[
    {
        "id": 205123,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 79,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "74\n\nHOLMES WELCH\n\nIn 1873 the first Japanese missionary arrived in the Middle Kingdom. His name was Ogurusu Kocho and he had been sent to look over the situation in Shanghai by the Higashi Honganji sub-sect of Jodo Shinshu (the larger of the two main Pure Land sects). The following year he paid another visit to Shanghai and also went to Peking.\n\nIn 1876 the Higashi Honganji drew up a new creed that could be interpreted as a bid for collaboration with the state. Among other things, it emphasized that glorious death in military service would be rewarded by rebirth in the Western Paradise. It spoke of brotherhood with the Chinese in face of the unfilial barbarians. In May that year Count Otani, the hereditary patriarch of the subsect went to Tokyo accompanied by Ogurusu Kocho, and consulted Terashima Munenori in the Foreign Ministry on the problem of missionary work in China. We are not told the substance of their conversation, but in August a branch temple opened its doors in Shanghai, staffed by six priests, including Ogurusu. It was \"the first Japanese religious organization in China.\"2\n\nAfter China's defeat by Japan in 1895 a trade agreement was signed that gave the Japanese the right to construct temples in all the Treaty Ports. In 1896 Nanking had a Honganji temple.3 Shanghai got a Nichiren temple in 1899 and a second Honganji temple in 1906. According to one source special efforts were made to build temples in Fukien province, where the Japanese were trying to create a sphere of influence across the straits from their newly acquired colony of Formosa. Their missions were often able to attract parishioners because they could offer the same protection as their Christian counterparts, but did not require anyone to give up ancestor worship. The aim, however, was not merely parish-building, but use of the missions in the same way as the European powers. Thus in the autumn of 1900 a Japanese temple in Amoy was mysteriously destroyed by fire. A few hours later Japanese marines landed from a warship that had been waiting in the harbor and occupied the city. Only the strongest British representations induced Japan to withdraw her troops and bring her first \"missions case\" to a close.\n\nA more subtle approach was already on its way. In 1899 the East Asian Cultural Alliance had been established to create an",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205124,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 80,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "FOREIGN RELATIONS OF BUDDHISM\n\n75\n\nanti-Western anti-Christian united front among the people of the East. Visits were exchanged with Buddhists in Thailand, China, and India. In 1904 Dr. Inoue Entyu, after returning from a trip to India, proposed that the Japanese should establish a great Confucian-Buddhist university that would serve the whole Buddhist world and maintain branches in Korea, China, and Mongolia.\n\nOther possibilities for work in China were opened that very year. The Ch'ing government had been encouraging local officials to confiscate monastic property and use it for the establishment of modern schools. Chinese monks were looking desperately for a way to save their property. At this juncture a Japanese priest named Mizuno Baigyo advised them to start schools of their own in order to \"get the jump\" on the confiscators. He and other Japanese also suggested that protection might be obtained by applying to the headquarters of the Higashi Honganji sect in Japan; and indeed, the latter was pleased to accept the affiliation of some thirty-five monasteries in Chekiang province towards the end of 1904.5 It sent its representatives to protect them. A test case soon arose. Part of one Hangchow monastery was about to be turned into a technical school. On January 10, 1905, with a blaze of firecrackers, a large wooden plaque was installed over its front gate, reading: \"General place of worship of the Imperial Japanese Shinshu-Honganji sect.\"\n\nThis caused deep consternation among literati and officials throughout the province. The governor appealed, without success, to the Japanese Consul. The Japanese priests stood pat on their passports. Peking wrung its hands, but said that the Japanese would have to be respected. All that the local officials accomplished was the removal of the plaque; Japanese protection remained in force.\n\nThis was the signal for general resistance by the monasteries of neighboring provinces against the confiscation of their property. In Fukien and Kwangtung they began to place themselves under Japanese protection. Such immunity was the latter believed to confer that in Canton, on February 26, 1905, a school established on monastery land was completely destroyed by a group of infuriated Buddhists. The newspaper Shen-pao castigated the insolence of Chinese monks in accepting Japanese protection",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205125,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 81,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "76\n\nHOLMES WELCH\n\nagainst their own laws and protested vigorously against Japanese interference, but to no avail.\n\nThese developments frightened the Chinese Government, which proceeded to cancel the authorization for its local officials to confiscate monastic property. The wave of affiliation with the Honganji died down. In any case, however, it had been limited to the area of the Treaty ports. Japan had tried to claim the same missionary rights elsewhere, invoking the \"most favoured nation\" clause, but without success. It failed again in 1915 when the fifth group of its Twenty-one Demands (including parity with Western missionaries) was rejected.\n\nIndeed, during the whole first twenty-five years of the Republican period, its missionary work in China was said to have been \"hindered by conditions” - a phrase that may allude to growing anti-Japanese feeling as well as to civil wars. Very few new temples were established. Therefore Tokyo turned its attention to the possibilities for ecumenical cooperation. In 1923-1924 the Japanese Foreign Ministry took an interest in the Buddhist conferences held at Lu Shan under the auspices of T'ai-hsü. In 1924 it arranged for Japanese delegates to be present and to offer their country as the venue for a similar conference the next year. Accordingly, the East Asian Buddhist Conference was held in Tokyo November 1-3, 1925. Twenty-one Chinese delegates attended, unofficially led by T'ai-hsü. The only other delegations were from Korea and Formosa with three members each. T'ai-hsü pointed out that whereas the Chinese excelled at religious cultivation, the Japanese excelled in organizing propaganda and community service. Thus the Buddhists of the two countries had complementary talents. A Sino-Japanese liaison committee was set up to put these talents to work, with Wang I-t'ing as the Chinese representative, and resolutions were passed to carry on work in the fields of education and social welfare. Also included in the conference was a symposium on Buddhist doctrine at which T'ai-hsü gave papers on the doctrine of alaya-vijnana and the secularization of Japanese Buddhism. Plans were made to hold the next East Asian Buddhist Conference in Peking--plans that never materialized.\n\nAfter the meeting the Chinese delegates were given an eighteen-day V.I.P. tour. Everywhere local government officials entertained",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205143,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 99,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "94\n\nHOLMES WELCH\n\nI have not heard of other monasteries in China that had such wide-spreading or deep-rooted connections overseas as Ku Shan. It may have been unique. But it was extremely common for monks and lay pilgrims to go back and forth between overseas Chinese communities and the \"famous mountains” at home. Even at Wu-t'ai Shan near the Inner Mongolian border, one could find pilgrims from Singapore. In 1936, when Tai Chi-t'ao was on his way back from Europe, he stopped in Manila to lay the cornerstone of a new Buddhist temple sponsored by a group of overseas Chinese who, since 1930, had been serving as Philippines distributor for a Buddhist publishing house in Soochow. Here as elsewhere in southeast Asia, Buddhism was a link with the motherland.\n\nNOTES\n\n1 James Troup, \"On the tenets of the Shinshiu or 'True Sect' of Buddhists,\" Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, 16 (June 1886), 14-16.\n\n2 Takada, Giko, Chusi shukyo daido renmei nenkan (Yearbook of the Great Harmony Religious Alliance of Central China), Shanghai, 1943, p. 10. I am obliged to Dr. Ho Kuan-chung for making this book available to me.\n\n3 Yang Jen-shan, Yang Jen-shang chü-shih i-chu (Works of upasaka Yang Jen-shang), Peking, 1923, 1:5. This temple appears to have gone out of existence at some later date, since the Nanking branch of Honganji mentioned by Takada (see preceding note) was set up in 1938. A Japanese temple in Changsha was noted by Hackmann in 1911 (German Scholar in the East, London, 1914, p. 108). This is also unlisted by Takada.\n\n4. Franke, “Die Propaganda des japanischen Buddhismus in China”, Ostasiatische Neubildungen, Hamburg, 1911, p. 159. This article by Franke is the source of most of the information given in the text, pp. 2-4.\n\n5 This episode is also referred to in Yin-shun, T'ai-hsü tashih nien-p'u, Hong Kong, 1950, p. 35-36, where thirteen monasteries in Hangchow alone were said to have become affiliated with the Honganji. More investigation is needed.\n\n6 Takada, p. 14.\n\n7 There were twenty-six Chinese delegates, according to Yin-shun, T'ai-hsü, p. 203. The official head of the Chinese delegation and Chinese vice-chairman of the conference was Tao-chieh, under whom T'ai-hsü had studied twenty years before (Yin-shun, T'ai-hsü, p. 26 ff). T'ai-hsü may be pardoned, perhaps, for giving people the impression that he was himself the chief of the delegation. (See, for example, Young East 1.6 (November 8, 1925), 177; T'ai-hsü Lectures on Buddhism, Paris, 1928, p. 14,\n\n8 Young East 1.6 (November 8, 1925), 179-180.\n\n9 This and other information given here on the East Asian Buddhist Conference comes largely from Young East 1.6 (November 8, 1925), 176-177.\n\n10 Tokiwa Daijo, Shina bukkyo shiseki kinen shu (Buddhist Monuments in China, Memorial Collection), Tokyo, 1931, p. 203.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205144,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 100,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "FOREIGN RELATIONS OF BUDDHISM\n\n11 Yin-shun, T'ai-hsü, p. 213.\n\n12 Eastern Buddhist 3.2 (July-September, 1924), 190.\n\n95\n\n13 Chinese lay devotees went to Japan to learn Tantric Buddhism from Shingon masters. Chinese monks went for academic study (two in 1936 and two more in early 1937; see Chinese Year Book 1937, Shanghai, 1937, p. 73.\n\n14 That is, the Chung-jih fo-chiao hui. At about the same time the Sino-Japanese Tantric Association (Ching-jih mi-chiao hui) was established. See Chinese Year Book 1937, p. 73.\n\n15 Takada, p. 14.\n\n16 Takada, p. 24-36, lists a total of eleven temples established between 1876 and 1937, but on p. 14 he speaks of ten temples having been set up before 1937 and of forty-nine (not forty-six) being in operation as of December, 1942. It seems clear that he does not include temples that have gone out of operation, like those in Nanking and Changsha (see note 2), and possibly those in Fukien. The only temple outside Shanghai that survived from the era before 1937 was the Honganji temple in Hankow, established 1906, which in 1942 had 1,200 Japanese and 150 Chinese parishioners.\n\n17 For example, in 1942 at the original Honganji temple in Shanghai the number of Japanese parishioners was 4,930 and the number of Chinese was zero. This temple was obviously not engaged in missionary work, but exclusively in serving the Japanese community.\n\n18 Two officers of the Ching-an Ssu in Shanghai are said to have been arrested and in Canton the abbot of the Liu-jung Ssu, T'ieh-ch'an, was executed.\n\n19 H. G. Quaritch Wales, \"Buddhism As an Instrument of Japanese Propaganda\" Free World 5.5 (May 1943), 428.\n\n20 Takada, p. 1, states that the alliance was set up in April 1937 in accordance with the policy formulated in October 1938. Perhaps the first date is a misprint.\n\n21 Takada, pp. 1, 4, 5. The changes in the bureaucratic status of the Great Harmony Religious Alliance appear to have been as follows. After being set up under the military authorities, it was transferred to the liaison office of the Central China Liaison Office of the Office for the Resurgence of Asia (Koain), which had been set up in December 1938 directly under the Cabinet in order to formulate policy on and handle relations with China. In April 1942 the Alliance was placed under the supervision of the Foreign Ministry through its representatives in Shanghai. In November 1942 it seems to have been returned to the Office for the Resurgence of Asia, when the latter was integrated into the Ministry for Great East Asian Co-Prosperity.\n\n22 Takada, pp. 24-36.\n\n23 The most significant absentee was Yüan-ying, the national head of the Chinese Buddhist Association (Shanghai, 1929).\n\n24 H. Hackmann, A German Scholar in the East, pp. 118-119. John Blofeld, who visited Wu-t'ai Shan in 1937, describes a monastery with several hundred monks where \"the main pavilion... was arranged in the Chinese way, but many services were held in a smaller building where purely Tibetan rites were performed\" (Jewel in the Lotus, London, 1948, p. 97).\n\n25 Fa-p'u, a disciple of Ta-yung, is stated to have reached Lhasa and earned a ko-hsi degree. Yin-shun, T'ai-hsü, p. 17.\n\n26 Chinese Year Book 1937 (Shanghai, 1937), p. 73.\n\n27 Shirob Jaltso, for example, was a member of the People's Political Council (1938-1949); an alternate member of the Kuomintang Sixth Super-",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    }
]