Bushido, myths-as-history, and their legacies

I read a long but interesting article this morning titled (warning: salty language ahoy!) "Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit." The author describes, in a generally sound (if not exactly well-crafted) manner, how the modern idea of bushido is an invention of the late 19th/early 20th century by one man (who created the word himself in 1900) and was co-opted by the imperial government of Japan as it marched toward fascism in the lead-up to WWII. I highly recommend reading it or at least skimming it, since it gets the important facts right even if it is somewhat hard to follow.

Having spent much of my life as a Japanese Buddhist, I admit that I had romanticized notions of bushido and samurai in general for quite a long time, but the more I learned about history, the more I realized samurai were nothing like the famous Tom Cruise film "The Last Samurai" or just about any popular depiction of samurai since WWII. This article explains that myth's origins and its (rather negative) repercussions. Needless to say, people who fetishize Japan (especially "traditional" Japan and its ideas) have it all wrong. I was certainly guilty of doing that myself.

We are a tradition that heavily focuses on the role of myth, especially the ways myth can be used for good. But this article explains a very important case in which myth was used for destructive purposes (in this case, promoting Japanese fascism and militarism.) I can think of other such myths: the myth of American exceptionalism, the idea of Volksgeist in Nazi-era Germany which is mentioned in that article, and others. Ultimately these myths all did more harm than good. I think we should be very attentive to the origins of the myths we hold dear and what negative repercussions they might have for the world around us.

But there is a part of me that wonders if, perhaps, the myth of bushido can serve a useful role even if samurai were really nothing like that at all, and no such code of honour actually existed. Another perspective is that they were fictional, but then so are the Jedi of fiction. What do you think?

(PS: This was just going to be a wall post with a brief comment, but I decided to make a whole post about it. Have fun.)

Adi wrote: But there is a part of me that wonders if, perhaps, the myth of bushido can serve a useful role even if samurai were really nothing like that at all, and no such code of honour actually existed. Another perspective is that they were fictional, but then so are the Jedi of fiction.

This kind of said all I wanted to say. Whether or not it bothers people is individual. My Apprentices read about Bushido and I think it's a valuable component of their study... but then, we're all here based on some laser sword wielding space wizards, so notions of the value of fiction are kind of implied.

If it is a myth, it is a good myth. But then, part of me looks back on the writings of people like Musashi and can't help but feel it's a little more than just that.

If it just "bothered people," I'd totally agree. But the myth of bushido (of samurai being a noble, honourable people who were brave and unbending in their adherence to noble traditions that we should follow) was used to perpetuate a system that helped plunge the world into flames. Knowing that, I have a difficult time accepting the myth as something positive. I appreciate Musashi too, but I think that can be done without buying into the myth of bushido, since technically speaking, the idea of bushido didn't exist then. Certainly he would not have known of the word. Also:

tzb wrote: laser sword wielding space wizards

... is my future hipster band name.

Study history to any degree, of any culture and you will find it much more...nuanced, and well, messier.

English Knights were not always chivalrous or full of valor either.

I would recommend Dan Carlins "Hardcore History" podcast.

http://www.dancarlin.com/

Things always look better on paper.

Just like all the "wise men" of the past.

You think Lao Tzu was any more put together than us for writing the Tao?

Probably not.

I remember someone who knew Gandhi speaking about his "simplicity of living" saying how it took a whole lot o his money( and other peoples contributions) for Gandhi to live so simply.

Bruce Lee has been quoted with his water analogy, but most, if not all of his quotes are taken from somewhere else, and if you study him to any real depth and not just books written by family and students, you can find he wasnt as great as put out to be.

No one, no philosophy, will survive being put on a pedestal. Eventually all such things will reveal there clay feet.

Still, if Bushido, and its precepts inspire YOU, to be better, if only by a little, then that is what matters, not what a bunch of dead people did with it.

Dont let the past make you cynical about your present.

As one of the said Apprentices who studied Bushido at tzb's suggestion, I can say that the Code itself is useful to me regardless of where it came from. I look at it in a similar way to how I perceive the Ten Commandments. Are they the words of God? Did Moses make them up? Were they ripped off from some other tribe or culture? Does it really matter?

As I explored each virtue of the Bushido Code, I questioned how they could be applied to my life and my path. I also looked for ways each virtue could be twisted to serve a different purpose. As with any other ethical framework, the Bushido Code is open to interpretation. Those with ill intentions can always choose the interpretation that serves their ends most effectively. Japanese military officers played on the virtues of loyalty and courage in order to convince teenagers to become kamikaze. This is arguably one of the more manipulative and heinous uses of Bushido to motivate certain behavior, but I would still consider loyalty and courage to be admirable traits in a person who practices them wisely.

As Campbell likes to point out, it's the message of the myth that is important.

I read that same article and I found it to be interesting but not without it's own flaws. The article comes across a bit like it's trying to talk about the concept of Bushido as a whole when really it's only using one source. It's actually a book review. In that, it does really well. I haven't read the book it's discussing but from the pulled material I don't think that I want to. In discussing misconceptions of Bushido, well it could use more work.

One of the authors biggest complaints about the book in question is that it's only references were the Bible and other western writings yet the article offers almost nothing in the way of sources for it's counter points.

As an instructor of Japanese martial arts I have had plenty of time to gain an understanding of Bushido and what it's meant to represent. Sure lots of it are blown a bit out of proportion in mass media but how accurate do you really expect it to be? While the word itself may not be much older than 100 years old, the ideas are. That is actually rather common in martial arts and in Japanese culture. Things change so the words for them change. Martial arts have undergone HUGE transformations just in the last 50 years. Do you really think people earned pink camouflage belts in the 1500's?

The author of the article claimed at one point that the Samurai culture didn't focus as much around the Katana as people think. Well I guess he disagrees with Miyomoto Musashi, Yagyu Munenori, and Yamamato Kansuke on that. All Samurai and authors from 16th and 17th century Japan that I have read quite a bit of. Their works all focused highly on the use of the katana.

It is true that samurai were cavalry and highly skilled mounted archers, but to say that Musashi used two swords to better balance in the saddle? Has the author read the Book of Five Rings or ridden a horse? Having done either one would tell him that that's just not true. I don't think Musashi even once mentioned mounted combat as his specialty was dueling, not being part of an army. I believe that he only participated in one or two large battles and it was likely that he was on foot.

Sorry, I tried not to get too ranty there. Like I said, if looked at as a book review it's a good article that does a great job of saying why that book is wrong and bad, but as a discussion of the actual concept of Bushido I don't like it.

The author of your article has an opinion. One perhaps backed by snippets of fact, but still, an opinion. Bushido is only slightly more romanticized than chivalry, and we all know what jerks knights could be. Regardless of whether bushido is fact or fiction, it holds a place in the cultural hearts of many, and for that, gives lasting influence.

saying that the word "bushido" is modern is not the same as to say that there was no "code of honor" in ancient japan

while you might not find any single wide spread formalized doctrine which everyone signed their name to and agreed to follow, the samurai were a military class in a feudal society, and there are certain ideals which just come along with that

"honor" often comes down to basically the same particular things across cultures: accountability to chain of command, competence in tasks, courage in battle, loyalty and reliability towards peers

and the way that the individual is perceived to live up to these standards by others

a lot of the "bushido honor" centers around the samurais obedience and willingness to die for their lords, which history does support

the idea that samurai (or knights or any warrior class) were "noble" towards common people is sadly the part that is the myth

this article and others like it that I have read seem to want to paint the picture that Nitobe just outright invented Bushido from thin air (Way of Total Bullshit"??lol)

i think more likely he took the best of what his history and culture had to offer, and articulated it and presented it in a way that was organized and coherent, even if a bit romanticized and biased

Post-war Japanese film also contributed to the Bushido mythology.

There are many writings on the meaning and practice of Bushido that are interesting, educational and can contribute to the ability to lead an honorable and ethical life.

I tend to view these things as parts of a construct I have for history which provides me with a set of pragmatic examples of an ideal, within those historical cultural settings. It's a good message to remember that they are not particularly accurate models of history!! I guess mixing that is what romanticizing something might mean..perhaps!? Maybe it's a good way to ally empathy exercises to contrast that idealism to remind oneself about the potential depth of differences.