“Tang’s Influence” – True or false, why it matters (3/3)
.
The cross-section of the Japanese society in the mid-eighth century seen through the construction of Todai-Ji Temple 東大寺
Now, let’s get out of the Asuka
period and go to the mid-eighth century at the height of the Nara Period
straddling the opening of Todai Temple. More than two hundred years have
passed since the Buddhism arrived in Japan and three generations had passed
since the fall of Baekje and Koguryo. Now the grandchildren of the
refugee immigrants from the bygone states were in their prime and were
incorporated into the Japanese society, yet their family status from their
state of origin was being recognized officially, defining their social status
backed by the power of the settler communities with their advanced knowledge
and skills. The process of the construction of the monumental temple well
betrays the dimension of the contributions that those newly naturalized
Japanese people and communities made to the Japanese society of the time. They were not just the important contibutors, but the leading force of the new country Japan.
Opening in the year 752, the new temple would stay as the largest wooden structure of the world for more than twelve centuries until the end of the second millennia.[] While its physical immensity manifests the ambition the Japanese leadership held for their new state vis-a-vis its neighbors, the successful completion of the huge project testifies to the total power and ability the Japanese society had reached at the time of early eighth century. The population of Japan at the time is estimated to have been slightly over five million. A look into the people involved in the huge construction project will surely provide a most transparent cross-sectional peep into the Japanese society of the time.
- The main hall of the temple, Daibutsu-Den, as we see today, is the reconstruction made in 1706 with the size shrunk to two-thirds of the original.
The project director was Koma Fukushin 高麗福信, who was the grandson of a Koguryo aristocrat. His grandfather came over to Japan at the fall of Koguryo in 668 and resettled in Musashi Kuni 武藏國, in the community for Koguryo people.[] While Koma Fukushin held the official title of project director, the head of architect and carpentry was Inabe Momoyo 猪名部百世. His family came from Silla during Kofun period and worked closely with the Hata 秦 family, the power clan with Silla background. The Inabe name appears in the record as early as in mid-fifth century under the reign of Yūryaku 雄略天皇 (418 – 479) as the carpenter for the court.
[] Musashi Kuni 武藏國 occupied the current Tokyo and its surrounding areas.
As challenging as the construction of the magnificent main hall was the making of the Daibutsu, the buddha statue in the main hall. The guilt bronze Buddha is 15 meters high, weighing 452 tons. Apart from the technology and art, the statue was a very demanding project financially. The person responsible for the statue making was Kuninaka no Kimimaro 國中公麻呂. He was the grandson of the Baekje aristocrat Kuni no Kotsufu 國骨富, who took refuge in Japan after the defeat in the Baek River in 663. The head engineer for the casting of the statue 大鑄師 was Takaichi Makomaro 高市真麿,[] Doraijin fresh off the boat 今来渡來人 from the Peninsula, most likely called in by the project director Kimimaro.
According to Todai-ji Summary 東大寺要錄, the
huge amount of the copper was procured from the copper mine in Kawara, Fukuoka
Kyushu, which was known as the resettlement for the Toraijin from Silla.
The gold for the coating was donated by 百濟王敬福, grandson
of the last Baekje King. He found the gold mine for the first time in Japan in
the current Miyagi area, northeast Honshu, where he acted as governor. He also
paid out for the copper for the statue.
The three high monks that were behind the determination of Shomu Tenno for the
colossal temple were Gyoki 行基, Ryoben 良弁and
Shinshou Ootoku 審祥大德. Gyoki was the most respected
monk of the time in the Japanese society for his humble activities of relief
for the people in need and was appointed as the Daisojo 大僧正, the highest rank Buddhist priest in
Japan by Shomu Tenno in 749. Shomu Tenno himself became monk anointed by Gyoki
in the same year abdicating the throne to her daughter Koken, four years prior
to the opening of Todai-Ji. According to the 14C publication on the
history of Japanese Buddhism 元亨釋書, Gyoki was born to the
Koji 高志 family of Baekje royal
lineage. []
[] 釋行基，世姓高志氏，泉州大鳥郡人，百濟國王之胤也。-元亨釋書 卷十四
Ryoben 良弁 was
the first abbot of Todai-ji and having established Nigatsu-Do 二月堂, the
first temple at the site of Todai-ji. He studied under a high monk from
Baekje, 義淵僧正. Being of Baekje descent himself,
he invited the Silla monk Shinshou Ootoku 審祥大德 for
the first lecture on the Huayan Sutra that helped open the Kegon 日本 華嚴宗 with
Todai-Ji as headquarter of the school.[]
[] It was in the early stage of the
Buddhist sectorization worldwide and the schools were formed depending on what
kind of sutra they focused on. Yet, the source of the trend was India. So, the
Huayan school of each country had its faith based on the same sutra but carried
its own respective color. In Silla it was the renowned Uisang 義湘 who
had introduced the Huayan Sutra and opened Korean Hwaom school. When he came
back from China after the study of Huayan Sutra, he consulted with Wonhyo 元曉, who
had studied Buddhism in Korea, to framework the Hwaom sect in Korea. Among many
of Uisang's publications famous is Beopseongge 法性偈 or, which somehow named as “The Song of Dharma Nature”,
which distilled the world of Huayan Sutra into 201 letters arranged in a
maze-shaped chart, which would be used as one of the popular references in Zen
Buddhism. Shinshou Ootoku 審祥大德 was one of Uisang’s student. Uisang and
Wonhyo had a great reputation and produced respect and awe in the Japanese
society of Nara Period and for many years to
come.
The construction of the great temple was completed in the year 752 with the grand opening ceremony with more than ten thousand invitees from in and out of Japan, including more than seven hundred people from Silla. Tang monk, Ganjin 鑒真, who is so often referred to to examplify the Tang's cultural influence, landed in Japan in 753, the next year of the Todai-Ji opening. His arrival was the result of ten years’ effort after five failed attempts, which meant that both Tang and Japan did not have the seafaring capability to reach each other safely. He is said to have lost his sight by the time of his arrival in Japan. He lived ten years in Japan in a small temple and propagated Ritsu 律宗, which made one of the six schools of Nara Buddhism.
Tang China was at the height of own dynasty in the first half of the eighth century when the construction of the monumental temple was underway in Japan. When we count from the Sui years, Japan and China had been in diplomatic relationship for more than 150 years by the time when the great temple opened in 752. Except for the participation in the grand ceremony as guests, there had been no involvement or contribution whatsoever from the Tang throughout the whole process of the construction of Todai-Ji and any projects before that. Japanese simply did not ask for any help from Tang. Theirs was not a relationship capable of accomodating that level of cooperation. Before that, it just wouldn't have happened to them to seek help from the Chinese. They knew they could build the greatest temple of the world by themselves, that the world, including the Chinese, had never seen. Three years after the opening of Todai-Ji, An Lushan Rebellion broke out in China, Tang entering the stage of decline. Given that, when we come across some Tang-style artpieces in later time here and there, it would be a distortion to take them as evidence for cultural influence. They would better be taken as sporadic and isolated attempts for diversity. They never made a cultural trend or a base for the further development of Japanese society.
The birth of so-called “Tang’s influence”
So
far, we have assessed the Tang’s influence in the early Japanese civilization
up to the Nara Period. The opening of the magnificent edifice Todai-ji was an
epochal event in the sense that its physical immensity along with the design of
the whole structure down to details was illustrative of the level of the
comprehensive capability of the Japanese society that could place the new
country on an equal footing with the Chinese civilization at the time of the
Tang Dynasty, if not surpassing. The
historical significance of the event would deepen when we remember, different
from in the Asuka Period, it was the achievement made out of the resources of
the Japanese society almost entirely. [] That means, if you find the trace of
the Tang culture here and there later in Japan, it should be interpretated as
signs of cultural exchanges on equal footing, not as the evidence for the
one-sided cultural influence from Tang China.
[] The
descendants of the refugee immigrants from the Peninsula in the second half of seventh century, at the fall of Baekje and Koguryo, were
now Japanese after three or four generations, yet the procession of the
immigration from the Peninsula continued throughout the eighth century, many of
them called in by the early settlers.
As we have observed so far of the
cultural development by areas in the early Japanese civilization, the recurring
patterns of the Tang-influencer narratives are firstly the lack of evidence,
secondly the omission of the competitive factors, consistently the ancient
Korean elements and contributions, which can be said to have been
overwhelmingly bigger by any standards, and thirdly, the predisposition of the
cultural superiority of the Chinese civilization that seems to have enabled the
obvious deficiencies in evidence and scope for objectivity to pass without
challenge.
The notion of the centric influence
of the Chinese civilization over its neighbors in the Northeast Asia was
established mainly by the Christian missionaries, Catholic priests at first from
the 16th century and then Protestants from England and America in the 19th.
With no scientific approaches available as are today, they relied heavily on
the Chinese literature in their quest for the Northeast Asian history. It would
have been only natural for them to see the subject through the window frameworked
by Sima Qian 司馬遷, the author of Shiji, or Records
of the Grand Historian, who set the
guideline for all the Chinese historians to follow, to whom the world was made
up of the civilized Chinese and all the rest barbarians.
They did not know the academic achievements
made during the 20th century out of scientific approaches based on archaeology,
genetics and linguistic studies. Theirs was time even before the discovery of
the tortoise bone oracles in the old Shang land. They could have no idea that the oldest civilization in
the northeast Asia started from the lower Manchuria and propagated down to the
Yellow River area, where Sima claimed the Chinese civilization had begun. They
did not know enough to get what Sima Qian attempted to conceal by renaming the
early founding demigods of China in generic terms.[] They did not see beyond the negative view that
Sima tried to paint on the Qin Dynasty. It would not come to their attention
why Sima invented the derogatory term 蠻夷,
‘savage people’ in direct translation, for the ancient Koreans in place of 東夷, DongYi or
Eastern People, which was the usual term Chinese used referring to ancient
Koreans with some sense of admiration.
[] Most of the Chinese historical records, especially before Shiji, put the three semidivine heros, Fuxi 伏羲, Nuwa 女媧, Shennong 神農 as the Three Sovereigns. No other records, before Shiji of Sima Qian, had dropped Fuxi among the three. Sima Qian contrived generic names for three sovereigns such as 天皇 Sky Emperor, 地皇 Earth Emperor and 泰皇 Great Emperor for the first time in place of the proper names of the Three Sovereigns. Among the three cultural demigods with the proper names, Fuxi had been described as the ancestor of DongYi in various ancient records, with the two others also affiliated with DongYi. It was also in Shiji of Sima Qian that the first story of Ji zi or Gija 箕子 appeared more than a millennium after Ji zi’s demise that he was sent to Go-Joseon as vassal to the Zhou ruler after the fall of Shang. Among the possible causes for those consistent attempts by Sima Qian to erase the DongYi influence in the history may have been the sentiments of cultural inferiority he and Han people had then about the Eastern People 東夷, DongYi.
They did not get to apprehend all these
things were related. For them Tang was just China. For them Xianbei were
barbarian from the north, good fighters yet who were smart enough to admire Chinese
culture and were absorbed into the great Chinese civilization. It was
meaningless where they came from since they were barbarian anyway. They had no
idea the area the Transeurasian people came from was the cradle for the
earliest Northeast Asian cultures. They failed to note the fact that the
Koreans, Japanese and Xianbei used to be neighbors in their hometown of birth
and childhood. They had a simple idea. China
had existed as China from the start. Chinese invented the Chinese characters
and the rest of the Asia came to be civilized by learning the Chinese
characters and accepting the Chinese culture. China used to be conquered by
those barbarians only because the savages were good fighters.
Though they thought they were pursuing
the objective truth of history and some of them made great achievements in some
areas on Chinese history and culture, they didn’t learn to get out of the maze
designed by Sima Qian and ended up in endorsing Qian in his dichotomic view on
the Northeast Asian history. Some of them become the favorite reference by the
Chinese, Shaofenhong particularly, in their assertion for the Sinocentric view.
The idea that the early Japan was the replica of Tang China came out of those missionary-Sinologues.
[]
[] Joseph Edkins, British missionary, was the pioneer of the China
study and made a great contribution in many areas. He became the busiest
reference Chinese make to argue for the superiority of the Chinese
civilization.
Chinese liked the idea. No one would criticize the Chinese for not questioning the missionaries at the risk of undermining the reputation for the greatness of their own civilization those renowned European scholars spoke for. But the question is why Japanese have been silent about the Tang influencer assertions when they are the one who apparently should have many reasons to challenge those postulations in the range of puffed-up to groundless, at the expense of the claim for the originality of their own culture. It may sound strange to many, but the truth is that actually Japanese have been no less, if not more, eager than Chinese for the dissemination of the Tang-influencer view.
The Japanese Tradition
of Korea-erasing
Actually,
the attitude the Japanese have been showing over the “Tang’s influence” issue
is in line with the Japanese tradition of Korea-erasing that has been going on
for a millennium by now. It seems that
the Japanese society maintained the sense of respectful affiliation with the three
ancient Korean states or 三韓 until the 13th century. [] The three brothers of the Minamoto family,
which later would open the Kamakura Bakufu (1185-1333) and produce the first
Shoguns, bowed at the coming-of-age ceremony at the Shinra Zenshindo 新羅善神堂
in Shiga prefecture and one of them carried even the nickname Shinra (Silla in
Japanese spelling) Saburo 新羅三郞 (1045-1127). The Kamakura Bakufu
maintained the cordial relationship with Koryo 高麗
(918-1392). We can guess the people of the two countries had a sense of
affinity to each other until the time the Mongols broke into the history of the
Northeast Asia. []
[] At first, Sankan 三韓 referred to the three confederacy states in the Peninsula: Mahan, Jinhan, Byeonhan, 馬韓, 秦韓, 邊韓. Later it indicated the three states: Koguryo, Baekje, Silla, 高句麗, 百濟, 新羅. Japanese used the word 韓 to mean Korea or Korean generally.
The invasion of the allied force of
Mongol and Koryo to Japan in the late 13th century left a huge mark in the
Japanese society. While the incident left the word Kamikaze 神風In
the Japanese society, foddering their belief in the divinity of their country, it
seems to have made the watershed in the Japanese sentiment towards Korea. It
may have provided the excuse for the change of mind at least. We do not know
whether it was organized and official, but the earliest signs of the campaign
to erase the trace of Korean derivation and influence in their history and life
began to show from the 15th century. They
started with the name change for places and edifices.
The campaign of Korea erasing in
Japanese society got the official spur after the Meiji Restoration of 1868,
like a house cleaning before the grand open-house event. It was around this
time that Fukuzawa Yukichi 福澤諭吉came out with the “leaving Asia,
joining the West” 脱亜入欧 assertion. And it was around this time that Japan began
to show their claw for Okinawa. Korea, in the name of Joseon in the late 19th
century, was at the lowest point in their history. It was the last country Japanese wanted
themselves to be associated with from the members of the West club they wanted
to join. The great past of Korea and its influence over Japan in ancient times
that initiate the Japanese civilization was the last thing Japanese wanted to
be known to the West.
While the name changes for places were now enforced nationwide, the campaign expanded to include change of the names for cultural assets. And when they came to occupy the Peninsula, one of the first projects they embarked on was the doctoring of the Korean history to justify their occupation. Korea had to be a country unable to stand by themselves. And the unexpected beneficiary of this campaign was China, Tang particularly, since Japanese somehow had happened to use the Character 唐 in place of Korea 韓 in their name laundering, if we can call it that way. Followings are the examples of the Korea-erasing practice in Japan that has been going on for a millennium by now.
Change from 韓
Korea to 唐 Tang in name places
They changed the names of
place that included 韓 Korea, read Kara, by replacing it to 唐 ( the Chinese Dynasty
7C-10 C ) in writing and reading it Kara all the same. Karatsu 韓津 in Saga prefecture changed to 唐津 read Karatsu. 百濟津 Kudara-Tsu in Yamaguchi Prefecture changed to 下松, pronounced similarly.[] Karagawa 韓川 or Korean River in
Izumo changed to 唐川. This is even right at the place where the founding gods landed
from the Korean side, according to the Nihon Shoki. The famous 唐津茶婉 or Karatsu Teapot, affected by Korean porcelain, has nothing to
do with the Tang, only the disguised name keeps generating false impression.
[] This name change from 百濟津 to 下松 is one of those which remain
in the record, as made in the 18th year of Bunmei文明 or 1487CE.
All
the name of places that has 唐 reading Kara
mean they were originally 韓 with no exception since
during the time of Tang Dynasty there was no interaction in trade and people
between the two countries enough to leave a place name 唐 in Japan. Tang's original
pronunciation is Tou in Japanese, so when it really means the Tang of
Chinese Dynasty, it read Tou, like in 唐樂 Tou Raku, or Tang Music, and 唐僧 Tou Shou, or Tang Monk. So, anything written in 唐 that reads Kara indicates Korea. Just for example, 瀬田の唐橋karabashi of Seta, known to have been built in the 7th century in Seta has
nothing to do with the Tang though it uses 唐 in the name. There absolutely was no involvement from Tang in
the construction of the bridge and no episodes about the bridge related to Tang
throughout its existence. The technics used in the construction of the bridge was
found identifiable with that of Silla and its old name used to be 韓橋 and 辛橋, indicating the bridge’s
relation with Korea, particularly Silla.[] Many reservoirs for agricultural
irrigation around the country named韓人池 changed the唐人池, yet reading Kara.
瀬田の唐橋karabashi of Seta
Located near 近江Omi by Biwa Lake 琵琶湖 is famous for the Seta battle in 672 that brought the victory for the Tenmu Tenno (reign 673-686). He was the ruler who stopped the Tang mission and sent the missions to Silla intensively.
[] Efforts to
conceal the Korean derivation are still ongoing in Japan. In the Wikidepia the
author bothers to explain 辛橋 was so named because the construction work was tough (辛). In Japan the character 辛read Kara was used as
alternative for 韓, like 辛國社 Karakuni-Sha, the Shinto temple in Todai-Ji, of which the
original name at the time of Nara Period was 韓國社 Karakuni-Sha. If the author was not aware of that, it is the usual pattern
we see in the academic circle in Japan to deny the Korean derivation for any
plausible alternative, which usually is China.
Tang in place of Korea for the cultural assets
The name change was not
confined to the place names. They changed the names for cultural items,
tangible and intangible, from 韓 to
唐. All the names in Japan that have 唐 pronounced Kara,
need to be presumed to have the Korean
derivation. The Japanese dictionaries say 唐, when read Kara, can mean
‘Korea’ or ‘Tang’ or something exquisite from overseas, but that can be another
effort to minimize and dilute the Korean derivation of things.
Karakinu唐衣 was originally 加良岐沼 read Karakinu , indicating it came from 加良, which means Kaya (state)
or Korea. The overcoat with the short sleeves shows the obvious Korean style 半臂, but the changed name using 唐 produces the wrong
impression that it came from Tang, which in turn has been taken advantage of by
some to argue for the Chinese influence in
and out Japan. Kara-e
唐繪 was another such case. The painting style called Kara-e had existed in Asuka Period before Tang came into being. Karate, the marshall art, had
been spelled 唐手, before it was changed
to 空手 around 1930s to obfuscate its origin further.[] It is no secret that Karako-Dori 唐子踊り, the traditional children’s dance staged
at the local festival in Okayama prefecture, came from Korea, but its
name had 唐 from its beginning in 17th century, more
than 800 years after Tang disappeared in China.
The book cover of introduction of Karate by Gichin Funakoshi 義珍 冨名腰, Father of Modern Karate, shows the Karate was written 唐手術 at the time of its publication 1921.
[] Karate came from Okinawa. The aristocrats in Okinawa who practiced the martial art from the 15th century were from Koryo, the Korean dynasty after Silla. For more detail argument for the origin of Karate, go to my other post ‘The Missing link in the History of Okinawa’ in this blog.
To add to the confusion, after the Imjin war ( 1592- 98 ) Japanese begin to use the word as meaning Korea pronouncing it ‘tou’ for some, while pronouncing it ‘kara’ for others. So, now the character 唐 meaning Korea came to have two pronunciations, Kara and Tou or To. The famous Tofu of Koji City高知市, called 唐人豆腐, is pronounced Tojin Tofu, not Karajin Tofu, though Japanese make it no secret that the Tofu was introduced by the Korean named 朴好仁 ( Park Ho-In ) during the period of Imjin War. Kara-age唐揚げ, the fried chicken dish that came to Japan after the war still carried Kara reading for 唐. So, now we can say any name with 唐 read Kara indicates Korean derivation while唐, even when read To or Tou, also can indicate the Korean origin as long as it did not come during the period of Tang in China clearly.
The Extent of the Korea-Erasing campaign
The name change was not just for 韓 Kara. Each of the ancient Korean states, 高句麗, 新羅 ,百濟 and 伽倻, had different names, several to tens, obfuscating the origins from the olden time,[] but after the Meiji Restoration of 1868, the campaign of Korea-erasing went for a new level and expanse.
[] To take the example of Silla, the names used in place of 新羅included 志木, 白国, 白浜, 新座,之良岐,白木, 白楽,白子, 四楽, 白城, 白鬼, 白浜, 真良, 信羅, 新良, 志楽, 説楽. The same goes with the other ancient states.
Many names indicative of Korean origin
simply was replaced with other names with no hint of the derivation left. Koma Kun 高麗郡 in Saitama Prefecture disappeared
replaced with other names like Hitaka 日高市
with no trace of Koguryo. Those name changes are still underway. Kudaragi 百濟來 in Kumamoto Prefecture, where many
Kudara 百濟related
sites and stories, remain, changed to 久多朗木
keeping the same pronunciation in 1960s. It was incorporated later into
Sakamoto 坂本
before it was merged into Yatsushiro City 八代市
finally
in 2006. 韓國岳 karakuni-Take
is
the mountain that appears in the legend of Ninigi, the grandson of Amaterasu as
the place he landed from the Heaven, in Nihon Shoki, yet some local maps
attempt to use 唐國岳 for the name of the mountain.
The efforts for the concealment of the Korean
derivation even reached the content of the traditional songs for local
festivals. The Ofuna Matsuri 御船祭
is a festival that has over seven
hundred years of history in Oiso-Machi 大磯町near Tokyo. Boat songs
are sung to greet the Koguryo god -Goryeo Gongen 高麗権現- and Senju Kannon 千手観音. In the lyric of the chant, the ship of Koguryo God 權現, or
Kongen Maru, changed to myoujin maru 明神丸after
Meiji Restoration. And the name of the Shinto temple that hosts the festival,
Koma Shinsha 高麗神社was changed to 高來神社 Takaku Shinsha after Meiji restoration, the sign
stone at the entrance of the temple chiseled for the new name over the
original.
The entrance of the Takaku Shinsha 高來神社 in Oiso, Kanagawa
with the second letter 麗 chiseled over.
Closing Remark
The history of the Northeast Asia, as known and taught, is full of distortions, fabrications and concealments. Since much of the history of the Northeast Asia has been written, and still being written, as government projects, often not to leave the true accounts of what happened but to conceal the truth to serve the political interests of their own. While the intervention of science made throughout the 20th century has been excavating the different storylines on one side, there has been going on the attempts orchestrated by some concerned parties to rewrite the history to dilute and mitigate the effect of those academic progresses.
The assertion of Tang’s influence on
the early Japanese civilization could pass because there had been the deep-seated
prejudice for the superiority of the Chinese civilization. The dissemination of
the notion has been so successful, through history textbooks and publications,
that it has formed another buttress to fortify the first predisposition that
helped produce the myth.
The early part of the first millennium
was the formative period for all three countries of the Northeast Asia. China
as we know today is the result of that formative period. We often fall for the
fallacy of reverse Sinicization in the interpretation of the Asian history. If we get out of the trap, that period of Tang
in China could also be interpreted as the process of the cultural diffusion of the
Transeurasian culture by the Xianbei people in continuation of what the
Northern Wei and its predecessors had done. Same for Japan. The time at least up to the
Nara Japan should be defined as period of concentrated diffusion of the Transeurasian culture by the
ancient Koreans.
Of course, the history can be and should be interpreted in diverse facets and perspectives and not one view can tell the whole truth. Perhaps, we can never reach the absolute truth unless we live the time again. However, we surely can get closer to the balanced understanding of what happened in the past by sifting out the untruths born out of the desire and rapacity, the vulnerability to which will make you victim of lies. That process of sifting out untruths is especially important for the Northeast Asian history. It would be only then that we begin to be able to interpret much of what we witness today taking place in the Northeast Asia, not as the first-ever phenomenon or miracle but as repetition and recovery.
end
Comments
Post a Comment