A Brief History of the Buddhist Precepts in Medieval Japan

Posted: February 5, 2010 | Author: Doug | Filed under: Buddhism, Hosso, Jodo Shinshu, Jodo Shu, Religion, Shingon, Tendai, Theravada, Zen |5 Comments »

Warning: Long, academic post. Also, double-posting today as I have a large backlog of completed posts I want to clear through sooner than later.

Something I was inspired to write after reading two excellent books on medieval Japan:

• Jōkei and Buddhist Devotion in Early Medieval Japan by James L. Ford
• Soto Zen in Medieval Japan by William M. Bodiford

Japanese Buddhism has an unusual history with regard to how the moral precepts, monastic codes and so on evolved, partly due to isolation, political manipulation and so on. Ford, in his book, is quick to point out that at any point in Japanese history (or any Buddhist history) the adherence of monastic discipline and conduct has always been suspect, and I am sure he’s right. In any large community, there’s a kind of “Bell Curve” of monastic discipline, with extremes on both ends and a lot of people in the middle. So, we should be careful not to over generalize or idealize any one point in history.

In any case, this post is a brief overview of how things changed as they did. But first let’s look at how they were organized in China, which is the basis for east Asian Buddhism.

Monastic Precepts in Chinese Buddhism

Bodiford’s book on medieval Zen has a nice summary of the precepts and ordination in Chinese Buddhism which fully matured by the Southern Song Dynasty in the 12th century. According to Bodiford, Chinese Buddhism relies on a few sources for their precept lineage:

• The ancient Vinaya monastic code, inherited from the Dharmaguptika school in India (one of the so-called “Hinayana” schools). This is called the shibun ritsu (四分律, “Four Part Vinaya Code”) in Japanese.
• The Bodhisattva Precepts listed in the Brahma Net Sutra.
• Monastic regulations at well-respected temples, which served as a template for other temples (i.e. what worked in the past).

From there, ordination as a monk occurred in the following order:

1. The candidate initially takes the Five Moral Precepts like any lay-follower.
2. The candidate then undertakes the 10 novice precepts. These overlap a lot with the standard lay precepts, but the mental attitude of a novice monk differs a little from a lay person, hence they undertake them again.
3. A full-fledged monk ordains under the Vinaya monastic code: 250 precepts for men, 348 for women.
4. On top of the Vinaya code, monks and nuns voluntary undertook the Bodhisattva precepts of the Brahma Net Sutra (10 major rules, 48 minor rules). The Vinaya code focused on “monastic decorum”, as Bodiford explains it, while the Bodhisattva precepts focused on universal compassion toward others, so in Chinese thought they completed one another.

Methods of ordination varied over time and location, but Chinese Buddhism has always been pretty consistent on this front. In order to officially recognized as an ordained monk or nun, one had to bring their papers to the Bureau of Sacrifice (tz’u-pu in Chinese) and present the proper paperwork you obtained when ordained.

Early Japan and Nara Buddhism

The first Buddhist schools to arive in Japan, centered around the ancient capitol city of Nara, followed the Chinese model very closely. Monks and nuns ordained with official permission from the Office of Priestly Affairs or Sōgō (僧綱) and officially took the same precepts as in Chinese Buddhism at the famous temple of Tōdaiji in Nara.

Initially, experts in the Buddhist monastic code were in very short supply in Japan at the time, and some were sent abroad to China, to spent time in monasteries there, study Buddhism and the precepts, and then bring back these skills to train more monks in Japan. One such monk who was very influential was Dōji (道慈) in the 8th century who was sent to Tang Dynasty China in 701 and returned in 718 with extensive training and experience from his time there. He earned the title risshi (律師) or precepts master for the State.

During Dōji’s administration, study of either the Golden Light Sutra or the Lotus Sutra was required for ordination, and an elaborate temple network was constructed to benefit the nation, with Tōdaiji Temple as it center. Both sutras mentioned above were also chanted regularly at temples throughout the land, hence the ordination requirement.

Later, to further bolster the precepts training there, monks were brought from China. First, a monk named Dōsen (道璿, 702－760) came from China in 735 and setup residence at Daianji temple. The second was the famous Chinese monk named Ganjin, who attempted to cross the ocean to Japan five times, becoming blind in one eye, before teh sixth attempt succeeded. Ganjin’s temple of Tōshōdaiji still stands today, as does his precept hall at Tōdaiji Temple.

Thus, until the emergence of the Tendai sect in the 9th century, things were pretty consistent with the mainland.

The Tendai Sect and Shingon Sect

Two major figures in Japanese figures in Japanese Buddhism in the 8th-9th century were Saichō and Kūkai, who founded the Tendai and Shingon sects respectively.

As Ryūichi Abé writes in the book The Weaving of Mantra, Saicho and Kukai, after returning to Japan from China, dealt with the Buddhist establishment in Nara differently. Saicho, disillusioned with establishment at the time (he left Todaiji after only 3 months when he was ordained), sought to establish a different Buddhist order entirely and resisted efforts to follow the standard ordination procedure. Thus, from the beginning Saicho’s Tendai sect did not ordain monks on the standard model, instead preferring to rely on the Bodhisattva Precepts of the Brahma Net Sutra as its foundation in order to create a purely Mahayana-lineage (the Vinaya code derived from so-called “Hinayana” schools). Through his close relationship with Emperor Saga, he was granted the right to found a new sect along these lines in 822, despite strong opposition from the Nara establishment.

Contrary to popular belief, Ford points out that Saicho had no intention of relaxing monastic standards. Instead, this occurred during later generations when, according to both Ford and Bodiford, the Bodhisattva Precepts proved too vague, and confusion among the Tendai order, along with some dubious interpretations, tended to shift the emphasis on the spirit of the precepts not the form. The Tendai patriarch Annen (841?-880?) for example taught that “the precepts were found in both good and evil, because they had dharma-nature as their root”. This led to the belief among some in later generations that evil actions actions, if done in the spirit of non-duality and selfish calculation, would not violate the precepts.

Meanwhile, Kukai’s Shingon esoteric movement integrated into the existing Nara Buddhist community with little or no contention and became, in effect, the “seventh Nara school”. Because the early Buddhist community in Nara was highly collaborative, monks from various schools studied doctrines and teachings from the other schools freely, and thus in this environment, some took an interest in Kukai’s esoteric teachings as well. As such, Shingon Buddhism operated like other Nara schools in terms of ordination, precepts and so on.

End of the Heian Period, Decline of the Monastic Order

The last decades of the Heian Period, the 12th century, are marked by a breakdown of the Heian court and the Emperor’s authority in general, but this is acutely felt in the Buddhist monastic world as well, where leading figures like Myōe and Jōkei among others decried the decline in monastic discipline. This is also the era when you see armies of warrior-monks or sōhei (僧兵) attempting to assert authority against other temples or against powerful families at the Heian court. In this era, this is also when the first of the new “Kamakura” Buddhist movements arise, such as Honen and his Pure Land movement, Eisai and his Rinzai Zen sect, followed by others (Jodo Shinshu, Nichiren, Soto Zen, etc).

Why such a drastic degradation of monastic discipline? Ford writes a compelling explanation on this, by citing these contributing factors:

• The rise of the Tendai sect and its exclusive emphasis on the Bodhisattva Precepts, innate-enlightenment and “spirit” over the form of the precepts allowed for more unorthodox interpretations of Buddhist morality. Figures such as Annen, cited earlier, and Kōjō (779-858) are thought to have had a strong influence at the time among some factions.
• Another major factor was the increasing privatization of temples. In the Nara period, the State heavily regulated temples, monks and Buddhist sects, but in the later Heian period powerful families like the Fujiwara and its myriad regional branches took over administration and patronage of major temples, as well as building private temples of their own. The famous temple of Kōfukuji, home of the Hossō sect, happens to be the tutelary temple of the Fujiwara as well.
• As a result of privatization of temples, the aristocracy become more directly involved in temple functions, and according to Ford, records show that by the end of the Heian Period in the 12th century, 90% of the monks ordained each year were sons and daughters of noble families (as opposed to the rest of the populace). This period is also marked by the frequent manipulation of Cloistered Emperors from behind temple scenes in an unusual system called the insei (院政) system.
• As a result of the privatization, and the political manipulation, Buddhist temples at the time shifted emphasis to more economic and political influence, than spiritual ones. The temple communities also developed a high stratified hierarchy based on birth. As Bodiford explains, monks from high-ranking noble families could quickly high-level positions, and were involved in research and politics, while monks of lesser pedigree were frequently relegated to menial positions in the temple. Bodiford points out that many of the major Buddhist founders of the new Kamakura sects were all low-ranking monks, disaffected by the community of the time.

In reaction to this a number of Buddhist movements arose.

Reform Efforts and Kamakura Buddhism

While the monastic community had politicized and degraded considerably a number of dedicated monks arose who sought to either reform the old Buddhist institutions, or to reject them altogether.

The first monk to really push to restore monastic discipline is a little known Shingon Buddhist monk named Jitsuhan (d. 1144) who founded the Naka-no-Kawa school, who was proceeded by others frequently from the Shingon school. Jitsuhan, according to Ford, began his career at Kōfukuji and later studied esoteric teachings, as monks often did after mastering “the basics”, at the Tendai monastery of Mt. Hiei. By this time, as Ford states, one of the original Nara schools, the Ritsu School or risshū (律宗) founded by the famous Chinese monk Ganjin, had lost its precept lineage at the head temple of Tōshōdaiji. Jitsuhan sought to restore the precept lineage there, and his students continued the effort for three generations of monks until Jōkei.

Jōkei’s took the torch and encouraged monks to return to the classic Vinaya monastic code described above, successfully reviving a disciplined community of monks in several temples, including Tōshōdaiji, Kōfukuji and others. He also restored devotional movements to Shakyamuni Buddha through his advocacy of pilgrimages to relics, and recorded sermons praising Shakyamuni’s contribution to Buddhism. According to Ford, this earned him the praise of Buddhist historians at the time of which records still remain:

Some eighty years [after Jitsuhan], during the reign of Emperor Tsuchimikado, there was a brilliant and virtuous monk of Kōfukuji, the eminent Jōkei. Jōkei received the [precept lineage] from Kakuken, who had received it from Zōshun, who had received it from Jitsuhan…He repeatedly administered the precepts and left behind many converts. (the Risshū Kōyō by Gyōnen)

Meanwhile, other monks of the newer sects likewise sought to restore discipline. Eisai, the founder of Japanese Rinzai Zen, actively contended with another short-lived Zen sect called Darumashō founded by Nōnin, who advocated the idea that the moral precepts were only for the active mind and could be disregarded once one had attained a state of “no-mind”. According to Bodiford, Eisai promoted his vision of Zen as a way of reviving strict adherence to the precepts within his home Tendai sect. Eisai earned the respect of Chinese monks who wrote on in favor of his conviction, and Eisai also sought to restore the classic Vinaya monastic code to the Tendai sect, something never done before.

Darumashū as a Zen sect did not last long, and many of its members were absorbed into the Soto Zen by Dōgen. Based on Bodiford’s research, some repented their lax discipline and followed Dōgen’s model based on the Chinese monastic code, while some disciples didn’t and may have been thrown out of Dōgen’s community based on limited information. However, Dōgen, like many of the new Kamakura Buddhist movements, openly rejected the classic Vinaya monastic model, and formed their own sects based on the Tendai approach of the Bodhisattva Precepts. Thus in Soto Zen, Jodo Shu and other schools founded by former Tendai monks, the precepts remained largely unchanged from how they were established in the parent Tendai sect.

Also, because of the turmoil of the period, some Buddhists felt that the world had lapsed into the era of mappō or “Dharma Decline” and relied on teachings and concepts that provided a last resort in such times. This lead to increasing popularity in the Pure Land teachings of Amida Buddha, and in the Lotus Sutra as espoused by Nichiren. In both cases, the focus was on salvation through an accessible, simple practice that people of weaker capacities in the Era of Dharma Decline could still rely on. Hence in Jodo Shinshu, no precepts are followed by default, and in the Nichiren Sect, where Nichiren advocated a single precept for followers to uphold and keep faith in the Lotus Sutra, known as the kaidan (階段) or “platform precept”.

Later Medieval Period

As the power in Japan shifted from the noble families of the Heian Court to the ruling Samurai class, the same problems arose again with gentrification and politicization of temples in cycles as the power of the government rose and fell. By the time of the Tokugawa Period, Buddhist institutions were once again heavily regulated, even to the point of enforcing policy by government violence at times, while temples were also co-opted by the government to maintain order on the populace as the eyes and ears of the Shogunate in the so-called danka system. This was also the period when all Japanese families were required to register with a family temple, a common practice still often observed today.

Meiji Period, Militarism and Modernization

The Meiji Period of the late 1800′s and early 1900′s further changed monastic orders and precepts when the government sought to weaken Buddhist institutions and strengthen the native Shinto religion for nationalist purposes. This led to laws in 1872 called Edict 133, or the Nikujiku Saitai Law (肉食妻帯) where the government allowed (read: compelled) monks to eat meat and marry, with the ulterior motive of reducing their status in the Buddhist community.

Although the law was soon repealed, the change was hard to undo, and didn’t come without a fight, but remains a feature of Japanese Buddhism to this day.

Conclusion

If you made it through this very long post, thank you. I don’t have much to conclude here, so I will let you draw your own conclusions. Hopefully this bit of research will help others in their research as well, as this information is pretty scattered across the Internet. Comments and corrections appreciated.

Namu Amida Butsu

---