Confucian Responses to Buddhism Throughout Chinese History
The Confucian-Buddhist relationship was very interesting during the re-rising of Confucian beliefs in . The natures of the attacks on the Confucian side were directed at removing Buddhist institutions and their stronghold on society. Many of the Confucian attacks were against the clergy, as well as the Buddhist doctrines, and attacked the heart and soul of the Buddhist religion. The attacks resulted in much of the Chinese society switching over to a growing Confucian populace and resulted in a prevalent Buddhist society having to respond to many of the Confucian attacks on them, in order to remain the prevalent and official philosophy of Chinese civilization. But the Buddhist attacks on Confucianism were not as strong as the responses of those coming from the Confucian side. There are many reasons for this, all of which will be attended to. But one thing that must be of note, is that during the sparring back in forth between these two great philosophies, there were many ideas which offered great insight, and interesting rhetoric into the two religions.
Confucians of this time period had several key points that they wanted to focus on in responding to the prevalent Buddhism belief in . One of them included a specific attack on the land properties and other excesses of Buddhist clergymen. Many clergymen were able to benefit from the tax-exempt religious land, of which much was not even used for religious purposes. This allowed many clergymen to avoid paying property taxes and thus gave them the opportunity to possess great pieces of land that were extravagant and luxurious. The clergymen were also allotted prize lands from Buddhist followers where they often instituted slavery and worked the land to achieve immense wealth, which often led to power and affluence. Confucians found this practice to be contradictory to the development of the Chinese civilization and to the ethical belief system that they were attempting to establish, and then deemed the Buddhist clergymen as being parasitic.
Another response to the dominant Buddhist religion of the time were the general attacks on the Buddhist doctrine. Confucians assaulted the Buddhist doctrine on several different accounts. One of those accounts would be a response to the doctrine belief that people should emancipate themselves from their own minds. Confucians strongly believed in the development of the self and in learning and education, so it is obvious that separating the one’s actions from the mind was not in the best of Confucian interests. Another aspect of the Buddhist doctrine that is often attacked is the contradicting elements of helping others come to Buddhism while the remainder of the religion preaches a strong support for escaping society. Clearly, doing both is quite problematical, as one cannot help other people come to Buddhism and cultivate their minds if they are not even a part of society where there are people to encourage.
The escapist, anti-social, and nihilistic attitude was at the forefront of the Confucian response to Buddhist predominance in Chinese society. Confucians found that too many Buddhist clergymen were preaching people right out of society, telling them that the mind must be free of all secular engagement and influence in order to become free from the sanctions of civilization and embody the ultimate Buddhist form, nirvana. However, this is in direct contrast with Confucian beliefs that preach that people should learn from the world, react with society, and become a devout and influential person in the social order. While Buddhism was suggesting that people abandon respect for the norms, culture, tradition, Confucian ethics promoted all these things, and even required them as necessities for personal growth and attainment. Confucian philosophers also truly were against the idea of escaping society and living by one’s lonesome because of the fact that this left no chance for the individual to practice filial piety, regard for strangers and the polishing of the mind. It was very important that people show consideration for their parents, strangers and rulers in the Confucian ethical system, and the practices of escapism being taught by Buddhist were in direct contrast with that. The Confucians made public that the Buddhist escapist practice was encouraging people to abandon their families which was unswerving disregard for the Five Constant Relationships. Moreover, charges against the Buddhist practice went on to claim that the escapist customs tended to regard material things as deceiving and not real, and therefore it seemed that Buddhist only considered the mind as being authentic, which is a part of the Buddhist doctrine. Confucians found this to be a factor that disintegrated society and made Buddhist everyday interactions scorned, while on the other hand, promoted meditation and inner cultivation as the only means of useful interaction.
The Buddhist responses to the charges being made against them by Confucians were relatively small in comparison. There are many debates over as to why this is. One clear cut belief is that the Buddhist leaders, had to practice what they preached, thus their escapist beliefs led them to not have a means in which to respond to Confucian criticisms. After all, if the majority of Buddhist leaders and writers are off in the wilderness meditating and escaping from society, than they are not going to be able to respond to Confucian attacks in a means that would reach the masses. And just assuming they even heard of many of the Confucian attacks while living the escapist-monkish lifestyle is a stretch in itself. Another theory as to why the Buddhist response was quite small is that most of the Confucian attacks were indisputable realities. As one recalls, in some of the aforementioned charges against Buddhism (that were stated earlier) it is apparent that they are based on the writings and teachings of the Buddhist religion. The attacks on the Buddhist Doctrine are responses to direct claims made from the text, and the charges on the escapist mentality are undoubtedly undeniable as nihilism runs ramped through Buddhist teachings. However, despite these facts for there not being a considerable rebuttal by Buddhist philosophers, there are a few counterpoints that they did offer.
The points that Buddhist tended to defend were the ones that did not have as much of a factual claim. A considerable Confucian response to Buddhist practices was to say that they did not account for the theory of causation because of their belief in the separation of the mind and the rest of the world. Buddhist counter by saying that the Buddhist Doctrine and other writings do account for a theory of causation and that karma is something that embodies that very philosophy. Another assertion that the Buddhist often chose to counter is the Confucian claim that Buddhism is a harbinger of calamity and that it is a parasitic religion. Buddhist often counters this by saying that no religion is free of poverty and disasters, and that the few problems that have resulted in Buddhist society cannot be blamed on the religion. Buddhists are stated as using Confucius’ and Yu-Hui’s poverty stricken problems as evidence of their religion not being the cause for calamity. While these counterpoints to Confucian responses are not in accordance with some of the bigger themes, they are the most effective and most believable of the Buddhist comebacks.
The historical context of these arguments is quite interesting. First, one must note the literary tactics that were used to display some of these arguments. The Confucians often displayed their responses in writings that included examples of song and verse, and of course, prose. Displaying their arguments in such means offered a very aesthetic value to their claims and it made them more poignant and more memorable, as well as better suited for long readings. Secondly, the impact of the Confucian-Buddhist debates changed the structure of Chinese society. Buddhism was quite prevalent, but with a large number of Confucian attacks and the minimal Buddhist responses, it was not long before the re-birth of Confucianism became the predominant ethical system once again. Neo-Confucianists had been successful in calling out Buddhist clergymen and revealing some of their bad intentions. This unveiling of flaws within the Buddhist religion, and with in the Confucian practice as well due to Buddhist attacks, caused both practices to undergo changes for their public perception, such as Buddhist altering their doctrines and Neo-Confucianists altering their beliefs to be a little more receptive of a few Buddhist ideas in order to persuade more newcomers to the Confucian philosophy.
Bibliography
Chan, Wing-tsit ; A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (1969)
De Bary, William et al.; Sources of Chinese Tradition, 2nd ed., vol. 1 and vol. 2; (New York: Columbia University, 1999-2000).
Muller, A. Charles, trans. (1995-1). Analects of Confucius. http://www.hm.tyg.jp/~acmuller/contao/analects.htm.
Muller, A; The Buddhist-Confucian Conflict in the Early Choson and Kihwa’s Syncretic Response: TheHyon chong non; The Review of Korean Studies; Vol. 2, September 1999
Owen, Stephen; Anthology of Chinese Literature (Norton, 1996).
Schirokauer, Conrad et al.; A Brief History of Chinese Civilization 2nd Edition; (Wadsworth, 2005).
Taisho shinshu daizokyo; Japanese Edition of the Buddhist Canon; Tokyo: Daizokyokai (1924-35).
Wright, Anthony; Buddhism in Chinese History, Series: Stanford studies in the civilizations of eastern Asia Publisher/ Date: Stanford, Calif., Stanford University Press, 1959.
Y�¼an ch�¼eh ching; Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment; (1924-1935)
