CHAPTER 2
Buddhism in Chinese History
Mario Poceski
B
uddhism in China has a remarkably lengthy and complex history. Over the course
of the last two millennia the Buddhist tradition has exerted extensive inluences on
virtually all facets of Chinese religious life, both at the popular and the elite levels.
Moreover, Buddhism left multifaceted and lasting impacts on other aspects of Chinese
civilization, including history, society, arts, and culture. In contemporary China, Buddhism still remains an integral part of the religious landscape. During the post-Mao era
it has even been experiencing a modest revival, although its present strength and inluence pale in comparison with the glories of long bygone eras. That is especially the case
when the point of comparison is the Sui-Tang period, arguably the high point of
Chinese civilization, during which Buddhism was unquestionably the most inluential
religious tradition throughout the sprawling Chinese empire.
In the process of its transmission, acculturation, and growth in China, Buddhism
underwent extensive changes and manifold adaptations. As a result of the protracted
encounter with Chinese traditions, Buddhist beliefs, doctrines, practices, and institutions underwent far-reaching transformations, even as for the most part they retained
a sense of idelity to the larger Buddhist religion that originated in India. This process
of Siniication resulted in the formation of a rich and diverse Buddhist tradition that is
quintessentially Chinese. The impact of these developments was also felt beyond China’s
borders, as Chinese forms of Buddhism were transmitted to other parts of East and
Southeast Asia that traditionally were under China’s spheres of cultural and political
inluence, namely Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. Consequently, Chinese Buddhism has
traditionally formed the core of a pan-East Asian variety of Buddhism, and familiarity
with Chinese models and developments is essential for understanding the rich Buddhist
heritages of other countries in the region.
Throughout Chinese history, Buddhism shared common social and cultural spaces
with other religious traditions, most notably Confucianism, Daoism, and popular religion. By and large, the various religious traditions not only coexisted with each other,
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to East and Inner Asian Buddhism, First Edition. Edited by Mario Poceski.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
BU
BUDDHISM
S IN CHINESE
C
S HISTORY
S O
41
but they also engaged in complex webs of mutual interactions and exerted notable
inluences on each other (see Livia Kohn’s chapter in this volume). That gave rise to the
formation of unique forms of religious identities—some of which are notable for their
luidity or hybridity—and distinctively Chinese patterns of religious pluralism. On the
other hand, Chinese religious history was not devoid of tension and conlicts, along
with competitions over patronage, power, and inluence. In that context, in the eyes of some
of its detractors Buddhism retained an aura of foreignness, being the only one of the
“three teachings” that did not originate in China (the other two being Confucianism
and Daoism). That opened Buddhist teachings, ideals, and institutions to trenchant
critiques, especially at the hands of xenophobic rulers and Confucian ideologues that
were keen to promote particular brands of essentialist or fundamentalist visions of
Chinese culture and society. Against that backdrop, the institutional fortunes and vitality of Buddhism changes over time. Eras of growth and lourishing were punctuated or
disrupted with all sorts of challenges. In due course they gave way to periods of decline,
which in turn eventually stimulated efforts at revival and reformation.
This chapter presents a broad historical survey of Chinese Buddhism. It covers the
period from the initial transmission of the foreign religion into the Middle Kingdom
during the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) until the modern era, or roughly from the
irst until the twentieth century of the Common Era. I have primarily adopted a diachronic approach and have organized my discussion in terms of several relatively discrete historical periods. One should keep in mind, however, that such periodizations are
provisional scholarly constructs and are inherently contestable. As heuristic devices,
they are primarily used to organize complex sets of data and provide a meaningful narrative structure for the telling of a very long and complex story. At certain points I also
pause to address, in fairly general terms, some important historical development or
general features of Chinese Buddhism, such as the process of canon formation, the
emergence of various Buddhist schools, and the common expressions of popular piety.
Initial Introduction of Buddhism into China
Chinese historical records contain a number of scattered references about the initial
introduction of Buddhism into China, although their veracity is open to doubt. Effectively, we do not really know when Buddhism irst “entered” China; at any rate, that is
a problematic notion that presupposes a single point of oficially sanctioned entry.
Perhaps the most familiar quasi-historical account of that kind is the often-cited story
about Emperor Ming’s (r. 58–75 CE) dream about a mystifying foreign deity with golden
hue, which one of the court advisors identiied as the Buddha. In response, the intrigued
emperor is said to have sent a western-bound expedition in search of the deity. The
expedition purportedly brought back the irst Buddhist scripture to come into China,
the Scripture in Forty-two Sections (Sishier zhang jing, which some scholars believe to be
an apocryphal text composed in China).
According to later versions of the story, the expedition sent by Emperor Ming also
brought two Buddhist monks to Luoyang, the capital of China at the time. In response,
the emperor ordered the construction of the irst Buddhist monastery, which was
42
MARIO
O POCESKI
OC S
named White Horse monastery (Ch’en 1964: 29–31; Zürcher 2007: 22). While this
story might be apocryphal, it exempliies a prevailing tendency to focus on the “oficial”
introduction of Buddhism, which is linked with the Chinese state and its ruler. Such
associations had obvious propagandist value for the nascent Buddhist community in
early medieval China, as they helped legitimize the new religion.
The type of legitimizing strategy that is exempliied by the stories told in oficial
chronicles was often accompanied with a propensity to push back in time the arrival
of Buddhism onto Chinese soil. Given prevalent Chinese tendencies to exalt antiquity
and evoke the historicized past, this approach helped enhance public perceptions of
Buddhism. These tendencies are evident in two legends that push back the chronology
of the initial arrival of Buddhism and link it with famous monarchs. The irst legend
describes the arrival of Buddhist monks at the court of Qin Shihuangdi (r. 221–210
BCE), the famous irst emperor who united China into a single empire (Zürcher 2007:
19–20; Ch’en 1964: 28). The second legend makes a connection between King Aśoka
(r. 268–232 BCE), the famed Indian monarch who was celebrated for his generous
patronage of Buddhism, and the arrival of Buddhist missionaries in China. In addition,
another frequently quoted legend, mentioned in Hou han shu (Later Han History), places
the arrival of Buddhism at the Chinese court in 2 BCE; in this instance, the irst transmitter was a Central Asian envoy from the kingdom of Yuezhi, which was located in
Bactria (Ch’en 1964: 31–32).
Notwithstanding lingering uncertainties regarding the historical reliability of the
speciic events depicted in these accounts, we can ascertain that Buddhism already had
at least some presence in China during the irst century of the Common Era. There is
even a possibility that some Buddhists might have entered China earlier. The primary
transmission route was the well-known network of trade routes that is commonly
referred to as the Silk Road, which stretched from China’s capital Chang’an to the
Mediterranean, thereby linking China with Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle
East. The initial growth of Buddhism was thus linked with long-distance trade, with
diplomacy also playing a role. That was in tune with a signiicant global pattern, as the
spread of trade along the Silk Road was closely related to the transmission and expansion of a variety of religions, although warfare and political realignments could also
have notable impacts. At that time, propelled by its missionary character, Buddhism
was well on the way to developing into a pan-Asian religion, with a universal appeal
and an ability to transcend established ethnic, linguistic, and cultural boundaries.
Most of the early monks and lay Buddhists that entered China came with merchant
caravans from Central Asia, an area where Buddhism already had established a strong
presence. Consequently, while the transmission of Buddhism can be viewed as the main
element of a large-scale cultural exchange that linked China and India—two major
civilizations with long histories and sophisticated cultures—Kushans, Sogdians, and
other Central Asians were also important historical actors and key intermediaries (see
Mariko Walter’s chapter in this volume). Consequently, listings of notable Buddhist
missionaries from this period are dominated by monks from Central Asia. Well-known
examples of that trend are An Shigao (active ca. 148–180), a Parthian who produced
early translations of a variety of scriptures and established preliminary standards of
translation, and Lokakṣema (b. 147?), a Scythian who achieved wide acclaim for his
BU
BUDDHISM
S IN CHINESE
C
S HISTORY
S O
43
translations of a number of important Mahāyāna texts, including early scriptures that
belonged to the perfection of wisdom corpus (see Zürcher 2007: 32–36).
At the outset, the majority of the followers of Buddhism were presumably immigrants from Central Asia. Nonetheless, from early on the foreign religion also attracted
the attention of native Chinese, an increasing number of whom became inspired by its
teachings and attracted to its rituals. As a variety of Buddhist doctrines, practices, texts,
and tradition were introduced by the foreign missionaries, the Chinese made concerted
efforts to come to terms with the new religion and understand its essential elements.
Typically Buddhist concepts and teachings were interpreted in terms of native religious
values and established intellectual frameworks, and this situation continued for an
extended period.
By the end of the Han dynasty in 220 there were already a number of Buddhist
establishments in various parts of China, and the stage was set for the exponential
growth of Buddhism throughout the various kingdoms and empires that rose and fell
during the Period of Disunion (220–589). The collapse of the Han dynasty’s imperial
rule gave way to a luid sociopolitical situation, marked by a pervasive sense of fragmentation and an emergence of multiple centers of political power. The unstable circumstances also created a climate of intellectual and religious openness to new ideas,
which helped ameliorate a persistent feeling of Chinese cultural superiority and ethnocentric bias. Those kinds of sentiments were accompanied with an increased skepticism
about normative values and long-standing socioreligious paradigms. In the long term,
the somewhat luid and unpredictable situation probably beneited the growth of
Buddhism.
Growth during the Period of Division
During the Period of Division (also known as the Northern and Southern Dynasties)
the growth of Buddhism and its penetration into Chinese society continued at a steady
pace. By the sixth century, which marked the end of this often turbulent but also fascinating period, Buddhism had established itself as the dominant religious tradition
throughout most of the Chinese realm, thereby bringing to fruition a protracted historical process that Erik Zürcher called the Buddhist conquest of China (Zürcher 2007).
Numerous followers and sympathizers of Buddhism could be found among members
of all strata of Chinese society, from poor peasants to emperors. Buddhist ideas and
articles of faith, including prevailing notions about rebirth, karmic law, salviic grace,
and human perfectibility came to permeate Chinese culture and inluence the lives of
the Chinese people, even when they did not formally subscribe to the Buddhist faith.
During this period Buddhism also became a dominant force in intellectual life and
exerted major inluences on esthetic sensibilities and artistic creations. Among the
lasting reminders of the period’s extraordinary religious fervor are the surviving objects
of Buddhist art, many of them presently in the collections of various museums in Asia,
Europe, and America. There are also the remarkable complexes of cave sanctuaries at
Yun’gang and Longmen, which were initially constructed during the Northern Wei
Dynasty (see Michelle Wang’s chapter in this volume). The size and inluence of the
44
MARIO
O POCESKI
OC S
monastic order, which included both monks and nuns, also grew exponentially, with
notable effects on the Chinese economy (Gernet 1995: 3–25). These developments were
relected in the size and architectural splendor of major monasteries, especially those
in the capitals of major dynasties (e.g. Luoyang), which were not unlike imperial palaces
(see Yang 1984).
As an expansive array of Buddhist texts and teachings were introduced into China,
from early on Chinese Buddhists showed a clear preference for the Mahāyāna tradition.
With the establishment of an inclusive and eclectic brand of Mahāyāna as the Buddhist
mainstream, its central ideals and core beliefs became integral parts of the Chinese
religious landscape. That included exultation of the bodhisattva ideal, especially its
central virtue of universal compassion, as well as faith in a multiplicity of supremely
wise and compassionate Buddhas that manifest in a multitude of worlds throughout
an ininite cosmos, replete with sublime virtues and awe-inspiring powers. The successful growth of Buddhism was to a large degree based on the considerable appeal of its
teachings, rituals, and practices, which came in an often bewildering profusion of forms
and varieties. That included solemn repentance rituals and other religious ceremonies
that were often enacted on a grand scale, along with rareied philosophical relections
on the nature of reality. There were also various kinds of devotional practices, contemplative techniques, and ethical observances.
Buddhism also proved to be useful as a tool of political legitimization, especially for
the rulers of the northern dynasties, most of whom were not native Chinese. For the
Tuoba Wei and other ruling tribes in the north, the universalist ethos of Buddhism was
appealing at least in part because of its sociopolitical utility, especially given the challenges that had to be tackled as they governed over ethnically and culturally diverse
populations. Striking examples of the close relationship between Buddhism and the
state were the occasional identiications of the emperor with the Buddha (McNair
2007: 7–30). Furthermore, this era’s political fragmentation fostered the emergence of
notable regional variations within Chinese Buddhism. Scholars typically contrast the
northern style of Buddhism, with its emphasis on thaumaturgy, asceticism, political
involvement, and cultic practice with the supposedly mellower kind of Buddhism that
prevailed in the south, at least among the aristocratic elites that delighted in abstruse
intellectual discussions, to a large degree inspired by the perfection of wisdom literature
(Ch’en 1964: 121–83). The southern Buddhist milieu, however, was by no means
averse to the mixing up of religion and politics. For instance, it gave birth to the most
famous (or notorious) Buddhist monarch in Chinese history: Emperor Wu of the Liang
Dynasty (r. 502–549), who was renowned for his public displays of Buddhist piety and
his extravagant patronage of monks and monasteries.
The varied new elements brought by Buddhism enriched and expanded the contours
of Chinese religious and cultural life. At the same time, certain aspects of Buddhism
evoked comparisons or analogies with elements of native religious traditions, especially
those of Daoism. After its initial emergence as an organized religion during the second
century of the Common Era, Daoism experienced substantial development during
the period of division, which in many instances intersected with the growth of Buddhism. Many Chinese glossed over the unique features or distinct boundaries that separated the two religions—especially at the popular level—which initially facilitated the
BU
BUDDHISM
S IN CHINESE
C
S HISTORY
S O
45
acceptance and assimilation of Buddhism. Over time the relationship between the two
became increasingly complex. In general it involved a sense of complementarity, as
there were numerous instances of mutual inluences and interactions, but there were
also tensions and contestations, which often revolved around ongoing competitions
over patronage (for the ritual and textual connections, see Mollier 2008).
Notwithstanding its long-term success in China, in the process of its growth and
assimilation Buddhism had to overcome a number of obstacles. On a basic level, there
were linguistic problems, as literary Chinese was very different from Sanskrit, the main
canonical language of the Mahāyāna tradition. There were also formidable challenges
related to bridging the vast gaps in intellectual outlooks, cultural values, and religious
predilections that separated China and India. In contrast to the transmission of Buddhism to many other parts of Asia, where its arrival was associated with the ingress of
a superior culture, in the Chinese context the foreign religion entered a country (or a
distinctive cultural and geographical area) with a well-established sense of self-identity
and rich philosophical, political, and religious traditions. Within the Chinese scheme
of things, theirs was the supreme civilization, grounded in enduring values and sustained by outstanding institutions. In the eyes of many Chinese ideologues and intellectuals, their culture was glorious and complete. It also had distinguished sages such
as Confucius and Laozi, who in ancient times have revealed the essential patterns of
proper human behavior and have plumbed the timeless mysteries of the Dao. Therefore,
it looked unseemly for their countryman to worship an odd foreign deity, or to follow
strange customs imported from distant lands.
With the increasing inluence of Buddhism in medieval China, some of the literati,
especially those with Confucian predilections, articulated a series of critiques of the foreign
religion. The most prominent object of their trenchant criticisms was the monastic
order (Sangha). Initially monasticism represented a novel type of institution, without
a counterpart in Chinese society. Consequently, it was identiied by some oficials as
being potentially subversive, or at least irreconcilable with China’s traditional sociopolitical system. For instance, the monastic renunciation of social ties and the observance
of celibacy were criticized as being incompatible with a dominant Confucian ethos,
which privileged patriarchy and stressed the primacy of social relationships, especially
those centered on the family. As a result, monks were criticized for deviating from
established social norms. They were accused of not being ilial, particularly because of
their failure to marry and produce male offspring. In a society that lauded ilial piety
as a supreme virtue—which was tied up with the prevailing cult of ancestors—such
charges represented serious impediments to the broad acceptance of Buddhism and the
growth of the monastic order.
Buddhism was also rejected by xenophobic oficials and literati because of its foreign
(lit. “barbarian”) origins. In their eyes, that made it inimical to essential Chinese values
and unsuitable as a religion for the Chinese people. Moreover, according to some of its
detractors, the monastic order was economically unproductive, imposing an excessive
and unjustiiable inancial burden on both the imperial state and the general public. An
additional point of contention, with serious political overtones, was the monastic
order’s insistence on its institutional independence—or at least a semblance of it—
which clashed with prevalent views about the emperor’s absolute authority and the
46
MARIO POCESKI
primacy of the Chinese state. At times these critiques even led to explicit calls to proscribe Buddhism, which on two separate occasions culminated in state-led persecutions, under the Northern Wei (446–451) and the Northern Zhou (574–577) dynasties.
These, however, turned out to be only temporary setbacks, as in both instances the local
Buddhist communities were able to recover fairly quickly (Ch’en 1964: 147–53,
190–94).
By the end of the sixth century, at the eve of the reuniication of China under the
pro-Buddhist Sui dynasty (581–618), Buddhism had already established durable roots
throughout the whole territory of China. During the Period of Division Chinese Buddhism also came to play central roles in the vast processes of cultural diffusion and
political realignment that brought other parts of East Asia closer into China’s sphere
of inluence. Chinese forms of Buddhism from the north were irst introduced into the
Korean peninsula during the fourth century, and over the subsequent centuries there
was a steady stream of Korean monks who went to study in China (see Sem Vermeersch’s chapter in this volume). Then in the sixth century Buddhism was also introduced
into Japan, where it quickly rose to prominence. Before long Buddhism became the
de-facto national religion of the island state, and over the ensuing epochs it continued
to exert notable inluences on Japanese culture and society (see Heather Blair’s chapter
in this volume).
Canon Formation and Doctrinal Classiication
Many of the missionary monks that entered China brought with them an assortment
of scriptures and other Buddhist texts. For a number of centuries, until well into the
Tang era, the translation of canonical texts into Chinese was one of the major concerns
of the Buddhist clergy and its lay patrons. The focus on sacred texts and the reverence
directed toward them relected traditional Buddhist attitudes, but they were also inluenced by the overwhelmingly literary orientation of elite Chinese culture, in which the
written word was held in highest regard. On many occasions the state was a major
sponsor of various translation projects. Prime examples of that are the voluminous
translations produced by the large translation bureaus headed by Kumārajīva (344–
413?) and Xuanzang (ca. 600–664), arguably the two best-known translators of Buddhist texts into Chinese. The Kuchan missionary and the Chinese monk both worked
under imperial auspices in or around Chang’an, the imperial capital. Their oficially
sanctioned translation bureaus were situated at state-supported monasteries, with
numerous prominent monks serving as their assistants. Xuanzang was also famous for
his epic pilgrimage to India, from where he brought back numerous Buddhist manuscripts, while Kumārajīva was a prominent exponent of the doctrine of emptiness, as
propounded by the Madhyamaka school.
The task of translating Buddhist texts into Chinese was a monumental undertaking
not only because of the linguistic, conceptual, and transcultural challenges noted
above, but also because of the huge size of the various canons that were produced by
the main traditions of Indian Buddhism. The Mahāyāna tradition, which became dominant in China, had an open canon, and its adherents were especially proliic creators
BUDDHISM IN CHINESE HISTORY
47
of canonical literature. We also have to keep in mind that at the same time as Buddhism
was growing in China, the Indian Mahāyāna movement underwent important developments and paradigm shifts, with notable impacts in the doctrinal, literary, and institutional spheres.
Notable developments in Indian Buddhism that took place during the early centuries
of the Common Era, which came to exert signiicant inluences on Chinese Buddhism,
included the emergence of distinct philosophically oriented schools such Madhyamaka
and Yogācāra, each of which produced extensive literature. The emergence of the
Tantric movement during the seventh century, notwithstanding its emphasis on ritual
practices, led to the production of even more texts. Many of these texts were in due
course translated into Chinese, which then prompted the creation of scriptural commentaries and other exegetical works. Accordingly, the Chinese Buddhist canon was
constantly expanding and evolving, eventually becoming one of the largest collections
of religious literature in the world (see Jiang Wu’s chapter in this volume).
Among the numerous canonical texts translated by Kumārajīva, Xuanzang, and
other noted translators were inluential scriptures such as the Lotus Scripture, arguably
the most popular scripture in China (and Japan), as well as the Huayan Scripture, the
Vimalakīrti Scripture, and the Amitābha Scripture. The Indian provenance of some of
these texts (e.g. the Huayan Scripture) is uncertain, while others (e.g. the Amitābha
Scripture) were not that inluential in the land of their birth, but for a variety of reasons
captured the religious imagination of Chinese Buddhists and came to exert immense
inluence on the development of Chinese (and East Asian) Buddhism. Some canonical
works, especially voluminous and multilayered texts such as the Lotus and Huayan
scriptures, were approached from a variety of angles and put to a multitude of uses. In
certain intellectual milieus they served as starting points for sophisticated philosophical
discussions, including metaphysical relections on the nature of reality (see the chapters by Haiyan Shen and Imre Hamar in this volume), but they also inspired arrays of
cultic practices. In addition, they gave impetus to exquisite artistic creations: calligraphic inscriptions, paintings of well-known scenes from the scriptures, or sculptures
of deities featured in them.
The imperial state’s involvement with the canon did not stop with the sponsorship
of translation projects. It also extended to the commissioning of catalogues of canonical texts, as well as the compilation and publication of the Buddhist canon, known as
the “Great Collection of Scriptures” (Da zang jing). At times the government also asserted
a self-designated prerogative to make decisions about what should be included or
excluded from the canon. When a particular Buddhist movement or sect ran afoul of
the government, that could lead not only to it being banned as a subversive heresy, but
also to a proscription of its texts, as happened with the notorious Three Stages movement during the Tang era (Hubbard 2001).
Over time the canon grew not only in size, but also in terms of the variety of texts
contained in it. Eventually many texts composed in China were incorporated in the
canon—or rather canons, since there were a number of versions of the Chinese canon.
That included numerous apocryphal scriptures composed in China, a number of which
became accepted as canonical, with some of them becoming quite inluential (see
Buswell 1990). Cases in point are the Treatise on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith
48
MARIO POCESKI
(Dasheng qi xin lun) and the Scripture of Perfect Awakening (Yuan jue jing), both of which
received extensive exegesis and were often quoted in a wide variety of texts that dealt
with philosophical themes or issues related to spiritual cultivation. Even more numerous were texts composed by Chinese authors, most of whom were members of the
monastic order. Examples of this type include various historical works and the plethora
of texts produced by monks associated with Chinese Buddhist schools such as Chan,
Huayan, and Tiantai.
The proliferation of canonical texts, coupled with the variety of different doctrinal
perspectives and soteriological paradigms expressed in them, repeatedly became sources
of perplexity for Chinese Buddhists, especially during the early stages of the spread of
the “Indian” religion. The whole situation was compounded by the haphazard manner
in which various texts and doctrines were introduced into China. For instance, what
was the relationship between the Madhyamaka doctrines of emptiness, two truths, and
conditioned origination, and the Yogācāra’s nuanced explorations of mind and reality
in terms of distinctive categories such as three natures and eight consciousnesses? How
about the related notions of Buddha-nature and tathāgatagarbha, which were not very
inluential in India and entered China at a later stage of doctrinal development, but
eventually became accepted by most Chinese Buddhist as core articles of faith and key
centerpieces of their worldview? One way of dealing with this proliferation of theoretical templates and overabundance of meanings was the creation of doctrinal taxonomies (panjiao, also referred to as classiications of teachings), which became one of the
hallmarks of medieval Chinese Buddhist scholasticism.
The creation of doctrinal taxonomies was a particular Chinese way of coming to
terms with the multiplicity of texts and teachings contained in the canon, although it
was also related to certain religious predicaments and peculiar developments within
the medieval Buddhist tradition. Generally speaking, the classiicatory schemes relected
Chinese intellectual sensibilities, especially a penchant for seeking harmony, order,
and all-inclusiveness. They adopted all-embracing and seemingly ecumenical attitudes
toward cumulative Buddhist traditions, which were perceived as sacred repositories of
timeless truths and sublime meanings. They afirmed that, in the inal analysis, there
is only one truth, which is ineffable and transcends all conceptual constructs. Nonetheless, there are a number of paths of practice and realization that lead toward the ultimate truth, tailored to the distinct spiritual aptitudes or capacities of distinct groups of
practitioners. At the same time, the various texts and teachings were arranged in a
hierarchical manner, according to predetermined criteria and in light of particular
points of view. By these means the taxonomies also promoted the superiority of a particular text or teaching, thereby becoming potentially useful tools for the advancement
of proto-sectarian agendas.
All these elements are evident in the prominent taxonomic scheme created by Fazang
(643–712), a leading igure within the Huayan school and main architect of its comprehensive and sophisticated doctrinal system. Among the ive levels of teachings enumerated in Fazang’s taxonomy, the teachings of the Huayan Scripture, which he dubbed
the “perfect teaching,” occupy the highest position. In a manner that relected his own
philosophical outlook, Fazang also arranged the main doctrinal systems of Indian
Buddhism into a hierarchical fashion, with the tathāgatagarbha doctrine above the
BUDDHISM IN CHINESE HISTORY
49
doctrines of the Yogācāra and Madhyamaka schools (see Gregory 1991: 127–43). As
is customary in Chinese doctrinal taxonomies, the Hīnayāna or Small Vehicle teachings
were placed at the bottom.
Similarly, in the taxonomic schemes produced by Zhiyi (538–597) and his Tiantai
school, the Lotus Scripture, which served as the foundational text for Tiantai’s comprehensive and ingenious system of Buddhist philosophy, was exalted as the most supreme
text in the Buddhist canon, albeit with a caveat that no scripture, not matter how profound or sublime, has a monopoly over the ultimate truth. Furthermore, by applying
different classiicatory principles, the Tiantai school was able to produce several discrete
classiicatory nomenclatures. That is exempliied by the three taxonomic schemes collectively known as the “eight teachings and ive periods,” which organize the totality
of canonical texts and teachings into three separate groupings, in term of their doctrinal contents, means of instruction employed by the Buddha, and the main periods in
the Buddha’s preaching career.
Flourishing during the Sui-Tang Era
Buddhism reached the peak of its development and impact on Chinese society during
the Sui (581–618) and Tang (618–907) dynasties. This era is often evoked as the
golden age of Chinese Buddhism, distinguished by a remarkable combination of intellectual ingenuity, institutional vitality, fervent devotion, and artistic creativity. The
Tang period is also unusually accepted as the highpoint of Chinese civilization, an era
of unrivaled dynastic power and prosperity, celebrated for its cultural sophistication,
effervescence, and cosmopolitanism. The apex of Buddhism in China thus coincided
with one of the most signiicant periods in Chinese history, when the Middle Kingdom
emerged as the most advanced and powerful country in the world. At that time Buddhism was clearly the most prevalent and inluential religious tradition in China,
though by no means the only one. Confucianism and Daoism also lourished, amidst a
positive sociocultural environment that fostered what today we might call multicultural
attitudes and acceptance of religious pluralism. In addition, during this era a number
of other “western” religions were introduced into China, including Zoroastrianism,
Islam, Nestorian Christianity, and Manichaeism.
During the Tang era Buddhist monasteries, temples, and shrines were prominent
ixtures of both urban and rural landscapes. Monks and monasteries were highly visible
symbols of the pervasive presence of Buddhism throughout China, which had signiicant social, political, and economic ramiications. The monastic order assumed key
positions of religious leadership and was at the forefront of major institutional and
intellectual developments. While most monastic leaders came from privileged backgrounds, there were also numerous monks and nuns with humbler upbringings that
ministered to the religious needs of the common people.
Chang’an, the main Tang capital, had over 150 monasteries and convents, which
housed thousands of monks and nuns. The capital’s main monastic complexes were
huge in scope, with numerous buildings, pavilions, and courtyards. They were also
renowned for their architectural splendor and reined surroundings. Besides housing
50
MARIO POCESKI
various religious functions, which included rituals performed on behalf of the imperial
family and the reigning dynasty, the monasteries were also important centers of social
life, as well as sites where varied cultural events took place.
Luoyang, the secondary capital, was not much behind as far as the presence of Buddhist establishments and activities were concerned, especially during the reign of
Empress Wu (r. 690–705), the only female monarch in Chinese history, who was
renowned for her patronage of Buddhism. There were also notable buildups and expansions at Longmen and Dunhuang, the famed cave complexes that are among the largest
and most important repositories of Buddhist art. The profusion of statues, frescoes,
inscriptions, and reliefs that grace the cave sanctuaries bear striking testimony to the
immense heights of Buddhist-inspired artistic creativity and religious fervor that characterized this age. They also afford us insights into the range of aspirations and motivations evidenced among the Buddhist faithful, which involved intricate intersections of
religious, economic, political, and social considerations.
Many famous monasteries were also located at provincial or prefectural capitals.
There were even more monasteries situated at various mountains—such as Wutaishan,
Lushan, Tiantaishan, and Nanyue—which besides their primary role as centers of
monastic training also served as major sites of pilgrimage (for Nanyue, see Robson
2009). Tang oficials and literati often visited these kinds of monastic establishments,
where they closely interacted with the Buddhist clergy. Many of them were also prominent patrons and ardent supporters of the Buddhist cause. On the whole, the literati
played essential roles in the growth and transformation of Buddhism. A good number
of them were even actively engaged in the propagation of Buddhist doctrines and practices. In addition, they afirmed the central place of Buddhism in Chinese cultural and
social life, and at key junctures they defended the Buddhist faith against its various
detractors (Halperin 2006: 27–61).
The pervasive inluence of Buddhism in the cultural sphere is plainly evident in Tang
literature and poetry, which frequently evoke Buddhist themes, ideas, and images. In
various inscriptions written for Buddhist monasteries and other types of writings, the
literati wrote about their personal devotion and presented embellished testimonies
about the sublimity or eficacy of Buddhist teachings. Copious examples of such sentiments can be found in the writings of famous poets such as Wang Wei (701–761) and
Bo Juyi (772–846, also known as Bai Juyi). Both poets were well known for their serious
engagements with Buddhist ideals and practices, especially those associated with the
nascent Chan movement, so it is not surprising that their poetry was imbued with Buddhist
sentiments. In many poems Buddhist tropes or imagery assume center stage, which makes
them useful sources for the study of lay attitudes and practices (see Poceski 2007b).
The growth of Buddhism also had notable impacts in the economic and political
spheres. Many monasteries had oficial status and received funding from the state. Since
religiously inlected giving was perceived as a prime generator of spiritual merit, donations from the faithful—who came from the ranks of the sociopolitical elites as well as
the common populace—were a major source of income for the monasteries. Some
monastic establishments were also major landholders. Other sources of income were
commercial activities such as the operation of oil presses, mills, and pawnshops (Gernet
1995: 142–52, 167–86).
BUDDHISM IN CHINESE HISTORY
51
While the imperial state sponsored religious activities and extended certain privileges to the clergy—most notably the exemptions from taxes and military service—it
also implemented a series of policies aimed at controlling the religion and its institutions, which were not necessarily unique to the Tang era. That included control of
monastic ordinations, regulation of the building of temples and monasteries, and imposition of restrictions on the clergy’s activities and freedom of movement. Given the
relative comfort of monastic life and the large size of the clergy, which included individuals with all sort of backgrounds and aspirations, a certain level of monastic laxity
and corruption was an ongoing problem. That elicited criticism from both outside and
within the Buddhist community, along with occasional calls for puriication of the
clergy.
In the course of Chinese history many reining dynasties were keen to utilize the
prestige and popularity of Buddhism for their political ends. That was notably the case
during the Sui dynasty, which made extensive use of Buddhism as part of its overarching policy of unifying the country under its centralized rule. The situation during the
Tang era was a bit more complex and luid, in part due to an oficial policy that gave
precedence to Daoism. Over the course of the dynasty, the state’s level of oficial patronage and its attitudes toward Buddhism were inluenced by a variety of factors, including
the personal pieties of individual emperors. At one end of the spectrum was the aforementioned Empress Wu, who offered lavish support and made extensive use of Buddhism as a key source of legitimacy for her rule, which was unique in the annals of
Chinese history on account of her gender (see Weinstein 1987: 37–47).
At the other end of the spectrum was Emperor Wuzong (r. 842–845), who during
his short reign initiated one of the most comprehensive and devastating anti-Buddhist
persecutions. While the persecution was extended to other “foreign” religions, especially Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, and Nestorian Christianity, Buddhist monks and
monasteries were its major targets. The emperor ordered comprehensive destruction or
closure of monasteries and other Buddhist establishments, laicization of the clergy, and
expropriation of monastic lands and property (Weinstein 1987: 114–36; Ch’en 1964:
226–33). The persecution was short-lived, as the next emperor Xuanzong (r. 846–859)
promptly changed state policy and became a generous supporter of Buddhism. Nonetheless, for some historians this traumatic event marked the end of a great era in
Chinese Buddhist history.
Schools of Chinese Buddhism
At the elite level, the formative stages of Chinese Buddhist history were to a large degree
shaped by the formation of discrete exegetical traditions and the systematization of
explicit doctrinal or soteriological paradigms. These processes found their most notable
expressions in the development of the so-called schools or traditions of Chinese Buddhism. When discussing these schools, however, we have to be mindful that the Chinese
term for “school” (zong) presents us with a number of challenges, given its multiple
connotations and its ambivalent uses in a range of contexts. The same term can be used
to denote the essential purport of a particular doctrine (that might be associated with
52
MARIO POCESKI
a speciic scripture, such as the Huayan jing), a tradition of canonical exegesis or philosophical relection (e.g. Madhyamaka), a systematization of particular doctrines or
practices, or a grouping of practitioners that adhere to a set of teachings or ideals. Often
it involves a combination of several of these interpretative possibilities.
Generally speaking, in the Chinese Buddhist context the notion of school does not
imply a distinct sectarian tradition, for instance along the lines of those that developed
in later Japanese Buddhism, which came to incorporate a variety of institutionally
independent sects such as Sōtō Zen, Jōdo, Tendai, Shingon, and Nichiren. Notwithstanding the existence of distinct group identities or factional divisions—along the lines
of those that separate Chan from Tiantai, for instance—the schools of Chinese Buddhism did not develop into discrete sects that had autonomous ecclesiastical structures
or institutional moorings that set them apart from the monastic mainstream. In effect,
they were all integral parts of an inclusive Buddhist tradition, largely associated with
the monastic order and the Buddhist canon, which was able to accommodate a broad
range of approaches and perspectives.
This larger Buddhist tradition was open to all sorts of ecumenical gestures and syncretic amalgamations. It also had a capacity to absorb all kinds of doctrinal debates and
factional disagreements. It is thus pointless or misleading to speak of Chan monks (or
practitioners) as a distinct group in either the sociological or institutional sense, since
there were no separate ordinations or other markers of oficial entry into the Chan
school. Accordingly, monks associated with Chan (as well as with the other schools)
were able to accommodate several overlapping, contextual, and porous identities. These
involved their simultaneous participation within the broader Chan movement and in
one of its lineages, as well as their membership in the monastic order and the common
Buddhist tradition, with its rich history, cumulative lore, expansive literature, and multifaceted institutions (Poceski 2007a: 103–06).
By the same token, even when speciic religious establishments were marked as
“Chan monasteries,” they were open to all kinds of practitioners. For instance, when a
system of Chan monasteries was established during the Song era, they were subsumed under the oficial designation of “public monasteries” (shifang conglin). These
monasteries were open to all properly ordained monks in good standing. Only their
abbacy was restricted to holders of the Chan lineage, who were also prominent members
of the mainstream monastic order. The same was true of Tiantai monasteries, which
belonged to a separate category of “teaching” (jiao) monasteries (see Schlütter 2008:
31–54). Furthermore, when the Chan school developed speciic monastic codes for the
regulation of this kind of monastery, they were to a large extent based on the Vinaya,
the canonical code of monastic discipline, and they also incorporated a variety of customs
and rituals that were in no way unique to the Chan school (see Yifa 2002, esp. Chapter 2).
During the early history of Buddhism in China, especially during the Period of Division, the monastic elite was concerned with attaining mastery of the principal doctrinal
tenets and philosophical systematizations of the Indian Mahāyāna tradition, which were
brought into China in several distinct stages. By the early ifth century, after Kumārajīva’s
arrival in China, the dominant traditions of scholastic learning and scriptural exegesis
revolved around the text and doctrines of the Madhyamaka school. Early Chinese
appropriations of Madhyamaka doctrines are evident in the writings of Sengzhao
BUDDHISM IN CHINESE HISTORY
53
(374–414)—one of Kumārajīva’s leading disciples—which are noted for their intellectual intricacy and creativity, as well as for their extensive recourse to native Chinese
terminology in the exposition of subtle Buddhist ideas (see Liu 1994: 37–81).
During the sixth century Yogācāra texts and ideas became subjects of intense
study and relection, followed by a growing popularity of the Buddha-nature and
tathāgatagarbha doctrines (see Paul 1984, esp. the Introduction). These trends coalesced around the formation of the Shelun and Dilun schools, which were primarily
scholarly traditions of canonical exegesis centered on select texts, which involved
narrow and loosely connected segments of the monastic elite that were renowned for
their intellectual acumen and scholastic expertise. As the names of the two schools
indicate, their primary textual points of departure were Vasubandhu’s Daśabhūmikasūtra
ś stra (Shidi jing lun, usually abbreviated to Dilun) and Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha
śā
(She dasheng lun, or Shelun).
During the Sui and early Tang eras there was a resurgence of interest in Madhyamaka literature and teachings, primarily represented by the proliic writings and activities of the famous scholar Jizang (549–623), who had Central Asian ancestry. Jizang’s
Sanlun (Three Treatises) school is often labeled as a Chinese version of Madhyamaka,
although for a variety of reasons, including Jizang’s integration of the Buddha-nature
doctrine into his idiosyncratic systematization of Buddhist philosophy, the simple equitation of Sanlun with Madhyamaka is questioned by some scholars. Others have also
suggested that the Tiantai school has equal claims to the title of heir and developer of
the Madhyamaka tradition’s philosophical heritage (Swanson 1989: 16). During the
early Tang there was also considerable interest in a variety of Yogācāra doctrine,
brought into China by the famous translator and pilgrim Xuanzang, often referred to
as the Faxiang (Dharma Characteristics) school.
Among the primary characteristics of these schools were their close connections
with canonical texts, theoretical templates, and systems of philosophical analysis that
had Indian provenance. While all of them enjoyed considerable popularity during their
heydays, they ended up being largely supplanted by the new schools or traditions that
rose to prominence during the Sui-Tang period, namely Chan, Huayan, Tiantai, and Pure
Land, each of which is allocated a separate chapter in Part II or Part III of this volume.
Being without exact counterparts in Indian or Central Asian Buddhism, these schools came
to represent uniquely Chinese formulations of Buddhist doctrine and practice. Among
them, Huayan and Tiantai are usually regarded as representing the highest points of
doctrinal development in East Asian Buddhism, while Chan and Pure Land embody the
dominant approaches to spiritual cultivation, although it is debatable if the second
really constitutes a distinct school. The copious texts, beliefs, doctrines, and practices of
all four schools were also exported throughout the rest of East Asia, where they became
central or inluential elements in the formation of the native Buddhist traditions.
Popular Pieties
While the major schools played signiicant historical roles and are important for
understanding many aspects of Chinese Buddhism, they represent only a part of the
54
MARIO POCESKI
multifarious Buddhist traditions that developed in China. Moreover, they primarily
involved the clerical elites and their upper-class followers, with a partial exception of
the Pure Land movement, which was diffused more broadly. Consequently, the main
schools—especially those with scholastic orientations, such as Huayan and Shelun—
had relatively little direct impact on the religious lives of the common people, who
espoused a variety of popular beliefs and cultic practices that often blurred the lines of
demarcation that separated Buddhism from Daoism and popular religion. Key elements
of the Buddhist worldview that shaped prevalent outlooks and guided everyday religious behaviors include the beliefs in reincarnation and the law of karma, which by
the late medieval period also became widely accepted outside of the Buddhist community. These beliefs fostered a prevalent preoccupation with the procurement of favorable
karmic recompense, which brought blessing in the present life—including utilitarian
beneits such as the accumulation of wealth or the enjoyment of a long and healthy
life—and secured auspicious rebirth in the next life.
The pious accumulation of wholesome or positive karma could involve all sorts of
ritual gestures and meritorious acts, along with cultivation of the full range of spiritual
disciplines included in the bodhisattva path of practice and realization. Among the
most prevalent practices were charitable giving, observance of ethical precepts, and
worship of various Buddhas and bodhisattvas. Much of the religiously inlected giving
was meant to support the construction or upkeep of monasteries, which also involved
support of the resident clergy. The laity’s generous donations were also directed toward
the construction of various statues, sanctuaries, and other objects or places of worship,
including stūpas and pagodas. Buddhists were similarly involved in charitable giving
aimed at alleviating poverty, sickness, and other forms of suffering. To that end, they
established various forms of charitable organizations that provided valuable social services to the broader community.
Another common expression of Buddhist piety was the adherence to ethical precepts. At the most basic level, that implied observance of the traditional ive precepts
for the Buddhist laity, which involve abstention from killing, stealing, lying, sexual
misconduct, and consumption of alcohol. Some committed laymen, and even more
laywomen, also received the bodhisattva precepts, which were based on the (presumably) apocryphal Fan wang jing (Brahma Net Scripture). Another prevalent practice that
was inspired by the bodhisattva ideal of universal compassion was the observance of a
vegetarian diet, which is among the deining features of Chinese Buddhism. Consequently, during the medieval period the organizing of communal vegetarian feasts
became a prominent feature of Buddhist festivals and other public celebrations. While
all members of the clergy were expected to be vegetarian, vegetarianism was optional
for their lay supporters, though partial or full adoption of a vegetarian lifestyle was
(and still is) widely perceived as a mark of commitment to the Buddhist path.
Throughout Chinese history prevalent manifestations of Buddhist faith were usually
infused with devotional feelings and articulated via an array of ritual acts and observances. In effect, devotionalism and ritualism were among the most pervasive and readily
recognizable features of Chinese Buddhism. Besides the regular liturgical services that
were part of everyday monastic routines, the ritual calendar was also illed with many
other festivals, commemorative celebrations, and other public rituals. Some forms of
BUDDHISM IN CHINESE HISTORY
55
ritualized practice, such as sūtra-recitations and elaborate repentance ceremonies,
could last for extended periods—days or even weeks at a time. The same can be said of
the series of public lectures that provided systematic exegesis of popular canonical
texts. All these events were also signiicant sources of revenue for the monasteries, as
they attracted many lay people who made generous donations.
Chinese Buddhists had a variety of choices when it came to objects of cultic worship
and adulation. The Buddhist pantheon is complex and vast, populated with a large
number of Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and other kinds of deities. Besides Śākyamuni (Shijia
mouni), the historical Buddha, there are also many other celestial Buddhas that supposedly all share the same fundamental nature, identiied as the “body of truth”
(dharmakāya or fashen), which is no other than the formless and ineffable essence of
ultimate reality. The most popular Buddhas are Vairocana (Pilushena), the sublime
cosmic Buddha featured in the Huayan Scripture, Amitābha (Emituo), who presides over
his fabled pure land in the west, and Bhaiṣajyaguru (Yaoshi), the Buddha of healing.
There is also Maitreya (Mile), the future Buddha, who is often referred to as a bodhisattva.
After the Tang era he was primarily represented as the fat laughing Buddha, a ubiquitous image based on the tenth-century monk Budai. Throughout the history of Chinese
Buddhism all these Buddhas were widely worshiped and implored as supreme sources
of spiritual authority or salviic power.
The same can be said of the main bodhisattvas, some of whom are also commonly depicted as consummate embodiments of key Buddhist virtues. For instance,
Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin), by far the most popular bodhisattva and a pervasive object
of cultic worship throughout China and the rest of East Asia, is represented as the
embodiment of compassion (see Yü 2001). While in India Avalokiteśvara was conventionally portrayed as an aristocratic male igure, in China he underwent a gender
transformation of sorts: from the tenth century onward the bodhisattva came to be
represented in a number of female forms. Other widely worshiped bodhisattvas include
Mañjuśrī (Wenshu), the personiication of wisdom, and Kṣitigarbha (Dizang), who is
said to descend to the various hells in order to save their unfortunate denizens. The
dominant bodhisattva cults also became closely associated with the practice of pilgrimage. This is exempliied by the four main Buddhist mountains in China—Putou, Wutai,
Jiuhua, and Emei—each of which is identiied as the main sanctuary of a key bodhisattva (for more on these bodhisattvas, see Natasha Heller’s chapter in this volume).
According to prevailing Mahāyāna mores and ideals, especially the ethos of universal compassion, the performance of rituals and the participation in all kinds of practices
were supposed to be dedicated to the wellbeing and salvation of all living beings.
However, often the main sources of motivation were much more personal or subjective.
There was of course the basic goal of personal salvation; however, time and again that
was mixed or replaced with the pursuit of all sorts of worldly beneits, not only for
oneself but also for members of one’s family. The inclusion of others was predicated on
the belief that merit accrued by giving or sponsorship of particular rituals could be
directed toward the realization of speciic goals, including the salvation of other persons.
This resonated with deeply engrained attitudes and the customary ritual observances
centered on the cult of ancestors, which became key elements of Chinese social and
religious life long before the introduction of Buddhism. By providing itting venues for
56
MARIO POCESKI
ritual expressions of prime Chinese virtues such as ilial piety, and by cornering a substantial part of the lucrative market for ancestral rites, the Buddhist clergy was able to
further integrate itself into the central social and cultural matrixes of Chinese life. That
also enabled it to tap into additional sources of economic support, even if the performance of rituals for monetary compensation often led to neglect of other aspects of
monastic life, including contemplative practice.
Decline and Revivals of the Late Imperial Era
The main beliefs, doctrines, practices, schools, and institutions that are emblematic of
Chinese Buddhism all developed during the irst millennium of the religion’s history in
China. The main core of the canon was also pretty much complete before the end of
the Tang era, even though many additional texts were written or compiled during the
subsequent centuries. Generally speaking, the impacts of Buddhism on Chinese culture
and society were noticeably weaker during the second millennium, which for the most
part coincides with the late imperial era in Chinese history. These realities, along with
other related historical facts, led Kenneth Ch’en in his inluential history of Chinese
Buddhism to sketch the story of Buddhism during this period as a narrative of protracted decline, a gradual fall from the glories of the Tang era (Ch’en 1964: 389–454).
This broad characterization is for the most part unproblematic, being accepted by the
majority of East Asian Buddhists and scholars alike. The same can be said of the historians of late imperial China, who among other things draw attention to the ways in
which the resurgent Confucian tradition, especially in the Neo-Confucian version formulated by Zhu Xi (1130–1200), largely eclipsed Buddhism from the Song period
onward.
There are, however, some dissenting voices that diverge from the dominant narrative
of decline, primarily represented by American scholars who work on Buddhism of the
Song era. In their keenness to highlight the importance of the era and subject matter
they study, some have even gone as far as to suggest that Song Buddhism, after all,
rightly deserves the epithet of a “golden age” of Chinese Buddhism (Gregory and Getz
1999: 2–4). It is true that Ch’en’s study is fairly dated, and many of his interpretations,
including parts of his largely dismissive treatment of later Chinese Buddhism, can be
questioned. Furthermore, there is a host of issues that complicate the mapping of larger
historical trajectories, and the same can be said of the quantitative and qualitative
comparisons of different eras. Nonetheless, without going into the details of speciic
arguments or the circumstances that drive this sort of scholarly debate, the basic gist
of Ch’en’s overall narrative about Buddhism in late imperial China remains closer
to historical reality than the aforementioned unconvincing attempts at historical
revisionism.
Even so, it is true that there was a considerable lourishing of Buddhism during the
Song era. During this remarkable period of cultural effervescence, Buddhist monasteries and other places of worship still remained important ixtures in the social landscape,
and the religion had numerous followers among sociopolitical elites and commoners
alike. Buddhist monasteries still housed numerous monks and were recipients of state
BUDDHISM IN CHINESE HISTORY
57
patronage, while the pervasive Buddhist impact on the arts during this period is evident
in the many graceful statues and beautiful paintings that feature Buddhist themes or
images. The same can also be said of the writings of noted intellectuals such as Su Shi
(1037–1101), the famous writer, poet, thinker, and oficial, who was among the main
personalities of the Song era (see Grant 1994).
Notwithstanding the creeping signs of intellectual and institutional decline, during
the Song era there were notable developments in a variety of areas, including Tiantai
scholasticism and Chan literary production (for developments within Song Tiantai, see
Chapters 9 through 13 in Gregory and Getz 1999). Furthermore, many elements of
late Chinese Buddhism that are still evident today were formulated during the Song era.
That includes the peculiar codiications of monastic life represented by the “rules of
purity” (qinggui) that were developed by the Chan school, which was the dominant elite
tradition of Song Buddhism. Additional examples are the various forms of popular piety
subsumed within the loosely structured Pure Land tradition (discussed in Jimmy Yu’s
chapter in this volume), and some of the major styles of contemplative practice, epitomized by the “observing the critical phrase” (kan huatou) approach of Chan meditation
that was championed by Dahui (1089–1163). These and other features of Song Buddhism were also exported to Korea and Japan, with signiicant ramiications for the
subsequent development of Buddhism in both countries.
For the most part there were not many innovative developments or notable paradigm
shifts after the Song era. The lack of innovation and creativity in areas such as philosophical speculation, scriptural exegesis, ritual performance, or institutional development were accompanied with a prevalence of conservative attitudes. Even when there
were intermittent attempts at Buddhist revivals, often they involved evocations of past
glories and somewhat frustrated efforts to recapture key elements of former Buddhist
traditions. That is evident, for instance, in the revival of classical forms of Chan during
the seventeenth century, which among other things involved the mimicking of iconoclastic rhetorical and teaching styles that, in accord with popular Chan lore, were
linked with the great masters of the Tang and (to a lesser extent) Song eras. That
included the ritualized shouting and beating of students. While these kinds of dramatic
acts were supposedly meant to evoke the true spirit of Chan, they were also criticized
for being little more than theatrical performances, primarily meant to impress unsophisticated monastic and lay audiences (see Wu 2008).
That does not mean that Buddhism ceased to be a notable part of the religious landscape in late imperial China. However, in many signiicant areas Buddhism was overshadowed by a comprehensive Neo-Confucian orthodoxy that not only dominated
intellectual, social, and political life, but also provided the literati with appealing
avenues of spiritual cultivation. The relative weakness of Buddhism is evident in the
lack of convincing and effective responses to the challenges posed by the primacy of
Confucianism. At the same time, a closer look at local Chinese society reveals that the
relationship between Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism was a bit more complex than
is often assumed. For instance, during the late Ming era (1368–1644) many members
of the local gentry, notwithstanding their Neo-Confucian education and allegiance,
were frequent visitors and important patrons of Buddhist monasteries (Brook 1994).
There were also the activities of a variety of Buddhist reformers—such as Yunqi
58
MARIO POCESKI
Zhuhong (1535–1615) and Zibo Zhenke (1543–1603)—who tried to formulate new
responses to changing social and cultural predicaments. Some of them were also fairly
successful in mobilizing the laity.
Among the signiicant events that took place during the late imperial period was the
transmission of Tibetan forms of Buddhism into some parts of China, including the
imperial capital in Beijing. The initial introduction of Tibetan Buddhism came about at
the beginning of the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368), during the reign of the great Khubilai Khan (r. 1260–1294), the dynastic founder and the irst Mongol monarch to
establish stable and lasting rule over China. In the aftermath of the Mongol conquest
of Tibet in 1252, Khubilai Khan and the Mongol elites turned to Tibetan Buddhism as
their religion of choice, even though they continued to maintain a general policy of
religious tolerance. The most notable Tibetan Buddhist missionary was the ‘Phags-pa
Lama (1235–1280), who was invited to the Mongol capital. There he offered religious
instruction to Khubilai and other members of the imperial court. ‘Phags-pa and his
followers also transmitted various forms of Tantric rituals and practices that were in
vogue at the time.
Tantric varieties of Tibetan and Mongolian Buddhism were also patronized by the
Manchu rulers of the Qing dynasty (1644–1911). That was partially driven by political
considerations, as the Qing emperors were keen to consolidate their inluence over Tibet
and Mongolia. Emperor Qianlong (r. 1735–1795) even presented himself as an incarnation of Mañjuśri (Wenshu), the popular bodhisattva who was worshiped as an
embodiment of wisdom. However, these exotic forms of Buddhism had little impact on
the religious lives of the Chinese subjects ruled by the Manchus, as traditional Chinese
styles of worship and practice remained dominant within the broader Buddhist milieu
of Qing China. A major disruption during the latter part of the Qing dynasty, which
had particularly negative consequences on the fortunes of Buddhism, was the violent
Taiping rebellion (1850–1864) that brought the once mighty dynasty to its knees. Led
by Hong Xiuquan (1814–1964), who was inspired by Christianity and proclaimed
himself a son of God, the zealous rebels were ill-disposed toward Buddhism, and many
Buddhist monasteries were damaged or destroyed during this bloody and anguished
period.
Buddhism in Modern China
The gradual collapse of the old imperial order came to a conclusion with the Republican
revolution of 1911, which marked a turning point in the history of modern China.
With the disappearance of age-old sociopolitical institutions and traditional ways of
life, as well as important realignments in the international arena, China was faced with
a multitude of challenges and dificulties. Despite faltering attempts to create a strong
and prosperous state— and, in a broader sense, to come to terms with a modernity that
was largely deined in Western terms—throughout much of the turbulent twentieth
century China experienced a series of major disasters and misfortunes. That included
wars, economic collapses, corrupt and incompetent governments, natural disasters,
starvations, and misguided revolutions. Buddhism, which was not in the best shape at
BUDDHISM IN CHINESE HISTORY
59
the end of the Qing era, was unavoidably drawn into all of that, although often as a
relatively minor player.
As it tried to recover and to address internal issues such as monastic corruption
during the Republican period (1911–1949), the Buddhist community also had to deal
with a host of external pressures. That included critiques from a variety of sources,
especially intellectuals and other urbanites with modern education who saw Buddhism,
along with other traditional religions, as a dated superstition, and Christian missionaries involved in aggressive missionary activities who were highly critical of their competition. There were also the policies enacted by the corrupt Nationalist government that
had a negative impact on the economic foundations of Buddhist institutions. That
included the uncompensated seizure of monastic lands and the inappropriate use of
Buddhist properties by the military and the civil authorities, as well as the forced conscription of monks into the army. In response to these kinds of problems, along with
the general need to adapt to the modern world, some Buddhist monks and lay people
made various efforts to safeguard and revitalize their religion.
The efforts to revive Buddhism and make it relevant to life in a rapidly changing
society took several forms. In certain Buddhist milieus the quest for revival took largely
traditional forms, such as an increased interest in scriptural study and related intellectual pursuits, or renewed focus on familiar practices and observances. Among some
Buddhist intellectuals that meant an emphasis on philosophical discussions of select
Buddhist doctrines, such as the Yogācāra theories about the nature of mind and reality.
There was also a renewed interest in the practice of meditation, with Xuyun (1840–
1959), the best known and most inluential Chan master of the era, attracting thousands of monastic and lay followers. Others, such as Hongyi (1880–1942), who prior
to becoming a monk was known as an artist and a poet, advocated the importance
of the monastic code of discipline. Furthermore, the Buddhist laity took initiative
in organizing various devotional activities, forming associations, operating charitable
events, and publishing Buddhist literature for a mass audience.
In contrast, other Buddhist leaders from the Republican era took a distinctly reformist approach, as they tried to radically reorganize Buddhism in strikingly modern terms.
For them the continuing relevance (or even survival) of Buddhism hinged on its ability
to adjust and successfully meet the challenges posed by modernity, with its emphasis
on science, technology, and rationality. Some monks with reformist leanings and
agendas even became openly politicized and joined the major secular movements of the
day, pursuing mundane aims such as the safeguarding against foreign encroachment
or the rebuilding of the Chinese nation. The most famous reformist monk from this
period is Taixu (1890–1947), who is credited with the creation of a novel form of
modern Buddhism (see Pittman 2001). Popularly known as “humanistic Buddhism,”
this vision of Buddhist modernism remains inluential to this day, especially in Taiwan.
With the end of the Chinese civil war and the establishment of Communist rule in
1949, Buddhists had to contend with a ruling party and a governing ideology that were
openly hostile toward religion. During the early years of its rule the Communist government introduced a series of measures aimed at controlling Buddhist institutions and
restricting Buddhist activities. The situation worsened gradually, and reached a nadir
during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), when (along with all other religions)
60
MARIO POCESKI
Buddhism experienced violent repression and wholesale devastation. During this dark
and chaotic period, as part of the effort to rid China of all forms of feudal superstition,
there was an indiscriminate destruction of monasteries, forced laicization of monks
and nuns, and proscription of all forms of religious belief and expression. The situation
started to change for the better during the late 1970s, with the institution of more
liberal social and economic policies by the new Communist leadership.
Over the last several decades Chinese Buddhism has been experiencing a sense of
measured revival or rejuvenation, somewhat tempered by continuing efforts at political
control. In mainland China the ongoing Buddhist revival is evident in the rebuilding or
restoration of monasteries and other Buddhist sites, the ordination of clergy, and the
renewed interest in traditional Buddhist teachings and practices, including popular
forms of cultic worship and pilgrimage. There has also been some progress in the education of monks and nuns, albeit not without compulsory elements of political indoctrination. There is even a modest revival of interest in contemplative practice and eremitic
lifestyle. In addition, there is a growing emphasis on promoting Buddhism as an integral part of traditional Chinese culture, which to some extent is linked with the growth
of the tourist industry. The rising proile of Buddhism in society, especially in urban
contexts, is similarly fostered by the increased availability of various types of Buddhist
publication and the public embrace of Buddhism by some celebrities. That is accompanied with a growing interest in the academic study of Buddhism.
Notable growth in the appeal of Chinese forms of Buddhism have also been taking
place outside of mainland China, especially among the Chinese diaspora. That includes
the ethnically Chinese populations of Singapore and Malaysia, among whom Buddhism
is now the main religion, and the Chinese diaspora in North America and Australia.
However, arguably the most far-reaching revival of Buddhism has for some time been
underway in Taiwan, especially since the ending of military dictatorship and authoritarian rule in 1987. The notable shift toward popular embrace of modern forms of
Buddhism in Taiwan can be related to a host of relatively recent changes, including
economic development, urbanization, increased social mobility, and greater cultural
openness. It is also possible to establish links between the growth of Buddhism, which
at present is irmly established as a central part in the Taiwanese religious landscape,
and the development of democratic values and institutions (see Madsen 2007).
A peculiar aspect of modern Taiwanese Buddhism is the remarkable growth of
large and multifaceted organizations such as Foguangshan (Buddha Light Mountain),
founded by the monk Xingyun (Hsing Yun, 1927–), and Ciji (Tzu Chi Foundation),
founded by the nun Zhengyan (Cheng Yen, 1937–). Led by their charismatic founders,
these sizable Buddhist groups have been able to establish complex organizational structures, set up numerous local outposts, and organize arrays of activities that relect their
concerted effort to reformulate traditional mores and ideals, and to attune them to
contemporary sensibilities and lifestyles. With their entrepreneurial spirit, they have
also been able to amass substantial inancial and human resources. Moreover, the
diverse undertakings of these originations, which are not without critics, at times blur
the conventional lines of demarcation between religious and secular concerns.
In addition to traditional Buddhist rituals and practices, the activities of these
sprawling organizations include the running of diverse charitable programs, educa-
BUDDHISM IN CHINESE HISTORY
61
tional institutions (from nurseries to universities), medical facilities (including large
hospitals), modern-day fundraising operations, monastery stores and restaurants, and
media outlets (including newspapers, publishing houses, and TV stations). Another
key aspect of their ambitious agendas is the establishment of global networks, which
involves the setting up of branch temples or centers in numerous parts of the world,
including countries with negligible Buddhist populations. Globalization, it seems, will
remain an increasingly important trend into the foreseeable future. Without being
restricted to large organizations with deep pockets, these and other globalizing forces
will presumably have notable impacts on the forthcoming transformations of Chinese
Buddhism.
References
Brook, Timothy. Praying for Power: Buddhism
and the Formation of Gentry Society in LateMing China. Cambridge, MA: Council on
East Asian Studies, Harvard University and
Harvard-Yenching Institute, 1994.
Buswell, Robert E., ed. Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i
Press, 1990.
Ch’en, Kenneth. Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964.
Gernet, Jacques. Buddhism in Chinese Society:
An Economic History from the Fifth to the
Tenth Centuries. Trans. Franciscus Verellen.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
Grant, Beata. Mount Lu Revisited: Buddhism in
the Life and Writings of Su Shih. Honolulu:
University of Hawai‘i Press, 1994.
Gregory, Peter N. Tsung-mi and the Siniication
of Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Gregory, Peter N., and Daniel A. Getz, Jr., eds.
Buddhism in the Sung. Studies in East Asian
Buddhism 13. Honolulu: University of
Hawai‘i Press, 1999.
Halperin, Mark. Out of the Cloister: Literati Perspectives on Buddhism in Sung China, 960–
1279. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Asia Center, 2006.
Hubbard, Jamie. Absolute Delusion, Perfect
Buddhahood: The Rise and Fall of a Chinese
Heresy. Nanzan library of Asian religion and
culture. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i
Press, 2001.
Kieschnick, John. The Eminent Monk: Buddhist
Ideals in Medieval Chinese Hagiography. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1997.
Liu, Ming-Wood. Madhyamaka Thought in
China. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994.
McNair, Amy. Donors of Longmen: Faith, Politics, and Patronage in Medieval Chinese Buddhist Sculpture. Honolulu: University of
Hawai‘i Press, 2007.
Madsen, Richard. Democracy’s Dharma: Religious Renaissance and Political Development in
Taiwan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007.
Mollier, Christine. Buddhism and Taoism Face
to Face: Scripture, Ritual, and Iconographic
Exchange in Medieval China. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2008.
Paul, Diana Y. Philosophy of Mind in Sixthcentury China: Paramārtha’s “Evolution of
Consciousness.” Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1984.
Pittman, Don Alvin. Toward a Modern Chinese
Buddhism: Taixu’s Reforms. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001.
Poceski, Mario. Ordinary Mind as the Way: The
Hongzhou School and the Growth of Chan Buddhism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2007a.
Poceski, Mario. “Lay Models of Engagement
with Chan Teachings and Practices among
the Literati in Mid-Tang China.” Journal of
Chinese Religions 35 (2007b): 63–97.
Robson, James. Power of Place: The Religious
Landscape of the Southern Sacred Peak (Nanyue)
62
MARIO POCESKI
in Medieval China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Asia Center, 2009.
Schlütter, Morten. How Zen Became Zen: The
Dispute over Enlightenment and the Formation
of Chan Buddhism in Song-dynasty China.
Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2008.
Sharf, Robert H. Coming to Terms with Chinese
Buddhism: A Reading of the Treasure Store
Treatise. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i
Press, 2002.
Swanson, Paul L. Foundations of T’ien-t’ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths
Theory in Chinese Buddhism. Berkeley, CA:
Asian Humanities Press, 1989.
Weinstein, Stanley. Buddhism under the T’ang.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1987.
Wu, Jiang. Enlightenment in Dispute: The Reinvention of Chan Buddhism in Seventeenth-
century China. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008.
Yang, Xuanzhi, and Yi-tʻung Wang. A
Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Lo-yang.
Princeton Library of Asian translations.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1984.
Yifa. The Origins of Buddhist Monastic Codes in
China: An Annotated Translation and Study of
the Chanyuan Qinggui. Honolulu: University
of Hawai‘i Press, 2002.
Yü, Chün-fang. Kuan-yin: The Chinese Transformation of Avalokiteśvara. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
Zürcher, E. The Buddhist Conquest of China:
The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism
in Early Medieval China. (Third ed.; first
published in 1959). Leiden: E. J. Brill,
2007.