Introduction
This article examines the complex web of interpersonal relationships between Chinese and Japanese Buddhists from the late 1920s to the end of the Second World War in 1945. The main figures of analysis are the Chinese monk Daxing (1900–1952), a disciple of the renowned Buddhist reformer Taixu (1889–1947), and two Japanese Buddhist priests with whom he maintained friendly relations. While Taixu is famous for his patriotic support of the anti-Japanese struggle during the war, Daxing’s decision to remain under Japanese occupation after the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War and continue his contacts with his Japanese associates negatively influenced his reputation. Such eminent Chinese monks as Yinshun (1906–2005) and Dongchu (1908–1977), for instance, remember Daxing as being ‘passive towards both anti-Japanese activism and Buddhism’ and ‘adrift in the situation’.Footnote 1 Despite this criticism, both Yinshun and Dongchu themselves had remained in the territories occupied by the Japanese Army and, as in Daxing’s case, there is fragmentary evidence revealing their connections with the Japanese military.Footnote 2
The occupied territories of wartime China were a treacherous terrain for all who lived there. It was not easy to navigate the many tensions that arose under the extreme circumstances that war brought with it. The way in which Chinese and Japanese managed their relations is an important lens through which to understand the space of occupied China. The recent republication of numerous Buddhist materials from the first half of the twentieth century has allowed research on modern Chinese Buddhism to advance both in China and abroad. These newly available materials also present a different image of Daxing compared to that portrayed by Yinshun and Dongchu. As even friends were not able to be completely aware of each other’s actions during the war, the accounts of Daxing provided by Dongchu and Yinshun should not be regarded as authoritative.
Central to my analysis of the politics of friendship in wartime China are Daxing’s bonds to the two Japanese priests, Kanda Eun (Suekiyo, 1901–1948) and Fujii Sōsen ( Jōsen, 1896–1971). Both Kanda and Fujii belonged to the Ōtani branch of the True Pure Land Sect ( J. Jōdo shinshū), the largest Buddhist denomination in Japan. Both were deeply involved in Chinese Buddhist contacts. Kanda had been dispatched to Xiamen (Amoy) in Fujian province in South China, where he taught Japanese for 20 years at the Minnan Buddhist Academy (Ch. Minnan foxueyuan), which Chinese Buddhist reformers had established at Nanputuo Temple. Kanda was largely forgotten in post-war Japanese Buddhist circles, since he did not seek to expand concessions for his denominations as many of his comrades did. Fujii, who had learnt Chinese while studying in Shanghai, called for an alliance between Chinese and Japanese Buddhists and was a great help in facilitating Daxing’s 1935 trip to Japan. Both Kanda and Fujii remained in China during the war, part of the small circle of Japanese Buddhists who continued to engage with Chinese Buddhists even under these adverse circumstances. Despite the unfortunate relations between China and Japan in the modern period, their friendship managed to survive.
In order to explain the friendship between Kanda, Fujii, and Daxing, it is necessary to first provide some background on the general relationship between Chinese and Japanese Buddhism in the modern period. While Japanese Buddhism is historically derived from Chinese Buddhism, this was mostly based on the flow of Buddhist scriptures from China to Japan. There were only a few cases in which this transmission involved Chinese monks travelling to Japan. When relations were renewed in the modern era after a prolonged period of no contact, two distinct historical Buddhist traditions existed in the two countries. Most Japanese Buddhists were only interested in the remains and relics from China’s Buddhist past and looked down on Chinese monks as conservative and uneducated. On the other hand, Chinese Buddhists sought to retrieve from Japan and the West Buddhist scriptures that had been lost, while also considering secularized modern Japanese Buddhism to be decadent. With the start of Japanese military aggression towards China, public opinion in China became increasingly anti-Japanese and any contact with Japanese priests became the subject of criticism. Before the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War, the only text that described everyday interactions with Japanese priests was Daxing’s Kongguo riji from 1934. It was also Daxing who wrote the only modernist analysis of Japanese Buddhism (his Riben fojiao shichaji, 1936). For Daxing, his friendship with Fujii and Kanda was based on trust, but it was also a necessary resource for the reform of Chinese Buddhism.
The availability of source materials such as reports, diaries, and letters to friends from the period of the Sino-Japanese War is still very limited in the case of Chinese Buddhism, making the reconstruction of the views and voices of Chinese Buddhists extremely difficult, despite the fact that many of them had remained under Japanese occupation. Fortunately, Daxing was a prolific writer throughout his life, maintaining correspondence with his friends Kanda and Fujii even during the most trying times. This provides us with a rare glimpse into the kind of relationships that existed between Chinese and Japanese Buddhists under occupation and also into how both parties negotiated and managed these relationships. This article is thus the first attempt to sketch the affective relationships and the inherent tensions between Japanese and Chinese Buddhists in wartime China. It builds on the work done by Matsutani Yōsuke about the activities of Chinese Christians in the occupied territories and their difficult friendships with Japanese Christians.Footnote 3 All three of the figures discussed in this article reacted differently to the war and made different choices in how to engage with the occupying regime. Focusing on their interpersonal relationships allows us to examine wartime Buddhism from a vantage point that avoids the dichotomy of ‘collaboration’ and ‘resistance’ so often reproduced in scholarship on the Sino-Japanese War.
Before properly introducing the main figures discussed in this article, I will provide an overview of the Japanese Buddhist presence in China, in particular that of the Ōtani branch, as it forms the wider background to the relationships discussed in later sections. I will then sketch the activities of Daxing, Kanda, and Fujii prior to the outbreak of full-scale war in 1937 before focusing on Daxing’s activities under occupation.
A brief history of the Ōtani sect’s China mission
The roots of the activities of the Ōtani branch of the True Pure Land sect in China go back to the priest Ogurusu Kōchō (1831–1905). In 1873, Ogurusu travelled to China in order to form an alliance with Chinese and Indian Buddhists against the looming threat of Christianity. Upon realizing that the chances of forming such an alliance were slim, he determined that it was up to Japanese Buddhists to modernize Chinese Buddhism.Footnote 4 In the wake of Ogurusu, other Japanese Buddhist denominations also began to dispatch missionaries to China. Following the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895, Japan gained most-favoured-nation status, as was already enjoyed by the Western powers. While there was no explicit clause granting mission rights to Japanese Buddhists, this was not regarded as a problem at first. When the Japanese envoy to Qing China demanded protection for Japanese Buddhist priests, the Qing viceroy (Ch. zongdu) complied by informing the local governments.Footnote 5
The activities of Japanese Buddhists awoke the interest of Chinese monks, lay believers, and intellectuals, leading to exchanges between them. However, these contacts also led to some political issues. As part of China’s modernization efforts at the end of the nineteenth century, temples were confiscated and turned into schools in what is known as the ‘build schools with temple property’ (Ch. miaochan xingxue) policy of 1901. In response, Chinese monks registered their temples as branch temples of Japanese temples in order to escape this fate. The Ōtani priest Itō Kendō (1865–1941) used the special diplomatic status of Japanese Buddhism to not only grant protection to Chinese temples, but also for personal financial gain. He used the funds thus obtained mainly to make up for a reduction in the financial support he received from his denomination, but some of the money also went for personal upkeep. As a result, the Japanese consul in Hangzhou and the consul-general in Shanghai ordered Itō to leave the country.Footnote 6
Buddhism and the Government-General of Taiwan’s policy towards Xiamen
After 1904 Ōtani activities were reported to have been limited to Shanghai, but in actual fact they continued in Fujian even after this time. After acquiring Taiwan as a colony at the end of the First Sino-Japanese War, Japan recognized the strategic significance of Xiamen, Zhangzhou, and Quanzhou, cities located on the southern coast of Fujian province, across the Strait of Taiwan. These areas were of paramount importance as more than half of Taiwan’s inhabitants originated from these regions, while Xiamen boasted a port surpassing any found on Taiwan. Moreover, given that southern Fujian was also the ancestral homeland of many overseas Chinese residing in Southeast Asia, it was envisaged that it would serve as a pivotal base for the Taiwanese Government-General’s ‘southward expansion’ ( J. nanshin) policy. Beginning in 1897, the Government-General of Taiwan (GGT hereafter) initiated cultural initiatives in Fujian province and assisted in the establishment of Japanese language schools in Fuzhou, Xiamen, and Quanzhou. Even in the face of setbacks encountered during the management of these Japanese language schools, the GGT continued to engage in the acquisition of local newspaper companies and the establishment of hospitals.Footnote 7
The GGT played a significant role in facilitating the expansion of Japanese Buddhism into Xiamen as well. It found it difficult to manage the fierce competition among various Japanese Buddhist groups seeking to establish new branch temples in Taiwan as well as acquire local temples as branch temples. Consequently, in May 1898, the GGT issued a notice that explicitly ‘prohibited Japanese Buddhists from turning [local] monasteries into branch temples’ in Taiwan. The notice had the effect of encouraging these Buddhist organizations to redirect their efforts towards establishing a presence in Fujian province.Footnote 8
Among the various Japanese Buddhist denominations, the Ōtani sect was a latecomer to Taiwan, but it was the first to make inroads into Xiamen. In 1899, the Honganji branch of the Jōdo Shin sect (representing the Nishi Hongan Temple) also established its presence in Xiamen. Within a short span of time, these two sects gained a considerable following among the local population. Just as Western Christian denominations at the time consolidated their influence by protecting their Chinese followers, many individuals also turned to Japanese Buddhists in search of similar benefits. The rapid expansion of Japanese Buddhism inevitably led to friction with both local Christians and the regional Chinese government. In August 1900, an Ōtani mission station was set on fire, prompting a swift response from a Japanese battleship stationed in Xiamen, which dispatched a landing force to quell the situation. Japan also considered sending troops from Taiwan, but due to international scrutiny, especially from Western countries, which criticized the incident as being ‘staged and directed by Japan’, Japan ultimately refrained from occupying Xiamen.Footnote 9 Following this incident, it became difficult to conduct activities in Fujian province, and in 1908 the Honganji branch of the True Pure Land Sect decided against dispatching further personnel.Footnote 10 Despite this, Ōtani priests continued their activities in Zhangzhou and Quanzhou with the support of the GGT. In March 1899, Tanaka Zenryū (1874–1955) arrived in Quanzhou to take over the mission station there; he also established a school, called the Zhanghua Academy (Ch. Zhanghua xuetang), in 1901. Tanaka received financial support from both the Ōtani sect and the GGT, with the latter also covering the costs for setting up the Zhanghua Academy. In 1912, Tanaka returned to Japan and published an account of his experiences entitled Taiwan to nanpō Shina (Taiwan and South China). This volume also functioned as a general source book on the areas it covered.Footnote 11 Tani Ryōgo (1879–?) who was sent to Zhangzhou also received a salary from the GGT between 1916 and 1925.Footnote 12 Commissioned by the GGT, he wrote an overview of the region entitled Nanmin jijō (Conditions in Southern Fujian) in 1919. From this, it is apparent that both Tanaka and Tani were valued as useful assets by the GGT.
In general, there was a great individual range when it came to ability among the monks sent abroad, and the majority were not as talented as Tanaka and Tani. Most did not learn Chinese, nor did they show great enthusiasm for mission work, instead seeking personal benefit and becoming embroiled in scandals. This led the GGT to regard them as a nuisance.Footnote 13 Furthermore, Southern China was the epicentre of both the anti-Japanese movement and the Chinese revolution, and fighting was endemic there. Japanese monks would return home after a few years or request to be transferred to a different post. Some also died of disease during their posting. For these reasons, regular funding from the GGT dried up after 1925.Footnote 14
Daxing’s transnational contacts in Xiamen
Daxing, hailing from Dongtai county in Jiangsu province, bore the secular surname Yuan. Following his graduation from Dongtai Teachers’ College, he became a monk at Tianning Temple in Yangzhou and studied at the Wuchang Buddhist Academy (Ch. Wuchang foxue yuan), which had been established by Taixu in 1922 as a centre of Buddhist educational reform. The Wuchang Buddhist Academy provided the model for other Buddhist academies. When Taixu received an invitation in 1927 to assume the position of abbot at Nanputuo Temple in Xiamen, he also called on Daxing and some other disciples to join him there. During his time in Xiamen, Daxing made friends with Taiwanese Buddhists and Japanese priests for the first time. Notable among them was Kanda Eun.
Kanda Eun, a young Ōtani priest, arrived in Xiamen in 1924. The fifth son of an ordinary family in Tamura, Kaifu District, Aichi prefecture, Kanda had chosen the path of priesthood and pursued his studies at Ōtani University, where he also became proficient in the Chinese language. It appears as if Kanda had an enduring interest in China. Upon his arrival in Xiamen, Kanda diligently learnt the local Minnan dialect and actively engaged with the Chinese Buddhist community there, especially at the Nanputuo Temple.Footnote 15 Affiliated with the Nanshansi school of the Linji lineage, Nanputuo Temple’s abbots were traditionally appointed from the Nanshansi school. However, in response to the growing momentum for reform among Buddhists in China, Nanputuo Temple embraced a new type of elections to select its abbots.Footnote 16 In 1924, Huiquan (1874–1943), who had been elected abbot, founded the Minnan Buddhist Academy (Ch. Minnan foxue yuan) at Nanputuo Temple with the aim of establishing a new, modern training programme for young monks. Huiquan himself assumed the position of director of the Minnan Buddhist Academy and appointed Changxing (1896–1938) from the Anhui Buddhist School (Ch. Anhui fojiao xuexiao) as vice director.Footnote 17 Kanda Eun worked as a Japanese teacher at the newly established Minnan Buddhist Academy, where, in addition to English, Japanese was a compulsory subject. This decision was grounded in the belief that Japanese Buddhist studies had a leading position globally and that proficiency in the Japanese language was crucial to be able to absorb the latest achievements of Japanese research on Buddhism.Footnote 18 Remaining in Xiamen for 20 years, Kanda was the only Japanese priest to have such a prolonged and active presence in China.
In 1927, Nanputuo Temple appointed Taixu as its abbot and director of the Minnan Buddhist Academy. Despite Taixu’s frequent absences due to his activities spreading Buddhist teachings, those of his disciples who had completed their studies at Wuchang Buddhist Academy arrived in Xiamen to support the endeavours of Nanputuo Temple and the Minnan Buddhist Academy. Among them were Daxing and Zhifeng (1901–1971).Footnote 19 During his five-year tenure in Xiamen, Daxing launched the magazine Xiandai sengjia (Modern sangha; later renamed Modern Buddhism), wherein he advocated for the systematization of monastic education and critiqued the government’s suppression of Buddhism.Footnote 20 Records indicate that Daxing and Kanda travelled to Shanghai together in 1931, making it likely that Kanda was Daxing’s first Japanese priest friend. It was also Kanda who translated into Japanese a statement by Taixu criticizing Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in late 1931.Footnote 21 Although Daxing left Xiamen in 1932, his later writings consistently referred to Kanda as an ‘old friend’.
Daxing cultivated a strong rapport with Taixu’s lay supporters; among them, Cai Jitang (1904–1996), a Taiwanese citizen, emerged as a notable representative. Originally named Cai Qicheng and bearing the Buddhist name Huicheng, Cai’s family hailed from Fujian province, but due to his father’s business ventures, he was born in Hsinchu, Taiwan. Subsequently, the Cai family relocated to Xiamen. In Xiamen, conflicts often arose between the Taiwanese, who enjoyed the privileged status of being considered ‘Japanese’, and the local populace. Despite these tensions, Cai Jitang skilfully navigated both worlds, establishing amicable relations with both communities, both as a businessman and as a devout layman. Together with some young intellectuals, he actively contributed to the development of a new Buddhist movement by organizing the Minnan Buddhist New Youth Association (Ch. Minnan fohua xinqingnian hui), thus starting a modernist Buddhist movement in South China’s traditional society.Footnote 22
Fujii Sōsen’s activities in China
Another Japanese Buddhist priest who Daxing befriended at roughly the same time was Fujii Sōsen. As a prominent participant in modern Sino-Japanese exchange, he deserves to be introduced in more detail. Fujii is often described as a disciple of Mizuno Baigyō (1878–1949), although that is not entirely accurate. Mizuno was 20 years older than Fujii and belonged to the tradition of the Meiji era ‘continental adventurers’ ( J. tairiku rōnin). Ultimately unable to obtain official mission rights even after the Xinhai Revolution, some Japanese priests took an independent path, pursuing the study of the Chinese language and operating privately as ‘China-hands’.Footnote 23 Mizuno is a prime exponent of this group of Buddhists. Born into a humble family in the Chūgoku region, he was adopted into a Sōtō sect temple, where he pursued rigorous studies. Upon relocating to Tokyo, he built up ties with the right-wing pan-Asianist organization Gen’yōsha. Subsequently, he was one of the first students of the East Asia Common Culture Academy ( J. Tōa dōbun shoin) in Shanghai, an institution established by the private Asianist organization East Asia Common Culture Society ( J. Tōa dōbunkai). Over time, in addition to his monastic activities, Mizuno became involved in the operations of the Japanese military and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Historical records indicate that he frequently travelled between Japan and China, engaging in negotiations with Chinese politicians.Footnote 24 In my view, his status as a Buddhist priest and his knowledge of Buddhism were important in enabling Mizuno, who did not have a temple of his own, to be active politically.
In contrast to Mizuno, Fujii was a Buddhist priest with no prior connections to the political or military spheres until the onset of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Fujii was the eldest son of the abbot of the Ōtani sect’s Jōen Temple in Toyohashi city, Aichi prefecture. From an early age, he bore the responsibility of knowing that he would succeed to his father’s position. Nevertheless, Fujii did not feel drawn to work at a local temple, and after completing his studies at Ōtani University, he assumed the role of Tokyo correspondent for the Buddhist newspaper Chūgai nippō while retaining the title of abbot of Jōen Temple. He was critical of the authoritarian tendencies within Japanese Buddhism, which sought to establish affiliations with the imperial family, and wrote many articles that criticized the Buddhist establishment.Footnote 25 The reason Fujii managed to evade taking on the role of abbot for such an extended period was that Jōen Temple possessed sufficient wealth to hire someone to stand in for him.
After the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923, Fujii decided to leave Chūgai nippō and embarked on exploring new religious activities. He also assumed a role in the secretariat of the Tōa Bukkyō Taikai (East Asian Buddhist Conference) held in Japan in 1925. During this period, he served as secretary to Mizuno Baigyō and accompanied Chinese representatives, including Taixu, during their visit to Japan. Moreover, Fujii broadened his network by actively participating in editing the magazine Gendai bukkyō (Modern Buddhism), founded by the eminent Buddhist scholar Takakusu Junjirō, as well as the magazine Tōhō bukkyō (Eastern Buddhism), founded by Washio Junkyō.Footnote 26 In 1927, Fujii embarked on a journey to China accompanied by a friend, visiting many Chinese Buddhists whom he had met at the East Asia Buddhist Conference. When Fujii arrived at the port of Dalian, he was surprised by the sight of manual labourers, clad in tattered clothes and barefoot, diligently carrying cargo. Along with his encounters with a significant number of manual labourers in every town he visited in China, this experience left a lasting impression on him. Observing their lot, Fujii came to believe that religion was the only means to save their souls. He was also deeply moved by the unwavering dedication of both Chinese monks and laypeople who conscientiously adhered to the precepts and safeguarded Buddhism amid the turmoil of civil war.Footnote 27
After the Meiji era, Japanese priests who travelled to China often became disillusioned by the unsanitary conditions of Chinese temples and the perceived lack of knowledge among the local monks, leading many to consider that Chinese Buddhism had become corrupted.Footnote 28 Unlike other Japanese priests, Fujii did not have a condescending view of China. After returning to Japan, Fujii redirected the energy he had previously devoted to critiquing the authoritarianism of Japanese Buddhism towards expressing genuine sympathy for Chinese Buddhists. In 1928, Fujii travelled to Shanghai, supported by a grant from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Having audited classes at Tōa Dōbun Shoin, he had acquired proficiency in the Chinese language, which enabled him to forge many friendships with Chinese Buddhists during his visits. Among these acquaintances was Daxing, one of the Chinese monks with whom Fujii would establish a close bond. In 1931, when Fujii was staying at the World Buddhist Householder Grove in Shanghai (Ch. Shijie fojiao jushilin), Kanda and Daxing visited him there. This marked the beginning of the friendship between Daxing and Fujii.Footnote 29
After just over three years Fujii’s study abroad was abruptly cut short due to the Manchurian Incident in 1931. In the aftermath of the success of the invasion, criticism of China grew among Japanese Buddhists. Nevertheless, upon returning to Japan, Fujii proclaimed as much affection for China as he felt for his native country, vehemently rejecting the criticisms of Chinese Buddhism often voiced by Japanese priests. He remained committed to fostering exchanges with Chinese Buddhists.Footnote 30 Fujii continued to publish articles on the state of Chinese Buddhism in Chūgai nippō, eventually compiling them into two volumes titled Saikin Shina shūkyō hakugai jijō (The Circumstances of Recent Religious Persecution in China; self-published, 1931) and Saikin Nisshi bukkyō no kōshō (Recent Sino-Japanese Buddhist Contacts; Tōhō Shoin, 1933). Fujii held the view that many Japanese priests of his time exhibited little interest in contemporary Chinese Buddhism due to the scarcity of texts on post-Qing dynasty Chinese Buddhism. Determined to address this deficiency, he began collecting materials on recent trends in Chinese Buddhism.Footnote 31 As a result of his efforts, Jōen Temple now houses a significant collection of Chinese magazines dating from the mid-1930s. Many of these were gifted to him, attesting to the extensive network of contacts he cultivated with local Buddhists in China. Furthermore, in Daxing’s diary, references can be found showing that Fujii sent him materials on Japanese Buddhism, and also evidence that he requested Fujii’s collaboration in organizing a tour of Japan.Footnote 32 Fujii firmly believed that selfless cooperation from the Japanese Buddhist community was vital in assisting Chinese Buddhism during this challenging phase of its history. He criticized Buddhist groups for prioritizing their individual interests over broader cooperation.Footnote 33 This conviction was reflected in the assistance Fujii extended to Daxing during the preparations for his tour of Japan.
Daxing’s visit to Japan
In May 1935, Daxing finally fulfilled his long-held wish to visit Japan. Fujii accompanied him as an interpreter and guide for the approximately month-long tour. Daxing asked Fujii not to organize a welcome party attended by a large number of Japanese Buddhists or to attract exaggerated media coverage. This request arose from a prior incident when a delegation from the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo was invited to the Second General Conference of Pan-Pacific Young Buddhists’ Associations ( J. Dainikai han-taiheiyō bukkyō seinenkai taikai) held in Japan the previous year, which had caused a strong backlash from the Chinese public. Although the Chinese Buddhist Association (Ch. Zhongguo fojiao hui) ultimately decided not to send a representative, there were rumours circulating for some time that Taixu would be dispatched as an official representative, leading to slanderous attacks against him.Footnote 34 Fujii aimed to reconcile the strained relationship between Japanese and Chinese clergy through the establishment of personal contacts. In 1935, he founded the Sino-Japanese Buddhist Association (Ch. Rihua fojiao xuehui), which sought to promote exchanges between Japanese and Chinese clergy and lay Buddhists.Footnote 35 Fujii also encouraged the Chinese side to establish a similar organization, and this plan received approval from Taixu. However, when news of the founding of the Association broke in China, Taixu was once again harshly accused of being a ‘traitor’ (Ch. hanjian).Footnote 36 As a precaution against exposing Taixu to further slander, Daxing carefully concealed his plans for the trip to Japan. Despite serving as the editor of the Buddhist periodical Haichaoyin at the Wuchang Buddhist Academy, he refrained from informing Taixu or his friends in Wuchang about his upcoming journey. To cover the travel expenses, he sought support from his friends in Xiamen, including Juebin (1897–1942) and Cai Jitang, among others.Footnote 37
Interestingly, the trip significantly altered Daxing’s perspective on Japanese Buddhism. Prior to his visit, his evaluation of Japanese Buddhism had generally been positive. For instance, in his work Kongguo riji (1934), written before his visit to Japan, the only references to Japanese Buddhism were expressions of praise for its achievements:
15 August: My Japanese friend Fujii Sōsen sent me Japanese magazines and newspapers containing news on Japanese Buddhism and discussing the state of education at Buddhist schools. (…) There are a total of twenty-two Japanese Buddhist universities and vocational colleges, thirty-eight middle and vocational schools, and more than 60 girls’ schools. In addition, there are more than fifty academic seminaries and specialised training facilities, all of which have been established by Buddhist sects, and their policy is to provide education through Buddhism. The idleness of Chinese Buddhists is embarrassing in comparison to this!Footnote 38
24 October: Venerable Mochan sent me two issues of the Japanese magazine Daihōrin. I read them, and I had never seen anything like them before. This is the best Buddhist magazine I have seen in my life! The Japanese are ahead of China in everything, while Chinese Buddhists are lagging behind in everything. How shameful!Footnote 39
Indeed, Daxing’s favourable accounts of Japanese Buddhism could be attributed to the limited scope of his direct interactions with the Japanese people, which mainly comprised Japanese priests and scholars in China who were sympathetic towards him. Furthermore, his knowledge of Japanese Buddhism was primarily based on hearsay and letters, which might have influenced his positive perception. Amidst the outbreak of the Manchurian Incident and the Shanghai Incident in 1931 and 1932 respectively, Daxing published ‘A message to Japanese Buddhists’ with the title ‘Modern Sangha Publishing’ (Xiandai sengjia she), appealing to his fellow Buddhists in Japan to counter Japan’s aggression with Buddhist mercy and non-aggression.Footnote 40 Similarly, when the League of Nations dispatched the Lytton Commission to address the issue of Manchuria, he released a statement expressing hope for the cessation of Japan’s aggression against China.Footnote 41 There is no doubt that Daxing was just as critical of Japan’s invasion of China as any other monk. Furthermore, even before his visit to Japan, Daxing perceived Japanese Buddhism as essentially an extension of Chinese Buddhism. Simultaneously, he hoped to gain valuable insights from Japanese Buddhism on how to navigate interactions with the modern state and avoid potential suppression. This was one of the driving reasons behind Daxing’s decision to go to Japan despite the growing anti-Japanese sentiment in China. While he openly criticized Japan’s military aggression, he did not directly link the war to Japanese Buddhism. Daxing’s perspective before inspecting Japanese Buddhism was that the Japanese Buddhist model seemed ideal, encompassing an advanced monastic education system, a great number of magazines dedicated to spreading Buddhism to the general public, and a supportive environment for Buddhist studies.
However, during his visit to Japan, Daxing came to realize that the Buddhist clergy in Japan and China existed within fundamentally different social and economic contexts. He grasped that attempting to apply Japanese Buddhist reforms in China would be challenging due to these societal disparities.Footnote 42 In contrast with his preconceived image of Japan, the trip provided Daxing with a clear understanding of the realities of Japanese Buddhism and the lives of Japanese priests. He observed how Japanese priests deeply revered the founders of their sects, often upholding superstitious beliefs associated with them. Additionally, their strong sense of patriotism meant that there were only very few critics of the invasion of China among them.
In observing the national characteristics of Japan, the idea of ancestor worship is very strong, like the nation’s veneration of the emperor. For example, even kindergarten children know that Prince Shōtoku should be revered, and the priests have a strong respect for the founders of their sect.Footnote 43
One of the most surprising revelations of his time in Japan was his discovery of the inclusion of martial arts and military training at the monastic schools. Daxing was taken aback to discover that physical education encompassed activities such as ‘martial arts’ and ‘military drills’. He noted that Japanese priests were not only involved in proselytizing and evangelizing but also actively engaged with the goals of national defence.
The physical education class encompasses ‘martial arts’ (Ch. wudao, J. budō) and ‘military drills’ (Ch. junshi xunlian, J. gunji kunren). Japanese priests not only proselytise and evangelise, but are also committed to the defence of the nation. This is something we cannot even dream of, but it is what I have actually seen and heard in the last seven or eight days.Footnote 44
Upon his return from Japan, Daxing left Wuchang, where Taixu resided, and assumed the position of abbot at Juejin Temple in Huaiyin. In line with his previous endeavours, he founded a Buddhist magazine and established a Buddhist institute to initiate a modernized form of monastic education. However, a significant change emerged when Daxing began encouraging monks to participate in military drills. This shift in approach signified Daxing’s altered perception of Japanese priests and the growing sense of crisis regarding Japan’s military invasion of China.
They [Japanese priests] are all patriotic and also actively express this patriotism. As far as I know, the Honganji branch of the Jōdo Shin sect has many monks involved in politics, and the Nichiren priests advocate the use of military force. They are somewhat similar to Muslims. Comparing clergy in China and Japan, their willingness to contribute to the state is very different.Footnote 45
According to Buddhist precepts, monks should not participate in any military activities, even the administration of first aid. However, at present, China is on the verge of a struggle for survival, and even if the aim of Buddhism is to transcend the three realms, in our actual circumstances, we still cannot escape the country we are born into due to our karma (Ch. yibao).Footnote 46
Daxing appealed to the Chinese monks, who found themselves torn between upholding the precepts and demonstrating patriotism, by highlighting that, ‘in Japan there were military training courses everywhere in Buddhist universities and schools. There were also Bushidō training facilities a Zen Buddhist dōjōs. Even in China, the Shaolin Temple has martial arts practice.’Footnote 47 Although he was critical of Japanese Buddhism, and his belief was that it was more important to maintain traditional monastic life and protect Buddhism in this way than for monks to actively participate in society,Footnote 48 Daxing came to understand that military drills for monks were something that could also be found in the Chinese Buddhist tradition and thus were a legitimate means to protect Chinese Buddhism.
Taixu’s anti-Japanese activities and Daxing’s vow
On 7 July 1937, an armed clash broke out between Japanese and Chinese troops near the Marco Polo Bridge. Fortuitously, Chinese government and military leaders, under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek, had convened at Lushan as part of their customary summer gathering, enabling prompt deliberations on their course of action. Chiang Kai-shek swiftly directed an assessment of Japan’s intentions and issued orders to the local military and government to prepare for a ‘do-or-die’ war. On the 17 July, Chiang Kai-shek made an announcement that, ‘For, once that stage [i.e. ‘the limit of endurance’] is reached, we can only sacrifice and fight to the bitter end’, while also sending a final warning to Japan that whether or not the Marco Polo Bridge incident would lead to ‘war’ depended on the attitude of the Japanese.Footnote 49 During the Lushan gathering, Taixu—also in attendance—issued a petition on 16 July titled ‘Notice to the Japan Buddhist Federation, as well as the Buddhists, Military, and Citizens of Japan’. This petition implored Japan to immediately cease military operations and advocated for the two nations to earnestly pursue diplomatic avenues to pave the way for justice. Concurrently, Taixu rallied all Buddhists in China to safeguard Buddhism, unite in the struggle for national defence under the unified command of the government, and provide first aid and relief for the wounded and refugees.Footnote 50 Taixu’s call was undoubtedly timely and closely aligned with Chiang Kai-shek’s intentions. The petition was published in the Shanghai newspaper Shenbao (Shanghai news) on 18 July and was subsequently reprinted in newspapers throughout China.
In response to the Marco Polo Bridge incident, the Japanese government declared a policy of ‘local resolution and non-expansion’. Within the Japanese Army Command, there were divergent factions advocating for either escalation or non-escalation of the incident. However, on 11 July, the Japanese government made the decision to label the armed conflict as the ‘North China Incident’ ( J. hokushi jihen), attributing its cause to China’s ‘concerted resistance’. Additionally, the Japanese government announced the dispatch of troops. The General Staff headquarters subsequently issued orders for the Kwantung Army and the Imperial Japanese Army in Korea to mobilize troops. As a result, on 28 July, a full-scale attack by the Japanese Army commenced in the Beijing-Tianjin area,Footnote 51 signifying a significant step towards all-out war with China.
Japanese Buddhists convened an emergency meeting at Tsukiji Hongan Temple, a major temple belonging to the Honganji branch of the True Pure Land sect, in Tokyo on 28 July in response to the appeal made by Chinese Buddhists, including Taixu. During the meeting, they adopted a resolution to ‘enlighten the Chinese Buddhists, refute their arguments, make them understand our position, and make all Chinese Buddhists reconsider their own position’. Additionally, they formulated a policy to ‘convey the true intentions’ of the Japanese government to all the 400 million people of China and launch a propaganda war to break down the false ideas of ‘resisting Japan’ ( J. kōnichi) and ‘contempt for Japan’ ( J. bunichi)’.Footnote 52 Furthermore, Japanese Buddhists decided to align themselves fully with the Japanese government’s military invasion.
Subsequently, in August, the conflict escalated into the Second Shanghai Incident (the Battle of Shanghai), with both Japan and China deploying massive military forces to the new battleground. By mid-November, Shanghai, with the exception of the foreign concessions, fell under Japanese occupation. On 20 November, the Supreme National Defence Council, led by Chiang Kai-shek, announced the government’s relocation to Chongqing for sustained resistance. The Japanese Army, which was hoping that the war could be brought to a swift end with the fall of the capital Nanjing, had sent reservist units into the Battle of Shanghai. The reservists suffered heavily in that battle and the following harsh slog to Nanjing led to a breakdown in discipline. The result of this was the infamous Nanjing Massacre.Footnote 53
As the Second Sino-Japanese War engulfed many regions of China, Taixu responded by appealing to the Hankou Buddhist Association (Ch. Hankou fojiao zhengxin hui) in September and spearheaded the establishment of Buddhist first-aid teams. In December, he took the initiative of dispatching students from the Sino-Tibetan Buddhist Institute (Ch. Hanzang jiaoli yuan) in Chongqing to partake in military training.Footnote 54 Subsequently, Taixu relocated to Chongqing, following the government’s move, and gathered his disciples there.
On 21 May 1938, the Changkya Khutukhtu (1892–1957), a prominent figure among Tibeto-Mongolian Buddhists, and Taixu jointly established a temporary office of the China Buddhist Association at the Luohan Temple in Chongqing. In this endeavour, Taixu fervently appealed to the Kuomintang, government agencies, and Chinese Buddhists ‘not to betray the nation’.Footnote 55 Taixu took a critical stance against the activities of the Chinese Buddhist Association in the Japan-occupied territories and requested the Chinese Buddhist Association office in Shanghai to send some important documents to Chongqing. Changxing (1896–1938), who served as the secretary general of the Association at the time and was based in Shanghai, consented to this request. However, Changxing argued against the unsympathetic view that his friend Taixu had of those who remained in the occupied territories, arguing that, ‘It is good for China to know that all Buddhists in the Japan-occupied territories take good care of themselves. Following the Shanghai incident, Buddhist activities [in the occupied territories] have been reduced in scope and are currently limited to relief efforts.’Footnote 56
Taixu sought the assistance of his disciples, Daxing and Zhifeng, who had remained in the occupied territories, asking them to join him in Chongqing.Footnote 57 In fact, Fafang (1904–1951), Taixu’s leading disciple, published a letter to Daxing in Haichaoyin, extending an invitation to him to join them there.Footnote 58 However, the invasion of the Japanese Army had created a deteriorating security situation in many parts of China. Robberies and kidnappings became prevalent, and even the police were known to extort money from passers-by. In view of these perilous conditions and weighing the risks of travelling across unknown lands against the challenges faced under Japanese occupation, Daxing made the decision to stay where he was.Footnote 59 He continued his activities as a monk, travelling back and forth between the Juejin Temple in Huaiyin, the Shanyin Temple in Gaoyu, and several temples in Shanghai.
Daxing’s writings from this period indicate that even after Taixu and his disciples moved to Wuhan and Chongqing, Daxing was still able to communicate with them. In addition, he also contributed articles to Huanan jueyin (later renamed Jueyin), a Buddhist magazine founded in Hong Kong by Taixu’s disciples, in which he criticized Japan’s acts of aggression.Footnote 60 Daxing’s location in occupied coastal China formed part of a wider Buddhist network linked to Taixu in inland China as well as British Hong Kong.
The writings that Daxing contributed to Haichaoyin comprised essays, poems, and short letters informing readers of the latest situation. However, among these contributions, there exists one notable item that clearly expressed his views: ‘Our Vow’ (Ch. Women de shiyue) was published in the Fohua xinwen (Chongqing) on 20 April 1939. Below is an abridged translation of the first half of this piece.
Japan’s aggression has brutally hurt and humiliated our people and Buddhism. Buddhists should feel anger, but when we see the various inhumane acts committed by the Japanese military killing and injuring our compatriots, we cannot help but feel deep outrage. We must be aware in our resistance that Japan will use any means at its disposal. After planes and tanks, they will try to extinguish the strength of the Chinese people by using politics, the economy, culture, education, and finally even religion. This direction can already be seen in the occupied areas. In fact, the enemy has not yet used us Buddhists as slaves, but we must anticipate the possibility that the enemy will take such a step. Buddhists need to be careful in this regard. Buddhists must not be traitors to the people, or at least not used by the enemy. We Buddhists cannot kill our enemies or commit suicide if our settlements are occupied. What should we do? Lay Buddhists can endure temporary humiliation because of family bonds, and they can refuse to act as traitors. In the case of monks, if their position is about to be used by the enemy, they can flee. The job of an abbot can be entrusted to another person in advance (hereinafter abbreviated).Footnote 61
Indeed, Daxing’s courageous act of criticizing Japan’s aggression and appealing to fellow Buddhists not to cooperate while under Japanese occupation was a daring stance. It was known to the Japanese that Daxing was a leading disciple of Taixu and a proponent of resistance to Japan. He pledged to abstain from cooperating with the Japanese Army and appealed to others to also not be complicit in the invasion of China. To do so while under occupation was far more courageous than criticizing Japan from a safe distance. For Taixu and many monks in the rear, Daxing’s ‘vow’ must have been reassuring.
Fujii Sōsen and Daxing’s criticism of Japan
The last confirmed contribution of Daxing to Haichaoyin was made in August 1939. Subsequently, his name started appearing in the Japanese media. On 28 January 1940, an article in Chūgai nippō covered Daxing’s social activities in Nanjing. According to the article, Daxing was actively involved in providing housing and support for war orphans. In addition, it was mentioned that Fujii Sōsen of the Ōtani sect sought to establish contact with Taixu through Daxing’s assistance.Footnote 62
Amidst the outbreak of hostilities between Japanese and Chinese forces in July 1937, Fujii promptly offered his services to the Ōtani sect and was subsequently assigned to Beijing. In Beijing, where the political situation was unstable, he contacted his Chinese friends and played an active role in establishing a new Ōtani branch. As previously noted, the period following the Manchurian Incident witnessed a crescendo of anti-Japanese sentiment across China, which also permeated the Buddhist community. Concurrently, by late 1936, reports detailing Taixu’s stance against Japan gained traction in Japan, engendering heightened criticism of Chinese Buddhism. These circumstances dealt a significant blow to Fujii’s planned initiatives aimed at fostering Sino-Japanese Buddhist interaction. This hostile environment even thwarted Fujii’s intentions to meet with his Chinese friends.Footnote 63
Curiously, the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War paradoxically afforded Fujii a renewed avenue for active involvement. Frightened by the invasion of the Japanese Army, the Buddhists in Beijing were relieved that their friend Fujii had come to Beijing and relied on him to deal with the occupation forces.Footnote 64 At that time, there were no other priests in the Ōtani sect who had the necessary language skills and ability to work in China like Fujii. With the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War, Fujii became a valuable resource for both the Ōtani sect and Chinese Buddhists in the Japan-occupied territories. The irony was that Fujii, who had previously been a peripheral figure in the Ōtani sect, was selected as abbot in rotation ( J. rinban) of the Beijing branch temple with the outbreak of the war.
Nonetheless, Fujii’s convictions remained steadfast even as he shouldered these new responsibilities. He did not single-mindedly prioritize the interests of the Ōtani sect, but also cooperated in the expansion of other Japanese Buddhist denominations into China.Footnote 65 He demonstrated a genuine commitment to respecting the priorities of Chinese Buddhists over those of their Japanese counterparts. A telling example was his reaction in 1938 when a generous donation from a Chinese Buddhist in Beijing was extended to the Ōtani sect. Fujii opposed the wishes of his superior to send the donation on to Japan, stating that, ‘Chinese money should be spent in China’. In protest, he resigned from his post and returned to Japan. His actions compelled his superior to travel to Japan to formally apologize to Fujii. The donation was ultimately used to establish a girl’s school in Beijing.Footnote 66
Fujii continued to travel back and forth between Japan and China, delivering lectures to Japanese priests to encourage them to expand into China.Footnote 67 From his personal experience, Fujii had come to believe that an increased presence of Japanese priests in China would engender in them a deeper understanding of Chinese Buddhism and Chinese monks. This endeavour also included visits to his friends in the territories occupied by Japan, ensuring their well-being amid the tumultuous circumstances.Footnote 68 Fujii was resolute in his belief that, even in the throes of war between Japan and China, the shared Buddhist faith of clergy in Japan and China would be enough to maintain their friendship. He hoped that if Japanese Buddhists contributed to the revival of Chinese Buddhism, Taixu, who was engaged in anti-Japanese activities, would come to recognize the ‘genuine’ intentions of Japanese Buddhists.
At the end of 1939, Fujii published a short piece titled ‘To the Chinese Buddhists’ ( J. Chūgoku bukkyōto ni atau) in a Chinese periodical, which lucidly reflects his perspective on the ongoing conflict. Observing the situation after the fall of Nanjing and Wuhan, Fujii concluded that, ‘the battle has already been decided, and the transition to peace has begun’. Japanese born after the Meiji era only knew victorious wars—the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), and the First World War. Although he loved China, Fujii was no exception to this prevailing mindset. Fujii ardently advocated for a cessation of hostilities between Japan and China, emphasizing that the tide of victory had unmistakably turned in Japan’s favour. He urged Buddhists residing in the occupied territories to eschew withdrawal to the interior and instead channel their efforts towards reconstruction initiatives, such as aiding refugees and social work. Fujii praised the endeavours of Chinese monks who were already deeply involved in social work in places such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Hangzhou. He called for young Buddhists to rise up and supplant the more traditional older generation of monks. He appealed to them to revive the Chinese Buddhist Association, to carry out social relief and human resource training projects, and in this way reinvigorate Buddhism in China. He held that if this could be realized, existing anti-Buddhist movements would cease, and he concluded his essay with the statement ‘Long live the Chinese Buddhists!’ ( J. banzai Chūgoku bukkyōto).Footnote 69 Fujii maintained a resolute stance on the paramount significance of establishing a Chinese Buddhist organization. He criticized Japanese attempts to establish a joint Sino-Japanese Buddhist goodwill organization prior to the successful realization of an autonomous Chinese counterpart, likening this approach to ‘putting the cart before the horse’.Footnote 70
There existed a considerable variance in religious policies within the occupied regions of China. For instance, in North China, religious affairs were overseen by units of the Special Service Department ( J. tokumu kikan) of the North China Area Army, as well as the Culture Bureau of the North China Liaison Office ( J. Kahoku renrakubu), which operated under the auspices of the Kōain (East Asia Development Board). However, there was no specialized organization exclusively dedicated to supervising religious operations. In Central China, the Shanghai Special Service Department and the Nanjing Special Service Department established the Central China Religious League ( J. Chūshi shūkyō daidō renmei) in February 1938 in order to streamline the activities of Japanese Buddhist, Christian, and Shinto organizations.Footnote 71
Nevertheless, a significant shift occurred in December 1938 when the Japanese government decided to turn the Kōain into the central policymaking body for all of China. Subsequently, in 1939, the jurisdiction of the Central China Religious League was placed within the purview of the Central China Liaison Office of the Kōain. However, all of their many plans were rejected, and as the budget and personnel were cut, Buddhist policy was simplified to the short directive: ‘Organise the Sino-Japanese Buddhist Associations in the occupied territories and focus on strengthening the leadership over the Chinese monks and the people, while conducting educational and social work’. The Japanese government expected religious specialists to use their status to contribute to the restoration of social order and cultural operations in occupied China, leading to great dissatisfaction among Japanese religious figures in central China with the Kōain’s policies as they were not allowed to carry out their previous activities.Footnote 72
Fujii was among those critical of the Kōain’s religious policies, but his complaints differed from those of other priests. Fujii criticized the lack of substance in the guidelines of the Central China Religious League. If the League really sought to organize Chinese religious groups, it was necessary to also include Daoism, Islam, and Tibetan Buddhism in its activities. He further criticized the self-interested attitude of Japanese clergy active in the occupied territories.Footnote 73 Fujii’s strong sense of respect for China’s religious culture created a lack of awareness in him that he was on the side of the aggressor. Fujii was not able to understand Chinese nationalism because he was himself not committed to Japanese nationalism. Thus, Fujii was unaware of the lop-sided nature of the relationship between him and his Chinese friends, even as his friends in China must have had mixed feelings about him.
In March 1940, Japan established the Reorganised National Government of the Republic of China headed by Wang Jingwei. Although Daxing did not refrain from criticizing the Wang administration even in front of Japanese people,Footnote 74 he did respond to Fujii’s request for cooperation. For example, when the Ōtani sect established the Nanjing Women’s Craft School (Ch. Jinlin nüzi jiyi xuexiao), Daxing agreed to become a nominal adviser and gave lectures to the students. Daxing’s essays from this time describe his concern for the lives of the Chinese people in the occupied territories and his desire for peace, while continuing his daily monastic activities.
For the past five years or so, all travellers [for merchant activities] have suffered. I don’t travel for work, but I have to make short journeys for friendship and Buddhist activities. All roads are full of hardship. And the people are having more difficulty and are suffering more than I am! The Yangzhou police are becoming increasingly severe, acting like bandits when they find travelers, swearing when you move, and breaking things during luggage inspections … If you are examined by the police during your journey, you must discretely give one or two yuan to them. This has become an open secret.Footnote 75
After telling me about the preparations for the East Asian Buddhist Convention, Fujii went with me to attend the conference in Nanjing. Because he was so enthusiastic, I couldn’t refuse, I just had to agree.Footnote 76
30 March is the first anniversary of the relocation of the capital. A play was held at the National Convention Hall to celebrate the relocation of the capital. Chu Minyi [the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Wang Jingwei regime] gave Fujii a ticket to a Peking opera performance, so Fujii tried to buy another one to invite me, but it was sold out. Fujii gave me his ticket to go see it alone … While watching the opera, I hoped that one day all the Chinese people will be able to see such a ‘serene sight’ (Ch. taiping jingxiang).Footnote 77
On 8 April 1941, the East Asian Buddhist Convention was held in Nanjing. It was jointly organized by the Central China Religious League, the Sino-Japanese Cultural Association ( J. Chūnichi bunka kyōkai), and the General Assembly of the Sino-Japanese Buddhist Federation ( J. Nikka bukkyō renmei). It was a large conference attended by more than a hundred participants, including representatives of the North China Federation of Japanese Buddhism ( J. Hokushi Nihon bukkyō rengōkai), the Islamic Association ( J. Kaikyōkai), and the Qingdao Religious Federation ( J. Seitō shūkyō renmei), the directors of the Central China Religious League, 50 Buddhist representatives from across the occupied territories, as well as 25 Japanese priests. The Bulletin of the East Asia Buddhist Convention ( J. Tōa bukkyō taikai kiyō), published for propaganda purposes, included ‘goodwill’ congratulatory speeches as well as photos of the eleven-faced GuanyinFootnote 78 sent from Japan the previous year and amicable scenes at the conference, including photos of conference participants visiting Sun Yat-sen’s Mausoleum in Nanjing.Footnote 79
While the Bulletin includes a list of names of the participants from Nanjing, Zhenjiang, Danyang, Changzhou, Qingdao, Shanghai, Suzhou, Hefei, Wuxi, Yangzhou, and Mount Zixia, Daxing’s name does not appear therein. Instead, his name is found in materials related to the preparations for the conference.Footnote 80 He is also mentioned in internal documents of the Central China Religious League as giving the following harsh opinion to Japanese delegates at the Convention:
In order for Sino-Japanese Buddhist exchange to be established, it is assumed that both sides have established organisations. However, in China, the Buddhist world was hit hard because of the incident [i.e. the Japanese invasion]. I wish for the help of the Japanese Buddhists to try to revive Chinese Buddhism. What should be done for the time being is roughly as follows. 1. Aid for those who have suffered from war. 2. Restitution of the Buddhist Associations in each province and city, and the establishment of a national Buddhist institution integrating all of these. 3. Preservation and restoration of Chinese Buddhist historical sites and texts. 4. Improvement of the living conditions of Chinese monks and establishment of monastic training institutes. 5. Establishment of educational institutions, such as Buddhist universities or Buddhist schools. 6. Establishment and expansion of Buddhist youth associations and women’s associations. 7. Publication of bilingual Buddhist journals in both Chinese and Japanese.Footnote 81
In his remarks at the conference, Daxing pointed out the harm suffered by Chinese Buddhism as a result of the Japanese invasion, criticized the Japanese side quite directly, and called for the state of affairs prior to the invasion to be restored. I have not seen any other text in which a Chinese monk in the occupied territory directly criticized the use of military force by Japan in the same manner. Daxing’s remarks were courageous and could actually be shared by Japanese monks working in the occupied territories. The minutes of the conference found in the pages of the monthly bulletin of the Central China Religious League ( J. Chūshi shūkyō daidō renmei geppō) are replete with expressions of frustration with the Japanese government and military. While the Japanese were ultimately unable to formulate a unified religious policy in Central China, Daxing continued his activities while travelling between Nanjing, Gaoyu, Huaiyin, and Shanghai. He was able to operate autonomously without being forced to affiliate himself with any of the Sino-Japanese Buddhist friendship organizations established throughout Central China. Nonetheless, in light of Japan’s strategy to establish Sino-Japanese Buddhist associations throughout the occupied territories, persistent efforts were made to seek cooperation from Chinese monks, including Daxing, who was approached from Xiamen in southern China.
The revival of the Minnan Buddhist Academy
After the Japanese Navy’s occupation of Xiamen in May 1938, the Xiamen Reconstruction Committee ( J. Amoi fukkō iinkai) was formed through consultation between the consul general of Xiamen and the Office of the Governor-General of Taiwan. At the same time, a Peace Maintenance Committee (Ch. Zhian weichi hui) consisting of local Xiamen residents was established,Footnote 82 with the Taiwanese-born collaborator Zhang Ming (n.d.) at its helm. On 23 June, the Peace Maintenance Committee held a memorial service for the Chinese and Japanese war dead at Nanputuo Temple.Footnote 83 Zhang Ming caused controversy by encouraging the adoption of Japanese Buddhist practices such as eating meat and marrying.Footnote 84 Many of the monks at Nanputuo Temple left Xiamen, with the abbot Huiquan fleeing early on to Singapore.Footnote 85
When war broke out, most of the Japanese residing in Xiamen fled to Taiwan. Kanda Eun, who had been living in Xiamen the whole time, was mobilized by the Japanese Navy and worked as an interpreter. He returned to Xiamen at the end of June 1938 and actively cooperated with the security operations conducted by Buddhist organizations. Kanda brought together the major Buddhist organizations in Xiamen: the Buddhist society centred on Miaoshi Temple (about 300 members), the Buddhist society centred on the lay believer Cai Jitang (about a hundred members), and the Keibutsukai (about 600 members) founded by Kanda himself. He consulted with Zhang Ming and Juebin, who had taken over the abbotship at Nanputuo Temple, and founded the Mahayana Buddhist Youth Association (Ch. Dasheng fojiao qingnian hui), establishing centralized management of a variety of projects such as refugee relief and Japanese language training. Those who answered Kanda’s call were Cai Jitang and other residents who had already been friends with Kanda for many years.Footnote 86
On 1 September 1938, the Mahayana Buddhist Youth Association was inaugurated at the Japanese Higashi Hongan Temple in Xiamen. About 200 people gathered at the inaugural convention, with Kanda Eun giving the opening remarks and Juebin serving as chairman. During the gathering, participants approved a preliminary version of the founding declaration of the Mahayana Buddhist Youth Association. The declaration determined the objective of the Association to be the ‘clarification of the unity of Buddhists and the doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism, as well as the implementation of social and public works to create a healthy society’. It was decided that the offices of the Association would be located inside Miaoshi Temple. Shi Fanqi (1875–?), who was recommended by the mayor of Xiamen, was appointed chairman, while Cai Jitang was made vice chairman. Kanda Eun served as an adviser alongside Juebin.Footnote 87 The Mahayana Buddhist Youth Association then held a propaganda gathering, with more than 500 participants marching and posting slogans promoting Buddhism throughout Xiamen. These activities were appreciated by the Japanese Navy and the Peace Maintenance Committee. In addition, for the first time in about 30 years, the Honganji sect also dispatched priests to Xiamen,Footnote 88 where, initially, they worked autonomously.
Buddhist activities in Xiamen were carried out with a certain degree of cohesion due to the small size of the city, the assistance of Taiwanese residents, and the presence of Kanda Eiun, who had built up relationships of trust in Xiamen over many years. Kanda asked the Honganji sect to cooperate closely with the Mahayana Buddhist Youth Association and requested them to refrain from subordinating Chinese temples without permission or from proselytizing among Chinese Buddhists. He further proposed that they should conduct all their present and future activities in Xiamen under the name of the Mahayana Buddhist Youth Association.Footnote 89
In January 1939, the Association reorganized its board of directors under the guidance of the Navy Special Service Department and the Peace Maintenance Committee and revised its regulations. The mayor of Xiamen was appointed as the new chairman, the former chairman Shi Fanqi and his adviser Juebin became vice-chairmen, and Kanda Eun, Iwasaki Bungo (from the Honganji sect), and Cai Jitang became executive directors. In April, with the support of the newly established Kōain Xiamen Liaison Office, the Navy, and the GGT, the Mahayana Buddhist Youth Association changed its name to the Mahayana Buddhist Association (Ch. Dasheng fojiao hui). It began to hold regular Buddhist lectures, established Japanese language training centres, and carried out pacification work such as relief for the poor.Footnote 90 In June, the Mahayana Buddhist Association launched the magazine Dasheng yuekan (Mahayana monthly), which published monthly activity reports.
The Minnan Buddhist Academy at Nanputuo Temple had once been headed by Taixu, and it was renowned both at home and abroad. Therefore, the reopening of the Minnan Buddhist Academy was regarded as a symbol of the restoration of security under Japanese occupation. The question was how to reopen the Buddhist Institute and where to find a suitable director. The academy’s founder, Huiquan, had fled to Southeast Asia, and Taixu was on a journey from Burma to India and Ceylon to spread anti-Japanese sentiment in support of the Chinese government. Along the way he even had a dramatic reunion with Huiquan. Another potential candidate to take over the academy, Changxing, had died in Shanghai in January 1939.Footnote 91
In December 1940, the Mahayana Buddhist Association voted to restore the Minnan Buddhist Academy.Footnote 92 Taixu’s disciples Daxing and Zhifeng, who remained in Japan-occupied central China, were marked for recruitment. In February 1941, Juebin wrote a letter to Daxing, informing him of the latest developments at Nanputuo Temple and urged him to come to Xiamen as the Association wanted to restore the Minnan Buddhist Academy. Although Daxing refused at first, he continued to receive correspondence from Juebin, Kanda Eun, Cai Jitang, and others. Juebin finally told him that he would come to see him personally in Gaoyou. Daxing relented and promised to meet him in Shanghai on 1 June.Footnote 93 When Juebin and Daxing arrived at the Xizhu Temple in Shanghai, monks from the area came almost every day to visit the two. The two visitors were taken care of by two staff members of the Central China Religious League, Fujii Sōsen, and local Chinese monks and lay believers. Juebin was hoping to convince both Daxing and Zhifeng to come to Xiamen. Zhifeng adamantly refused as responsibilities at his temple kept him too busy, so it was Daxing who decided to visit Xiamen. Daxing wrote about his reasons for this decision, such as his friendship with Juebin and his sense of responsibility towards the Minnan Buddhist Academy. When Daxing and Juebin arrived in Xiamen on 14 June, they were greeted at the port by many Xiamen residents, including Kanda, Nanputuo Temple monks, and Cai Jitang. During his two-week stay in Xiamen, Daxing kept refusing attempts to make him abbot of Nanputuo Temple and director of the Minnan Buddhist Academy. Eventually, however, he accepted the post of academy director, suggesting that, since he could not stay in Xiamen, he would visit four months out of the year to perform his duties. Upon his return to Shanghai, he selected young monks who wished to enter the Minnan Buddhist Academy and returned to Xiamen in September with his friend Kuairan.Footnote 94
On 15 September 1941, the opening ceremony of the Minnan Buddhist Academy was held. It was attended by about 30 guests from political, military, and diplomatic circles, including the mayor of Xiamen, the acting minister of the Kōain South China Liaison Office, a representative of the Japanese consul-general Ishikawa, vice consul Tsuchiya, and the chief of the local Army special service unit.Footnote 95 In his inaugural speech, Daxing highlighted the contributions of the Minnan Buddhist Academy to the development of Chinese Buddhism prior to the outbreak of the ‘incident’ (Ch. shibian, J. jihen—a euphemistic Japanese expression for the war). He further stressed that since then, temples all over China had stagnated due to the economic repercussions of the conflict. He concluded his speech by expressing his joy that the Minnan Buddhist Academy had reopened with the support of the Xiamen City Government and the Kōain, as well as the cooperation of friends from the Ōtani sect, the Honganji sect, and Nanputuo Temple.Footnote 96 This is, as far as I know, the most euphemistic criticism of the ‘incident’ by Daxing, and also his shortest salutation.
Juebin differed considerably from Daxing. He served as an adviser and vice-president of the Mahayana Buddhist Association but contributed only poetry to the Dasheng yuekan. The single exception to this is a text written in commemoration of the reconstruction of the Minnan Buddhist Academy. In it, he writes that the Chinese Army occupied the temple after the ‘incident’ and prohibited the general public from worshipping there, which caused economic hardship, suspended the operation of the Buddhist academy, and forced the monks to disperse. On the other hand, he writes, all Xiamen temples and Buddhists were happy because Japanese forces had landed in Xiamen to maintain security and protect Buddhism.Footnote 97 After the temple elders had left for safer environs, Juebin and other monks who remained in Xiamen to protect the Nanputuo Temple continued their Buddhist activities while showing due obedience to Japanese rule.Footnote 98 However, it was apparently impossible for Daxing to behave in a similar manner.
Just two months after the opening of the Minnan Buddhist Academy, an article in the Chūgai nippō of 14 November reported that Daxing was back in Shanghai.Footnote 99 After that, he continued to travel back and forth between Shanghai, Nanjing, Gaoyou, and Huaiyin, but there is no evidence that he ever returned to Xiamen. From the current records, it is unclear at what precise point Daxing returned to Shanghai.Footnote 100 The text that Daxing published in the Dasheng yuekan on the occasion of his appointment as director of the Minnan Buddhist Academy, ends with the inscription ‘23 September, after an illness’.Footnote 101 All of Daxing’s texts published in the Dasheng yuekan after this actually predate the opening of the Minnan Buddhist Academy, and no new information can be gleaned from them. From this, it seems most likely that Daxing had ‘fallen ill’ immediately after the opening ceremony of the Minnan Buddhist Academy on 15 September, and that he left Xiamen shortly afterwards, using this illness as an excuse. As Daxing had taken up the position on the condition that he would only spend four months of the year in Xiamen, it would not have been so difficult for him to leave Xiamen. However, the fact that Daxing did not return may have come as a surprise to Kanda and Juebin.
In February 1942, Juebin died of overwork. Kanda Eun informed Daxing of his death and asked him to come to Xiamen to serve as the abbot of Nanputuo Temple instead. However, Daxing refused the request of his ‘old friend’ and recommended Kuairan as a viable candidate for the position.Footnote 102 Later, at the request of the Kōain Xiamen Liaison Office, the mayor of Xiamen, the Xiamen temples, and the lay believers of the Mahayana Buddhist Association, a Japanese secretary travelled to Shanghai as a representative and asked Daxing to return to Xiamen, but he still refused. In a Mahayana Buddhist Association report, there are also records stating that Daxing’s refusal to return to Xiamen hampered the Association’s activities.Footnote 103
Although he did not return to Xiamen, Daxing continued to exchange letters with students there. The letters can be verified and their dates are 2 April, 15 September, and 5 December 1942. In the April letter, Daxing writes that even after leaving the Minnan Buddhist Academy, not a day went by when he did not think about the students. Expressing concern for their welfare and the challenges they are facing, Daxing also communicates his own health struggles and the setbacks he is encountering in his endeavours. He notes his ongoing conversations with Fujii regarding the potential establishment of a monastic school in Shanghai, aimed at accepting students from the Minnan Buddhist Academy. Concluding his letter, he admonishes them to study diligently under the guidance of Kanda, Kuairan, and other trusted people after the passing of Juebin.Footnote 104 For Daxing, who worried about the harsh conditions young Chinese monks were facing under occupation, Fujii and Kanda were the only Japanese priests he could rely on.
According to Daxing himself, his reason for accepting the position of director of the Minnan Buddhist Academy—even if only nominally—was due to a sense of responsibility towards the Academy. It was probably also related to his wish to revive Chinese Buddhism and secure a place for the training of the next generation of young monks. At Fujii’s request, Daxing served as an adviser to the Nanjing Women’s Crafts School, and in addition to giving lectures to its graduates, he also gave lectures at the Nanjing Model Women’s School (Ch. Nanjing nüzi mofan zhongxue). Thus, many of his activities in the occupied territories were related to youth education.Footnote 105 These activities were not only part of the cultural operations conducted by the Japanese Army, but are also a continuation of the educational activities for young monks, which Daxing had continuously conducted together with Taixu since the 1920s.
In August 1942, Kuairan was installed as the new abbot of Nanputuo Temple. Although Daxing did not formally resign from the post, he never returned to Xiamen. He did, however, participate in the preparations for the formation of the Chinese Buddhist Society in Central China and was dispatched by the Central China Religious League to represent the organization in a Buddhist celebration marking the tenth anniversary of the founding of Manchukuo. He attended this event as the director of the Minnan Buddhist Academy.Footnote 106
Conclusion
Conditions in the Japanese occupied territories varied greatly between North, Central, and South China, as did the experiences of the Japanese priests who were deployed in these regions. In regard to Chinese monks, those who followed the Chinese government into the interior were not necessarily enthusiastic about resisting Japan, nor were all of the monks who remained in the occupied territories obedient to Japan’s rule. The case of Daxing and his network of friends illustrates the complexity of the situation. In weighing up the dangers of travelling through a war-torn land to join the Chinese government in the interior against the difficulties of operating on his home turf under Japanese military occupation, Daxing chose the latter.
Constantly navigating the gaps in Japan’s occupation regime and not joining one of the official Japanese-backed Buddhist organizations, Daxing used the slogan of ‘Sino-Japanese friendship’ in order to conduct his own, autonomous activities. He contributed articles calling for resistance to Japan in the Buddhist newspapers in Chongqing and published articles with inoffensive titles, but which actually criticized Japan, in British-ruled Hong Kong. In the occupied territories, he wrote privately about the daily tribulations of occupation. Readers across China were able to read between the lines to grasp what Daxing sought to convey. Daxing formed one node in a complex Buddhist network connecting KMT-held areas and those controlled by Japan.
Further, Daxing called on Japanese Buddhist priests to assist in rebuilding destroyed temples and restart the training of young monks, gaining their support in these endeavours. When Taixu criticized the invasion of China by the Japanese Army in the past, he did not criticize Japanese Buddhists, instead calling on them to work with Chinese Buddhists for peace. Daxing criticized the Japanese invasion and the destruction of temples it brought with it, calling on Chinese Buddhists to not be complicit in the ongoing invasion. However, he did not criticize the activities of Japanese Buddhists in the occupied territories. Japanese Buddhist priests who had been dispatched to China and chafed under the restrictions imposed on their activities by the government and military expressed sympathy for Daxing’s arguments. Daxing was thus able to continue his own independent activities within an autonomous space he managed to carve out for himself due to the support he received from his Japanese friend and sympathizer. Like other prominent monks who remained under occupation in Central China, he avoided direct involvement with the Japanese. Had he and others engaged in such activities as collecting donations for the resistance effort overseas, they would have risked coming under the close supervision of the Japanese. In the grey zone of occupied China, Daxing managed to find his own place in-between resistance and collaboration by operating under the moniker of ‘assisting his friends’. In this way, he was able to provide protection for other monks in their daily lives.
For Daxing, although Fujii was one of the Buddhists from the aggressor nation, due to the sympathy he showed towards Chinese Buddhists, Daxing trusted him. Fujii had enthusiastically supported the revival of Chinese Buddhism from before the outbreak of war and was happy to continue this effort even after full-scale fighting began. For Fujii, who lacked awareness of himself as an aggressor, what benefitted Chinese Buddhists ultimately also benefitted Japanese Buddhists. On the other hand, the reason why the friendship between Daxing and Kanda Eun did not pan out as smoothly was the fact that the territory of occupied Xiamen was much smaller and Daxing was the only monk of renown there. The Japanese who wanted to propagate Sino-Japanese friendship could not tolerate Daxing’s autonomous activities, but they could also not force him to come back to Xiamen once he had left.
The friendship between Daxing and Kanda as well as that between Daxing and Fujii examined in this article is not only an important case study, it also goes beyond the rigid division into friend and foe so characteristic of Cold War scholarship. The relationships between these three figures show us how interpersonal relationships in the occupied territories tended to be shaded in grey. The time might have come for scholarship to move past the tendency to portray monks in occupied China merely as ‘spies’ and ‘collaborators’. While it was not possible to entirely escape the pressures of the occupiers, Daxing’s case shows that there were a lot of possibilities in between the two extremes of collaboration and resistance.
What ultimately became of the protagonists of the story told in this article? In January 1943, Fujii resigned as chief of the Shanghai branch of the Ōtani school. The reason is unknown, but his resignation came suddenly. Fujii stayed in Shanghai for a while before returning a few months later to Jōen Temple in Toyohashi City. At the end of 1943, he was arrested by the Special Higher Police ( J. tokkō keisatsu) and later released on bail. It is said that the reason for his arrest was that he gave confidential information related to the imperial family to an acquaintance, but the validity of this accusation is in question. More than five years had passed since the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War, and the conflict had expanded to include war with Britain and the United States in Southeast Asia. However, there was no longer a place for the activity of ‘China-hand’ Fujii Sōsen, either in China or in Japan. Discouraged, Fujii never told his family or acquaintances about his reason for returning to Japan or his arrest. However, I believe that it was precisely because Fujii seemed to lose his standing in Imperial Japan that his friendship with Daxing was able to continue.
In June 1945, a large-scale air raid by the American Air Force destroyed 70 per cent of the urban area of Toyohashi, and Jōen Temple also burned down. After China won the war, Daxing again supported Taixu and was involved in the reorganization of the Chinese Buddhist Association, succeeding Taixu as abbot at Xuedou Temple in Ningbo. This shows that Daxing’s activities in the occupied territories did not make Taixu lose trust in him. In 1947, when Taixu passed away, Daxing and many other disciples gathered in order to organize his funeral and begin the process of publishing his collected works. In 1949, upon the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, Daxing fled to Taiwan where he died in 1952. After the war, Jōen Temple was rebuilt on the outskirts of Toyohashi City. Alongside a large number of Chinese-language magazines, the temple is also in possession of letters sent from Daxing to Fujii from Taiwan, providing evidence of their continued friendship.
Kanda Eun’s story is more tragic. In 1945, he was mobilized into the Army and his wife and children returned to Japan. According to recollections of family members, the war ended before he could be sent to the frontlines. Kanda worked hard to facilitate the repatriation of Japanese residing in Xiamen, but he himself wished to stay on in Xiamen even after the war ended. However, all of his requests to remain were denied. While mobilized, he contracted amoebic dysentery, necessitating treatment. Eventually, Kanda returned home after donating his Buddhist implements and giving away all his Japanese Buddhist books. He never fully recovered from amoebic dysentery and died in 1948 at the age of 47. A volume published on the occasion of the thirty-third anniversary of Kanda’s death included an essay by one of his former students at the Minnan Buddhist Academy who expressed his gratitude to his teacher. In the 1980s, Kanda’s son visited the Minnan Buddhist Academy, taking pictures of the many Japanese Buddhist books that remained at the facility. It is not clear whether the monks at Nanputuo Temple at that time knew of Kanda’s earlier presence at the temple, but they had protected the Japanese books alongside the Chinese Buddhist scriptures during the destruction wrought by the Cultural Revolution.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
