The Common Ground Between Japanese and Korean Buddhism in the Early Modern Period: Changes in the Perception of the Mechanism of the State–Buddhist Relationship

Abstract

The East Asian world has shared both universal characteristics and regional particularities, forming a Buddhist cultural area for more than 1500 years. One of the main features of East Asian Buddhism is a “state–Buddhist link”. This article will focus on the early modern period, and on the periphery, Korea and Japan, rather than the center, China. If we can identify the attributes of the institutional connection between the state and Buddhism in this peripheral area of the East Asian world, and in a period when Buddhism was less prominent than before, we can understand it as a long-term universal characteristic of East Asian Buddhist cultures. In this article, I have tried to locate the common ground between Japanese and Korean Buddhism in the early modern period at two points: the change in the perception of Buddhism in the early modern period and the mechanism of the relationship between the state and Buddhism. The common ground here is that there is a movement in the two countries to break away from the negative perception of Buddhism in the early modern period and approach its historical reality. In terms of the mechanism of the relationship between the state and Buddhism, the Edo period saw the implementation of the temple parish system, which linked temples and people in each region, allowing the shogunate to indirectly control the people, while each sect was able to establish financial stability and thus its sectarian identity. In late Chosŏn, the institutionalization of the monk state service allowed the state to utilize the monk labor force and the surplus goods of the temples, and in return, the Buddhist community was allowed to rather peacefully exist in Confucian society. This shows that there was a close relationship between the two. There are many differences between Japanese and Korean Buddhism in the early modern period, but they share the characteristics of state Buddhism, where the state and Buddhism were institutionally related. The mechanism of the win–win relationship between the state and Buddhism can be understood as a universal characteristic of East Asian Buddhist history beyond Japan and Korea in the early modern period.

1. Introduction

China, Korea, and Japan have formed a Buddhist cultural area in East Asia for more than 1500 years, sharing both universal and regional characteristics. A Buddhist cultural area is defined as a region where there is a long-established cultural tradition with common Buddhist elements in many fields, including beliefs and rituals, afterlife views, philosophical ideas, and art and architecture. Recent studies of Buddhism’s relationship to political power and governance in East Asia have explored how members of Buddhist communities were associated with the ruling of the kingdom, revealing how scriptures, ideas, institutions, and material culture were used to legitimize rulers and defend regimes in the region (Balkwill and Benn 2022). As such, a state–Buddhist link has been identified as a key characteristic of Buddhism in East Asia. However, they just deal with the relationship between East Asian countries and Buddhism in ancient and medieval times through a few examples, and thus have limitations in drawing an overall picture from a diachronic perspective.

In this article, I will focus on the early modern period, rather than the heyday of Buddhism in ancient or medieval times, and on Korea and Japan, which are the periphery of East Asia, rather than China, which is the center. The early modern period is a term coined in modern times in the field of Japanese history to refer to a period of time sandwiched between the medieval and modern eras. The 17th and 19th century Edo period in Japan and the late Chosŏn dynasty in Korea are typically considered to be the early modern periods that constitute the period of “transition to modernity”. Since China and the pre-medieval period are a stereotypical region and a time period that show the close tie between the state and Buddhism in East Asia, we will focus on Japan and Korea in the early modern period to examine whether attributes of state Buddhism can be applied to this area and time.

It is important to note that the early modern period in Japan and Korea has not been a major focus of East Asian Buddhist scholarship. Even researchers with some knowledge of East Asian Buddhism, perhaps even specialists in Japanese Buddhism and Korean Buddhism, respectively, often do not have specific information about the history of Buddhism in the neighboring country of their focus during the 17th and 19th centuries. Their understanding is often limited to the conventional narrative, for example, that the Chosŏn government suppressed Buddhism in favor of Confucianism as the state ideology and Buddhism went into decline but remained influential as a folk religion, or that the Edo Shogunate maintained social order through the Buddhist Church and Buddhism played a large social and cultural role as a mainstream religion.

In fact, few full-scale attempts have been made to directly compare the characteristics of Japanese and Korean Buddhism in the early modern period. Therefore, if we can identify the attribute of the institutional connection between the state and Buddhism in this peripheral area of the East Asian world and in a period when Buddhism was less prominent than before, we can understand it as a long-term universal characteristic of East Asian Buddhist cultures. It will also provide clues for conducting comparative historical studies that go beyond historical studies focusing only on one country and thus look at East Asia as one world.

This article explores the common ground between Japanese and Korean Buddhism in the early modern period through the mechanism of the relationship between the state and Buddhism. It first examines early modern Buddhist studies and changes in the perception of Buddhist history in Japan and Korea to find common ground between the two. In particular, noting that both Japan and Korea experienced a shift in their perception of the early modern period, the article introduces various attempts to approach the historical reality of the time by breaking away from the theory of negation and decline. The article then examines the main contents of Buddhist policies in Japan and Korea in the early modern period to draw out common characteristics: the link between the shogunate (bakuhu 幕府) and Buddhist sects through the relationship of the temple parish (jidan 寺檀) system in the Edo period, and the close relationship between the Chosŏn government’s utilization of the monk labor force and the existence of Buddhism, confirming that the attributes of state Buddhism constituted a powerful binding force in Japan and Korea during this period.

2. Changes in the Perception of Buddhist History in the Early Modern Period in Japan and Korea

2.1. Revisiting Edo Buddhism Beyond the Negative View in the Early Modern Period

In the late 19th century, Japan began to study Buddhism in a different way than before, adopting the methodology of modern Western Buddhist studies. The core of this approach was to objectively identify the original teachings of the Buddha and the historical development of Buddhism based on primary texts. However, this approach was subject to the inherent limitations of the European orientalist view of the East—namely, the danger of otherizing the other world, understanding it only as an object of study and overlooking local historical contexts and living, embedded traditions (Shimoda 2005, pp. 252–77). A text-centered epistemological approach, disconnected from the contextuality, could have resulted in an overly a priori and schematic understanding of “traditional Buddhism”, either positive or negative. In the case of Japan, an early perception was made that Kamakura Buddhism, which had formed the framework for sectarian Buddhism, was understood in a positive light, while Edo Buddhism was viewed in a negative light because it could not develop under shogunate control. It was also the perception of Buddhist history in the present context that the orientation of Kamakura New Buddhism had skipped the early modern period and led directly to modern Meiji Buddhism. In this modern view of Buddhist history, Buddhism in the early modern period was a symbol of old conventions that could be stigmatized as irrationality and pre-modernity, and an object to be overcome (Fukushima 2012, pp. 117–45).

In Japan, the “theory of the Buddhist decline of the early modern period” or the “theory of the decadence of monks” began to emerge as early as the end of the 19th century. The 1895 book, Shinsen Nihon Bukkyō rekishi 新撰日本佛敎歷史 (Newly Compiled History of Japanese Buddhism), comments on Buddhism in the Edo period, saying, “Buddhism’s decline reached its ultimate point when it was favored by the government and existed in comfort without worries in the territories of the shogunate and the feudal lords (hanshu 藩主), controlling and subjugating people’s minds through authoritative force” (Aizawa and Watanabe 1895, p. 13). Sensho Murakami 村上専精 (1851–1929), who opened the door to modern historical studies of Buddhism in Japan, also traced the Meiji government’s separation of Shinto and Buddhism and anti-Buddhist movement to the corruption of Edo monks caused by the shogunate’s policies (Klautau 2012, pp. 83–118). During the Meiji period, when Japan was striving towards modernization, the idea that monks should awaken, change, and revive the previously decayed Buddhism became widespread, and in such an atmosphere, Buddhism of the early modern period was seen as something to be altered, denied, and defeated.

Tsuji Zennosuke 辻善之助 (1877–1955), who laid the foundation for the study of Japanese Buddhist history, put together these perceptions and brought to the fore the “degeneration theory of early modern Buddhism. Tsuji’s 10-volume Nihon Bukkyō shi 日本佛敎史 (History of Japanese Buddhism) remains a classic introductory text, and his view of Buddhism in the early modern period in the book can be summarized in a single sentence: “Buddhism became deformed and corrupted under the protection of the shogunate”. For Tsuji, early modern Buddhism was characterized as a formalized Buddhism, a Buddhism paralyzed by being stuck in habitual routines, a Buddhism steeped in secularization. He characterized early modern Buddhism as a formalized funeral Buddhism that was maintained by the temple parish system through the medium of funeral, while the syncretism of Shinto and Buddhism and the practice of praying for personal well-being were dismissed as an incantatory and superstitious tradition (Nihon 2000, pp. 47–61). Tsuji emphasized above all that monks in the early modern period became corrupted because of their failure to observe the precepts (Tsuji 1949, p. 77). As a result, early modern Buddhism was portrayed as a dark age of decline under the control of state power, with no progress in doctrinal development and no enhancement of the faith; in other words, early modern Buddhism was characterized as an incantatory alteration and a corrupted pre-modern legacy to be denied before the rational light of the modern period.

After Tsuji, the negative perception of Buddhism in the early modern period was entrenched in Japan. However, with the advancement of socioeconomic historical research in postwar historical studies, Buddhist history research using local sources began in earnest in the 1960s. In other words, empirical and methodological research was carried out that examines the relationship between local communities and temples and identifies the close relationship between Buddhism and the people. This was followed in the 1970s and 1980s by criticism of the schematic degeneration theory and attempts to overcome it. There was a recognition of the need to find the distinctive value of early modern Buddhism while questioning what it really was (Hayashi 1982). In addition, as interest expanded to various areas and topics of early modern Buddhism that Tsuji had not addressed, there was also a shared sense of the need to elucidate the actual meaning of sect, region, status, and class. As a result, fundamental questions were raised about the ideas of the formalization of Buddhism and the corruption of monks. As the fact that doctrinal studies and propagation efforts had been actively carried out was found, there were also rebuttals to the notion that the phenomenon of formalization and corruption only applies to the early modern period (Ueno 2009).

Tamamuro Fumio 圭室文雄 believed that the Edo period was a period of state Buddhism, in which all people became Buddhists through the temple parish system and funeral performed in the temple and were protected and controlled by the shogunate through the head-branch system. Meanwhile, he argued that the mainstay of folk faith shifted from the temple of formalized funerals to the temple of prayers, which preached secular benefits (Tamamuro 1987, pp. 343–46). This is to note that the religious uniqueness of folk faith was still revealed despite the shogunate’s policy impositions.

The study of Buddhism in the early modern period was conducted in various fields, with significant achievements in political and regional history as well as in the history of thought. The study of the history of thought was led by Okuwa Hitoshi 大桑齊, who cast light upon the precepts and put emphasis on mind learning in the Edo period (Ōkuwa 1989). In the 2000s, the issue of the publication of Buddhist texts in the Edo period was widely studied from the perspective of social and cultural history by Hikino Kyosuke 引野亨輔 and Mannami Hisako 万波寿子 (Hikino 2007; Manami 2018). As such, early modern Buddhism has been recognized for its value that it institutionally and ideologically formed the prototype of modern and contemporary Japanese Buddhism and shaped the basis of religion and ethics, and new studies of early modern Buddhism, therefore, continue to emerge.

One issue that needs to be pointed out here is that since the end of the 20th century, as modernism has been reconsidered in Japan, it has been recognized that the history of early modern Buddhism should exclude the perspective of modernity and illuminate the early modern period itself. For example, Nishimura Ryo 西村玲 found secularization to be the hallmark of Buddhism in the early modern period, using the early Edo Zen master Suzuki Shōzan’s 鈴木正三 (1579–1655) statement that “secular life itself is Buddha-dharma”1, and saw the task of studying early modern thought as revealing the actual process of the massive secularization (Nishimura 2018). Here, secularization is not a matter of values from a modern perspective, but a historical reality revealed in the context of the early modern period. Sueki Fumihiko 末木文美士, a Buddhist scholar and researcher of Japanese modern thought, also suggested that early modern Buddhism, which pursued secularization, settled into the times and society in a way that was consistent with the Japanese sense of religion, so it is problematic to see it as decadent and argued that it should be re-discussed from the beginning (Sueki 1992, pp. 170–77).

Thus, efforts were made to move beyond the negative schematization of Tsuji’s theory of the decadence of early modern Buddhism, which had become a general perception for a considerable period of time. Hozawa Naohide 朴澤直秀 noted that the general perception of early modern Buddhism was constructed through several processes, and his research sought to change the conventional schematic understanding of early modern Buddhism that had been made through such notions as the temple registration (terauke 寺請) and head-branch systems, imposed by the shogunate to control the temples, as well as funeral Buddhism indicating that the major role of the Edo temples was to perform a funeral. He argued that it was not only the shogunate power that influenced temple policy, but also the gradual circulation and accumulation of information among temples, sects, and local communities. He also added that the role of performing a funeral was not guaranteed but was gradually acquired through competition between sects and temples (Hozawa 2015, 2019).

2.2. Overcoming the Decline Theory of Chosŏn Buddhism and Reconstructing Its History

Japanese Buddhism began to advance to Chosŏn in the late 1870s, with the establishment of Jodo Shin sect (Jodo Shinshū) in Pusan. After experiencing firsthand the reality of Chosŏn, which many sects of Japanese Buddhism had only read about in books, one account from the early 1890s states, “Chosŏn Buddhism is not a funeral Buddhism that is connected to the state, but only practices prayer and the maintenance of temples is based on the mountain and farmland properties they own, not based on offerings. In addition, monks are not in need of food, producing themselves raw silk, honey, paper, etc.” (Sasaki 1891, p. 27). Here, we can see that he clearly recognized the difference between Japanese Buddhism, which was centered on temple parishioners and funerals for them, and Chosŏn Buddhism, which was financially based on land ownership and agricultural production. Furthermore, the images of Chosŏn monks in the eyes of the Japanese at the time were that Chosŏn monks engaged in military service and various forms of corvee labor, not being allowed to enter the capital city, and thus, they belonged to a very low social status group compared to Japanese monks.

The Japanese perception of Chosŏn Buddhism was summarized in booklets in the mid-1890s. Kato Bunkyo加藤文教, a missionary of the Japanese Nichiren sect (Nichiren-shū), claimed that Buddhism gradually declined in Chosŏn because the state adopted Confucianism as its official ideology that condemned Buddhism and monks (Katō 1894, p. 27). In a similar vein, Sato Ryuho 佐藤隆豊 saw the current decline as a result of the state’s promotion of Confucianism and rejection of Buddhism (Satō 1895, pp. 32–33). This perception of the decline of Buddhism during the 500 years of Chosŏn due to government persecution differed from the actual history, but such a simple schema was established early on in the Japanese view of Chosŏn Buddhism. After the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895, the negative image of Chosŏn monks was also reinforced, and it was emphasized that Japanese Buddhism was responsible for reviving the declining Chosŏn Buddhism (Hirokazu 2024). The Japanese Buddhist community of the time tried to justify its expansion into Chosŏn and its missionary activities by describing Chosŏn Buddhism as economically poor and backward2. Furutani Kiyoshi’s 古谷淸 Chosen Richō bukkyōshi gaisetsu 朝鮮李朝佛敎史槪說 (Brief History of Chosŏn Buddhism), published in the early 1910s, continued the previous discussions and summarized that the Chosŏn policy of promoting Confucianism and rejecting Buddhism had led to Buddhism being the faith of only women and commoners (Furutani 1911–1912). His summary of Chosŏn Buddhism as “a history of the decay of Buddhism” became the basic premise for subsequent views of Chosŏn Buddhism.

The perception that Buddhism was relegated to the margins and declined as the Chosŏn government brought Confucianism to the forefront was widespread in the early 20th century. The editorial of the Taehan maeil sinbo 大韓每日申報 (Korean Daily News) on 16 October 1906, says “Korea revered Confucianism and suppressed Buddhism during the 500 years of the Chosŏn dynasty, causing Buddhism to decline greatly, while Japan worshipped Buddhism so much that Buddhist statues were placed in every house and Buddhist scriptures were recited, making Buddhism the religion of that country”3. In the early modern period, Chosŏn was perceived as a Confucian country, contrasted with Edo Japan as a Buddhist country. The view of Chosŏn Buddhism as an outmoded tradition, a legacy of the past that needed to be broken with, was also shared by Buddhists themselves. Kwŏn Sangro 權相老 (1879–1965), a renowned Buddhist scholar of the time, argued that Chosŏn Buddhism requires major reform, saying that Buddhist followers should “revolutionize the old conventions of Korean Buddhism, which are seclusion, closedness, and lack of development, and uproot the dependent and obedient attitude” (Kwŏn 1912–1913).

As Korea fell under Japanese colonial rule, the mainstream of the Korean Buddhist community, influenced by Japanese Buddhism, recognized the revival of Buddhism as an immediate task, working to transform their religion into a modern religion. The Buddhist community, which had not held a significant position in the Confucian society of Chosŏn, found it more important and urgent to adapt to modern civilization and ensure the survival of Buddhism than to preserve the Korean Buddhist tradition. Perhaps because of this, Korean Buddhist monks and scholars in the early 20th century had little academic interest in Buddhism during the Chosŏn dynasty. They rather stigmatized traditional Buddhism as an outdated legacy that should be discarded and denied, with a perception that Chosŏn Buddhism had declined and been oppressed (Y.-t. Kim 2021, pp. 27–31).

However, Yi Nŭnghwa 李能和 (1869–1943) saw the Chosŏn dynasty as an important period in the formation of the identity of Korean Buddhism. Although he acknowledged that Buddhism declined during this period, he praised the fact that the vitality of Buddhism was maintained through the unification of Sŏn and Kyo and the transmission of the Buddhist tradition and its religious activities (N. Yi 1917, 1924–1926). His magnum opus, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa 朝鮮佛敎通史 (Comprehensive History of Korean Buddhism) of 1918, was a vast collection of materials related to Korean Buddhism. While raising the need for a systematic understanding of the history of Korean Buddhism, the book also outlines the basic framework of Korean Buddhist history with Yi’s commentary and evaluation (N. Yi 1918).

Takahashi Toru 高橋亨 (1878–1967), who became a leading researcher of Buddhism of the Chosŏn period, had decided to study Chosŏn Buddhism in the early 1910s. In the summer of 1912, when he was working as a commissioned researcher of religions and books for the Japanese Government-General of Korea, he went to Temple Wŏlchŏngsa 月精寺 in Mt. Odae, Kangwŏn province, to investigate the historical archive where the Chosŏn wangjo sillok (Veritable Records of the Chosŏn Dynasty) was housed. He was impressed by the dozens of monks practicing and studying at Wŏlchŏngsa and its neighboring temple Sangwŏnsa 上院寺, which led him to study Chosŏn Buddhism, as he later said, “Chosŏn Buddhism has been deprived of its religious function in society due to the government’s rejection, and it seems to have died completely, isolated in the mountains, but when I come to a large temple deep in the mountains, I am filled with the atmosphere of the supramundane world” (Takahashi 1929). Since then, Takahashi had conducted research on a variety of topics, including the development of Buddhist schools and practices, monks’ militia, and the current situation of temples. However, he inherited a negative perception of Chosŏn Buddhism as a religion that lost its social roles and became the faith of marginalized groups, such as women and the common people (Takahashi 1921). He maintained a perception of “a bizarre history of being deprived of its ecclesiastical authority by the state, insulted and oppressed” (Takahashi 1936).

Takahashi, who became a professor at Kyŏngsŏng Imperial University in 1926, characterized Korean Buddhism in his book, Richō Bukkyō 李朝佛敎 (Chosŏn Buddhism) of 1929, as “dependent” and “stagnant”, and criticized it as merely a transplant of Chinese Buddhism in terms of doctrine. Takahashi’s view of Chosŏn Buddhism was, in general, negative, based on the theory of decline. He divided the Chosŏn period into three periods in terms of the rise and fall of Buddhism: the first period was up to the 15th century when Buddhism was suppressed but state-sanctioned; the second period was to the first half of the 17th century when the official ecclesiastical administrative system had disappeared but Buddhism had not yet declined and renowned monks still appeared; and the third period was the period after the mid-17th century, when Buddhism’s power had completely collapsed and monks were despised4.

Takahashi also viewed the status of monks in the late Chosŏn period as one of the eight low statuses, being treated no better than the lowborn and forbidden to even enter the city. He said that he based his view on the words of old monks and literati, but that there was no foundation for the concept of the eight low statuses or that monks were treated as one of the lowborn peoples within the Chosŏn state’s legal codes or official documents (Takahashi 1929, pp. 548–49). Furthermore, he said that Buddhism in the late Chosŏn dynasty had completely lost its social roles, only leaving traces in folkloric stories, and that while Buddhism was banned by state order, Confucianism alone came to dominate people’s minds, a history unprecedented in the East5.

After the liberation of Korea in 1945, Buddhism in Chosŏn was not the main focus of Korean historical and Buddhist studies, so it took a long time for new research to emerge that broke away from the “negative perception” of Chosŏn Buddhism. Only after 2000, while the “schema of the suppression and decline of Buddhism” became common knowledge, new interpretations of the history and characteristics of Chosŏn Buddhism have been attempted through research on a variety of topics6. As a result, many achievements have been made in tracing the historical realities of Buddhism, exploring the identity of the Buddhist order, the succession of complex traditions such as Sŏn and Kyo, the Confucian–Buddhist exchanges in a Confucian society, the ecclesiastical system with temples and monks, state Buddhist policies and temple economy, and Buddhist texts and other materials7.

Previously, it was commonly believed that Buddhism in Chosŏn had declined due to the state’s anti-Buddhist policy and, especially in the later period, that the state did not recognize any Buddhist schools, which resulted in various forms of exploitation such as monk taxes and corvee labor imposition, and that the treatment of monks was very poor. In contrast, recent studies have emphasized that the state administrative system of the Buddhist order was maintained as an official system, even though it was intended to control and shrink the order, and have revealed specifically how the state policies of the monk certification and monk exam were operated. These studies have also emphasized that in the late Chosŏn period, the monk taxation and labor enforcement were institutionally operated in conjunction with the state tax system, and although it was burdensome, the Buddhist community was able to secure its legitimate existence in the society, while the state utilized monks and temples.

Buddhism was a mainstay of tradition alongside Confucianism during the Chosŏn period, and it has important historical significance in that it formed the prototype of modern contemporary Korean Buddhism. Therefore, as the research progresses, it can provide clues for a new interpretation of the history of the Chosŏn period and help us understand the religious thoughts and ideas of people in pre-modern Korea.

3. Buddhist Policies and Attributes of State Buddhism in Japan and Korea from the 17th to 19th Century

3.1. The Institutional Connection Between the Shogunate and the Buddhist Order Through the Temple Parish System

During the Kamakura period, from the late 12th century to the first half of the 14th century, in addition to the established sects such as Tendai-shū and Shingon-shū, new Buddhist sects emerged, and many changes occurred in doctrine, belief, and social activities. This is called “Kamakura New Buddhism”, and it was at this time that the Pure Land sects of Jodo-shū and Jodo Shinshū were established, as well as the Zen sects of Rinzai-shū and Sōtō-shū, along with Nichiren-shū, which emphasized the Lotus Sutra and aimed to build a Buddha Land. In the following Muromachi period, the state temples (kanji 官寺) of the five mountains (gozan 五山) and ten temples (jissatsu 十刹) were set up in Kamakura and Kyōto, and the five-mountain literature became popular. The Zen sects thrived as Rinzai became a major sect and Sōtō expanded its influence in the local society (Minowa 2017, pp. 97–184).

After the Sengoku period in the 16th century, the Edo period, which began in the early 17th century, saw the establishment of the shogunate system and the strengthening of Buddhist control by the shogunate, and the Buddhist order and political power came into close contact, with the order maintaining its authority under the protection of the state. Tamamura Fumio 圭室文雄 argued that while the Buddha’s law dominated the medieval period, the king’s law trumped the Buddha’s law in the early modern period. He added that, in the Edo period, everyone became a Buddhist through the parish system enforced by the shogunate, so it can be seen as the era of state Buddhism. He went on to say that, until the medieval period, it was possible to study across sects, but in the early modern period, the exclusivity of each sect was strengthened in a hierarchical governance structure in which each sect managed its own branch temples from the head temple in the center (Tamamuro 1987, pp. 1–7).

We will examine the major policies, institutions, and consequent developments that the shogunate initiated in relation to the nature of Edo Buddhism from three perspectives. First, there is the temple parish system, which, in a broad sense, refers to the relationship or practice between temples and parish households (danka 檀家) or patrons (danna 檀那) and, in a narrower sense, refers to the political system centered on temple registration (terauke 寺請), which regulated the relationship between temples and parish households or patrons. In this context, the patrons were lay members and parish households were the individual households grouped together into the patrons of specific temples in the area. The connection between temples and their parishioners was made through temple registration. The registration system means that the temple head certifies that a person does not follow a religion prohibited by the shogunate, such as Christianity, and is a patron of his temple8. The parish system was most commonly practiced in a way that all members of a family became patrons of the same temple, and when a family registered to two or more temples, it was called a half-temple household (han danka 半檀家) (Hozawa 2015).

The parish system, which tied temples and households together, was implemented in the early Edo period to prevent the spread of Christianity and the increase in its followers. All were now expected to register and become a member of a designated temple. The Edo shogunate formalized the ban on Christianity in 1612 and, in 1635, ordered temples across the country to produce a certificate that their patrons were not Christian9. With the parish system, in which temples acted as subordinate administrative agencies of the shogunate, in full effect, the anti-Christian front was greatly expanded. In 1671, a national register (Shumon ninbetsu aratamecho 宗門人別改帳) was created to certify that one was not a Christian, and temples were required to keep a stamp for this document10, which they would provide upon confirmation of a certain person being a non-Christian (Tamamuro 1987, pp. 1–82).

Through this process, the temples of the Edo period managed the family registers of their members and even operated family tombs. In other words, from birth to death and beyond, funeral, and memorial rituals were performed at their parish temples, and Buddhism became responsible for the entire life and death process of the people. In return, temples were able to collect offerings from the parish households and prosper economically, and, for the shogunate, the parish system became a powerful institutional mechanism for maintaining a stable social order (Hur 2007). Although this system was forcefully enforced by the Edo shogunate, the Buddhist community was also able to build an economic base through the system, which provided a very effective means of spreading the faith of each sect to the entire population.

Second, there is the head-branch temple system. This was a system that strengthened sectarian cohesion around the head temple by having multiple temples under it, and behind the scenes, the shogunate was able to secure control over the various sects. Although this system began to appear in the medieval period, it was institutionally completed in the Edo period and took on a new meaning. One of the most important documents in this process in the early modern period was the Register of the Branch Temples of All Sects 諸宗末寺帳 (Shōshumatsu jichō), which surveyed the situation of each sect for ten years from 1632. At the time, the temples throughout the country were surveyed, and the number of temples listed in the extant register was more than 180011. The Shogunate’s top official for religious affairs (jisha bugyō 寺社奉行) controlled the nation’s temples and shrines by overseeing the sects that were organized into the head-branch system, and each sect established its own rules and regulations, which were approved by the Shogunate and applied from its head temple to its branch temples. The financial foundation of this system was based on the idea that revenue from the parish households would flow through the branch temples and up to the head temple (Tamamuro 1987, pp. 40–52).

In this regard, Hozawa Naohide 朴澤直秀 categorizes the various control systems of the Buddhist sects in the early modern period into the following four types: (1) the head-branch register (honmatsu jichō 本末寺帳) for the temples to be listed and authorized by the shogunate; (2) administrative control of the sects through the shogunate Office of Issuing Orders (huregashira 触頭); (3) control of the sects through their educational institutions, such as danrin 檀林, which trained monks; and (4) control of temples and monks according to their formal status (Hozawa 2015, pp. 72–106). Here, we can see that the Edo Shogunate used the relationship between the head and branch temples to create a centralized system of control over the nation’s temples.

The third characteristic of Edo Buddhism was the flourishing of doctrinal studies and the emphasis on the precepts. Previously, despite the stable institutional systems created by the shogunate and the economic wealth of temples, it was assumed that these actually caused the stagnation of doctrinal development, non-compliance with the precepts, and the corruption of monks. However, in recent years, it is believed that as Buddhist sects in the early modern period were recognized by the shogunate and the power of the feudal lords, the operational system for each sect was established, and the shogunate’s policy of encouraging scholarship led to the foundation of educational institutions by which each sect competed to train successors and study sectarian tenets. In fact, as the doctrinal studies advanced, intra- and inter-sectarian disputes over different interpretations arose, and when conflicts intensified, even the shogunate intervened (Seriguchi 2019, pp. 3–26). As such, during the Edo period, scholarship was encouraged by the temple regulations (jiin hatto 寺院法道), and each sect established its own doctrines12. Interestingly, since each sect held classes in a lecture format in its own educational institutions, such as danrin 檀林 and gakurin 學林, the demand for books was so high to the point that it catalyzed the commercialization of woodblock prints (Manami 2018, pp. 33–43).

Meanwhile, along with the advances in the understanding of Buddhist doctrines, many monks became interested in the precepts, and the importance of the precepts was repeatedly emphasized in several sects. In Tendai-shū, Myōryū Jisan 妙立慈山 (1637–1690) and Reiku Kōken 靈空光謙 (1652–1739), among others, launched a movement of keeping the full precepts, based on the four-part Vinaya, as well as the bodhisattva precepts, at the Anraku-ritsuin 安樂律院. In Jodo shinshū, Kyōjū 敬首 (1683–1748) and other monks paid their attention to the bodhisattva precepts, while in Shingon risshū, Jiun Onko (1718–1804) underscored the observance of the precepts, promoting the ten wholesome precepts. Outside the Buddhist order, Buddhism was also responsible for the ethics of the people, with each temple emphasizing ethical values and encouraging good deeds to its members (Minowa 2017, pp. 187–90). Tales of the rebirth, mainly from the Pure Land sects, for example, presented the idea that those who upheld moral ethical duties such as loyalty and honesty would be reborn in the Pure Land (Tamamuro 1987, pp. 209–10). This shows that Buddhism was at the forefront of maintaining the social order of the shogunate and suggests that the theory of the “decadence of monks”, an important basis for the negative view of Buddhism in the early modern period, cannot be applied to the entire Buddhist community in the Edo period.

3.2. The Close Relationship Between the Chosŏn Government’s Utilization of the Monk Labor Force and the Existence of Buddhism

Chosŏn, founded in 1392, established Confucianism as its political ideology, and its policies centered on the reduction and state control of the Buddhist order13. In the first half of the 15th century, the number of Buddhist schools was reduced from eleven to seven, and then to two, Sŏn and Kyo, and the number of designated temples and monks in the official state ecclesiastical system, along with temple lands and temple servants, was limited. During the reign of T’aejong (r. 1400–1418), the third king of Chosŏn, 242 temples and about 11,000 kyōl of land were included in the state ecclesiastical system, and, excluding these temples and land, 30,000 to 40,000 kyōl of temple land and 80,000 temple servants were confiscated to government offices14. During the reign of Sejong (r. 1418–1450), the fourth king of the dynasty, 36 temples—18 each for the Sŏn and Kyo schools—were designated within the state ecclesiastical system, and 3750 monks and 8000 kyŏl of temple land were allowed for both schools15.

The Chosŏn government required candidates for monks who were exempt from corvee labor to pay a fee based on their status and then issued them a monk certificate (toch’ŏp 度牒). The government also granted a monastic rank and a monastic title to those who passed the monk exam, similar to the state service exam for selecting officials. During the reign of King Sejong, Sŭngnoksa 僧錄司, a state office in charge of Buddhist-related personnel and administration, was abolished, and in its place, Tohoeso 都會所, the Sŏn and Kyō school’s own governing bodies, were established at Hŭngch’ŏnsa 興天寺 and Hŭngdŏksa 興德寺 within the capital. The highest office title in both schools was deputy-chief (p’ansa 判事), but the ministries of rites and personnel continued to be involved in the issuance of the monk certificate and the appointment of the monk office post. In 1485, the 16th year of King Sŏngjong (r. 1469–1494), the Kyŏngguk taejŏn 經國大典 (Great Code of Administration) was published, which established the rules related to monks, the monk certificate, and the monk office title (Yang 2018). This meant that the monks and temples were officially recognized within the legal framework of the state.

The official ecclesiastical system was accidentally abolished in the early 16th century by the tyranny of King Yŏnsan (r. 1495–1506). Then, during the reign of King Chugjong (r. 1506–1544), who rose to the throne as a result of the coup, since the Buddhist-related articles in the Kyŏngguk taejŏn became ineffective, the monk certificate and monk exam were discontinued, and the two schools of Sŏn and Kyo and the Tohoeso office were abolished (Y.-t. Kim 2010, pp. 39–41). In 1550, as those legal articles of the national code were reimplemented by Queen Dowager Munjŏng (1501–1565), who temporarily served as a regent to her son King Myŏngjong (r. 1545–1567), the monk certificate was re-issued, and the monk exam resumed (Son 2018)16. Although the two schools were abolished again in 1556, the short existence of the schools for about 15 years allowed many great monks to emerge in the Buddhist order, and these monks served as the mainstay of the monks’ militia during the Japanese Invasions, which began in 1592, displaying their loyalty. The monks’ militia efforts saved the country from the war and laid an important foundation for the existence of the Buddhist order afterward (Y.-t. Kim 2024b, p. 707). Gregory N. Evon notes that although Buddhism’s official status declined due to the anti-Buddhist policy during the Chosŏn period, when Confucianism was adopted as the state ideology, Buddhism was recognized again for its importance to the state thanks to the activities of the monks’ militia during the Japanese Invasions (Evon 2022, pp. 119–39).

The aftermath of the seven-year war was very severe, with the human and material damage suffered by Chosŏn being so serious that it was difficult for the state finances and the state service system to operate normally. As the number of the commoners who provided labor for the country’s public service plummeted, the monks’ militia, which had played a huge role during the invasions, came into focus as an alternative. As it was recorded at the time, “Even if the common people worked for three days, it would not be enough to cover the work of a single day by the monks’ militia”17. The labor efficiency of the monks’ militia was recognized. Eventually, state policy shifted in the direction of institutionalizing the use of the monks’ labor force. The first half of the 17th century saw the large-scale mobilization of monks for post-war reconstruction and defense, including the construction of palaces, royal tombs, and the South Han Mountain Fortress18.

In reward, monks who served were issued an identification tag (hop’ae 號牌) or a monk certificate to vouch for their qualifications and activities as monks to the state19. The service was not mandatory for all monks but charged in a way for each temple to fill its quota. From the state’s point of view, it was much more beneficial to utilize monks for state public service than to have monks disrobed or temples vacant.

A system of the monk general (ch’ongsŏp 摠攝) was also established to control and manage the monks’ militia. The chief monk general (toch’ongsŏp 都摠攝) for the eight provinces of Chosŏn was posted at the South Han Mountain Fortress, and a monk general was at each of the four history archives, which housed the Sillok20. The system also operated in major temples, such as P’yoch’ungsa 表忠社, which performed rituals to honor the loyalty of the leaders of the monks’ militia, the royal votive temples for the deceased kings and royal families, and Haeinsa 海印寺, which housed the woodblocks of the Koryŏ Buddhist Canon. The titles “monk general” or “chief monk general” were used in the late Koryŏ dynasty, but during the Japanese Invasions in the mid-Chosŏn, the title of “chief monk general” was given to Ch’ŏnghŏ Hyujŏng 淸虛休靜 (1520–1604) and Samyŏng Yujŏng 四溟惟政 (1544–1610), who led the monks’ militia, and the title of monk general was given to the head of the Sŏn and Kyo schools for each of the eight provinces21. These generals had the authority to evaluate and report on the merits of the monks’ militia and to issue a document equivalent to the monk certificate as a reward for the militia’s activities22.

To ensure the smooth operation of the monk state service, the Chosŏn government listed monks in the household register. From the late 17th century onward, monks were specifically listed under a “monk household” in the household register of their hometowns of origin, and thus, the title “monk” was assigned as one of the official job titles for them (Chang 2006). A 1652 Chŏlla provincial government document categorized monks as eminent monks, good monks, and ordinary monks, seeing them as objects for exhortation or supervision, a categorization actually intended for the utilization of monks for the state service (C. Yi 2013)23. Here, the eminent monks were the top group dedicated to Buddhist practice, and the state gave the most capable among the good monks an official position, such as monk general, to supervise the monk state service, which was primarily the responsibility of the ordinary monks.

In this situation, the Buddhist community became conscious of the great contributions it had made to the state since the Japanese Invasions, and it was often seen to rebut criticisms of Buddhism or attempts to suppress it. Paekkok Ch’ŏnŭng 白谷處能 (1617–1680), who served as the chief monk general at the South Han Mountain Fortress, wrote a lengthy appeal to King Hyŏnjong (r. 1659–1674), titled “Kan p’ye Sŏkkyo so” 諫廢釋敎䟽 (Memorial Remonstrating against the Repression of Buddhism), in response to the removal of the nunneries from the capital, such as Chasuwŏn 慈壽院 and Insuwŏn 仁壽院. The monk said, “Although Buddhism is now weak, there are many monks, and they are registered in the household register, and they are no different from ordinary commoners. Many monks in the north have entered the military service, and many monks in the south have to respond to the conscription required by the local government office. Paper and other various products come from monks, and the local office’s labor requirement for monks is also severe. In particular, for the monks in the South Han Mountain Fortress to travel a thousand li every year to carry food and guard the fortress is as hard as soldiers going to the frontier or to the battlefield. Nevertheless, when there is a disturbance, monks gather at once and go to fight, so there are few monks who abandon the grace of the country and many who keep righteousness”. He claimed that the monks had contributed a lot to the state24 and demanded the suspension of the king’s anti-Buddhist initiative.

The institutional utilization of the monks’ militia as the official state military and labor force began in the first half of the 17th century with the monks’ militia in the South Han Mountain Fortress. Beginning in 1624, the monks’ militia from the entire country was mobilized for the three-year construction of the fortress, and Pyŏgam Kaksŏng 碧巖覺性 (1575–1660) was appointed as the chief monk general there. Nine temples were built inside the fortress, with a resident militia of monks in charge of defense. In 1711, another fortress was built in North Han Mountain, which surrounds the northern part of the capital, and the monks’ militia was stationed at the seven temples built inside the new fortress (Y.-t. Kim 2024a). Combined, the militia of more than 700 monks was assigned to these two fortresses, and the monks in the fortresses were replaced six times per year with those from local provinces except the northern border area (Yŏ 1987, pp. 9–13).

In 1751, the 27th year of King Yŏngjo (r. 1724–1776), the Kyunyŏk pŏp (Equal Tax Law), which reduced the military tax of the commoners by half, requiring them to offer one p’il of cloth instead of two, was enforced, and the burden of the monks’ state service became greater than that of the commoners. In 1756, the system was changed once again in such a way that temples throughout the country paid for the monks to station in the mountain fortresses instead of replacing them. The excessive mobilization of monks for state services, such as building the royal tomb, was banned with a claim that monks were also people of the country. Later, in 1785, the 9th year of King Chŏngjo (r. 1776–1800), as the burden of menial labor and tribute for monks was still too great, the amount that temples had to pay for the service at the fortresses at North and South Han Mountains was reduced by almost half (K. Kim 1988, pp. 225–59). At that time, the monks’ state service was relatively excessive compared to that of the commoners, causing monks to return to secular life and some temples to become empty. A series of those measures were therefore taken to prevent this phenomenon.

During the reign of King Chŏngjo, a notable policy shift took place in the relationship between the state and Buddhism. Out of his filial duty toward his unfortunately deceased biological father, Crown Prince Sado (1735–1762), Chŏngjo moved his father’s tomb to Hwasŏng, Kyŏnggi province, in 1789 and founded Temple Yongjusa 龍珠寺 as a memorial temple the following year. At this time, the abbot of Yongjusa, Bogyŏng Sail 寶鏡獅馹, was appointed as the chief monk supervisor (tosŭngt’ong 都僧統) for the eight provinces, with the position of the chief monk general for South and North Han Mountain Fortresses. In addition, the new governing body of the order consisting of five regulatory offices (kyujŏngso 糾正所) was set up to regulate monks across the country with the authority over the order (Takahashi 1929, pp. 1000–3). The five regulatory offices were located as follows: at Yongjusa, where there was the chief monk supervisor; at Kaewŏnsa 開元寺 and Chungŭngsa 重興寺, the head temples of the temples in the two fortresses in the South and North Han Mountains; and at Pongŭnsa 奉恩寺and Pongsŏnsa 奉先寺, the headquarters of the Sŏn and Kyo schools in the mid-16th century and the grave temples for the kings, Sŏngjong, Chungjong, and Sejo. Together, these temples near the capital were in charge of the temples in the Kyŏnggi province, while Yonjusa was responsible for the temples in Chŏlla, Kaewŏnsa for the temples in Ch’ungchŏng and Kyŏngsang, Chunghŭngsa for the temples in Hwanghae and Pyŏngan, Pongŭnsa for the temples in Kangwŏn, and Pongsŏnsa for the temples in Hamgyŏng. In this way, all temples throughout the country were covered (N. Yi 1918, ha, pp. 825–26).

This system of five regulatory offices indicates the first time in more than 200 years that the government had assigned the management and control of the Buddhist order to a temple, after the final abolishment of both official Sŏn and Kyo schools in the mid-16th century. Whereas the monk state service system mobilized monks and used their labor wherever the state needed it, such as in the mountain fortresses, the regulatory office was a body designed to ensure the smooth institutional operation of the monk state service, which could have led to the establishment of a new state ecclesiastical system. However, when King Chŏngjo suddenly passed away in 1800, the five regulatory offices were unable to operate normally.

In the 19th century, the nature and status of the state systems for the Buddhist order, such as the chief monk supervisor, monk general, and regulatory office systems, changed and became rather nominal, as they were being arbitrarily established in different regions and temples rather than operating as a unified system for the entire country (Y.-s. Kim [1939] 2002, pp. 167–69). For example, in 1859, the 10th year of King Ch’ŏlchong (r. 1849–1863), it was reported that there were many negative effects of the monk supervisor system in the Chŏlla area, and even the removal of the chief monk supervisor of the regulatory office was resolved and submitted to the governor of the province (Takahashi 1929, p. 1002). Although important monk services continued, such as the state-run monk militia at South and North Han Mountain Fortresses, they disappeared into the mists of history with the implementation of the Kabo Reform in 1894 in the 31st year of King Kojong (r. 1864–1897) (N. Yi 1918, ha, pp. 964–65).

In the late Chosŏn period, the monks were included in the state’s public system with the monk state service, and they were controlled and supervised at the institutional level in the same way as the general population. This means that the monk state service was institutionalized, and thus, the monks came to have the status of public citizens, and temples were incorporated into the state’s system of governance over its territory (S.-g. Kim 2023). As such, the Buddhist community was a full-fledged member of the society of the time and thus played a role in maintaining social order where ethics was emphasized. For example, the eighteenth-century scholarly monk Yŏndam Yuil 蓮潭有一 (1720–1799) said, “If one’s heart is full of loyalty, filial piety, benevolence, righteousness, and compassion, one can be reborn in the Pure Land, and it is not that only those who have recited the name of the Buddha go to the Pure Land. If there is a heaven, it will be for the gentlemen who do good deeds, and if there is a hell, it will be for the petty men who do evil deeds such as disloyal and unfilial actions, so you should repent for your faults and reveal your true nature”25. He exhorted people to observe ethics and practice good deeds.

One question that arises is, “What was the financial basis of the temple’s operations?” In this regard, it is worth noting that the practice of monks privately owning land became common in the late Chosŏn period, and that in the mid-17th century, it was legally recognized that land could be inherited by a monk’s disciple or given to the temple to help support affiliated monks (K. Kim 1983, pp. 138–57)26. Since then, land inheritance between master and disciple had become a custom, and the land belonging to temples had served as a solid foundation for temple finances. Based on this, various ways to generate profits and expand financial resources were explored, one of which was the establishment of a temple fraternity, a faith-based organization that finances various Buddhist rites and rituals, along with temple operations (Han 2006). Other traditional sources of income, such as patronage from believers from all walks of life, also played a role in the financial management of temples. In addition, temples that were designated as royal votive temples were granted great benefits, such as exemptions from tax and menial labor. As a result, even though the financial burden of taxes and tributes on the Buddhist community caused great difficulties in maintaining the temples, Buddhism was able to continue its vitality without interruption. In this way, Buddhism of late the Chosŏn dynasty had a close relationship with the state in which the existence of monks and temples was recognized, and instead of being incorporated into the state system by performing state duties, monks and temples were able to maintain and develop the Buddhist order by building financial self-reliance.

4. Concluding Remarks

At first glance, Japanese Buddhism and Korean Buddhism in the early modern period seem to be very different. First of all, in terms of the mode of the existence of the Buddhist order, state-sanctioned sectarian Buddhism was established in the Edo period, whereas in the late Chosŏn period, the Buddhist community had to preserve their traditions, such as Sŏn and Kyo, without any state-authorized schools. In Japan, the head-branch system was implemented by each sect, but in Korea, there were activities and succession only along the lines of Sŏn dharma lineages. In terms of the relationship between the state and Buddhism, in the Edo period, the tie between the two was institutionally enforced, but in the late Chosŏn period, it was understood as a kind of non-interference by the state that placed the Buddhist community outside the law. Economically, there was also a stark contrast; in the Edo period, the temple parish system was implemented by the shogunate, in which temples received a stable income from their parish households, whereas in the late Chosŏn period, with the lack of a financial support system, monks were compelled to find financial self-help measures to maintain and develop the Buddhist order while performing state duties, which helped them to receive social recognition.

Nevertheless, as shown in this article, there are two points of commonality between early modern Buddhism in Japan and Korea. First, from the perspective of a shift in the perception of early modern Buddhism, there is a commonality in that there has been a movement in both countries to approach the historical reality by breaking away from the negative perception of the early modern period. Second, although there are differences in terms of the mechanism of the relationship between the state and Buddhism, Buddhism in the two countries was closely related to the state institutions. In other words, although the state’s stance on Buddhism and the degree of control and suppression differed between the Chosŏn and Edo periods, the mechanism of the institutional connection between the state and Buddhism still operated in both Japan and Korea in the early modern period, just as it did in ancient and medieval times. Of course, further research and discussion that consider the diversity and complexity of the topic are necessary, but I believe that this article, from the comparative perspective of early modern Buddhism in Japan and Korea, has revealed that state Buddhism was one of the through-lines of East Asian Buddhist culture from ancient times to the early modern period.