohistoric development, and would have been diplomatically ludicrous.

[Winchester]

Ok.

Now under Prince Shotoku he established a seemingly stable government based on Buddhist, ancien shinto, and Confucian values?
I realize that a Buddhism was mainly extracted from the Korean Penninsula along with Confucian values previously instilled there.

At what point did Confucian values clash with Buddhism in regards to government or overall aceptance in Japan?

I would think that this time period (550s-700s) would be what my teacher is talking about in regards to Japan not absorbing China's political theory. Whats your thoughts?

Thanks for helping me, this is a huuuuuge help.

[Winchester]

Simply adopting outright concepts such as the Chinese Emperor's Mandate of Heaven would have been going in the face of at least two centuries of protohistoric development, and would have been diplomatically ludicrous.

Could you also elaborate a little more on this as well?

[yingxiong]

In response to the initial post

That is the reason why japan is japan because there were disagreements in ways of politics and needed a culture to be the the basis of trying to make their own. I asked this question myself to some historians and what they told me is that japan was spawned from China because some soldiers went searching for an elixir and didn't want the current Emperor to live so they took a small group of people and settled on the islands that is now japan. So I'm looking for some articles on this.

[Gubook Janggoon]

In response to the initial post

That is the reason why japan is japan because there were disagreements in ways of politics and needed a culture to be the the basis of trying to make their own. I asked this question myself to some historians and what they told me is that japan was spawned from China because some soldiers went searching for an elixir and didn't want the current Emperor to live so they took a small group of people and settled on the islands that is now japan. So I'm looking for some articles on this.

Isn't that there what we call a myth? I highly doubt that Japan came from a bunch of Chinese soldiers looking for an elixer.

Isn't this just another attempt to downplay Japanese history?

[yingxiong]

It is quite logical reasoning and it is only hearsay for me until I find some documentation or evidence of some documentation. Attempted downplay would be criticism due to inability to understand rather than queries to gain understanding.

[Gubook Janggoon]

It is quite logical reasoning and it is only hearsay for me until I find some documentation or evidence of some documentation. Attempted downplay would be criticism due to inability to understand rather than queries to gain understanding.

Whatever floats your boat man, but from what I understand according to archaeological and genetic evidence, the Japanese are a diverse bunch with lines coming from the mainland (Korean and Chinese), from native peoples, and from malay/polynesian peoples.

[Kulong]

Hmm... why is a thread about political system having so much to do with religion (Buddhism) and cultural elements (Confucianism)?

I, too, seriously doubt that the original Japanese were just the descendents of Chinese soldiers who went off to find an elixer. I personally haven't seen any evidence regarding where these Chinese soldiers went, but assuming they went toward the direction of the Japanese islands, it could very possible that they arrived there and encountering the native population already there. Whether how significant the Chinese soldiers contributed to the Japanese gene pool (or if they interbred at all) is another question. Of course, this is all assuming the Chinese soldiers arrived in Japan and not some other islands in the Pacific such as Okinawa, if they arrived somewhere at all.

Edited by Kulong, 19 December 2005 - 02:01 AM.

[Winchester]

Could someone elaborate on why it was that Japan never adopted the Chinese emperor's mandate of heaven? Under Shotoku he infused his government with confucian values along with buddhism. Yet whats the reasoning behing the selective nature of when to incorporate newly adapted buddhist and confucian values with previous shinto practice?
Yet why else is it that Japan rejected the mandate of heaven aside from the appointment of leaders being ability and not genetics? What was the reasoning behing it? Identity to heritage?
Forgive me for the ignorance in my posts...lol

Edited by Winchester, 19 December 2005 - 02:22 AM.

[snowybeagle]

Yet why else is it that Japan rejected the mandate of heaven aside from the appointment of leaders being ability and not genetics? What was the reasoning behing it? Identity to heritage?

The concept of Mandate of Heaven was used in Central China to justify the toppling of previous ruling houses and the victors in establishing new dynasties.

Basically, if the ruler did not perform his duties, he was deemed to have failed the task assigned from Heaven to his House - thus opening the way for other ambitious people to "acquire" the Mandate by winning the support of the populace, and of course, by winning battles against the incumbent and other contenders.

Since there was no prior record of the ruling Yamato clan displacing a former dynasty, the rulers would hardly be inclined to adopt a concept which would give potential rivals an excuse to replace them as Tenno.

I am not sure when the legend of the emperor being a descendant of the goddess Amaterasu arose.
However, that being the justification of the clan as the Imperial House, that would mean other clans, no matter how powerful they become, were effectively *mere mortals* as compared to the emperor being a descendant of a divine entity. Nonetheless, this point was probably unimportant in ancient Japan since the power of the governance fell to the Fujiwara clan, which was related to the imperial clan by marriage.

I suppose if the Fujiwara clan had garnered sufficient clout, they could have moved from being practically hereditary regents to emperors, claiming to be also descendants of Amaterasu or perhaps some other gods if necessary to maintain the fiction.

The real reason I believe the Fujiwaras, and all other dominant clans which followed, monopolising either the regency or shogunate but never taking the final step, was that no clan ever attained complete dominance over rivals but achieved hegemony through alliances, and it was more acceptable to all parties concerned to retain the Tenno as puppet.

Thus, the Japanese imperial family was saved from the ignomity that befell the numerous ruling dynasties of China. One of the longest ruling dynasty of China was the Zhou, which was eventually conquered by the State of Qin. The State of Qin managed to do so only by not just conquering the Zhou, but *every* rival states in the game. No clan ever achieved this in Japan, not even the royal house.

Subsequently, all Chinese dynasties more or less made it a point to conquer all rivals, though during the different Age of Fragmentations, the process took longer. Every successful new dynasty claimed to have inherited the Mandate of Heaven.

By the time Japan imported knowledge from China in a big way during the Tang Dynasty, China had already experienced nearly 2,000 years of dynastic changes, all officially justified using the Mandate of Heaven : From Xia to Shang to Zhou to Qin to Han to Jin to Sui to Tang, with various Ages of Fragmentations in between.

I don't think importing the notion of Mandate of Heaven would have been attractive to the Japanese royal house, though some ambitious warlords might be attracted to it.

Edited by snowybeagle, 19 December 2005 - 03:10 AM.

[Winchester]

Excellent post, thanks a lot, that cleared a lot of for me big time.

Now I understand why they declined to incorporate the Mandate into Japanese politics, but where would the newly infused Buddhist values mixed with Confucian values of virtue, etc... fit into the mandate rejection? Or does it really have no bearing on it all?

Could it be said that Buddhism with its strong supernatural / nature qualities was far more attractive than just Shinto beliefs alone because it seemed to reinforce the supernatural foundations (apart from China) of Japan to a greater extent?

Also was there any reasoning of individuality on Japan's part not borrowing the Mandate? Trying to keep their own identity and heritage while selecting the elements that benefited them the most basically?

Just looking for some other possible reasons that Japan would reject it in addition to the above post. Snowybeagle answered my question in one sentence and my paper is muuuch longer than that, lol

[caocao74]

In China, the Mandate was 'given' and then 'taken away' to those deemed suitable dynasties. The philosophy created in Japan by those who created a basic nation-state philosophy in the late 7th Century (maybe earlier but no records to qualify that) specified that the imperial line was inalienable due to the descent from Amaterasu, the mandate was simply not an appropriate concept to adopt. If the Emperor were to be toppled, the successor could then legitimize the action through the predecessor's loss of the mandate. Actions such as the Jinshin no ran of 672 were one member of the imperial line against another, never an outsider acting without the sponsorship of an imperial claimant.