[
    {
        "id": 205127,
        "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": 83,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "78\n\nHOLMES WELCH\n\nFor the next ten years Buddhist exchanges happily continued between the two countries. Japanese scholars toured China to collect material on Buddhist history and art, while Chinese went to Japan to study.13 Probably in 1936 (and at any rate before the Japanese invasion) the Sino-Japanese Buddhist Association was formed.14 It would not be too cynical to suppose that the Japanese viewed it as an instrument for political penetration, while the Chinese hoped to use it to mobilize Buddhist opinion in Japan against that country's aggressive policy.\n\nWhile the invasion of central China in 1937 put an end to voluntary cooperation with Chinese Buddhists, it increased Japanese opportunities to get cooperation under pressure and enlarged the scope of their missionary activity. As one Japanese source puts it, \"where the Japanese army went, Japanese religion went too.\"15\n\nWhile in the preceding sixty years about a dozen permanent temples had been established, nearly all in Shanghai, no less than thirty-five were opened between 1937 and 1942, not only in Shanghai, but in Nanking (six temples), Hankow (four), Hangchow (three), Soochow (two), Wuhu (two), Wusih (two), Chen-chiang, Kiukiang, Yangchow, Changchow, and many smaller cities. Most of the parishioners were Japanese — in three cases entirely so17 — but at four temples out of five there were at least a few Chinese parishioners and at one out of six the Chinese were in a majority; in other words, these were really missions.\n\nNot all Chinese monks and devotees could follow their government to Szechwan. Those who remained had to cope with the realities of foreign occupation. They had no choice but to welcome the increasing number of Japanese priests who came to work in China, living in Chinese monasteries or in Japanese research institutes, and in return they went to Japan themselves. In 1939, for example, over twenty Chinese monks were selected by competitive examination. As one of them told me in an interview, he was twenty-two at the time and had been serving as a sacristan (i-po) at Chin Shan. He wanted to go partly because he was curious about the state of Japanese Buddhism. Also he believed that if he learned the language, he would be better equipped to cope with the occupation forces on his return. “If I knew Japanese, they would not be able to bully me. I would be able to reason with them.” After qualifying in the examination,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205129,
        "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": 85,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "80\n\nHOLMES WELCH\n\nFederation. In April 1941 the Alliance helped arrange an East Asian Buddhist conference in Nanking, and then tried to reactivate the Chinese Buddhist Association (Shanghai, 1929) — apparently without success. It also sponsored some of the Chinese who went to Japan for study.\n\nJapanese-Chinese Buddhist associations set up by the Alliance were to be found in Nanking, Shanghai, Hangchow, Wusih, Soochow, Chen-chiang, Changshu, Pengpu, Nantung, Wuhu, Hofei, and Kiukiang. They were staffed by three categories of personnel: Chinese monks, Japanese priests, and local Chinese officials. If the head was in one category, his deputies would be in the other two. Among the membership the sangha (mostly Chinese) generally outnumbered the laity. The work of these associations is variously described as relief, arranging lectures, and providing guidance for seminaries and devotees' clubs.22 The real work, of course, was mobilizing China's Buddhists in support of Japanese policy.\n\nAlthough the membership included the Panchen Lama from Tibet and the Living Buddha Chang-chia from Mongolia, only a few well-known Chinese monks appear to have been involved. Among them was Shuang-t'ing, the abbot of Chin Shan, who headed the Japanese-Chinese Buddhist Association in Chen-chiang.23 According to one of his disciples the Japanese authorities told him quite frankly that if he refused this post, there would be \"very serious consequences.\" Shuang-t'ing felt that his first duty was to protect Chin Shan, doubly vulnerable since Nationalist officers had been hidden in a cave there during the Japanese attack. Hence he accepted.\n\nOne reason for his decision was that the parent body, the Great Harmony Alliance, was committed to \"do its best when Chinese monasteries and temples applied for protection.\" According to several informants, it generally succeeded. Well-known Buddhist institutions that cooperated with the Japanese encountered few difficulties. Some of the occupation forces behaved badly (one soldier killed a monk at Chin Shan, for example, \"because of a language difficulty\"), but most of those who visited the immense shrines seem to have treated them with respect or reverence.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 207281,
        "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-1975",
        "page_number": 49,
        "title": "RAS-1975",
        "content_text": "MERCHANT ORGANISATIONS IN IMPERIAL CHINA\n\n41\n\n5 Ho Ping-ti, \"Salient Aspects of China's Heritage,\" in Ping-ti Ho and Tang Tsou, eds., China in Crisis (Chicago, 1968), I. 1:34-35; Ho Ping-ti, Hui-kuan shih-lun, pp. 33-34, 37-40.\n\n6 See John Fincher's article on provincialism in Mary C. Wright, ed. China in Revolution: The First Phase, 1900-1913 (New Haven, 1968).\n\n7 Ezra F. Vogel and Tamako Yagai, “Japanese Studies of Chinese Guilds,\" unpublished paper delivered at the Seminar on Problems of Micro-Organs in Chinese Society, 1963; Peter J. Golas, \"Early Ch'ing Gilds,” unpublished paper delivered at the Conference on Urban Society in Traditional China, 1968.\n\n8 Ch'üan Han-sheng, Hang-hui chih-tu, pp. 99-101; Peng Chang, “Distribution of Provincial Merchant Groups in China, 1842-1911,\" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, 1958), pp. 51-55.\n\n9 The others were from (1) Chihli, (2) Shantung, (3) Nanking, (4) Wusih and (5) the Shansi bankers. See A. M. Kotenev, Shanghai: Its Mixed Court and Council (Shanghai, 1925), p. 253 n.\n\n10 Lai Lien-san, Hsiang-kang chih-lüeh (A brief account of Hong Kong) (Hong Kong, 1931), 115-17\n\n11 For a detailed account, see Fang Teng, \"Yü Hsia-ch'ing lun,\" (On Yu Hsia-ch'ing) in Tsa-chih Yüeh-k'an (Monthly miscellany), 12.2:46-51 (Nov. 1943); 12.3:62-67 (Dec. 1943); 12.4:59-64 (Jan. 1944).\n\n12 P'eng Tse-i, \"Shih-chiu shih-chi hou-ch'i Chung-kuo ch'eng-shih shou-kung-yeh shang-yeh hsing-hui ti chung-chien ho tso-yung\" (The revival and function of urban handicraft and commercial organizations in late nineteenth century China), Li-shih yen-chiu (Historical studies) 1:71-102 (1965).\n\n13 T'ung-chih Shang-hai hsien-chih (Gazetteer of the Shanghai County for the T'ung-chih reign), ed. Yü Yueh (n.p., 1871), 2:21-28.\n\n14 Ibid.\n\n15 Nan-hai hsien-chih (Gazetteer of the Nan-hai County), eds. Chang Feng-chieh, et al. (n.p., 1910), 6:106-13.\n\n16 Sixtieth Anniversary of the Tungwah Hospital: A Commemorative Issue (Hong Kong, 1930).\n\n17 They were Ai-yü, Kuang-chi, Kuang-jen, Ch'ung-cheng, Shu-shan, Ming-shan, Hui-hsing, Fang-pien, Jun-shen.\n\n18 \"Reports of the Special Committee appointed by H.E. Sir William Robinson, KCMG, to investigate and report on certain points connected with the Bills for the Incorporation of the Po Leung Kuk, a Society for the Protection of Women and Girls\" (Hong Kong, 1893).\n\n19 E.g. see Hsiang-shan hsien-chih hsü-pien (A continuation of the Gazetteer of the Hsiang-shan County), ed. Li Shih-ch'in (n.p., 1923), 4:18a-20b, in which it is stated that a number were founded during the Kuang-hsü reign (1875-1908).\n\n20 Song Ong Siong. One Hundred Years' History of the Chinese in Singapore (Singapore, 1967), pp. 277, 309, 424, 432; George W. Skinner, Leadership and Power in the Chinese Community of Thailand (Ithaca, 1958), pp. 2-13.\n\n21 Nan-hai hsien-chih, 6:10b.\n\n22 Shang-hai hsien hsü-chih (A continuation of the Gazetteer of the Shanghai County), ed. Yao Wen-nan (Shanghai, 1918), 2:38a.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1975.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j0995146d",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211649,
        "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-1989",
        "page_number": 64,
        "title": "RAS-1989",
        "content_text": "39\n\nmajor festival held every five years, hence their title. The ten are Chang (H), Hsu (1), Keng (I), Wu (5), Ho (FPJ), Hsuch (B‡), Feng (B), Chao (#), T'an (M) and Lu (F).\n\nThe generally accepted leader of the Pestilence Wang Yeh is Chih Wang Yeh (1) who is also known by other honorifics, as are other Pestilence Wang Yeh, as Chih Fu Wang Yeh (b); Chih Fu Yuan Shuai (EBD); Chih Fu Ch'ien Sui (af); Chih Fu Tai Hsun (£FF{X); Chih Ch'ien Sui (-1) or Tai T'ien Chin Fu (RX##). In Singapore and Malaysia a not uncommon title for the Pestilence Wang Yeh is 'Great One' (Ta Jen AA), a title more frequently given to non-Pestilence Wang Yeh in Taiwan. In Ang Mo Kio in Singapore three Pestilence Wang Yeh, Li, Liu and Chin who occupy the main altar are referred to both as Ta Jen and Wang Yeh in temple notices. They are prayed to not only for protection from disease but also for tranquility in the home. In Taiwan and South-East Asia a number of what would be non-Pestilence Wang Yeh in Fukienese communities are referred to as Lao Yeh (Em) and Ta Jen. They are mainly in Hakka communities and are very local deified and revered worthies.\n\nPestilence Wang Yeh are identifiable by the honorific 'Touring and Inspecting on behalf of Heaven' (Tai T'ien Hsun Shou X). The various other titles borne by Pestilence Wang Yeh in Taiwan include Tsun Wang (Honourable Prince), with the three on the altar being the First, Second and Third Honourable Princes (AZE); Ch'ien Sui (Prince or Excellency T); En Wang (Prince of KindnessE); Wang Kung (Prince 4), and 'An Emissary for Disaster Relief' (Hsing Ts'ai Shih Chih 77(K).\n\nA number of temple keepers differentiate between a Wang Yeh and a Ch'ien Sui. The former they claim to be permanent whilst Ch'ien Sui are only temporarily on Earth 'for less than one thousand years'. The Wang Yeh are said to be the senior, promoted on orders from Heaven, whilst the Ch'ien Sui are deities promoted by popular acclaim. They are, however, prayed to in the same way, for the same things and with the same results. The latter are also the patrons of sorcerers (wushih ZEL) who use them as a go-between between them and their spiritual contacts. There is little functional differentiation as all are believed to be capable of fending off disasters and curing sickness.\n\nIn one instance, and probably in others too, the full title of a particular",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h",
        "rank": 0
    }
]