The Adaptability of Buddhism to Chinese Culture: Take Chan Buddhism as an Example (Final Essay)
Buddhism, either as a philosophy or religion, is not indigenous Chinese, but it was introduced from Indian to China during the Eastern Han dynasty, around the first half of the first century AD.[1] Since the day of its first introduction, the “sinification,” which means to make foreign things Chinese, was an important obligation faced by many Buddhists. According to the Chinese philosopher Feng Youlan, there are two kinds of Buddhism for China, one is “Chinese Buddhism” and the other is “Buddhism in China.”[2] ‘Buddhism in China’ refers to the schools of Buddhism that confined themselves to Indian philosophical and religious tradition, and did not make contact with any Chinese traditions. These Buddhist schools did not gain popularity in China and had little influence in Chinese philosophical and religious development. On the other hand, ‘Chinese Buddhism’ is the Buddhist school that adopted indigenous Chinese philosophical and religious traditions and made themselves a part of Chinese culture; this kind of Buddhism gained popularity in China and further influenced the development of Chinese culture.[3] In other words, as an alien philosophy and religion at that time, the survival of Buddhism in China largely depends on how successful it could adapt to Chinese cultural, social, and political environment. The Buddhist schools that could adjust themselves to suit China will be able to survive and flourish, whereas those who could not will gradually fade and disappear.
The reason that Buddhism has to make some changes in China is because some original Buddhist doctrines are very contradict to certain core traditional Chinese values such as filial piety and royalty towards the ruler and the state, and these contradictions became evident during the Tang dynasty. As we will see, Confucian scholars at that time pointed out the contradictions between Buddhist doctrines and traditional Confucian values. Although they did not succeed to persuade the ruler to turn against Buddhism at once, the seed had been planted, which would later result in the persecution of Buddhism during the Huichang era (842–854 AD). By observing the reason and result of this persecution, we will be able to see how Chan Buddhism, or more specifically the Southern Chan Buddhism led by Huineng and Shenhui, protected itself from the persecution by adopting Chinese-Confucian cultural values, which ensured it to be the most popular Chinese Buddhist School since that time until today.
The conflicts between Confucianism and Buddhism can be seen in the “Memorial Discussing the Buddha’s Bone,” composed by a famous Tang dynasty Confucian official and scholar Han Yu. In general, as explained by Han Yu, this memorial aims to persuade the emperor to give up the plan of welcoming the Buddha’s bone to the temple in Fengxiang.[4] According to Stephen Owen, this memorial, “has perhaps some historical significance as representing the resentment of certain Confucian intellectuals against the influence of Buddhism.”[5] At the very beginning of the memorial, Han Yu directly pointed out the foreignness of Buddhism that, “Buddhism is nothing more than a religion of the outlying tribes.”[6] It was only introduced during the Eastern Han dynasty, as a result, “such a thing never existed in high antiquity.”[7] By ‘high antiquity’, Han Yu was referring to the very ancient time when mysterious noble kings such as Shaohao, Zhuanxu, Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, King Wen, and King Wu were ruling China.[8] This ‘high antiquity’ was always treated by Confucians as paradisiac. In other words, Han Yu was actually arguing that these ancient noble kings never heard of Buddhism, which belonged to the barbarian ‘outlying tribes’, and China ruled by them without Buddhism was very perfect. So, Buddhism was not necessary in making China to be utopian, and these kings certainly did not depend on Buddhism to gain long reign and life spans.[9] Then, Han Yu continued to argue that Buddhism was not only redundant, but it would also bring harm. When Buddhism was introduced, the emperor at that time, Emperor Ming of Han dynasty, “sat on the throne for only eighteen years.” Afterwards, “turmoil and destruction were continuous, and fate gave no long reigns. From the Song, Qi, Liang, Chen, and Toba Wei on, devotion to the Buddha became increasing intense; and reign spans were exceedingly short.”[10] Han Yu also gave the example of Emperor Wu of Liang, who was a devout believer to Buddhism but was starved to death in a rebellion.[11] We can see from here that Han Yu was indirectly warning the emperor that Buddhism would bring harm and misfortune to both the country and the believer himself. Since the emperor Han Yu was addressing was also a Buddhist believer, so Han Yu was actually saying that, “Buddhism will bring harm to you and your country, Your Majesty.”
Then, in the second part of the memorial, Han Yu started to argue how Buddhism contradicted with the traditional Chinese-Confucian moral values and customs. Superficially, “his (Buddha’s) clothes were of a strange fashion. He did not speak the exemplary words of the early kings, and he did not wear the exemplary garb of the early kings.” As a result, the Buddha and the Buddhists, “did not understand the sense of right that exists between a ruler and his officers, nor the feelings between father and son.”[12] This sentence has something to do with the Confucian idea of filial piety, which was considered by Chinese at that time as one of the most important moral values. Filial piety literally means to love one’s parents, but it is also the foundation for many other Chinese ethics. Confucius said in the Analects that, “Filial piety and fraternal submission! — are they not the root of all benevolent actions?”[13] Benevolence, in Chinese is called ren, which is another central idea of Confucianism, means to love others.[14] However, according to Confucius, if a man could ot love his parents, it would be impossible for him to love others, “The substantiation of benevolence begins with service to one’s parents.”[15] Love towards people in general is an extension of the love given to parents. If people can love parents, the love towards the sovereign, the friend, and teacher will all be empty talk.[16] As for the criteria of filial piety, one of the most important things that people need to do is to marry and have offspring — “There are three things which are unfilial, and having no posterity is the greatest of them.”[17] For Confucians, having offspring is a sign of the continuation of one’s ancestral lineage, representing a type of immortality of one’s ancestral lineage.[18] Also, getting married and having children is a sign of family formation, and family is treated as the foundation for society, “the root of the state.”[19] Another important thing that can show one’s filial love towards parents was recorded in The Classic of Filial Piety as, “The body with its limbs and hair and skin comes to a person from father and mother, and it is on no account to be spoiled or injured.”[20]
Now, we will be able to understand why Han Yu criticized Buddhism for not understanding the right relationship between father and son, ruler and officers. Even today, it is common knowledge that being a Buddhist monk or nun in China means one will need to shave hair off, leave home and live in a Buddhist temple/monastery, never getting married and having children, which means no family life at all. Every such practice severely contradicts to the idea of filial piety. No marriage or offspring was considered as the most unfilial thing by Confucians, and no family means the foundation of the Chinese state will be destroyed. Leaving one’s home and living reclusively in the temple can be interpreted as an abandonment of one’s parents, not mentioning the shaving of one’s hair, an action that will be considered by Confucians as an injury to one’s body and thus unfilial. Without the love of parents, love towards others including the sovereign, friends, and teachers is impossible. This is the logic behind Han Yu’s hatred towards Buddhism from a Confucian ethical point of view.
This memorial did not successfully prevent the emperor at that time to welcome the Buddha bone, and Han Yu himself was banished because of writing it.[21] However, the seed of hatred had been planted, and it finally brought to the persecution of Buddhism during the Huichang era (842–854 AD). In the “Edict on the Suppression of Buddhism”, also known as the “Edict of the Eighth Month”, two major reasons for the persecution can be seen. The first reason is for practical concern, related to national economics. As the edict states, “it wears out the strength of the people with constructions of earth and wood, pilfers their wealth for ornaments of gold and precious objects,” indicating the construction of Buddhist monastics and the donations they received from the public. Also, “if even one man fails to work the fields, someone must go hungry; if one woman does not tend her silkworms, someone will be cold,” whereas the monks and nuns living in the monasteries do not do any work while waiting for the farmers and others to feed them and donate money to them.[22] This not only reduced the quantity of labour, but many resources provided by the reduced labour force were also distributed to them; the monks and nuns were causing double harm to national economics. The other reason lay in the ethical level, similar to what had been argued by Han Yu. The edict blames Buddhism for causing people to abandon their parents and lords; that Buddhist doctrine caused more injuries to mankind than any other doctrines.[23]
Foreseen the persecution during the Huichang era or not, the Southern School of Chan Buddhism led by Huineng and Shenhui was well aware of the contradictions between Buddhist practices and Confucian ethics, and, therefore, they emphasized the practice of Chan Buddhism as a layman. In the Platform Sutra, Huineng said, “Good friends, if you wish to practice, it is all right to do so as laymen; you don’t have to be in the temple.”[24] Entering the temple and being a Buddhist monk/nun is not necessary for enlightenment, as long as one carries out Buddhist practice correctly, anyone can achieve enlightenment. The possibility of a layman’s achievement of enlightenment is illustrated in Huineng’s biography. Huineng said that when he was still a layman who supported himself by selling firewood, he once heard someone reciting the Diamond Sutra, and he suddenly achieved enlightened upon hearing it.[25] Huineng’s story intends to show us that even for a poor firewood merchant like Huineng, who did not receive any proper monastic training and could not even read or write, enlightenment is still possible. So there should be no doubt that practicing according to the correct method as a layman will lead one towards enlightenment — if layman Huineng can achieve it, you can achieve it as well. “In carrying water and chopping firewood: therein lay the wonderful Dao.”[26] No deliberate Buddhist practices are required, and being a Buddhist monk/nun is merely a change in appearance. If a Buddhist monk/nun do not practice correctly, they cannot achieve enlightenment; but if a layman practice correctly, he is able to achieve enlightenment. Therefore, monastic life is not necessary. By living and practicing in the society, one can also take care of one’s parents, get married and have offspring, fulfilling what are required by Confucian ethics of filial piety. Furthermore, if Dao is in carrying water and chopping firewood, then how about serving one’s parents and state? The Chan masters did not say explicitly, since this would make them appear too Confucian and materialistic, but if we follow the Chan logic, the answer to the above question should be positive.[27] The Southern Chan School thus solves the contraction between Buddhist practice and Confucian ethics by the idea of laymen-practice. As a result, they more or less survived the persecution during the Huichang era and continued to flourish in China thereafter until today.
In conclusion, although much of Han Yu’s criticism to Buddhism are very subjective and prejudice, we can still sense the conflicts and tension between Buddhism and Confucianism in terms of ethics. The persecution of Huichang era as a result of the long-term confliction between Confucianism and Buddhism can be interpreted as a kind of test that could help to distinguish ‘Buddhism in China’ and ‘Chinese Buddhism’. ‘Chinese Buddhism’, such as Chan Buddhism, passed the test and survived, whereas ‘Buddhism in China’ failed the test and disappeared. Therefore, adaptability is essential for Buddhism as a foreign religion to survive and flourish in China, and probably it is also an important factor for any religion to survive and flourish in any part of the world.
References
Fung, Yu-Lan. A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. New York: Free Press, 1976.
Moore, Charles A, ed. The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Honolulu: Hawaii Press, 1967.
Owen, Stephen, ed. An Anthology of Chinese Literature: Beginning to 1911. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.
The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriach. Translated by Philip B. Yampolsky. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967.
Wm. Theodore de Bary and Irene Bloom. “Selection from Emperor Wuzong’s Edict on the Suppression of Buddhism: the Edict of the Eighth Month,” in Sources of Chinese Tradition. 2nd ed., Vol. 1. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.
[1] Yu-Lan Fung, A Short History of Chinese Philosophy (New York: Free Press, 1976), 241.
[2] Ibid., 242.
[3] Ibid., 242–243.
[4] Stephen Owen, ed., An Anthology of Chinese Literature: Beginning to 1911 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996), 599.
[5] Ibid., 597.
[6] Ibid., 598.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 599.
[12] Ibid., 600.
[13] Yu-Wei Hsieh, “Filial Piety and Chinese Society,” in The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture, ed. Charles A. Moore (Honolulu: Hawaii Press, 1967),170.
[14] Ibid., 171.
[15] Ibid., 171–172
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid., 180.
[18] Ibid., 181.
[19] Ibid., 175.
[20] Ibid., 181.
[21] Owen, Chinese Literature, 598.
[22] Wm. Theodore de Bary and Irene Bloom, Selection from Emperor Wuzong’s Edict on the Suppression of Buddhism: the Edict of the Eighth Month (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999)
[23] de Bary and Bloom, Emperor Wuzong’s Edict.
[24] Platform Sutra, sec. 36
[25] Ibid., sec. 2
[26] Fung, Chinese Philosophy, 264.
[27] Ibid.
