More accurate religion in Asia

[Mister X]

Foreword: I'm posting this on the behalf of an associate, an expert on Buddhism, who unfortunately cannot register here for unknown reasons.

---

Europa Universalis 5 looks to be a great undertaking, with many great improvements over its predecessor Europa Universalis 4. I am very much looking forward to in depth systems and mechanics such as population modeling, dynamic trade and so on. In EU4 however there are a few serious historical inaccuracies which I would not like to see carried over into EU5. The largest scale being how religion is modeled in East Asia.

First point on historical accuracy:

Japan was a Buddhist nation in the middle ages and early modern period, not only was Buddhist doctrine the basis for shinbutsu shugo, the official syncretism of local and Buddhist practices, but the basis of shinto religiosity itself. The definition of the word Shinto also shifted from ‘relating to gods (kami)’ or ‘popular practice and belief’ which was used in Chinese and Korean context as well, and was used in reference to Buddhism, to its modern definition only in modern times.

Veneration of the kami was absorbed into Buddhism through a variety of doctrinal innovations and new religious forms… the kami are transformations of the Buddhas manifested in Japan to save all sentient beings (honji suijaku).

(Kuroda Toshio, Shinto in the history of Japanese religion, 1981)

These eight sects, sometimes called kenmitsu or exoteric-esoteric Buddhism, acknowledged their interdependence with state authority, and together they dominated the religious sector. This entire order constituted the fundamental religious system of medieval Japan. Shinto was drawn into this Buddhist system as one segment of it, and its religious content was replaced with Buddhist doctrine, particularly mikkyo.

(Toshio)

In kenmitsu Buddhism, the most widespread interpretation of the religious content of Shinto was the honji suijaku… According to this theory, the kami are simply another form of the Buddha, and their form, condition, authority, and activity are nothing but the form and the acts by which the Buddha teaches, guides, and saves human beings. Shinto, therefore, was independent neither in existence nor in system of thought. It was merely one means among many by which the Buddha guides (kedo) and converts (kegi) sentient beings.

(Toshio)

(In the early modern period) Actual belief in the kami, however, as found among the common people at that time, remained subsumed under Buddhism.

(Toshio)

The word Shinto is actually a generic term for popular beliefs, whether of China, Korea, or Japan

(Toshio)

The medieval religious orthodoxy in Japan was in fact Vajrayana, this orthodoxy is called in the academic context kenmitsu (or exoteric-esoteric Buddhism). This orthodoxy was displaced to an extent in the early modern period by the new schools of Buddhism, particularly the various sects of Zen and Jodo Shu. However, the vajrayana sects retained tremendous influence among Japan’s elite, particularly the nobility and imperial family, some (particularly Shingon) are still among the largest sects by affiliation in modern times. A further illustration of the relationship in shinbtsu shugo is the fact most major urban Shinto jinja were administratively subordinate to Buddhist temples as jingu-ji (shrine-temple complexes), where Buddhist clergy oversaw shinto and Buddhist rituals.

Nominally, medieval Buddhism comprised eight sects, but it was not unusual for individuals to study the teachings and rituals of all the sects. The reason is that the eight held a single doctrinal system in common, that of mikkyo or esoteric Buddhism (Skt. Vajrayana). The Buddhist teachings that were recognized as orthodox during the medieval period had mikkyo as their base, combined with the exoteric teachings or kengyo (Buddhist and other teachings outside of mikkyo)

(Toshio)

At the end of the twelfth century, various (Mahayana) reform movements arose in opposition to this system… Nonetheless, the kenmitsu system maintained its status as the orthodox religion until the beginning of the sixteenth century.

(Toshio)

Kuroda Toshio’s scholarship is tremendously influential as a basis of the history of Shinto both in Japanese academia and worldwide.

It is no exaggeration to state that Kuroda’s writings on religion and the state in late classical and medieval Japan have revolutionised the study of Japanese religion. Of special importance has been his insistence on studying medieval Japanese religion as a whole, rather than as a collection of autonomous sects and schools. Especially, Kuroda points out that a categorisation of religious phenomena in classical and medieval Japan under the twin headings “Buddhism” and “Shinto” obscures more than it reveals. Kuroda argues that Shinto did not exist as an “independent religion” before the modern period, but functioned as a “component” of a complex cultic system, which was Buddhist in nature but also included non-Buddhist elements

(Mark Teeuwen, Buddhas and Kami in Japan: Honji Suijaku as a Combinatory Paradigm, 2003 p.4)

Buddhist monasteries held enormous influence over politics and a tremendous power base in the form of vast estates. Any historical account of Japan will be full of monks as administrators, advisors, involved in land disputes, playing politics, even sohei involved in war. The relationship was not a simple exploitation of learned classes by political elite but a complex interplay of belief, prestige and power.

The respect for religion displayed by many feudal magnates cannot be explained as a mere political device to enlist the support of powerful ecclesiastics. Yoshimitsu and most of the leading warriors of his day wished to be regarded not as upstarts but as well-bred and cultivated gentlemen. Many of them were genuinely interested in the arts, and some, like Yoshimitsu himself, made an effort to understand Zen teaching for its own sake. Historically the military class in Japan had inclined to a belief that there was a science of government which could be mastered if the right teacher could be found.

(George Sansom - A History of Japan 1334-1615, 1961. p.158)

Shintoism as an independent religion in definition and legal structure arose with modern nationalist thinkers in the 19th century who quite intentionally wanted to create an artificial divide between Japan and Asian nations, this very new construction forming the basis of the common misconception of Japanese historical religion.

The notion of Shinto as Japan's indigenous religion finally emerged complete both in name and in fact with the rise of modern nationalism, which evolved from the National Learning school of Motoori Norinaga and the Restoration Shinto movement of the Edo period down to the establishment of State Shinto in the Meiji period. The Meiji separation of Shinto and Buddhism (shinbutsu bunri) and its concomitant suppression of Buddhism (haibutsu kishaku) were coercive and destructive "correctives" pressed forward by the hand of government. With them Shinto achieved for the first time the status of an independent religion, distorted though it was. During this period the "historical consciousness" of an indigenous religion called Shinto, existing in Japan since ancient times, clearly took shape for the first time. This has remained the basis for defining the word Shinto down to the present. Scholars have yielded to this use of the word, and the population at large has been educated in this vein.

(Toshio)

Suggestions on implementation:

A representation of some percent of pops as Buddhist and some percent of pops as Shinto is entirely unsuited to the historical reality. In EU5 a simplified solution would be representing Japan as a Mahayana (/Vajrayana) country with Shintoism syncretized, representing the shinbutsu-shugo system, while all pops should be Mahayana-Shinto, not one or the other. More on this in other countries in the next section.

---

Second point on historical accuracy:

The religious groupings in Asia represented in EU5 should match the doctrine, genealogy and historical coexistence pattern of these religions. Firstly the dharmic religious group does not contain Buddhism. This is simply inaccurate, as Buddhism originated in India and coexisted with Hinduism for nearly two millennia (528 BC until late 1300s AD). Secondary point Sindh is not the location for Mahayana survival in India, by that time Bihar and Bengal would have some Buddhist presence remaining, which are referenced in East Asian accounts. To the broader point, Buddhism should be a part of the dharmic religious group, as a religion it calls itself the dharma, and Buddhist sources refer to Hindus as tirthika (heretic equivalent) not mleccha or adharmi (heathen equivalent).

One sees a similar pattern in Korea and China as Japan in this era, with Buddhist institutional dominance and nearly ubiquitous Buddhist led syncretism of local customs. However, there also existed, while relatively small in the early 14th century, a more independent non Buddhist presence in China. Of course in China and Korea there is a later rise of neo-confucianism as a political rival to Buddhism, but widespread Buddhism did not disappear by any means.

In addition, Vajrayana is a group of Mahayana sects, not an incompatible branch within Eastern religions. The major Mahayana countries had significant Vajrayana presence or patronage in this period. In addition to the dominance and elite persistence of kenmitsu Buddhism in Japan and elite persistence of mikkyo (Vajrayana), the Yuan emperor Toghon was a patron of the Sakya Vajrayana sect. While Vajrayana would go on to decline in China and Korea, Tendai and Shingon remain large and influential sects in Japan to this day and prior to the modern period Vajrayana sects were still dominant at the elite level, despite the ongoing rise of Zen among the samurai and present shogun.

By contrast, the divide between Theravada and Mahayana is accurately portrayed in EU4 religions within the same group who regard each other as heretical. The two have deep divides over both textual authenticity and the legitimacy of each other's practice. Theravadins regard Mahayana texts and their practices as later forgeries, (see the Kathāvatthu abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga for rejection of works outside the pali tipitaka) while Mahayana dismisses the goal of Theravada, arahantship, as not actually attaining enlightenment and refer to Theravada as hinayana, or the lesser vehicle (See the lotus sutra, prajnaparamita sutra, Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra , Shōbōgenzō, Jūjū Shinron etc). There is nothing like this divide between Mahayana and Vajrayana, Vajrayana sects identify as Mahayana and are recognized as such, both agree on which texts are valid, quibbling over who’s method works better. Mahayana had many sects, all with this order of disagreement, Huayan, Pure Land, Zen, Yogacara, Ritsu, Sanlun, as well as the Vajrayana sects like Tendai and Shingon. Artificially dividing out the Vajrayana sects of Mahayana, including in Tibet, misrepresent the relationship between Mahayana sects.

Suggestions for implementation:

Eastern religions and dharmic religions could simply be merged as one group. Alternatively a more elegant solution, Buddhism is put in the Dharmic group but able to syncretize with Eastern group religions, which would work for all of the main East Asian Mahayana nations. China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, as well as Mongolia would all fit this situation neatly, Buddhism as the institutionally patronized religion with a syncretized local eastern religion. The degree of pop overlap could vary by country, with all pops in Japan being syncretic, a large majority in China and Korea, but with some folk religion only pops especially in rural areas, while in the Yuan Buddhism was institutionally dominant but not all Mongol tribesmen practiced it by the 14th century.

A final minor suggestion for historical flavor:

I would love to see some flavor for Tibet, particularly relating to India. Tibet is very much influenced by the Indosphere, their script is Indic and their religion represents the final stage of Indian Vajrayana.

There are tantras like the Kalachakra which predict the reconquest of India, the Buddha’s homeland, by Buddhists from the Islamic conquerors. A formable, both for Indian and Tibetan Buddhists, called either Jambudvipa or Shambhala directed at reconquering India would be great fun.

 

[Streamlet]

A representation of some percent of pops as Buddhist and some percent of pops as Shinto is entirely unsuited to the historical reality. In EU5 a simplified solution would be representing Japan as a Mahayana (/Vajrayana) country with Shintoism syncretized, representing the shinbutsu-shugo system, while all pops should be Mahayana-Shinto, not one or the other. More on this in other countries in the next section.

It should be noted that the current implementation of "Shinto" already represents the mix of Buddhism and local beliefs. The actual issue is just with the name, and the devs said they wanted to use Shinto instead of another name as it's "more recognisable".

They've also said that it isn't possible with the current game systems to make pops follow multiple religions at the same time, so it would have to work within this framework of a single religion or a more distinct split.

 

[donbg]

Eastern religions and dharmic religions could simply be merged as one group. Alternatively a more elegant solution, Buddhism is put in the Dharmic group but able to syncretize with Eastern group religions, which would work for all of the main East Asian Mahayana nations. China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, as well as Mongolia would all fit this situation neatly, Buddhism as the institutionally patronized religion with a syncretized local eastern religion. The degree of pop overlap could vary by country, with all pops in Japan being syncretic, a large majority in China and Korea, but with some folk religion only pops especially in rural areas, while in the Yuan Buddhism was institutionally dominant but not all Mongol tribesmen practiced it by the 14th century.

A final minor suggestion for historical flavor:

I would love to see some flavor for Tibet, particularly relating to India. Tibet is very much influenced by the Indosphere, their script is Indic and their religion represents the final stage of Indian Vajrayana.

There are tantras like the Kalachakra which predict the reconquest of India, the Buddha’s homeland, by Buddhists from the Islamic conquerors. A formable, both for Indian and Tibetan Buddhists, called either Jambudvipa or Shambhala directed at reconquering India would be great fun.

Agreed on Dharmic religions including Buddhism but this should exclude Chinese religion and I disagree on the vision here regarding China. Chinese religion did not syncretise by being "Buddhist-led", Buddhism was integrated into the Chinese religious framework centuries before the start date and it was sinicised. Buddhism did not create a basis for religion as it did in Southeast Asia or in Tibet, it was initially even interpreted through a Daoist lense. This is not limited to just syncreticism, Chinese Buddhism was transformed into a Sinic faith at this point. Representing religion in China using the "Buddhist" label is incredibly incorrect. There was greater overlap between Eastern Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism than arguably with foreign forms of Buddhism. A divide between folk religion and Buddhism as you describe functionally did not exist, just like a divide not exist between folk religion and either Daoism or neo-Confucianism.

Emperor Taizu of Ming is a favourite example I like to raise of what religious interactions looked like - Taizu spent most of his young life in a Buddhist monastery and was an active Buddhist monk, and later rose to power through originally Buddhist organizations. However, throughout his life and later reign he strengthened Daoism politically and enshrined this religion, and followed values and ideals of neo-Confucianism, as well. However, he banned Tibetan Buddhism from being practiced in China. A man of supposedly Buddhist background (even if he supposedly may have become more Daoist later in life) saw Chinese Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism as aspects of Chinese faith, as opposed to foreign Tibetan Buddhism. This is an example but you see similar records all across the time period - not of people syncreticising Chinese Buddhism with Confucianism or Daoism, but effectively intersecting openly between them. Of course, they were distinct theologies/religions and relations were not always harmonious, often being hostile or mutually exclusive, but they effectively worked in a single religious framework.

There is a large gap between Tibetan Buddhism (associated with Vajrayana practices) and Eastern Buddhism (the East Asian, Chinese-derived trends) - the Chinese Buddhists themselves at this period saw them as very different and distinct. Eastern Buddhism in China was known as fo jiao 佛教 (Buddha Teaching i.e. Buddhism), whereas Tibetan Buddhism was known as lama jiao 喇嘛教 (lama teaching i.e. distinct from true Buddhism). The Yuan Dynasty was the first time these two faiths were intersected, and the results were not widespread acceptance - the Yuan Dynasty was quite forceful in trying to disband the local forms of Buddhism, and Tibetan Buddhism was received by many as a foreign, degenerate faith. By the time of the Ming Dynasty, though one emperor did pay a bit of homage to the lamas of Tibet, Tibetan Buddhism itself was banned from China. Han Chinese people were forbidden from practicing it, and the religion disappeared among the ethnic Han up until the Republic of China. We see no evidence of its acceptance in China prior to the 20th century. The Qing Dynasty's emperors were privately Tibetan Buddhists (as they themselves were foreign Manchu) and paid homage to the Tibetan lamas, but even during their dynasty, Tibetan Buddhist found no space. There were very minor esoteric movements in Chinese Buddhism associated with Vajrayana tendencies (though not Tibetan Buddhist) but they were a small minority and still distinct.

This situation changed only with Republican China as incorporating Tibetan Buddhism and Eastern Buddhism into one fold was seen as a way of legitimising Tibet being a part of China. I recommend checking out the book Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China https://cup.columbia.edu/book/tibetan-buddhists-in-the-making-of-modern-china/9780231134460 for a better delve into this.

As for Japan, Shinto is being used as a convenient term to describe the local faith both in its Buddhist and native manifestations of religion - not as the post-Imperial construct that tried to separate these. The way it should be represented in China, Korea and Vietnam is the same - a joint faith that represents the manifestations of the local religion both in their Buddhist form and in their Daoist, folk religion and Confucian form. I do agree with possibly including Buddhism under Dharmic religion but the faiths of Japan and China,Korea,Vietnam should be excluded from this and should have a distinct grouping that is not tied to the Indian religions.

 

[Mister X]

It should be noted that the current implementation of "Shinto" already represents the mix of Buddhism and local beliefs. The actual issue is just with the name, and the devs said they wanted to use Shinto instead of another name as it's "more recognisable".

They've also said that it isn't possible with the current game systems to make pops follow multiple religions at the same time, so it would have to work within this framework of a single religion or a more distinct split.

Yes, but in that case, Mahayana and Vajrayana ought not to be considered heretical.

What I personally propose as a compromise and a neat gameplay mechanic - seeing that Buddhist countries often syncretized with local faiths - is something similar to EU4 mechanics in Hinduism - culture-specific "local deities" you can pick for various modifiers. This would apply automatically to basically all Dharmic pops. For example, as Japan, you will get access to Japanese kami as culture-specific - but if you were to, let's say, conquer parts of China, depending on the number of Chinese-culture Buddhist pops, you get access to those too. Elegant, simple, flexible, and historically accurate.

-snip-

China wasn't really mentioned because it's relatively accurate as-is. Mahayana Buddhism as official state religion, semi-syncretized with whatever local faiths there are. Which is basically the same everywhere that Buddhism was the state religion.

I'd go as far as to say that Vajrayana shouldn't even be separate from Mahayana, but instead represented by certain buildings/organizations/factions whose influence determines how "esoteric" the Buddhism is, as Vajrayana is simply a more esoteric Mahayana, and although considered odd by the more mainstream practitioners, I doubt they'd view each other as heretics. Think how hesychasm is universally considered a bit odd in Orthodox tradition, but nobody really complains anymore or considers it heresy.

 

[donbg]

China wasn't really mentioned because it's relatively accurate as-is. Mahayana Buddhism as official state religion, semi-syncretized with whatever local faiths there are. Which is basically the same everywhere that Buddhism was the state religion.

I'd go as far as to say that Vajrayana shouldn't even be separate from Mahayana, but instead represented by certain buildings/organizations/factions whose influence determines how "esoteric" the Buddhism is, as Vajrayana is simply a more esoteric Mahayana, and although considered odd by the more mainstream practitioners, I doubt they'd view each other as heretics. Think how hesychasm is universally considered a bit odd in Orthodox tradition, but nobody really complains anymore or considers it heresy.

China isn't accurate as is at all because Buddhism was neither a state religion (aside from the Yuan dynasty, which was an exception as foreigners) or the popular religion (see this thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/why-china-should-not-be-buddhist.1702751/), and I could tell you were saying that "Vajrayana" shouldn't be separate from Mahayana. My post was exactly arguing the opposite of why that is a very incorrect portrayal. Vajrayana itself shouldn't be a religion because the term mostly refers to the esoteric practices rather than a singular faith - however, Tibetan Buddhism should be a religion separate from Chinese Buddhism. The two were distinct on basically every level- theology, practices, origin, and the interactions between them was very limited prior to the Yuan dynasty trying to dismantle Chinese Buddhism forcefully and enforcing Tibetan Buddhism - and after the collapse of the Yuan, this went back as to what it was, with little connection between Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism. As mentioned, the Chinese saw Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism as entirely separate religions. Chinese Buddhism was seen as an element within the Chinese religious perspective and framework, while Tibetan Buddhism was seen as a foreign, bizarre faith.

If interested in the subject further, check out the book I recommended or the sources I also list in the thread I just linked.

 

[AbstractTraitorHero]

@zeruosi
Honestly respect saying it how it is.

 

[Baphomet enjoyer]

This guy's a racist, pure and simple—a stupid, evil piece of shit. Don't even bother being polite with him. He's just a goddamn troll.

Zeruosi would rather die on his feet than live on his knees. Respect o7 It's sad they won't be able to comment on the China flavour talk.

 

[AbstractTraitorHero]

Zeruosi would rather die on his feet than live on his knees. Respect o7 It's sad they won't be able to comment on the China flavour talk.

Same. I honestly found a lot of what they wrote really fascinating & reading their posts made me feel a little more aware of how other people think beyond my home country. His diction, his thought processes, they are different then a lot of western people imo & you can see them very clearly even through the fact English is clearly his second language.

 

[Baphomet enjoyer]

Same. I honestly found a lot of what they wrote really fascinating & reading their posts made me feel a little more aware of how other people think beyond my home country. His diction, his thought processes, they are different then a lot of western people imo & you can see them very clearly even through the fact English is clearly his second language.

I neighbor China and despite the proximity I am also quite oblivious to their perspective. They gave some good insight into the Chinese players point of view that I wouldn't have come never known without them and even though they might have crashed out against the racist, I think we should give them a second chance as that was one time occurrence. There are actual horrible people on these forums that much more deserve the ban hammer than Zerousi. #FreeZeruosi

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

It's sad they won't be able to comment on the China flavour talk.

Huh? Why wouldn’t be able to comment on the Chinese flavor talk?

 

[Baphomet enjoyer]

Huh? Why wouldn’t be able to comment on the Chinese flavor talk?

Banned

 

[Big_birdy]

john paradox i call upon you again to give us crying emoji

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

Banned

Ah, I hadn’t realized. Yeah that sucks he was a great contributor here.

 

[zeruosi]

Zeruosi would rather die on his feet than live on his knees. Respect o7 It's sad they won't be able to comment on the China flavour talk.

Same. I honestly found a lot of what they wrote really fascinating & reading their posts made me feel a little more aware of how other people think beyond my home country. His diction, his thought processes, they are different then a lot of western people imo & you can see them very clearly even through the fact English is clearly his second language.

Ah, I hadn’t realized. Yeah that sucks he was a great contributor here.

My dear friends, I am back.

 

[Baphomet enjoyer]

My dear friends, I am back.