THE CORE OF BUSHIDO
THE CORE OF BUSHIDŌ
If we wish to find the core of Bushido, we must I think, look at it in its historical context. To do that, I would like to use a metaphor, first put forward by Nitobé Inazo in his book on Bushidō, worn as it may be; I think it is still viable. Certainly, we do not need all the flowery rhetoric or the cryptic European references of Nitobé to grasp what is truly simple.
If we think of Bushidō as the sakura, the cherry blossom, and think of how plants live, our search may become clearer. Japan, of course, is the soil and without the proper soil, no plant can flourish. Some will whither and die quickly, others will struggle over a long time, trying to survive, but never growing beyond some stunted weed. Japan, more than anywhere in the world, was the right “soil” for Bushidō.’ The seeds came to Japan long ago from China, who in many ways is the “Mother of Japan”. The seeds came in the form of Confucius and then his disciple Mencius. If one wishes to understand Bushidō, then look to the seeds themselves: Analects by Confucius and simply The Mencius. Along with these two great fathers came Wang Yang-ming and Lao Tse; thus, the great seeds of Asian thought came riding across the sea to eventually take root in Japan.
The sakura, like any plant, not only needs soil, it needs nourishment and Shintō was just such nutrition for Bushidō. Native to Japan, growing out of the sea with the land, it was there waiting to embrace Bushidō and to give it all that it could. Perhaps the greatest gifts of Shintō were its sense of patriotism, loyalty, reverence for ancestors, and the love of family and parents, which from its birth, lay at the very heart of Bushidō, as it does today. Look in any dojo and you will see the character of Shintō present: from the walls to the etiquette of those who practice there.
Seeds, soil, nourishment, are fine but our analogy still lacks something. The sakura needs sun and rain which was supplied in abundance by first Buddhism and later its refinement of Zen, which went directly to the growth and development of the samurai character – the Samurai Spirit, and provided for the growth and development of Bushidō on the most personal of levels.
Bushidō was exclusive only to Japan. Despite Nitobé’s analogies to European chivalry, they are as different as night and day. Bushidō could only have existed in Japan. It was so destined.
Copyright 2009 by Shisei-Do Dojo and Shisei-Do Publications
Labels: amatai no shugo-ryu, budo, bushi, bushido, history, japan, samurai
posted by Hayato Tokugawa at 9:16 AM
5 Comments:
Keep in mind that Nitobe refashioned bushido for a very specific, highly motivated purpose, and this is indeed where historical context is of utmost importance to consider.
He was a leading proponent of Japanese colonialism, as a chair of colonial studies at Tokyo University, as an administrator of the colonial government of Taiwan, and as a spokesperson on behalf of Japanese colonialism to the English-speaking world.
He wrote "Bushido: Soul of Japan" in English, in Monterey, California, and published it in the US, with the express purpose of conveying a specific notion of an essential core of Japanese character (i.e. myth) to an American audience, at a time when Japan was struggling to find its place on the international scene.
His refashioning of Bushido liberally interpreted the past in ahistorical ways, replacing loyalty to one's lord to that of the emperor, and extending what was supposedly a warrior code to the essence of all Japanese.
For an excellent historically-grounded account of Nitobe's refashioning of Bushido, and the dangerous role it played in Japanese militarism, Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney's book linked here is hard to beat. She is a Distinguished Chair of Modern Culture at the Library of Congress, and professor at University of Wisconsin, Madison.
There's also more about Bushido in historical context at asiansart.org
Thank you very much for visiting our blog and for your informative commentary. Our use of Nitobé’s metaphor was because many Japanese scholars, both within and without Japan, tend to agree that Bushidō was indeed something exclusive to Japan and that the simile was useful in conveying this idea.
As to Nitobé’s purpose in writing his book on Bushidō, I feel that he was genuinely motivated by a desire to both explain and thereby defend the Japanese character as he saw it. He truly did wish to be a “bridge across the pacific.” His work however is greatly flawed, as you point out, particular because it does tend to be ahistsorical. While born samurai, he received little education as samurai; indeed, there is considerable evidence which indicates that he had little interest in the samurai and even harbored hostility to them: a hostility which periodically comes to the surface in his book. One must bear in mind also that Nitoé was born and educated at a time of great change in Japan. Certainly his education in Japanese, and therefore samurai history, was curtailed by the Meiji determination to educate its young in Western ways; thus, much of the history taught in schools and universities was revisionist or exclusive to say the least. He was woefully ignorant of much that he should have known in preparing such a work. Lastly, he was caught up in his own desire to both please his Western readers and to prove himself (to them and his colleagues) as much the European scholar as they, as evidenced by his writing style, more appropriate to Victorian oratory than to literature.
As to Nitobés refashioning of Bushidō, replacing loyalty to one’s lord to that of the Emperor, I have to disagree slightly. Bushidō always demanded loyalty through the Emperor, albeit indirectly, through the intermediary role of the daimyō. Following the Meiji Restoration and the dismantling of the feudal system in Japan, there of course was no longer any lord, only the Emperor, and thus, all loyalty was directed to him. Later in the Taijo Jidai and Showa Jidai, this loyalty became perverted through a willful bastardization and perversion of both Bushidō, using the Hagakurae by Yamamoto Tsunetomo as its foundation, and the creation of State Shintō. Still, Bushidō is a core element of the Japanese character, as supported by many Japanese scholars, including Thomas Clearly, William Scott Wilson, Haegawa Nyozekan, and most recently Fujiwara Masahiko in his work The Dignity of the Nation, with whom I very much agree.
I have taught or led discussions on Bushidō for many years as an adjunct to my instructing in Aikijutsu, Kenjutsu, and Iaido and while I do not fully endorse Nitobé’s book, I do encourage people to read it (if they can understand it at all); not as the ultimate source of information on the subject, for it is terribly wanting, but as a place to begin one’s path to understanding Bushidō, and only that. I have been working on a project for several years now regarding Nitobé Inazo and his book, which should be published early next year, and which I hope will help people to both understand Nitobe the man, the Japan he grew up in, and his books.
H. Tokugawa
I 've enjoyed this topic about bushido and Japan.
and comment from " Asians Art Museum" is interesting ,too.
however,
I have to supplement as a Japanese Budo teacher.
first about Nitobe,
he wrote many papaers on colonialism in Japanese.
in Japan ,
It is controversial whether Nitobe is a colonialist or a liberalist.
I read some his papers in Japanese .
I think he is a liberalist .
and about Bushido,
the term " Bushido" was born about Tokugawa era,
before this era, there was not the word "Bushido" ,
however, there was Bushido spirit .
Nitobe Bushido is based on Tokugawa era bushido , which is the time when Bushi became kind of japanese model that has good spirit, good moral, etc ,it was the time violence like battle of sengoku era already finished
So Sengoku Bushido is different from Tokugawa era bushido.
we should think we consider Sengoku bushido and Tokugawa bushido separately.
for that reason,
the way of thinking about " Loyality" . " master-servant relationship", etc.
these are different .
and about Loyality,
if you read about Kanto Bushi -dan leading by Minamoto Yoritomo ,
you would get more info.
sorry ,my English skill is not good .
I hope you can undesrstand what I want to say.
about that, now I can't explain all in this comment box.
I will write in my page .
To Asians art Museum
your site is picked up by many blogs.
I checked and read your site many times, re- reading.
But,
I can't understnad your intent of your page.
I found the following site .
http://www.8asians.com/2009/08/28/8-questions-for-asians-arts-museum/
I read many times your answer,
but I can't understnad.
My impression from your answer is:
you hide something, that is, different purpose .
answer you posted as your answer is not your real purpose,
I feel so.
I read some book and website you have recomended .
they content such expression as " Japan is kind of violence nation"
I read Onuki Emiko book you linked.
as history book , it is good book.
but,
Bushido is .
Should we think as spiritual history of human being than real history event?
and about Prof. Onuki Emiko .
I don't know her plofile about detail.
but,
I feel she has a bad image , something like that.
I found the following discussion site in Japanese webpage.
all japanese.
this site is discussion page about Japan sakura.
if there is someone who can understnad among your group, plesae read.
http://www.ch-sakura.jp/oldbbs/thread.html?id=19247&genre=sougou
In response to Sumie:
We have articulated our intentions clearly, repeatedly, on our website, in interviews (8asians.com; KPFA radio), and at length in the Dialogue section of our blog.
We suggest that the difficulty in understanding it may have something to do with the fact that much of our work is infused with irony. As you may know, irony does not come across well in translation, even for those who have lived in the US for years and are otherwise possessed of a mastery of the language.
Our work is grounded in recent, peer-reviewed academic literature, and we are fairly certain that none of the sources we linked to contain simplistic, one-dimensional expressions of "Japan as violent nation." If you are going to make such a claim, please tell us exactly which source(s) you refer to, if they do in fact exist and are not being taken out of context.
Similarly, as we pointed out earlier, Ohnuki-Tierney is a highly respected scholar. One does not get appointed to the prestigious positions she holds if one has a bad image or reputation. That doesn't mean that ultraconservatives, for example, may not find her work controversial, but does that make her image "bad" or "good"? Or neither?
We are wondering if because you don't understand our work, and because you might disagree with the scholar's work, you are suggesting that we and she are all in some way "bad." That would be sad.
Because there needs to be room for mutual respect that allows for diversity of opinion, belief, and viewpoint.
For example, we respect Tokugawa-sensei's right to the belief that bushido lies at the essential core of Japanese character. We can't say we agree with it, and we know there are numerous scholars that find it highly debatable as well. But we respect his right to his own belief, and we don't doubt his intentions or character simply because his view disagrees with ours. There has to be room for multiple perspectives, otherwise how can the world grow in mutual understanding and respect?
We will however point out that neither Thomas Cleary nor William Scott Wilson is an academic historian. Both of them are translators. So in terms of understanding actual bushido history beyond the mythology that they promote through their books, we don't consider their work to carry the same importance as that of respected academic historians. It's an issue we raised in our interview at 8asians.com (4th question), and something that has been echoed repeatedly by Japanese Studies scholars, for example on the Japan History Group Blog, and on our blog as well.
There's more than one way to look at bushido. We believe that to remove it from real history risks promoting mythology. History tells us that such mythology is open to ideological distortion and abuse in ways that can be very dangerous. So that's why on our website we attempt to undermine the promotion of mythology through the application of recent academic scholarship, in the fields of history, Japanese studies, cultural studies, and so on.
[Apologies to Tokugawa-sensei if we have taken this too far off-topic, and suggest to Sumie that further discussion about our website be taken up on our blog, so as not to distract here. Thanks!]
Post a Comment
<< Home