Yamazaki Ansai School have enthusiastically discussed on the discourses of "Hua Yi Ming Fen" in Japan, and they have left many discussions of "China" and "Hua Yi" theory in hands. Generally speaking, in the origins of Japanese nationalism, most scholars believed that it was occurred mainly in Yamazaki Ansai School, and this school had really developed the main body which based on the Japanese "Kokutai Thought". But it was interesting that the discourses of "China" and "Hua Yi" theory in Yamazaki Ansai School's scholars were actually not uniform, and even had some contradictions of their opinions. In the interior of this school, these scholars revolved around this subject and also argued the points to each other. This paper discusses and analyses the discourses of "China" and "Hua Yi" theory by Yamazaki Ansai and his three disciples: Sato Naokada (1650-1719), Asami Keisai (1652-1712), Miyake Shosai (1662-1741), and clarifies the characteristics of each discourses of "China" and "Hua Yi" theory in the Yamazaki Ansai School. Through the analysis of this article will get the following conclusions: There are three kinds of views and propositions about the discourses of "China" and "Hua Yi" theory in this school. First is the position of cultural supremacy theory: They considered that the relationship of "Hua Yi" is determined by the merits and drawbacks of ethics, customs. Second is the position of "Ming Fen" theory: They considered that the relationship of "Hua Yi" is determined by the connections of subject and object, self and other. Third is the position of geographic destiny theory: They considered that the relationship of "Hua Yi" is determined by the geography and topography. In these views, Yamazaki Ansai and Asami Keisai are belonged to the second part-"Ming Fen" theory, and Sato Naokada is belonged to the third part-geographic destiny theory, and Miyake Shosai is belonged to the complex of the third and first part-geographic destiny theory and cultural supremacy theory. Among them, Yamazaki Ansai and Asami Keisai had reversed the relationship of "Hua Yi" in the Chinese context from the "Ming Fen" theory. They advocated that Japan was the main body which based on the Japanese nationalism. However, Asami Keisai agreed with this view, but he had criticized the Shinto and opposed to its own culture in blind. In other words, both of them only had the same term about the Japanese nationalism, but the discourses in them had existed the obviously essential differences. In addition, Sato Naokada and Miyake Shosai had directly accepted the "China" concept and "Hua Yi" order in Confucian books, and they opposed to the Japanese nationalism. Although these scholars were in the same school, their discourses about the concepts of "China" and "Hua Yi" were obviously different. It can be seen that their discourses about the concepts of "China" and "Hua Yi" in this school cannot be indiscriminately in comments. It is generally considered that Asami Keisai was the most radical right-wing supporter and he was especially emphasis on the superiority of Japanese culture among the Yamazaki Ansai School. According to the analysis of this article, however, Asami Keisai's views in the Japanese nationalism was only advocated from "Ming Fen" theory, and it was completely unrelated to the merits and drawbacks of the culture. In his opinions, the relationship of "Hua Yi" was not absolutely steady but relatively flowing in the context of "Ming Fen" theory. In another word, it is said that how many countries existed in the world, and how many numbers of center were here, and how many numbers of "China" were here. In this point, Asami Keisai's position in Japanese nationalism was based on the multi-cultural view but not on nationalism.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Cultural Studies
- Arts and Humanities(all)