Buddhism and Confucianism - Some Thoughts



Earlier I discussed Buddhism and Daoism and addressed the question of how much Daoism influenced Buddhism in China. I believe that the influence was small compared to how much the latter influenced the former. In terms of Confucianism, however, I believe the influence was a lot deeper in both obvious and subtle ways.

Since Buddhism first settled into China in the Eastern Han Dynasty 東漢 (25-220) there has always been and still is ongoing discussion about its compatibility with the traditional culture of highly prescribed and ritualized human interactions which is associated with Confucianism. While the term ‘Confucianism’ in English is problematic and even anachronistic when speaking about pre-Song Dynasty 宋朝 (960-1248) intellectual schools, it corresponds to Ru-jiao 儒教 in Chinese, which for our purposes is a distinct identity apart from Dao-jiao 道教 (Daoism) and Fo-jiao 佛教 (Buddhism). Incidentally, for a good article on the early development of Ru-jiao see "What Did It Mean to Be a Ru in Han Times?" by Anne Cheng.

On the surface some Confucian ideas such as the five constant virtues 五常 (benevolence 仁, justice 義, propriety 禮, wisdom 智, and trust 信) are quite compatible with Buddhist ethics, but going beyond that there are numerous incompatibilities as well. For example, until the Song Dynasty the Confucian tradition focused on the Five Classics 五經 (note: the Analects or Lun Yu 論語 is not included), one of which is the Liji 禮記, which formed the basis for Confuciuan thought. In it we find encouragement for violent revenge:


曲禮上:
父之讎,弗與共戴天。兄弟之讎不反兵。交游之讎不同國。

Qu Li I:
With the enemy who has slain his father, he should not live under the same sky. With the enemy who has slain his brothers, he does not even return home to retrieve his weapons. With the enemy who has slain his good friend, he does not live in the same country.


This idea was common sense among premodern Chinese intellectuals as studying (or memorizing) said text along with the other classics was part of a proper education. Everyone with a complete education knew the Five Classics and the ideas therein. Fazang 法藏 (643-712) addresses just this issue in his commentary on the Brahma Net Sūtra:


《梵網經菩薩戒本疏》卷5:「問俗禮之中君父之怨不報非孝。何故此中若報非孝耶。答道與俗反。俗據現在不說當來因果業報。今若重酬苦業滋多、令其君父沈淪永劫、何成孝道。況此怨等何必前生非己父母。今若殺彼豈成孝行。故云不順孝道也。」

Question: In mundane ethics it is considered unfilial to not exact revenge against your father’s enemy. Why is it that here if you do exact revenge it is unfilial?
Answer: The path and the mundane are opposites. The mundane is based on the present and does not speak of causes, conditions and karmic results to come. Now if you repeatedly take revenge, the karma for suffering will multiply and it will make your father sink [into saṃsāra] forever. How could that be fulfilling the path of filial piety? Moreover, these enemies might have been one’s own parents in a past life. Now if you kill them, how could you accomplish filial acts? Thus it states, “It is not in accord with the path of filial piety.”

This is in reference to the aforementioned passage from the Liji. Fazang clearly wrote his commentary with educated laypeople in mind. He spent much of his career in Chang’an and was close to the imperial family, so we can assume his discussion of ethics also reflect that strata of society, though we can imagine commoners would have held the same ideas as well.

The Liji also prescribes animal sacrifices and meat eating. The former is of course incompatible with the Buddhadharma where the Buddha condemned animal sacrifice as a wicked and awful act. As for the latter, meat eating in Chinese Buddhism was especially taboo after the 6th century when meat eating was expressly forbidden under Emperor Liangwu's 梁武帝 reign (502–549), which I wrote about here.

The other texts of the Five Classics likewise generally reflect the same ideas and values expressed in the Liji. They reflect the values of ancient Chinese aristocrats, many of whom were warriors or involved in war given their profession of statecraft. They are not the work of sages preaching non-violence.

The Analects was not included in the five, but was later adopted as canonical by Zhu Xi 朱熹 in the Song Dynasty, where he included it in the Four Books 四書. If you ignore the Five Classics and focus just on what Confucius is quoted as saying in the Analects, then there is less objectionable material than in the Five Classics, but it must be understood that the aforementioned texts are the canon of Confucianism and form the core basis for their values, morals and outlook on life. It might also be noted that Confucius is thought to have edited the Five Classics, so he was an active participant in propagating texts which both prescribe animal sacrifices and encourage violence in certain circumstances (incidentally, animal sacrifice is still done in Taiwan, though the killed fowl are preserved and packaged ahead of time and sold at grocery stores). This does not seem to have entered into the minds of many Buddhist authors throughout Chinese history who often regarded him as a wise sage.

Nevertheless, by the time Buddhism became prominent in China Confucian ideas were quite mainstream. In the Tiantai text Commentary on the Sūtra for Humane Kings 仁王經疏 by Zhiyi 智顗 (538-597), the precept against killing is matched with Confucian virtue of benevolence while not stealing is matched with wisdom, not committing sexual misconduct is matched with justice, not consuming alcohol is matched with propriety and not speaking falsely is matched with trust. The five constant virtues are associated with the five Buddhist precepts.1

Some years before Zhiyi, Sengzhao 僧肇 (384-414?), a disciple of Kumārajīva (334-413), in his famous Zhao Lun 肇論 (The Treatises of Zhao) quotes Confucius as a valid authority in explaining some of his ideas. Thus we know early on prominent authors were interested in highlighting similarities between their indigenous Confucian ideas and Buddhadharma. This was harmless enough and even earlier in the 3rd century we see in the preface to the early Chinese translation of the Dharmapada a quote from the Indian monk Vighna, who brought the original text to China and translated it, and a subsequent remark citing Laozi and Confucius in a similar vein:

《法句經》卷1:維祇難曰:「佛言:『依其義不用飾、取其法不以嚴。』其傳經者令易曉,勿失厥義,是則為善。」坐中咸曰:「老氏稱:『美言不信、信言不美。』仲尼亦云:『書不盡言、言不盡意。』明聖人意深邃無極,今傳梵義,實宜經達。」(CBETA, T04, no. 210, p. 566, c9-14)

Vighna stated, “The Buddha said, 'Rely on the meaning without using adornments. Extract its teachings without embellishing it.' Those who transmit the sūtras should make it easily understood. Do not lose the meaning. This would be good.” Zuo Zhong Xian 坐中咸 stated, “Master Lao said, 'Sincere words are not fine. Fine words are not sincere.' Confucius also said, 'Written works do not fully express language. Language does not fully express meaning.' This explains that the sages' meanings are profound without limit. Now in transmitting the Indic meanings we should be practical and the sūtra will be communicated.”

I think it is reasonable to say that over the last eighteen or nineteen centuries that Buddhism has existed in China the ideas of Confucius have been largely respected and drawn upon if not simply because as a figure he was generally respected by everyone, but he was also just so well known. Still, the other aspects of Confucianism such as animal sacrifice could not be carried out by any orthodox Buddhist.

One other thing that comes to mind about Confucian influence in Chinese Buddhism is the religious theatre that is played out in shrine halls according to prescribed form and replete with orchestrated music and the assembly bowing and chanting together in unison. While of course musical instruments are to be seen elsewhere in the Buddhist world both at present and historically, I believe Chinese Buddhism very early on took a special appreciation for music, perhaps again owing to cultural trends rooted in such statements from Confucius as follows:

子曰:「興於詩,立於禮。成於樂。」

The Master said, "The mind is aroused by poetry. The character established through the rites. One is made complete through music.”

Now of course I have only personally observed contemporary ceremonies in Taiwan and China, though reading the Japanese monk Ennin's 圓仁 (794-864) journal from when he visited China in the mid 9th century and all the ancient musical instruments and procedures preserved in Japan, I am confident that the same level of musical performances were happening in China in the early times. Chinese monks and nuns often spend considerable amounts of time perfecting their art of playing "Dharma instruments". As Confucius suggested, music is employed a means of transforming an individual's character in a positive way. Chinese Buddhist ceremonies go to great lengths to have everyone skilfully recite from memory lengthy texts (the poetry) while the assembly does choreographed motions (the rites) complete with the "Dharma instruments" being played (the music). This in itself is considered essential practice and cultivation.

The intellectual exchange went both ways of course, especially in the post-Tang world. For instance, the Neo-Confucian school was interested in questions of a metaphysical nature and while they were often at odds with Buddhism albeit holding a begrudging respect towards them, they were nevertheless initially prompted to discuss such things by Buddhist metaphysics.

In a similar vein, Wang Yangming 王陽明 (1472-1529) was promoting a meditation method of quiet sitting 靜坐 which as a Confucian contemplative practice was likewise a part of Zhu Xi's philosophy. Quiet sitting here is different from most forms of Buddhist meditation, though nevertheless the Neo-Confucians were influenced by Buddhism, mostly likely Chan, in coming to have such practices.

The discussion about Confucianism and Buddhism still continues on in the present day and hopefully in a future post I can discuss this.

---

1 《仁王護國般若經疏》卷2〈1 序品〉:「以不殺配東方。東方是木。木主於仁。仁以養生為義。不盜配北方。北方是水。水主於智。智者不盜為義。不邪淫配西方。西方是金。金主於義。有義者。不邪淫。不飲酒配南方。南方是火。火主於禮。禮防於失也。以不妄語配中央。中央是土。土主於信。」(CBETA, T33, no. 1705, p. 260, c25-p. 261, a6)

3 comments :

Michael Schapers said...

I agree the relationship between Confucian and Buddhist thought and tradition is problematic. It is interesting that in your analysis, from a Buddhist perspective, Confucianism's adherance to 'violence' seems the main problem. I would say from a Confucian point of view, however, the Buddhist abhorrence of violence is not the main problem by on its own. The perceived lack of respect for proper social custom, which essentially is about a negligience of social relationships (仁), should be the biggest problems for Confucian intellectuals. Moreover, 'confucianism' is generally abhorred by ascetism, in favor of moderation, and one critcism of Buddhism by Confucian thinkers is that they take 'detachment' too far (even though Sakyamuni has stated his opposition to extreme ascetism as well). Zhu Xi, who had studied Buddhism under guidance of Buddhist teachers for over 10 years (!) before he fully embraced Confucian thought, is particularly pointed in his dismissal of Buddhism as 'selfish' (!!), because it fails to understand that the disciplining of the ego (克己) can only come together with a return to social propriety '復禮'.
BUT, the devide between these two ideologies appears greater than it really is, which is due to conceptual confucison, I think. Because, one should be very careful to claim that 儒教 condones violence. 'Violence', from a Confucian point of view, simply always means 'excess', in its broadest terms. Animal sacrifice, the use of animals for subsistance, war, legal punishment - all kinds of harm - are permissible and commendable IF and ONLY IF not only it is done without excess but, even more importantly, done in a way that shows respect (敬) and understanding to the target of your actions. Moreover, there is at least a certain level of acknowledgement in Confucian thought that 'proper' violence against sentient beings is problematic.
The 離婁 chapter in the Mencius is very telling here:
[齊宣王]曰:「若寡人者,可以保民乎哉?」
[孟子]曰:「可。」
曰:「何由知吾可也?」
曰:「臣聞之胡齕曰,王坐於堂上,有牽牛而過堂下者,王見之,曰:『牛何之?』對曰:『將以釁鐘。』王曰:『舍之!吾不忍其觳觫,若無罪而就死地。』對曰:『然則廢釁鐘與?』曰:『何可廢也?以羊易之!』不識有諸?」
曰:「有之。」
曰:「是心足以王矣。百姓皆以王為愛也,臣固知王之不忍也。」
王曰:「然。誠有百姓者。齊國雖褊小,吾何愛一牛?即不忍其觳觫,若無罪而就死地,故以羊易之也。」
曰:「王無異於百姓之以王為愛也。以小易大,彼惡知之?王若隱其無罪而就死地,則牛羊何擇焉?」
王笑曰:「是誠何心哉?我非愛其財。而易之以羊也,宜乎百姓之謂我愛也。」
曰:「無傷也,是乃仁術也,見牛未見羊也。君子之於禽獸也,見其生,不忍見其死;聞其聲,不忍食其肉。是以君子遠庖廚也。」
A (Mencian) 'Confucian' believes that being human means you abhor suffering and instintively feel compassion to life, EVEN IF this conflicts with proper social order and ritual. The other day I came accross a reference to a famous model for Confucian conduct, Bao Zheng 包拯, who served as a supreme judge under Song emperor Renzong. One famous anecdote about him tells how he felt obliged to execute his corrupt nephew, but at the same time could not but feel the deepest sympathy to the delinquent's mother. Torn apart between loyalty and compassion, he had no choice but to obide by the law, yet afterwards offered his sincere apologies to the woman who he acknowledged suffered immence grief from his actions.
Now what would a Buddhist do?

You're quite right to point out that the 5 'classics' formed the bedrock of culture since the Han, but no person with an advanced education would study these texts without any commentary or supplementary texts, which I think universally at least included quotations of Confucius and Mencius.

Jeffrey Kotyk said...

Michael, I'm aware that there is a degree of compassion directed at animals in Confucian thought, though it seems overall lacking.

For instance, the Liji does proscribe killing pregnant animals in certain seasons, but this is not a strong gesture towards genuine compassion for animals (i.e., not killing anything).

The Confucians, like the proponents of the Vedas, offer a moral outlook based on duty and prescribed duties, though in both India and China this has been problematic for Buddhists who would renounce the world and turn around and benefit it in some future when they are truly capable of doing so.

There really are insurmountable differences. I don't think they can be resolved.

Michael Schapers said...

Personally, I can agree with that conclusion. For me the most problematic difference seems not their different views on violence, but, as you point out, the conflict between Confucian social duty and Buddhist critique of social attachment.
To me it is clear that there is no fundamental objection whatsoever for someone who considers himself to be a 'Confucian', to at the same time uphold a 100% vegan lifestyle, including abstaining from participation in animal sacrifice or any form of behavior that can be considered animal abuse. The classical Confucian ritual guidelines for animal sacrifice really do not make this impossible.
Why?
Because 'Confucianism' is not to any extent as coherent and systematic an ideological system as 'Buddhism' is in its many forms. There really is no equivalent to dharma in Confucian thought. So even though one can say that Confucius teaches Confucians to value ritual propriety above all else, and that the transmitted Rites of Zhou embody a flawless model for this; and even though during the Han an unconditional adherence to these norms was considered orthodox truth: still, because the 5 Classics (nor the 4 Books for that matter) do not function as a philosophical coherent system (like so many Buddhist texts do) the extent to which one adheres to their content is much less consequential than when a Buddhist would chose to ignore one of the Four Noble Truths or the Noble Eightfold Path. If there is anything that can resemble these dharmic truths in Confucian thought it would be 仁, and arguably 仁 implies a certain positive evaluation of secondary core principles 義禮知, and derrivatives thereof like 誠信忠勇;元亨利貞 etc., but none of these necessitate blood sacrifice. This is supported by Confucius' own admonition to focus on the intent behind the Rites of Zhou and not so much on it's historical contingent form. The example he gives is ritual attire, but I don't see why this would not also be applicable to the formal content of sacrifices. Confucians should make sure that sufficient sacrifice takes place, but I can't think of any non-conventional argument why this sacrifice could not be vegetarian.

For me the real question is: could a Confucian who fully supports the non-violent promotion of 仁義禮知 in 'samsara', still acknowledge a Buddhist metaphysics (the world as samsara; the possibility of nirvana) and gain any level of insight from Buddhist meditation which is based on this metaphysics? And if he could: in what way would such a person than be different from a Buddhist lay person?

Problematic: yes; but insurmountable?