Drogön Chögyal Phagpaand and the Yuan Dynasty Daoist Debate

[Miroku]

I just thought this could be of interest for people here.  There is an account of buddhist and daoist debate in 13th century.

Here is the account and here is the original thread on dharmawheel. Quite an interesting topic, though I have nothing much to add to it as I am not well versed in philosophy.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

The whole issue is way more complex than can be dealt with in anything but a long series of posts, and since they would be interrupted by polemical posts from one side or another, there is little chance that trying to shed some light on the matter would do anything but start a fire and obscure all the issues in toxic smoke, but, put simply, the introduction of Buddhism into China was a source of enormous cultural disruption in which almost all aspects of traditional Chinese religious and spiritual practice were attacked by a basically foreign system of thought with some similarities to Daoism, which the Chinese did the best that they could do to deal with and accommodate.  This was a centuries long process which resulted a peace of sorts, under the notion of "the Unity of the Three Teachings", during this process there were many attempts, some good and some bad, to work toward this "accommodation".  Partisans of one or another side may view this accommodation as a betrayal of the "real truth" of their own beliefs, but to my mind a lot of interesting and profound ideas emerged from all of the dubious speculations and bad politics.

 

Personally, after decades of study, thought and practice of Eastern and Western esotericism, I prefer Daoism in almost all of its luxuriant and rich manifestations, but remain deeply sympathetic to aspects of Buddhism, and I see both of these within a Platonic framework, best represented by Plotinus' explication of Plato, and which I find deals with some real problems with Buddhist Ontology and Metaphysics, while laying an excellent philosophical foundation for Daoism, which otherwise hangs precariously from beautiful clouds of the "self so" (Ziran, best English, "self-existent", which is good because it relates it to Western ontology and allows a better starting point for comparison).

[Geof Nanto]

Although, as ZD has stated, this is a vast and complex topic with a history spanning many centuries, from my reading I suspect we tend to view this from our Western eyes where doctrinal differences between religions were of fundamental significance (and still are in many quarters.) Hence we see these debates as primarily about doctrine, whereas, to my understanding, they were primarily about national politics. The foreign emperors were staging these debates as a way of legitimizing their right to power, and also as a way of dispersing the vast wealth controlled by religious communities (in this case the Daoists, in previous purges the Buddhists were the victims.)

 

In Daily Life in China on the Eve of the Mongol Invasion 1250 – 1276 Jacques Gernet writes:

 

“…..the religious sphere in the West is divided into separate doctrines with well-defined tenets and beliefs. In China, however, differences in doctrine were never of any importance. The only religious differences were differences of social context: official [Confucian] cult, family religion, local, regional or village cults, or professional ones in the case of the all guilds; and in all these contexts, doctrine played a subordinate role.……   'In this vast empire' wrote, in 1326, the bishop of Zaytun (Ch’uanchou), Andre de Perouse, 'where there are people of all nations under heaven and of all sects, every single person is authorized to live according to his own sect, for they are imbued with the idea, or rather, the error, that everyone can find salvation according to his own sect.’ This general indifference towards doctrine was stronger still in the cults and beliefs of the people, because often a multitude of heterogeneous elements were quite indistinguishably intermingled in them.”

 

It seems this attitude is also shared by the Japanese. In The Essence of Shinto, Motohisa Yamakage writes:

 

“As well as Shintoists, many Japanese generally don’t believe in words very much. They understand that it is wrong to consider human language as absolute, recognising that human existence is very small and limited when compared to great nature. The Western mentality that treats human knowledge and language as absolutes is, from Shinto’s perspective, a form of human arrogance.”

Edited December 25, 2017 by Yueya

[Apech]

Some interesting points made in this thread.  I'm sure that Donald is right when he says that the impact of Buddhism on China was disruptive - almost as disruptive as the arrival of Western rationalism and Christianity + plus attendant technology and political ideologies.

 

There are quite a lot of stories of Buddhist masters travelling to China from Tibet and debating/challenging/ overcoming Daoist priests - and my impression is that they are all about the political influence exerted by the Tibetans as spiritual advisors to various emperors.  And though they may have occurred in some form or another i think they are unlikely to be as reported.

 

There's a tendency to think of India's impact on China through Buddhism as being the main issue here - but having read a little on the history of Buddhism what is not included fully is China's impact on Buddhism.  You have to remember that Buddhism in India was in slow decline from around the time of the Guptas (550 AD) until 1200/1300 when it had died out entirely.  Even when Chinese Buddhists visited India in the 5th century they found it was in decline.  At one period there were more Mahayanists in China than there were in India.  While Buddhism was under attack in India from Islam and resurgent Hinduism (both quite aggressive) it went to China with no swords involved.

 

 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

4 hours ago, Yueya said:

Although, as ZD has stated, this is a vast and complex topic with a history spanning many centuries, from my reading I suspect we tend to view this from our Western eyes where doctrinal differences between religions were of fundamental significance (and still are in many quarters.) Hence we see these debates as primarily about doctrine, whereas, to my understanding, they were primarily about national politics. The foreign emperors were staging these debates as a way of legitimizing their right to power, and also as a way of dispersing the vast wealth controlled by religious communities (in this case the Daoists, in previous purges the Buddhists were the victims.)

 

In Daily Life in China on the Eve of the Mongol Invasion 1250 – 1276 Jacques Gernet writes:

 

“…..the religious sphere in the West is divided into separate doctrines with well-defined tenets and beliefs. In China, however, differences in doctrine were never of any importance. The only religious differences were differences of social context: official [Confucian] cult, family religion, local, regional or village cults, or professional ones in the case of the all guilds; and in all these contexts, doctrine played a subordinate role.……   'In this vast empire' wrote, in 1326, the bishop of Zaytun (Ch’uanchou), Andre de Perouse, 'where there are people of all nations under heaven and of all sects, every single person is authorized to live according to his own sect, for they are imbued with the idea, or rather, the error, that everyone can find salvation according to his own sect.’ This general indifference towards doctrine was stronger still in the cults and beliefs of the people, because often a multitude of heterogeneous elements were quite indistinguishably intermingled in them.”

 

It seems this attitude is also shared by the Japanese. In The Essence of Shinto, Motohisa Yamakage writes:

 

“As well as Shintoists, many Japanese generally don’t believe in words very much. They understand that it is wrong to consider human language as absolute, recognising that human existence is very small and limited when compared to great nature. The Western mentality that treats human knowledge and language as absolutes is, from Shinto’s perspective, a form of human arrogance.”

 

55 minutes ago, Apech said:

Some interesting points made in this thread.  I'm sure that Donald is right when he says that the impact of Buddhism on China was disruptive - almost as disruptive as the arrival of Western rationalism and Christianity + plus attendant technology and political ideologies.

 

There are quite a lot of stories of Buddhist masters travelling to China from Tibet and debating/challenging/ overcoming Daoist priests - and my impression is that they are all about the political influence exerted by the Tibetans as spiritual advisors to various emperors.  And though they may have occurred in some form or another i think they are unlikely to be as reported.

 

There's a tendency to think of India's impact on China through Buddhism as being the main issue here - but having read a little on the history of Buddhism what is not included fully is China's impact on Buddhism.  You have to remember that Buddhism in India was in slow decline from around the time of the Guptas (550 AD) until 1200/1300 when it had died out entirely.  Even when Chinese Buddhists visited India in the 5th century they found it was in decline.  At one period there were more Mahayanists in China than there were in India.  While Buddhism was under attack in India from Islam and resurgent Hinduism (both quite aggressive) it went to China with no swords involved.

 

Thanks Yueya and Apech, I appreciate your both bringing up some of the issues which were at the back of my mind when I was writing my own post, but which I didn't have the time to examine, such as Christian missionary activity and Western technology.

 

I made a special study of the early Jesuit missions to China, and in point of fact even thought about writing a novel about the period, since it was a period with a lot of dramatic potential as well as interesting intellectual aspects that I wished to develop.  It should be noted for example that the Jesuit Fathers didn't arrive with any swords either, though the staggering amount of silver that they were able to spread around was the result of Spanish and Portuguese swords and the vast silver production of South America.  The Chinese thought that it must be the result of Alchemy, an impression that the Jesuits, the masters of Catholic "skillful means", left in place.  They also came with Western technology, which even in the Seventeenth Century was starting to inch ahead of the rest of the world.

 

To return to the Buddhist Daoist Controversies, the issues here are, as I said previously, varied and complex, but the political aspects certainly cannot be ignored, the earliest Buddhist-Daoist debates in China were in the Sixth Century and involved the same type of considerations as moved Constantine to legalize Christianity in the Roman Empire, the choice of a possible state religion, by Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou, who was the patron of the Xiaodao Lun, translated by Livia Kohn as Laughing at the Dao, the first major anti Daoist polemic.  I should note that the early Christians, like the Buddhists, did not use any swords to gain the attention of Constantine, rather they had survived three Centuries of persecution, before rising to the combination of prominence and potential respectability, that lead them to be in consideration as the Roman State religion.  A fact often neglected by  those who wish to talk about Christianity as being spread by the sword.  Whatever happened after Christianity became embroiled with the Politics of the Roman Empire, should not be laid at the feet of Christianity per se, but rather its politicization and corruption by Rome.

 

In any case these political rivalries were carried on for Centuries between Buddhism and Daoism in a way that didn't make either of them look good, and it is perhaps to the credit of the Confucians and particularly to the revival of Mencian Confucianism in the Song Dynasty that we owe the attempt to limit these rivalries with "the Unity of the Three Teachings", a doctrine that would have gained traction only in a Mencian based Confucianism and not one based on Xunzi, as had dominated Chinese politics since the time of Emperor Wu of the Han.

 

Well, so much for another hurried oversimplification, I hope that some of the resources I linked are helpful in understanding the big picture.

 

ZYD

[Apech]

@ZYD

 

Again thanks.  The sword thing contrasts with Islam mostly but also the vigorous 'Hindu' rulers which emerged in Medieval India.  However the main point about the debates is that they were politically motivated and illustrate that religion and politics don't combine well.  Witness the behaviour of modern Buddhist states - not good generally.  The sub-point is that from reading around this subject most of the critique aimed both outside Buddhism and between various sects in Buddhism is a critique of bad practice.  Very often the targets practice and techniques are represented in a corrupt form (which may have been prevalent at the time of writing) and then 'defeated'.

 

As I suggested above I have a half baked theory which may attribute features of the Mahayana and also the Yogacara school to the influence of China.  Things flow in both directions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mark Foote]

Here's something I find of interest.  I'm looking at two accounts of the "Samye debate", 792 c.e.- 794, first from the Encyclopedia Britannica--this of course is a debate between two schools of Buddhism:
 

Samye Debate, also called Council of Lhasa, in Tibetan Buddhism, a two-year debate (c. 792–794 CE) between Indian and Chinese Buddhist teachers held at Samye, the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet. The debate centred on the question of whether enlightenment (bodhi) is attained gradually through activity or suddenly and without activity.

The more conventional Mahayana Buddhist view was represented by Kamalashila, a scholar expressly called from India, and supported by the prominent Tibetan convert Gsal-shang of Dba’. They argued for the doctrine of the Madhyamika (“Middle Way”) school, which arose out of the teachings of the monk Nagarjuna (flourished 2nd century CE). According to this doctrine, the final goal of buddhahood can be achieved only after a long course of intellectual and moral development generally requiring a series of lives. The Chinese representative (whose Sanskrit name was Mahayana) upheld the teachings of the meditative Chan (Japanese: Zen) school of Mahayana Buddhism, which held that enlightenment is a sudden, spontaneous event that is not furthered and may even be hindered by conventional endeavours.

The debate took place in front of the reigning Tibetan king, Khri-srong-lde-btsan, who declared in favour of the Madhyamika teachings of the Indian representatives. His decision may have been influenced to some degree by the intermittent warfare then going on between Tibet and China. Thereafter, India exerted greater influence than China over Buddhism’s development in Tibet, though Chan continued to be respected there.

 

 

and second, from "How Do Madhyamikas Think?", by Tom J. F.  Tillemans:

 

...Some members of the Chinese entourage in despair of losing committed suicide; one of the prominent Tibetans allied with the Indians also committed suicide by starving to death; and the debate finally concluded with the murder of the leader of the Indian side, Kamalasila, at the hands of hired assassins, who supposedly "crushed his kidneys."  The Chinese leader... was ignominiously expelled from Tibet, unfairly as his side claimed.  

 

(pg 179-180)

 

Does seem like the history between the schools of Buddhism is somewhat sordid.  According to A. K. Warder (in "Indian Buddhism"), the order split irreconcilably something like 150 years after Gautama's death over the issue of whether or not an arahant could be seduced by a succubus. 

 

Where did the notion of sudden enlightenment come from--seemingly not from Indian Buddhism, unless Bodhidharma brought it personally from a chain of teachers that died out in India.  I guess that's possible.  What would have made the conditions right, for such a teaching to prosper in China, I wonder--certainly Buddhism was in China before Bodhidharma, and even a Chan-like Buddhism (as with Fuxi).   Possibly the changes made by the third Patriarch of Chan, in accepting donations of land and making a monastery that was self-reliant, had something to do with it.

 

No doubt, the Muslim invasion in the 700's was a big factor in turning the tide on Buddhism in India, in favor of traditional Hinduism.

 

Did Daoism ever advocate for an enlightenment experience?  I'm thinking not...

 

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

3 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

Did Daoism ever advocate for an enlightenment experience?

always)

[Apech]

This book is very good at showing that Zen = Ch'an was still practiced in Tibet.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tibetan-Zen-Discovering-Lost-Tradition-ebook/dp/B015P5BEYA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516873255&sr=8-1&keywords=Tibetan+Zen

 

I think the debate you quote - or the decisive win for Lam Rim is probably fictitious.  the whole journey of Buddhism to China is very interesting also, particularly this account:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Buddhism-Acquired-Buddhist-Studies-Monographs/dp/1845539974/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1516873436&sr=8-1&keywords=Jungnok+Park

 

the early 'schisms' in Buddhism were mostly either about Vinaya rules or a process of throwing out wrong think like eternalism - although it is true that debate over whether an Arhat could have a wet dream did feature.