Our study of Buddhism has brought to light its extremely individualistic nature, and its lack of asocial ideal.  Its world-view we have sufficiently examined in the preceding chapter.  We are told that when Buddhism came to Japan it made little headway until it adopted the Shinto deities into its theogony.  What does this mean?  That only on condition of accepting the Shinto sanctions for the communal order of society was it able to commend itself to the people at large.  And Buddhism had no difficulty in fulfilling this condition, because it had no ideal order of society to present and no religious sanctions for any kind of social order; in this respect Buddhism had no ground for conflict with Shinto.  Shinto had the field to itself; and Buddhism was perfectly at liberty to adopt, or at least to allow, any social order that might present itself.  Furthermore, by its doctrines of incarnation and transmigration, according to which noble souls might appear and reappear in different worlds and different lands, Buddhism could identify Shinto deities with its own deities of Hindu origin, asserting their pre-incarnation.  Having accepted the Shinto deities, ideals, and sanctions for the social order, Buddhism became not only tolerable to the people, but also exceedingly popular.

The Shinto-Buddhistic was in truth a new religion, each of the old religions supplying an essential element.

One real reason, beside its accommodation to Shintoism, why Buddhism was so popular was that it brought an indispensable element into the national life.  For the first time emphasis began to be laid on the individual.  Introspection and deliberate meditation were brought into play.  Arts demanding individual skill were fostered.  A gorgeous ritual, elaborate architecture, complex religious organism, letters and literature, all gave play to individual activity and development whether in manual, in mental, or in aesthetic lines.  The hitherto cramped and primitive life of the Japanese responded to these appeals and opportunities with profound joy.  The upper classes especially felt themselves growing in richness and fullness of life.  They felt the stimulus in many directions.  The reason, then, why Buddhism flourished so mightily, and at the same time caused the nation to bloom, was because it helped develop the individual.  The reason, on the other hand, why it failed to carry the nation on from its first bloom into full fruitage was because it failed to develop individualism in the social order.  Its religious individualism was, as we have seen, in reality defective.  It was abstract and one-sided.  It did not discover the whole of the individual.  It did not know anything of personality, either human or divine.  It accordingly could not recognize the individual’s worth, but only his separateness and his weakness.  It taught an abstract impoverished idea of self, and made, as the whole aim of the salvation it offered, the final annihilation of all separateness of this individual self.  We can now see that its individualism was essentially defective in that it poured contempt on the self, and that if its individualizing salvation were consistently carried out, it was not only no help to the social order, but a positive injury to it.  Its individualism was of a nature which could not become an integral part of any social order.