The Adoption and Adaptation of Neo-Confucianism in Japan - NGJS

333 Pages·2013·2.27 MB·English

THE ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION
OF NEO‑CONFUCIANISM
IN JAPAN:
THE ROLE OF FUJIWARA SEIKA
AND HAYASHI RAZAN
BY
W.J. BOOT
>>> VERSION 3.0 <<<
© W.J. Boot, Leiderdorp
Printed: Leiden, December 1992
Revised: Leiderdorp, August 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE 1
INTRODUCTION 2
CHAPTER I : THEORIES AND CONTENTIONS CONCERNING THE RISE OF
NEO‑CONFUCIANISM IN THE BEGINNING OF THE EDO PERIOD 13
A. The discovery of Confucianism 14
1. Fujiwara Seika and Kang Hang 14
2. The Seika Legend 35
B. The Line of Succession 49
Kan Tokuan 49
Nawa Kassho 51
Hori Kyōan 53
Matsunaga Sekigo 53
Hayashi Razan 56
CHAPTER II : THE SOURCES OF THE NEW CONFUCIANISM 69
A. The Middle Ages 69
1. Shōmono 70
Daxüe 72
Zhongyong 74
Lunyu 76
Mengzi 78
2. Printed works 81
3. Evaluation 83
4. Conclusions 95
B. The Bunroku‑Keichō Period (1592‑1614) 98
1. Korean influences 99
Conclusions 117
2. The education of Razan 119
3. Evaluation and conclusions 131
CHAPTER III : THE DOCTRINES 138
A. Fujiwara Seika 142
1. The doctrine 146
2. Conclusions 167
B. Hayashi Razan 174
1. The Doctrine 175
2. Conclusions 203
APPENDIX : On Qi 212
APPENDIX : On Ling 215
CHAPTER IV : CONFUCIANISM AND THE BAKUFU 220
Nakae Tōju 250
Serving the bakufu 260
Conclusions 290
BIBLIOGRAPHY 302
PREFACE
This is a new version of the text of the dissertation I defended in Leiden on January 19,
1983. Over the last few years I have retyped the original text, because the original
version, composed on an Apple‑II, proved to be unusable and inconvertible. My
intention was to retype the text as it was originally published, but this turned out to be
impossible. I could not refrain from changing the wording and correcting the more
egregiousmistakes,andfromtakingintoaccountsomebooksthatappearedafterIhave
finished the original. This explains the intrusion of references to works that were
published in 1982 or later, e.g. the translation of Kanyangnok that appeared in the Tōyō
Bunko and Gernet’s Chine et Christianisme. Basically, however, the text is the same as
thatoftheoriginaldissertation.
I have decided to make the text available in this form, first, because I intend to
makeathoroughrevisionofthewholebook,takingintoaccounttherecentpublications
of Herman Ooms and Watanabe Hiroshi, to name only a few of the studies that have
appearedinrecentyears,andrecheckingallthetranslationsandreferences.Thesecond
reason is that every now and then colleagues ask me for a copy of the original
publication. Since at the time I had only 150 copies printed, these can no longer be
obtained. Making the text available in this form is the next best thing, until I have
completedthesecondrevisededition.
Leiden,December1992
On the occasion of this digital publication of my thesis I have again made a number of
corrections. Perfection is only approached asymptotically. I have also changed the
Chinese transcription from Wade-­‐Giles to Pinyin, and turned the endnotes into
footnotes.Thecharactersareprovidedatthefirstoccasionwhenanameortitleappear,
or, when appropriate, in the bibliography. As the document can be searched, the index
couldbedispensedwith,togetherwiththereferencestotheoriginaledition.Thisdigital
editionshouldthereforeberegardedasVersion3.0.
Leiderdorp,August2013
2
INTRODUCTION
The present book is structured around the proposition, a well‑known and ancient one,
that Neo‑Confucianism in Japan began with Fujiwara Seika, that Hayashi Razan was
Seika’smostimportantdisciple,andthatRazanwashiredbythebakufuasitsConfucian
ideologist.Iamwellawarethatthestatusofthisproposition,atleastamongstspecialist
in the field, is rather low, and that in recent years several scholars have queried or
disprovedpartsofit.1However,thepropositionoffersaninterestingand,inmyopinion,
valid angle of approach for the study of the first beginnings of Neo‑Confucianism in
Japan,andofitsproponentsSeikaandRazan.
The main interest of the proposition is that it offers — or pretends to offer — a
solution for three problems that must be settled before one can embark on further
studies of the intellectual history of the Tokugawa period. These problems concern the
time of the introduction of Neo‑Confucianism, the nature of the Neo-­‐Confucianism that
wasintroduced,andthewayinwhichitfunctionedinitssocialandpoliticalcontext.
According to the proposition Neo‑Confucianism began with Fujiwara Seika. As it is
commonly understood, this means the Neo‑Confucianism was introduced in the last
decade of the sixteenth or the first of the seventeenth century. Both during the Edo
period and later many scholar have tried to explain “why this should be so.” Their
explanationsfallintotwomaincategories,oneofwhichistheavailabilityofnewsources

1 For details, cf. Ch. I, n. 1. Here I will confine myself to one quotation, from an article by Ishida Ichirō
("Tokugawa hōken shakai to Shushi‑gakuha no shisō," 1962), that gives the proposition more or less in
full:InthebeginningoftheTokugawaperiodConfucianism,or,morespecifically,theschoolsofZhuXiand
WangYangming,triedtotakeovertheroleofatheology(shingaku)intheformationandpreservationof
the new feudal society, instead of creeds like Buddhism, “Tentō,” or Christianity. However, it seems that
theschoolofWangYangmingcouldnotfaithfullydischargetherolethatthenewfeudalorderrequiredof
it....Itisahistoricalfact,deservingourattention,that,ontheotherhand,eversincethebeginningofthe
bakufu,theschoolofZhuXiworkedloyallyinsupportofthepoliciesofthebakufuandthefiefs.
Tokugawa Ieyasu first invited Fujiwara Seika. Seika had originally been a monk of the Five
Monasteries,butafterhehadcomeintocontactwithKeian’sJapaneseexplanationofthecommentariesof
Zhu Xi he had immersed himself in the study of Zhu Xi's teachings. Eventually he had returned to the
lay‑state,andheexertedhimselftoliberateZhuXi‑ism from Buddhism.SubsequentlyIeyasuappointed
Seika’s disciple Hayashi Razan, and put him in charge of civil affairs (bunji wo tsukasadorashimeta)(pp.
72‑73).
Wemaynotoverlook,thatintheiressencetheteachingsofZhuXi‑ismagreedwiththestructure
and spirit of the feudal system of the Edo period and supported it. By its very nature, a feudal system
demandsintellectualuniformity.Butthiscertainlydoesnotmeanthatitisamatterofindifference,which
"thought"becomesthestandardofunification.Thefactthatoneteaching,oversuchalongperiodoftime,
became interwoven so deeply with all areas of life, cannot have been the result of a fortuitous union; it
musthavebeenduetomutualsympathyandresponse(ibid.,p.75).
3
(i.e. “books from China”), and the other, the establishment of the Tokugawa realm of
peace.
The first explanation we find mentioned several times in Edo sources, and has
recently been greatly developed by Abe Yoshio.2 In his theory Abe emphasizes the
sudden availability of Korean (not Chinese) books, and argues that the rise of
Neo‑Confucian studies was linked causally to the introduction of Korean
Neo‑Confucian works into Japan as a result of the invasions of Korea that took place in
the 1590’s. Abe’s theory is discussed in Chapter II.B of this study; for the reasons stated
there, I cannot consider his theory as proven or even as plausible, though it might be
allowed to live on in an attenuated form, i.e. that a number of Korean Neo-­‐Confucian
workswerebroughttoJapanintheseyears,thatSeikaandRazanhadreadtheseworks,
and that they had some knowledge of Korean Neo‑Confucian debate during the Yi
Dynasty.
The other explanation, which considers the rise of Neo-­‐Confucian studies in
relation to the establishment of the Tokugawa bakufu, has always enjoyed great
popularity. In the older Edo sources (introduced in the second part of Chapter I) it
generally took the form of the assertion that the peace brought by the Tokugawa had
been responsible for a flourishing of the literary arts, and therefore of Neo-­‐Confucian
studies. In consideration of the fact that one of the Neo-­‐Confucian patriarchs, Hayashi
Razan, had been employed by the bakufu, it was further developed into the assertion
that the bakufu had taken a positive interest in Neo-­‐Confucianism and used it to
establish its rule of peace. This development of the original assertion in its turn led to
the idea, postulated by some modem scholars (e.g. Ishida Ichirō and Maruyama Masao),
that a “compatibility” existed between Neo-­‐Confucianism and the social and political
structureofTokugawaJapan.
Such a “compatibility,” however, did not exist. The feudal society that developed
inJapanwasquitedifferentfromthatofChina,boththecontemporaryChinaandthatof
Zhou or Song times. The other argument, namely that Neo-­‐Confucianism was “used”
becauseitfavoursthepreservationofthestatusquo,isalsonotvalid.Neo-­‐Confucianism
is primarily concerned with the ends and means of individual self-­‐cultivation, and its
most important political demand is that administrative offices be filled with those who
have succeeded in cultivating themselves. Depending on the circumstances, this can

2SeeespeciallyhisNihonShushigakutoChōsen(1965).
4
becomeahighlyexplosivedoctrine.
Suchessentiallyegalitariandemandsstoodnottheslightestchanceofbeingmet
infeudalJapan,whereeveryofficetendedtobecomehereditary,andwherenoamount
ofeducationorself-­‐cultivationwouldeverhelponetocrossthesocialbarrierslaid
downbybirthandfamilyaffiliation.
The only way, therefore, for Neo-­‐Confucian thinkers to fulfil at least part of their
objective was to educate those who were born to fill the offices of power. In this they
succeeded to some extent by introducing Neo-­‐Confucianism as part of the basic
curriculum for the higher classes: the ability to write Chinese poems was a prized
accomplishment,andeveryonewhowantedtolearnhowtowritethem,firsthadtoread
theConfucianClassics.Theonlyproblemwiththis“scheme”was,thattheneareronegot
to the top of the hierarchy, to the daimyō and the shōgun, the less important such
important intellectual accomplishments became. Such persons could not be educated,
but only lectured to, at give times, at ceremonial occasions, and when their underlings
forsomereasonthoughtitnecessary.
This pattern of frustration, this necessary marginality of Neo‑Confucian studies,
the reader will find described in Chapter IV, where Razan’s career with the bakufu is
described.
Not only did the supposed “compatibility” not exist, the bakufu as such took no
positive interest in Neo‑Confucian studies, either. Perusal of the chapter “kangaku no
igi” in Bitō Masahide’s Nihon hōken shisōshi kenkyū will make this clear. What remains,
therefore, is the assertion that the establishment of peace brought about the flourishing
oftheliteraryarts,andthatNeo‑Confucianismwaspartandparceloftheseliteraryarts.
Here, I think, lies the true explanation. As I argue at the end of Chapter II, social and
economic circumstances that came about in the Azuchi‑Momoyama period created a
“market” for intellectuals, and gave them an, always precarious, basis of existence
outside the old court schools or the Buddhist church. Interesting side‑lights on this
intellectual milieu, as it existed in the first years of the seventeenth century, are offered
by the glimpses we get through Razan’s and Seika’s letters, or through writings like
MatsunagaTeitoku’sTaionki(cf.ChapterII.B).
This development was new. However, it remained a development; it was not a
fundamentalrevolution.Theprizedpolitearts(theabilitytoexpressoneselfthroughthe
medium of Japanese and Chinese poetry; the tea‑ceremony) remained the same. The
5
Confucian Classics, the basis of Neo‑Confucian education, had also been the basis of
education during the Middle Ages. Razan or Seika lecturing to daimyō or shōgun are not
much different from the Kiyohara or the Zen priests who travelled through the country
to lecture on the identical classics to, admittedly rather different, daimyō and shōgun.
The question obtrudes itself, whether the supposedly new Neo-­‐Confucianism was not,
alsoasregardsitscontents,acontinuationofthemedievalConfucianstudies.
Thesemattersarediscussed,andtherelevantmaterialsandtheoriesreviewed,in
Chapter II.A. The conclusion is that most of the essential Neo-­‐Confucian works and
commentarieswerealreadyknown,thatthestudyofConfucianismwiththeaidofthese
Neo‑Confucian commentaries had reached a high level of sophistication, especially
within the Kiyohara family, and that the form of Seika’s and Razan’s written works very
much resembles that of the writings, the so-­‐called shōmono, of the Kiyohara. Taken in
conjunctionwiththefactthatbothSeikaandRazanhadcontactswiththeKiyohara,and
that works of Kiyohara origin or inspiration were still being compiled and printed until
the second half of the seventeenth century, these are interesting findings. They prove
that a great deal of continuity existed (at least in this field) from the Middle Ages to the
modem period, and that an influx of Chinese or Korean books was not in any way a
necessary precondition for the rise of Neo-­‐Confucian studies. The materials and the
interest were there already. The findings also suggest that the proponents of Neo-­‐
Confucianism had to contend for several decades with other schools, which could claim
tobecontinuinganoldertradition.
The evident interest Razan evinced in Shintō studies points the same direction.
The Kiyohara were intermarried with the Yoshida, the family that hereditarily headed
the Yoshida shrine in Kyoto. Attempts at "unifying" Shintō and Confucianism, and at
understandingtheoneintermsoftheotheralreadyhadalongstandinginthesecircles.
InmanyrespectsRazancontinuedthistradition.(Imustadd,however,thatSeikaseems
tohavebeenlesskeenlyinterestedinShintōstudies.)
In other, words, the differences between the Middle Ages and the Tokugawa
periodseemtobetheresultofevolutionary,ratherthanofrevolutionarydevelopments.
Why,then,wastheclaimmadethatNeo-­‐ConfucianismbeganwithSeika?
This problem is discussed in Chapters II and III, from different angles. In chapter
I, the main points under discussion are Seika’s conversion to Confucianism and the
nature of his relations with his disciples. Both matters hinge, in turn, on the
6
interpretation of biographical writings. The first problem is that Seika seems to have
madetheclaimthatheoriginatedNeo-­‐Confucianismindependently,onlyonce.Thiswas
in a written communication to a Korean prisoner-­‐of-­‐war, Kang Hang, dating from 1598
or 1599. The claim is reiterated several times in writings of Hang that he composed in
order to praise Seika, and it is given a prominent place in Seika’s necrology, the
Seika-­sensei gyōjō, which Razan wrote in 1620, the year after Seika’s death. The claim
contains two elements: (1) Up till Seika’s days all Japanese Confucian studies had been
based on the old Han commentaries and Tang sub-­‐commentaries; (2) Seika had realised
the truth of the Neo‑Confucian teachings of the Song philosophers, and he had done so
throughreading“thebooks,”notthroughtheinstructionofanylivingperson.
The problem is how to understand this claim. Did Seika make it in relation to his
celebrated project of making a complete edition of the Confucian Classics according to
the Neo‑Confucian interpretations? Then his claim is understandable. Text editions of
the Classics according to the new commentaries hardly existed in Japan, and the
Kiyohara, who as the old myōgyō-­ke had a tradition to uphold, had never attempted to
make one. Seika’s project marked a new departure, though it was not quite as
unprecedentedashemadeoutandothers,e.g.theZenpriestBunshifromSatsumawere
engaged in similar projects. The other element of his claim, namely that “from his youth
he never had a teacher,” is also understandable, though again not literally true. Seika, of
course,hadhadmanyteachers,butevenifhehadwantedtodoso,theredidnotexistan
identifiable,establishedtraditionfromwhichhecouldhaveclaimeddescent.
Whatever Seika’s motives were, Razan decided to take Seika’s claim and Kang
Hang’s panegyrics literally. And he relates them, not to Seika’s project of editing the
Classics according to the new commentaries, but to Seika’s conversion from Buddhism
to Confucianism, which took place several years before Seika met Kang Hang. A few
added touches, many of them taken over from Kang Hang’s writings, were sufficient to
turn Seika into someone rather resembling the Neo-­‐Confucian patriarchs of the Song.
And Razan was not the only one to do so. We find the same tendency in writings related
tootherdisciplesofSeika.
From their perspective they were right to do so. Traditions were important. The
“transmission of the Way” was an important concept within Neo‑Confucianism. It
presupposed a handing‑down of the truth from master to disciple, and the only
recognised gap in this tradition was the interval from Mencius to Zhou Dunyi, who had