Buddhism and the Chinese Culture

Cheng Jiahua
Abstract
Buddhism, as a foreign culture, had undergone mainly three stages of the development in China: with its dependence upon the traditional Chinese culture---Confucianism and Taoism at its early stage, in conflict with the latter later on and to merge with the traditional Chinese culture at its last stage. A process of the development of Buddhism in China is somehow the process of Buddhism Chinalization, or to say localization. Buddhism was so well accepted by China, it is not only because the character of open-minded and all-inclusive of the Chinese nation, but also because that Buddhism has itself a rich and colorful connotation which serves a supplement to the Chinese traditional culture.
When Buddhism was just introduced into China, it was regarded as a kind of Taoist practices. This is because the foreign Buddhist monks attempted to propagate Buddhism in China had adapted usually both Taoist and Confucian theories to interpret Buddhism. During the Chinese South and North Dynasties, Buddhism exerted its utmost in conflict with Confucianism and Taoism. A controversy between Buddhism and other traditional Chinese schools was occurred usually on those burden questions such as "whether soul is extinctive or none extinctive", "whether there exists a cause and effect" and "should Buddhist monks pay their respects to the Emperor" so on. During the Tang and Song Dynasties, Buddhism began its process of localization, where Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, the three major philosophic schools flowed together taking on a new aspect in the Chinese society. Confucianism had absorbed a lot from Buddhism and given the birth to Neo-Confucianism. Taoism had done the same and also paved a way for the new sects (Quan Zheng Jiao and Taiyi Jiao) come into being. Buddhism had finally completed its localization and become a major and important part of the Chinese traditional culture.
Buddhism had given a deep and tremendous influence to the Chinese Culture together with its process of localization. The inter-flow of the Buddhist philosophy and the classic Chinese philosophy had pushed forward a new question and new method for the development of philosophy. In this paper I focus on an influence of the Buddhist concept of Samsara (transmigration) to the moral principles of the Chinese people, an activity of the translation of Buddhist scriptures brought along the classic Chinese literature advanced, and the Buddhist influence over the Chinese Arts.
Key-words: Taoism Confucianism Buddhism Samsara
When Buddhism was just introduced into China, it was spread with its dependence upon the traditional Chinese culture. During this stage, the foreign Buddhist monks had attempted to propagate Buddhism in China by either adapting Taoist theory to interpret the Buddhist doctrine or showing magic in order to absorb more devotees. This caused directly the native Chinese regarded Buddhism as a kind of Taoist practices at the very beginning. The early Buddhist monk translators had usually interpreted the Buddhist scriptures by making a farfetched comparison with the Taoist terms such as "Wuwei" (inaction) and "Wuji"(none yet absolute). This kind of irrelevant interpretation caused the early Chinese people to comprehend the doctrine of Buddhism in accordance with what was thought of Taoism.
As to Confucianism, Buddhism had exerted also its dependence on at the beginning. During the time of the Three Kingdoms (220-265AD), a famous monk named Kang Senghui had made a clever answer when he was asked on a moral question of Buddhism, the theory of cause and effect. The clever answer made in accordance with book Zhou Yi (the Book of Changes)---"one who does good, happiness will befall one's family; one who does bad, miseries will befall (one's family) hereafter." By so addressing, he made a farfetched comparison between Buddhism and Confucianism. In fact, the Confucius theory on cause and effect is based on the concept of "Tiandaoguan", the natural laws. According to Confucianism, retribution goes not actually to the doer self but to his or her whole family possible. However, according to Buddhism, one who gets by what one deserves. Either happiness or suffering from one's actions. This is what the dissimilarity of the two. Master Kong Senghui had also translated and edited the scripture of Satparamita-sutra by adapting the Mahayana concept of benevolence to relevant the Confucius concept of kindheartedness or humanity in order to coordinate with the Confucius politic and moral principles.
Until the Chinese South and North Dynasties, with the scriptures of all Buddhist schools of India were introduced and translated systematically in China, Buddhism had altered its early way of dependence on the Chinese traditional culture and began to have a contradiction and argument with the latter. The controversy held in various areas particularly on such questions like "should the Buddhist monks pay their respects to Emperor", "whether soul is extinctive or non-extinctive" and "whether there exists cause and effect", so on.
Should the Buddhist monks respect Emperor is a question related not only to the religious etiquette but also the political ethics. Since the Chinese West and East Han Dynasties, the superiority of to serve one's country and the Emperor and the superiority of to wait upon one's parents had been highly advocated in the Chinese feudal culture. This kind of priority of clansman and state departmentalism, of course, contradicts to the Buddhist way of life---to renounce the worldly life, to ignore the secular proprieties and to wander here and there. According to Confucianism, Buddhism is one that puts a slight upon either parents or emperor or etiquette. The quarrel between Buddhism and both Confucianism and Taoism had been sustained till the end of the Tang Dynasty. As a result, Buddhism was defeated. It had no alternative but to accept the concept: Renwang ji fawang --- the secular ruler is as the same to the Dharma Raja. So it was forced to give up the tradition--- that the Buddhist monks are not necessary paying respect to both the Emperor and their parents.
Buddhist theory of cause and effect in three periods of time have been put forward on the base of the law---Paticcesamupada (Dependant Origination). According to Buddhism, man consists of five elements, there is no soul or substance lives hind. However, owning to the Chinese people traditionally being blinded by prejudice of belief in demons or ghosts, so they considered that the theory of cause and effect in three periods of time advocated by Buddhism was to aim at advertising theory of immortality of soul after life. Even to those who were good at Confucianism come to study Buddhism had got stuck in miscomprehend and irrelevant the doctrine of Buddhism. Represented by Hui Yuan, a famous monk of the East Jun Dynasty, who had advocated the immortality of soul which caused a long-drawn-out controversy on either the mortality of soul or immortality of soul.
A heated argument between Buddhism and Taoism is also a tough event of the day. Because of, doctrinally differences between Buddhism and Taoism, it caused contradictions in various aspects. The Buddhist monks and Taoists had always argued about the superiority of each own religion so as to fight for the high position in the society politically. In order to show Taoist superiority to Buddhism, some Taoist monks of the Jun Dynasty had fabricated the so-called Buddhist sutra "Lao Zi Huan Hu Jing". It says that the founder of Taoism Lao Zi went to west (here means India). After having converted Sakyamuni to be his disciple Lao Zi advised him to found Buddhism. Buddhism waged a tit-for tat. Buddhist monks did the same. They had also created Taoist sutra named "Qing Jing Fa Xing Jing" (Sutra of Pure Conduct) so as to oppose diametrically to Taoism. It say that the Buddha used to send his three disciples to China to convert people to Buddhism. The so-called Rutong Boddhisattva is actually Confucius, Guangjing Boddhisattva is actually Yangyuan and Mahakasappa is actually Lao Zi. The controversy had lasted till the end of Tang Dynasty.
Buddhism in mergence with the traditional Chinese culture began from Tang and Song periods. Since then the so-called three religions, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism flowed together and that the three religions merged into one had taken on a new aspect. Master Dao An of Jun Dynasty had considered: "There is no difference among the three religions, for each of the three advocates wholesomeness of conduct. Doctrinally, the methods adapted by the three are differed one from the other, yet the three have something in common." Zhi Yuan of Song Dynasty thought: "Confucianism is good for one's physical accomplishment and Buddhism is good for one's psychological accomplishment." So he advocated that both Confucianism and Buddhism could be mutually complementary and mutually beneficial. This shows somehow a strong thirst of Buddhism by making rooms for compromise with either Confucianism or Taoism. The so-called "San Jiao He Yi" (the three religions merged in one) has become a mean stream of social phenomenon. Confucianism, after having absorbed from Buddhism formed a new type of philosophy---Neo-Confucianism. Taoism had done the same. After it was nutritionally benefited from Buddhism the new forms of Taoist schools come into existence one after the other which were named Quanzhen Jiao and Taiyi Jiao. At the same time, Buddhism had also completed its process of localization and become the most important part of the Chinese traditional culture.
With the process of localization, Buddhism had infiltrated in various aspects of the Chinese culture and had given a deep and tremendous influence to the Chinese philosophy. The interflow of the Buddhist philosophy and the traditional Chinese philosophy had given impetus to a new development of the Chinese philosophy. Neo-Confucianism was deeply influenced by Buddhism. It shows clearly that the philosophic concepts put forward by Neo-Confucianism were deeply influenced by Buddhist ones. For instance, concepts like "pure heart", "true heart", "peaceful heart", "everything in this world including man has a 'Taiji' (the supreme ultimate)" and "phenomena might differed from one and the other yet reason just one" which have something to with those Buddhist terms like "with a clear heart (mind) one sees true "and "mind is nothing but Buddha". Therefore, we can say that the theory of "Xin Xing" (Heart Nature) of Neo-Confucianism is in direct line of succession of the Buddhist theory of "Fo Xing"(Buddha Nature).
Buddhism had given a deep influence to the Chinese literature as well. The process of translation of the Buddhist scriptures from Sanskrit into Chinese had given impetus to a new development of the Chinese poem, prose and novel. The produce works of novels in the Jun and Tang dynasties were inspired very much by those Buddhist sutras like Vimalakirtinirdesasutra, Sadharmapundarikasutra and the Sutra of the 100 Parables. The ideological aspects of Parjnaparamitasastra and the Chinese Zen School had given an influence over the works of those ancient Chinese poets such as Tao Yuanming, Wang Wei, Bai Juyi and Su Shi. Bianwen (a popular form of narrative literature flourishing in the Tang Dynasty, with alternate prose and rhymed parts for recitation and singing) and the quotations of Zen School had a close relation with the Chinese popular literature. Fanqie (a traditional method of indicating the pronunciation of a character by taking two other characters) in Chinese language was actually developed by a phonetic influence of Sanskrit. According to incomplete statistics, with a project of Buddhist sutras translated into Chinese, there are over 35,000 foreign words and technical terms brought in China so that it has no doubt enriched the Chinese language and culture.
Buddhism had also given an influence to the classic Chinese art in various aspects. The architectural style of the Buddhist temples and pagodas in China shows a great influence of Buddhist culture over the Chinese Architecture. The Brick Pagoda of Songshan Songyue Temple of China's Henan Province, the Wood Pagoda of Yingxian of Shanxi Province and the Stone Pagoda of Kaiyuan Temple of Fujian Province, all of these have served as the valuable objects for the study of history of the ancient Chinese architecture. As a treasure house of the ancient artistic carving, the Dunghuang, Yungang and Longmen Grottos were created and developed with Chinese characteristics after absorbing something from the ancient Indian art, especially the art of Gandara. The Mogaoku of Dunhuang Grottos, an artistic palace erected in the desert reflects the organic synthesis of arts between India, Central Asia and China. The Buddhist Jatak stories were usually good materials for those ancient Chinese artists to paint. The freehand brushwork in traditional Chinese painting has something to do with the Zen Buddhism. The Chinese Buddhist music was created generally by absorbing from Tianzu Yue, Qiuzi Yue and Anguo Yue. Buddhism had contributed a great deal and given a influence to China's astronomy and medicine. There are a number of aspects on medicine and pharmacy in the Buddhist Tripitakas. According to those historical books of both the Sui and Tang dynasties, there are over 10 kinds of medicine and pharmacy books that were translated from Indian languages into Chinese. From the discussion above we see clever that through the cultural exchange between China and India in ancient time, Buddhism has given a tremendous influence to the various areas of Chinese culture.
Nagarjuna's contribution towards the Chinese Buddhism
Cheng Jianhua, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
1. Introduction
Sunyata is the core concept of Nagarjuna's philosophy. The concept of sunyata was introduced into China early in the fourth century. Kumarajive was the first one who translated Nagarjuna's philosophy into Chinese and preached the doctrine of sunyata to the whole community of the Chinese Buddhism. Since the scriptures of Madhyamakas (e.g. Madhyamikasastra, Mahaparjnaparamitasastra and Satasastra) were translated into Chinese in succession, there occurred a number of eminent scholars who were very much interested in study of Madhyamika philosophy at the time. Seng-zhao, a great disciple of Kumarajive, had written a book named Zhao-lun on Madhyamika. Although the expression and explanation of Zhao-lun is quite deferred from Nagarjuna's Madhyamikasastra, both the ideas are quite close and similar.
It was, during the Sui and Tang dynasties the eight kinds of Buddhist Schools like Tian-tai, San-lun, Vijnana, Hua-yen, Chan and Pure Land schools came into existence. All these Chinese Buddhist Schools declared that Nagarjuna was their first Patriarch. However, strictly speaking, out of these eight Buddhist Schools, there are only two or three more Chinese Buddhist schools which have something to do with Nagarjuna either directly or indirectly, such as Three Treatise School and Tian-tai School. A so called the Three Treatise School was actually in direct line of succession of Nagarjuna that based its doctrine on Madhyamikasastra, Satasastra, and Dvadasanikayasastra. The Tian-tai School based its doctrine on Sadharmapundarikasutra. The central concept of this school "Yi-xin-san-guan" (to view from three aspects with a mind) is actually come from or inspired by Mahaparjnaparamitasastra and the Verse No. 24 of Madhyamikasastra. The early development of Chinese Buddhism, therefore, has some thing to do, more or less, with Nagarjuna. This shows that Nagarjuna had given a great influence over the Chinese Buddhism and because of his great contribution, he deserves to enjoy high prestige in the Chinese Buddhist society.
In my paper I will focus on three aspects: spread of Nagarjuna's philosophy in its early stage in China, characteristics of the Three Treatise School and Nagarjuna's influence to both Tian-tai and other Chinese schools.
Spread of Nagarjuna's philosophy in its early stage in China
Nagarjuna is one of the greatest philosophers the world has so far produced. In the Buddhist world of China and the Far East, Nagarjuna exerted a historical influence either in scope or depth that had been surpassed only by that of the Buddha. In fact, devout Buddhists of China (including Tibet and Taiwan), Japan and Korea consider him to be the second Buddha who once again set the Dharma in motion. In the integration of Mahayana and in providing it with a philosophical basis, Nagarjuna played an important role in founding Madhyamika Buddhism. The philosophy of him is somewhat a reconstruction and a new creative synthesis of the Buddha's teaching. Modern scholars drew a parallel between Nagarjuna's philosophy and Kant's philosophy. However, in the critical approach Nagarjuna's philosophy is even more critical than Kant's.
The theory of Madhyamika philosophy of Nagarjuna was carried forward later on by his great disciple Aryadeva. It was enhanced in vogue from the end of 5th century to the 6th century in India and which was split into two: the Prasangika school and Svatantrika school. The latter was divided further into two sub-schools: the Sautrantika Svatantrika and the Yogacara Svatantrika. Since the 9th century, Madhyamika Buddhism lost its power and influence in India and withered away completely in the 15th century. The original Sanskrit scriptures of Madhyamika were lost almost. However, the Madhyamika School was introduced into Tibet in the 8th century and even today the school plays still a dominant role in Tibetan Buddhism.
Buddhism was introduced into China around the beginning of the first century, and that for roughly a thousand years the Chinese mind was largely dominated by Buddhism. It was, however, during the Wei and Jun dynasties, when Xuanxue, the Chinese philosophical trend of the day based its doctrine on Taoism dominated the Chinese intellectual circle, the concept of parjna and sunyata were introduced into China successively. The metaphysic question of Xuanxue like "You" (existence) and "Wu" (non-existence) together with its relation were extensively discussed in the Chinese intellectual circle. For the Buddhist term sunyata (kong) or emptiness is literally quite close to that of Xuanxue, the devout Buddhist scholars interpreted Buddhism by making a farfetched comparison of some Taoist terms in order to propagate Buddhism. This kind of irrelevance caused a big quarrel in the Chinese Buddhist community and as a result several philosophic schools of Buddhism Called "Liu-jia-qi-zong" held in difference on the concept of sunyata were occurred one after another.
When the great Buddhist scholar Kumarajiva came to China and translated some important Buddhist books such as Mahaparjnaparamitasastra, Madhyamika Sastra, Dvadasamukha Sastra and Sata Sastra into Chinese, the so-called Xuanxuelized Buddhism was restored to order. Seng-zhao, a great disciple of Kumarajiva wrote a book Zhao-lun in which it has introduced systematically the origin of the concept of sunyata and criticized clearly the miscomprehension of Buddhism of the day. In order to avoid any confusion and to explain clearly the true concept of sunyata, Seng-zhao had created a term "bu-zhen-kong" (not real but empty) in terms of explaining Nagarjuna's philosophy. According to his philosophy, "bu-zhen" (unreal) is actually "conception" or "name". Either name or conception is nothing but man-made which is unreal in nature. What is unreal is actually empty (sunyata). By adapting this new term in explaining sunyata, it shows that Seng-zhao had apprehended correctly the real sense of Nagarjuna's philosophy. Although Seng-zhao took measure for thorough-going reform on study of the theory of prajna and sunyata, yet his philosophy had not broken away 100 percent from the influence of Chinese Xuanxue. That is to say that the situation in its early stage when Nagarjuna's philosophy was introduced to China was somewhat hard for any foreign religion like Buddhism to spread. That's why Buddhism could run only side by side with the local Chinese sorcery in the very beginning.
3. Characteristics of Three Treatise School
Indian Madhyamika Buddhism was introduced into China in the 4th century. The so-called "San-lun-zong" (Three Treatise School) or "Kong-zong" (the School of Emptiness) was actually based its doctrine on these three books: Madhyamika Sastra, Dvadasamukha Sastra and Sata Sastra. The three books, served as the basic doctrine of Three Treatise School which were translated by Kumarajiva were originally written by Nagarjuna and his disciple Aryadeva. The original Sanskrit copy of the books was not existent today. It is, therefore, the Nagarjuna's philosophy or Madhyamika Buddhism we talk about today is actually in accordance with the work of Candrakirti, "Ming-ju-lun" (Prasannapada).
When the three treatises were introduced and translated into Chinese by Kumarajive, it brought a big attention to the Chinese intellectual circle and caused a great interest in the area of philosophy of Buddhist studies. There are a number of great scholars exerted their interests in the three treatises, such as Hui-yuan, Seng-rui, Seng-zhao, Dao-seng, Seng-lang, Ji-zang and Fa-lang. Hui-yuan, Seng-rui, Seng-zhao and Dao-seng were early Chinese Madhyamikas. All four people were Kumarajiva's contemporaries, the first his correspondent and follower and the other three his disciples. Dao-seng advanced a number of original theories, but it was Seng-zhao who incorporating Taoism into Madhyamika developed a systematic philosophy. But the most important thinker of this school was Ji-zang who was very much honored by emperors of the Sui and Tang dynasties. The philosophy of Ji-zang was completely Indian in viewpoint, though he too quoted some from Taoism. It was Ji-zang who had carried forward Madhyamika philosophy in vague and founded Three Treatise School in China. Since then, Three Treatise School had played a dominant role in the Chinese Buddhist society until its decline in the ninth century.
According to Three Treatise School, any philosophy or doctrine is not a systematical consummation, but it should be approached with a critical sense of study. Generally, what approached by Mahayana or Hinayana is only an interest in its content of the doctrine. What they seek after is to establish a permanent truth. However, in accordance with Three Treatise School, there is no such which can be treated as the permanent. In this case, Three Treatise School criticized not only the traditional Indian philosophy, but Buddhist orthodox as well. In order to avoid any arbitrary and bias, Three Treatise School attaches its importance especially to means and methods, but not the annotation of the doctrine itself. Three Treatise School rejects any fixed form of logic for they do not consider that logic has a priori truth of knowledge. Any kind of metaphysics should be criticized, too. According to them, either logic or language is nothing but sunyata. Either deduction or induction is but man-made which has no permanent value of truth. Therefore, man's mind should not be obstructed by it. Strictly speaking, Three Treatise School has no unique method of philosophy itself. From the logical point of view, the theoretical method of Three Treatise School adapted usually is the practice of "empty logic". When they come to debate or to criticize the view of others they utilize always the method that is customarily used by their opponents. In their opinion, any philosophical method has only the pragmatic value. Any theoretical method by which one can remove any kind of attachment from either oneself or others that deserves value of usage. The aim of the debate or criticism of the school is not necessarily to establish any viewpoint of themselves, but to point out and correct the theoretical contradictory of others.
Nagarjuna's influence to both Tian-tai and other schools

Nagarjuna's philosophy has something to do with the founding of Tian-tai School. According to Fo-zhu-tong-ji (Record of the Lord Buddha), Hui-wen, an eminent monk scholar of Northern Qi Dynasty was inspired or enlightened especially by reading the 27th chapter of Mahaparjnaparamitasastra: "the tri-knowledge can be achieved actually with a mind " and the 4th chapter of Madhyamikasastra: "what is dependent origination that we call sunyata; it is a conception (prajnapti) imposed (or appropriated); and it alone is the Middle Path." He established the doctrine of "Yi-xin-san-guan" (to review from three aspects with a mind) after having inspired by the above verses. The actual founder of Tian-tai School is Zhi-yi. Tian-tai School had based its doctrine on Mahaparjnaparamitasastra and its central teaching was the theory of "San-ti-yuan-rong" (the integral relation between Kong, emptiness, Jia, conception and Zhong, middle way) and "Yi-xin-san-guan" (to review from three aspects with a mind) which were evolved and developed from Nagarjuna's philosophy. That's why this school had traced its philosophy back to Nagarjuna and regarded him as the first master of them. This shows how close relation of Nagarjuna and Tian-tai School.
According to Tian-tai School, the world is a flux, things are constantly changing from moment to moment. They are caused and causing to be, they act and are being acted upon, and they come into existence and cease to be. There is no permanent entity or substance, and everything's nature is but sunyata, emptiness (Kong). Things have no substance, but conventional forms, conception and names just like a miracle that is unreal (Jia). All these are constituent in natures that are mutually related without being created that is Middle Path (Zhong). Kong can't be separated from Jia and Zhong, Jia also can't be separated from Kong and Zhong, Zhong too can't be separated from Kong and Jia. The three are integrally related.
Nagarjuna's philosophy avoids the extremes of affirmation and negation. It does not affirm that there is Substance of Self, nor does it deny them. It attempts to critically review what is and be aware of things as they are. It is the Middle Approach or the Middle Doctrine. It is neither realism nor idealism, and certainly not nihilism. Nothing has its own being; everything is what it is in relation to other things and nothing has an independent existence. Moreover, nothing is integral entity: things we see and deal with are made up of constituents. Everything is mutually dependent and related. The caused and conditioned nature of all things constitutes their vacuity or emptiness, sunyata.
Other Chinese schools of Buddhism like Huan-yan, Chan-zong and Pure Land were also influenced more or less by Nagarjuna 's philosophy. The Dasabhumivaibhasa sastra is the commentary book written by Nagarjuna on the ten stages chapter of Huan-yan-jing (Buddhavatamsakamahavaipulya sutra) on which Huan-yan School based its doctrine. It shows that Nagarjuna had further elaborated the doctrine of Huan-yan-jing.
Chan-zong (Dhyana School) reckoned Nagarjuna among its Patriarchs and regarded him as the most important Indian link in the long chain of witnesses since Sakyamuni Buddha, and through him negativism, paradox, intuition and the concept of "thusness"(tathata) flowed into Chan. According to some scholars, the fundamental thesis of Bodhidharma (the founder of Chan-zong), Bodhicitta (the Buddha nature) can be realised by inward gazing for everyone has potentiality of becoming a Buddha. This kind of concept was actually taken from Pu-ti-xin-li-xiang-lun, a Chinese translation of Nagarjuna's works. Although Bodhidharma was the nominal founder of Chinese esoteric school, Nagarjuna was the real philosophical thinker who gave him the impulse to reflection. The Chan School exercised an enormous influence on Chinese thought, life, literature and art for some centuries.
Amitabha sects consider Nagarjuna as their first Patriarch. Amitabha scriptures were known to China since the 2nd century, but the Pure Land School which taught the worship of Amitabha was founded by Hui-yuan and some of its most important teachers began as students of San-lun-zong, the Three Treatise School and then became Amitabhaists. The Amitabha sects hold the doctrine of salvation by faith in Amitabha and their goal is the attainment of his paradise (Sukhavati) by his grace. Nagarjuna's Suhrllekha distinctly countenances Amitabha cult.
____________________
Some materials referred:
T.R.V.Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, London, Allen and Unwin, 1955.
K.N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, London, Allen and Unwin, 1963.
Hsueh-li Cheng, Nagarjuna's Twelve Gate Treatise, Boston, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982.
Frederick J. Streng, Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning, New York, Abingdon, 1967.
Richard Robinson, Early Madhyamika in India and China, University of Wiscosin-Madison Press, 1967.
Hajime Nakamura, Buddhist Logic Expounded by Means of Symbolic Logic, Jounal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, No 7, 1958.

Buddhist relations with Brahmanism and Hinduism
Cheng Jianhua
In December 1999, scholars of Indology from different parts of the world (China, Indian, Belgium and the United States) met in New Delhi: at issue lay their different approaches to the Buddhist relations with Brahmanism and Hinduism. One might assume that the differences may be explained by either Buddhism was an anti-ritualistic tendency of Vedic origin or an independent religion of different tradition: the reality is more complex, for some of them, especially, Indians have expressed with a strong mind of faith of religion, whereas other scholars would demonstrate only from the theoretical and historical point of view, and still others face major problem in their misinterpretations of the prehistoric study. The existence alone of those world scholars argues for the complexity of the issue.
For over four decades, these differences in approaches have caused many problems in the issue of academic study of religion and subsequently much literature written in different languages (English, Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, French and German) has been produced on these particular issues. In the foreword of the work of 2500 Years of Buddhism (New Delhi, 1956), the most prominent Indian scholar, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan has described Buddhism as: an offshoot of the more ancient faith of the Hindus, perhaps a schism or a heresy. Since the Brahmanical standpoint has possessed India's scholastic field for about a millennium, it is no doubt and quiet certain that Indian scholars, such as Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, have sought to sum up the history of Buddhism in India largely from this particular standpoint.
The conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism, the transformation of the Buddhist heritage in India and the disappearance of Buddhism as a living faith from Indian soil during the early medieval centuries, were largely responsible for the growth of misconception on ancient Indian civilization and for the propagation of the Brahmanical standpoint during the medieval through modern times. Nevertheless, Buddhism should be studied from the Buddhist standpoint and its relations with Brahmanism and Hinduism should be studied from the historical standpoint and the scientific line. In this paper, I will focus on my disagreement with those current theories of the origin of Buddhism, of its early relation with Brahmanism and of its position with regard to Hinduism.

II. The origin of Buddhism
It has been told that in India it is a fashion to speak and to write: Buddhism is a sect of Hinduism, Buddha was a Hindu, and Hinduism is so catholic as to tolerate and worship a heretical and anti-Vedic teacher like the Buddha. This comfortable theory has been so thoroughly propagated in the Indian soil that it will take a long years for scholars and historians to sweep away its illusions and clear the way for the growth of Buddhist study from historical standpoint and on scientific senses. These current theories, presented India's prevailing standpoints towards the origin of Buddhism, refer mainly to the Indian general faith, their attitude towards Buddhism, and the scholastic interpretations of Buddhism.
The Indian general faith means that almost from all circles of life of Indian people has a strong faith of belief in Hinduism rather than Buddhism at the present stage of the Indian society even though Buddhism has given deeply an influence to Hinduism either theoretically or practically. It's a common sense of Indian that Hinduism (actually a newly born religion in the Indian soil), having converted most of Indians to its own faith, monopolizes not only the India's ideology, but also the India's way of life and thinking either in the political or economic or scientific fields. However, this kind of tendency --- the fundamentalist way of thinking --- set the Indians apart from the people of the world even today in the 21st century.
The Indian attitude towards Buddhism means that in the mind of the ordinary Indian people, they do concede that Buddhism merged into Hinduism, that the Buddha was a great Hindu reformer and that the Buddha was a great Hindu master. This last is important because it leads us, from beginning to end, to examine carefully and to think differently that Buddhism, as a separate and independent world religion cannot be studied beyond the historical and scientific perspectives. We may see that the people of India today are so sensitive and admired of their most beloved religion, their Vedic culture, and their mythological doctrines when we happened to meet them and have a further discussion with them.
The scholastic interpretation means that some Vedic and Brahmanical minded Indian scholars (modern Indian historians, national leaders and ideologists) have described: Buddhism as an off-shoot of the more ancient faith of Hindus, perhaps a schism or heresy. A few educated Hindus --- have specialized in Buddhist studies or studied something of Buddhism or some book on Buddhism --- do concede that Buddhism was deeply influenced by the Vedic thought in its origin and it was a heresy of Brahmanism. Archaeologically, at least, we cannot treat Buddhism merely as a heresy against a prevailing Brahmanical orthodoxy, but, on the contrary, Buddhism should be considered as a historical and independent practice --- the way of life ---and that has nothing to do with the so called the more ancient faith of Hindus.
As we see from the above, the current theory on the origin of Buddhism tells us that the Vedic and Brahmanical standpoint of tendency has possessed and monopolized not only the field of Indian ideology, but also the field of social and historical studies of Buddhist relation with Brahmanism. The story of the origin of Buddhism, told in one sentence, is a matter of street-talk for every grown-up Hindu irrespective of his or her knowledge of ancient Indian religious history and archaeology. In order to reveal and clarify the true features of Buddhism, we may figure most notable question of how Buddhism related itself with the more ancient faith --- the orthodox ---- Brahmanism of its time.

III. Buddhist relation with Brahmanism
We shall refer to the view of the most eminent Indian scholar, Dr. S. Radhakrishan, whose viewpoint might be considered as a prevailing Indian standpoint towards Buddhist relation with Brahmanism. Dr. S. Radhakrishan's most mature opinion on this point is summarized: the Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion; he was born, grew up, and died a Hindu; he was restating with a new emphasis the ancient ideals of the Indo-Aryan civilization. The ideological tendency of the Indian scholar towards Buddhism refers mainly to the traditional interpretation, the materialistic interpretation, and the fundamentalist interpretation of Buddhism related with Brahmanism.
The traditional interpretation means that Buddhism arose out of anti-ritualistic tendency within the religion of the brahmanas, held by those the Brahmanical standpoint possessed scholars. The fact is that the history of ancient India is a record of the two opposite ideologies, that of world-affirmation represented by the priestly brahmanas of the Vedic tradition (Brahmanism) and that of world-denial and world-transcendence represented by the ascetic sramanas of non-Vedic tradition (Buddhism). It is no doubt, historically, both Buddhism and Brahmanism represent two separate traditions, the Vedic tradition and the Sramanic tradition respectively, therefore, it is irrelevant to establish the theory of Vedic origin of Buddhism.
The materialist interpretation means that some scholars, under influence of the materialist interpretation of history of popularized by Karl Marx have sought to correlate the rise of ascetic and intellectual thought-currents of the age of Buddha (624-544 B.C.) to the rise of capitalism and mercantile middle class economy. This, however, is entirely speculative, for there is no clear evidence to prove the existence of capitalism in the Marxian sense nor of a money-economy controlled entirely by an organized middle class of society in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Moreover, it is impossible to demonstrate that the spiritual ideas of Bodhisattva (potential Buddha) are determined by that social consciousness being consequent on material progress; indeed, the materialist interpretation of Buddhism is an evidence only of the philosophical crudity of theories of theirs.
The fundamentalist interpretation means that in some Hindu's minds, the Buddha was the destroyer of Brahmanical idolatry because the most fundamental elements of pre-Buddhistic Brahmanism, the doctrine of sacrifice and the doctrine of four castes were criticized and rejected totally by the Buddha. In spite of its preaching of mercy to animals, in spite of the sublime ethical religion, and in spite of the hair-splitting discussion about existence or non-existence of a permanent soul, the whole building of Buddhism, ultimately, had tumbled down and was ruined at last. The criticism and condemnation made to the Buddha and his religion is not merely due to the study of philosophy and history of the religion but the fundamentalist tendency towards other religions as well.
As we see from the above, Buddhist relation with Brahmanism, elaborated by some Indian scholars represent the traditional standpoint of monopoly of India's scholastic field extended in the aspect of dialogue among different religions, ideological tendency of the Indian society and the academic study of religion. Some modern Indian scholars, with a strong Vedic and Brahmanical mind has attempted to make an assimilation of the doctrine of Buddhism with that of Brahmanism. Boldly stated, they wanted to show that Buddhism, as deeply influenced by Vedic thought, arose out of anti-ritualistic tendency within the religion of brahmanas; in other words, it is a heresy or a heretic of Brahmanism.

IV. Buddhist relation with Hinduism
Either in the eyes of the ordinary Indian or in the eyes of the scholastic Indian people, both Buddhism and Hinduism are considered as one, because there are some similarities within each of their doctrines and practices, even though Buddhism and Hinduism are absolutely two different systems or religious traditions. Dr. P. V. Kane, a famous Indologist has observed: Buddha was only a great reformer of the Hindu religion as practiced in his time; he did not feel or claim that he was forming a new religion, nor did he renounce the Hindu religion and all its practices and beliefs. However, when we talk about Buddhist relation with Hinduism, we should observe and examine carefully the term of "Hindu" from the historical perspective, the linguistic perspective and the archaeological perspective respectively.
The historical perspective means that Buddhist relation with Hinduism should be studied from historical standpoint and on scientific line; the study of Buddhism from the Hindu View would be a study of Hinduism but not Buddhism. It has been wrongly employed to support the modern Hindu view that Buddha himself claimed to teach the path of the ancient "Hindu" sages and to show that Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. The word "Hindu" does not occur in the statement of Buddha; nor does he refer to Vedic sages or Indo-Aryan seers or brahmanas (priests) as the teachers of that ancient path which he followed and practised.
The linguistic perspective means that the term "Hindu" is foreign coinage, of Persian and Arabic origins and stands for the medieval forms of Indian and Brahmanical religions. The word Hinduism began to be used for Indian religious traditions usually with a view to distinguish them from Christian and Islamic traditions in India. We cannot use the word Hinduism for pre-Purqnic Brahmanism of the Vedic and Upani2adic age, though medieval Hinduism is based to some extent on the Vedic religion, just as Judaism before the birth of Jesus Christ cannot be properly called Christianity though Christianity is founded on pre-Christian Judaism.
The archaeological perspective means that the occurrence of the word "Hindu" in any ancient Indian archaeological or literary source has yet been discovered since the time of Alberuni (cir. 1030 A. D.), perhaps, he first referred to Indians of non-Islamic faiths as the "Hindus" meant "infidels". The term "Hindu", a form of "Sindhu", used first by the Persians, occurs along with the word "Gadara", a form of "Gandhara", in an inscription of King Darius of Iran; and here is used in a geographical sense denoting people or country on the river Sindhu conquered by that monarch. In old Persian "Sa" is pronounced as "Ha"; "Sindhu" is called "Hindu" from which the Greeks further corrupted it into "Sintos" or "Indos" from which are derived the Arbic and Persian words Hindu and Hindustan and the English words Indian and India.
As we see from the above, Buddhism and Hinduism are differed completely either from the historical point of view or from the linguistic and archaeological point of view, although there is a partial similarities between later Buddhism and the teachings of some of Hinduism. There is a strong evidence of Buddhist influence in the language as well as in the doctrines of the Hinduism; therefore, it must be admitted that we cannot imagine Buddhism was an assimilation of Hinduism (actually the latter had smuggled some of important terms and teachings from the former). We can say it is wrong to treat the Buddha as a "Hindu", or a great reformer of the Hindu religion, since there was no Hinduism in his time.
Conclusion

From the above discussion, we may conclude here that the current theories of the origin of Buddhism and its relations with Brahmanism and Hinduism elaborated by those --- the Vedic and Brahmanical standpoint strongly possessed --- the modern Indian scholars are, however, entirely speculative. Furthermore, it is understood that historically Buddhism --- the most constituent of the anti-Vedic and Brahmanical movement (the Sramanic tradition) --- arose out as an independent and separate religion in the India of the sixth century B. C. cannot be deeply influenced by Vedic thought in its origin or an assimilation of Hinduism. Contrary to both Brahmanism and Hinduism, the doctrine of four castes and sacrifice was denounced and rejected totally by the Buddha while it has been practiced even today in the communities of the former.
We can't study religion from this or that particular ideological standpoint merely because of our faith or merely because of our special favor to this or that religion, otherwise our eyes will be blurred even if we are taking an important task of a comparative study of religion. It has been wrongly employed to support the modern Hindu view that Buddha himself claimed to teach the path of the ancient "Hindu" sages and to show that Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. Furthermore, there is no correspondence or agreement between the basic view of early Brahmanism and early Buddhism; the two religious traditions had different backgrounds in the prehistoric Vedic epoch, and in the age of the Buddha.
As we just mentioned in the above, linguistically and archaeologically, the word of "Hindu" has something to do with Persians and Arabs in the medieval age of India. We are, therefore, not justified in using the words Hindu and Hinduism in the history context of the age of the Buddha; the phrase of "Hindu religion" in connection with pre-Muslim India is altogether meaningless and misleading. The Buddha was neither a Hindu nor a great reformer of Hinduism, since there was no "Hindu religion" in his time but only primitive Brahmanism and Vedicism; the teachings of the Buddha, no doubt, reformed many of the debased practices of Vedic religion, but he did not claim to be a reformer, neither Hindu scriptures nor Brahmanical texts recognize him as a reformer.
Bibliography
D. J. Kalupahana, A History of Buddhist Philosophy, the University of Hawaii Press, 1992.
L. Mani Joshi, A comparative study of Buddhism and Hinduism, Journal of Indian Civilization, volume 6, No. 2 (Summer), 15-39, Sri Lanka, 1987.
P. V. Kane, Dialogues of the Buddha, Journal of Religious researches, volume, 2, No. 1 (Spring), 23-35, India, 1994.
T. W. Rhys Davids, Ascetics of prehistoric Indian and Indus Civilization, Journal of Indology, volume 14, No. 1 (Winter), 15-48, London, 1936.
翻译:汉译英
Cultural Conflict, Cultural Conformity and China's Modernization
(by Professor Gao zhongjie, translated by Cheng Jianhua)
Abstract
This paper focuses on the relations of China's traditional culture with transformation of China's economic system and modernization. We have based our studies mainly on the following areas: (i). We have pointed out that the theory of cultural conflict as a dominant viewpoint among China's cultural and intellectual circles, and analyzed how did this kind of theory come into existence, from either social or historical perspectives. (ii). We have also shown our disagreement over the theory of cultural determinism, and held that the diversification of elements determining transformation and development of social economic system. (iii). We consider that the theory of cultural conflict is not in accordance with the actual situation of China, and the fact tells us that such a practice achieves without any success. (iv). It is unwise if the state over exaggerate or concentrate only on its traditional culture and on what it has been done at the present in the process of transformation of the system and modernization. Therefore, we maintain the necessity of conformity of the Chinese traditional culture to the economic restructuring and modernization. (v). The function of cultural conformity rests with creative communication, creative succession and creative transformation; and through a successful cultural conformity, it will also bring the initiative into full play even though there are some negative and conservative aspects in the process of economic restructuring and modernization. (vi). The so-called the cultural conformity is actually conformity of individuals; the conformity of individuals is actually conformity of societies; and the conformity of societies is actually conformity of politics. If any of the conformity-link breaks off, it will bring instability to the society. (vii). China has already possessed rich experiences of cultural conformity, and the key to China's success on transformation of the economic system is determined by how to go along the path of evolutionary progress; and formation of this kind of path is inseparable from China's achievement on cultural conformity. (viii). The Chinese traditional culture is somewhat the cultural complex; it has selected, reformed and absorbed the essence of the different cultural systems during its long-term development of the history; and it possesses rich connotation and concrete foundation of cultural conformity in accordance with need of the day. (ix). The so-called informal system and pragmatism have played an important role in the process of conformity of the traditional culture to modern market economy. However, with accumulation and consummation of the new system, China is striding forward towards the rational, the legal and the formal system step by step.
--------------------
The relations of the Chinese traditional culture with transformation of the economic system and modernization have served as one of the main subjects for a study of humanity and social science since China's reform and opening to the world. It is no doubt that the scale and the depth of study have surpassed