jocp_1582 248..260

guang xing

A BUDDHIST-CONFUCIAN CONTROVERSY ONFILIAL PIETY

When Buddhism was first introduced into China, it faced challengesfrom local Chinese culture, particularly Confucianism. The criticismsof Confucian scholars were mainly on ethical grounds, because theBuddhist way of life primarily focuses on individual liberationthrough moral perfection, which is very different from Confucianism,which chiefly focuses on family and society. In particular, the life ofBuddhist monks, who were required to be celibate, shave their heads,and leave their homes and families, was incompatible with the Con-fucian practice of filial pity as found in the Xiao Jing . This isreflected in the Mouzi Lihuolun , a book written in thesecond century ce to refute such criticisms.1 Chinese Buddhists mademuch effort in responding to such criticisms both in theory and prac-tice. As a result, Buddhism eventually became accepted by Chinesesociety as a religion that also teaches and practices filial piety.This ledsome early Buddhist scholars such as Kenneth Ch’en to think thatfilial piety occupied a special place in Chinese Buddhism.2 In fact, asI have already discussed elsewhere that early Buddhism also teachesthe practice of filial piety,3 and Chinese Buddhists made use of thisteaching in their response to the Confucian criticisms, even arguingthat the Buddhist concept and practice of filial piety is superior to thatof Confucianism. However, as Professor Chung-ying Cheng points outin his comments on the previous draft of this article, the incompat-ibility between Confucian and Buddhist concepts and practices offilial piety is never solved as they have two different philosophicalviews of life.

Another force working against Buddhism during the Han Dynastywas the fact that Confucianism had become the dominant ideology ofChinese society during this time. The idea of “ruling the state throughfilial piety” was conceived of and implemented in this dynasty, andcontinued through the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern, Sui, and TangDynasties and beyond. Chinese Buddhists responded to the criticismsboth in theoretical argumentation and in practice. In theoretical argu-

GUANG XING,Assistant Professor, Centre of Buddhist Studies,The University of HongKong. Specialties: Early Buddhism, Chinese Buddhist Ethics. E-mail: guangxin@hku.hk

Journal of Chinese Philosophy 37:2 (June 2010) 248–260© 2010 Journal of Chinese Philosophy

mentation, Chinese Buddhists responded by (i) translations of andreferences to Buddhist sutras that taught filial behavior; (ii) writingscholarly refutations of the charges of unfilial practices, such as theMouzi Lihuolun and the Xiao Lun ; and (iii) interpretingBuddhist precepts as equal to the Confucian concept of filial piety.4 Inpractice they responded by (i) composing apocryphal scriptures, suchas the Fumu Enzhong Jing ; and (ii) popularizing suchstories and parables as the Pusa Shanzi Jing and theYulanpen Jing by way of public lectures, painted illustra-tions called Banxiang or tableaus on walls and silk,5 and annual cel-ebration of the Yulanpen festival, popularly known as theghost festival.6 The first three were scholarly ways of dealing withcriticism, whereas the latter two were popular ways of responding onthe part of ordinary Chinese Buddhists.

In this article, I will concentrate on the scholarly refutations to thecharge of unfiliality. I find that the scholarly refutations underwentthree stages of development, finally reaching a stage which argues, assaid above, that the Buddhist practice of filial piety is superior to thatof Confucianism. The first stage is the explanation of Buddhist stand-points such as the Mouzi Lihuolun and the teachings of masterHuiyuan (334–416). The second stage is more direct refutationby many Chinese Buddhists, both monks and laypeople. The third iscomparing both Buddhist and Confucian concepts and practices offilial piety.

The first stage of refutation is from Mouzi in the secondcentury, to master Huiyuan in the beginning of the fifth century,where the questions asked by critics remained the same, but theanswers given by the Chinese Buddhists got more refined anddetailed with specific references to Buddhist texts and practices. Thisis because in the two hundred years of the Wei and Jin Dynasties(220–420), more and more Buddhist scriptures had been translatedinto Chinese, Buddhism developed rapidly due to, first, social con-ditions, as Chinese people particularly from the north suffered frompolitical chaos and lack of unity. Second, for the intellectual condi-tion, the metaphysical learning (Xuanxue ) became the mainsystem of thought for study and discussion among intellectuals ofthe time. It is similar to the Buddhist Prajñaparamita study since theformer discusses nothingness while the latter focuses on emptiness.So the Chinese literati who loved metaphysical learning also tookinterest in Buddhist philosophy and associated with learned monks.As a result, the differences between Buddhism and Confucianismand Daoism became clearer as people learned more Buddhist teach-ings, and the conflict between the former and the latter also becameintense. Chinese Buddhists made great effort in explaining the Bud-

249controversy on filial piety

dhist standpoint when criticisms on the practice of filial pietybecame more refined.

We find in the Mouzi Lihuolun that critics questioned three aspectson the issue of filial piety. Mouzi refuted the critics by quoting manyhistorical precedents and references from both Confucian and Daoistclassics and traditions arguing that all kinds of practices similar to thethose of the Buddhists were also found in China where they were notcondemned by Confucius and other people, but in fact praised asvirtuous behavior.

The first criticism is that monks’ cutting of their hair is an unfilialpractice because the Xiao Jing says that since body, limbs, hair, andskin are received from parents one should not harm them. Mouzirefuted the critics by saying that virtue was more important than skinand hair. He quoted from the same Confucian classic Xiao Jing that“the former kings had perfect virtue and were intent upon the Way.”7

“Yet Taibo cut his hair and marked his body” in order to followthe custom of Wu and Yue , “but Confucius nevertheless praisedhim, saying that ‘he can be said to be of the highest virtue.’” Mouziargued: “If one has great virtue, one should not cling to minormatters.” Therefore he refuted the criticism, if it were thus, how couldmonks who cut their hair be unfilial? Mouzi’s argument was to thepoint, and Confucians also saw the weakness of the criticism so latersuch questions were rarely raised as a separate question.

The second criticism is about monks’ celibacy without posterity.Mouzi refuted by giving examples that XuYou perched in the nestof a tree and BoYi and Shu Qi starved on [Mount] Shouyang,but “Confucius praised them.”8 It is same that Buddhist monks prac-ticed virtuous ways by giving up worldly pleasures. Of course, celibacywas not a recognized way of life in ancient China and this is particularlytrue of Confucians, therefore, Confucian scholars would never besatisfied with the answers or reasons given by Chinese Buddhists.

The third criticism concerns Buddhist customs such as clothing andbehavior which was different from Chinese tradition. Mouzi answeredfrom two points of view. First, Mouzi argued that “in the time of theThree Emperors (San Huang ), people ate raw meat, wore skins,lived in the trees, or lodged in caves.” However, “Those people aresaid to have had virtue, straightforward sincerity, faith and nonaction(wuwei ).” So the practice of Buddhist monks is similar to them.Second, Mouzi argued that Chinese and Buddhists led two differentways of life. “Yao , Shun , Zhou , and Confucius (Kongzi )practiced worldly affairs, while the Buddha and Laozi set theirminds on nonaction.” These arguments are quite weak without thesupport of Buddhist teachings and it was only Sun Chuo who gave abetter answer.

250 guang xing

The first and third questions concern Chinese culture and tradition,while the second is about an important issue in Confucian thought.However, the second question about monks without posterity was notso easily answered and refuted by quoting some isolated instances ofwell-known ancient people in Chinese history.

Sun Chuo’s (314–371) article Yu Dao Lun is anotherimportant work after the Mouzi Lihuolun in defense of Buddhism.The format of the work is same as the Mouzi Lihuolun that questionsand criticisms followed by answers and refutations. However, we findonly one question on filial piety in Yu Dao Lun, but it covers two ofthe three aspects found in the Mouzi Lihuolun: posterity and harmingof physical appearance. Sun Chuo refuted the critics by first clarifyingthe highest form of filial piety according to the Xiao Jing and the Li Ji

. The Xiao Jing says at the beginning, “When we have estab-lished our character by the practice of the [filial] course, so as to makeour name famous in future ages and thereby glorify our parents, thisis the end of filial piety.” We find in the Li Ji the ideathat “the greatest filial piety is seen in its never failing,” and “the widedispensation of benefits and the providing of all things [necessaryfor the people] may be called the piety that does not fail.” Sun Chuosaid,

Filial piety is important because it is to establish [their] character bythe practice of the [filial] course so as to forever glorify their parents.It is a small honor even if one obediently offers [his parents] with [themeat of] three domestic animals [of cow, sheep and pig] everyday, butcan neither make all respect him, nor let him rely on the world tosupport his parents.9

Then, Sun Chuo discussed and compared filial piety with loyalty, andsaid that filial piety to parents was less important when compared toloyalty, and that virtue was more important than preservation ofone’s physical appearance. Such arguments were also supported withexamples as found in the Mouzi Lihuolun. With these discussions onfilial piety as a basis, Sun Chuo argued that the Buddha was a goodexample of the highest fulfillment of filial piety, because after enlight-enment he converted his father, and sentient beings were also ben-efited from his teaching.

He (the Buddha) then returned and illuminated his native country,and widely spread the sounds of the doctrine. His father, the king, wasstimulated to understand, and likewise ascended the place of enlight-enment. What [act of] filial piety could be greater than such a glori-fication of his parents?

Sun Chuo continued to argue that those who went forth from homewith their parents’ permission worked for the spread of Buddhist

251controversy on filial piety

teachings for the peace of society and benefit of many people.To him,this should be considered the greatest filial piety.

Sun Chuo’s argument is better than Mouzi’s because he used Con-fucian theory of filial piety to argue that Buddhist monks also prac-ticed it by establishing themselves in virtue and working for the goodof society in promoting virtue.

The questions discussed in the above two articles later became thecentral points of contention in the form of issues such as “monks notpaying homage to the ruler” and “Chinese and Barbarian” (Yi XiaLun ), from the Wei and Jin, up to the Southern and NorthernDynasties.

In the Eastern Jin , there came a debate over whether monksshould pay respect to the rulers. This is still a continuation of thecriticism of filial piety because the Confucian text Xiao Jing discussesfilial piety with a focus on politics. The argument is that if filial pietymeans respecting parents then there should not be differences of filialpiety among emperors, princes, high ministers and officials, inferiorministers, and the common people, which are the five classes discussedin the Xiao Jing. Thus, filial piety is called loyalty when the object isthe emperor. Yu Bing , a minister of the Eastern Jin Dynasty,reported to the emperor that monks should be ordered to pay respectto the emperor by kneeling down before him, otherwise Li orpropriety would be interrupted.Yu Bing represented the conservativeparty and wanted to revive Confucianism. He Chong , who rep-resented the new and progressive party, argued against Yu Bing thatBuddhism taught the practice of virtue, such as the five precepts,which was supportive of the imperial rule. Monks also respected theimperial rule by first praying for peace for the country when theychanted, although they had different custom of how this was done.Therefore, he said, one should let them continue their way of lifewithout paying homage. The argument stopped for a short while untilHuan Xuan , who came into power as a prime minister more thanfifty years later, then renewed the same argument.

Huan Xuan argued from three points, (i) Confucian teaching wassupreme while the barbarians (Buddhists) were not civilized; (ii) inthe former times, Buddhists were foreigners and now the emperorhimself also took up the faith; and (iii) the emperor was more impor-tant than a teacher, as Buddhists respected teachers so they shouldpay homage to the emperor. There were many officials as well asmonks who rose against Huan Xuan. Among them, Wang Mirepresented the officials and Huiyuan represented the clergy. As aBuddhist leader, Huiyuan explained in his letter to Huan Xuan thatBuddhism supported the imperial rule, and its doctrine was similar tothe Confucian teachings. Buddhist monks had different customs from

252 guang xing

secular people, but it was only different in formality yet was the samein essence. Therefore, Buddhist monks did not discard their practiceof filial piety and respect to the emperor; instead they supported theimperial rule by way of promoting virtues. Thus, Huiyuan clearlyexplained the Buddhist point and Huan Xuan did not enforce theedict of monks’ paying of respect to the ruler. Huiyuan then wrotefive articles entitled Samen Bujing Wangzhe Lun(About the Sramana

,

�) a not paying homage to the ruler). He says,

As is set forth in the Buddhist scriptures, there are (among Bud-dhists) two classes of people: (the laymen) who propagate the doc-trine whilst dwelling in the world, and (the clerics) who cultivate theWay after having left the household. Those who dwell in the worldobserve the Rites in serving their superiors and are respectfultowards their (elder) relatives; the religious duties of loyalty (to thesovereign) and filial piety are made clear in the (Confucian) canoni-cal texts, and the instructions about the (exalted position of the ruler)with the three Great Ones are manifested in the writings of the Sage.In this they agree with what is ordained in the Royal Regulations asexactly as the two halves of a tally . . .

But (the monk) who has left the household is a stranger dwellingoutside the world (of human relations); his deeds are cut off fromthose of (other) beings. His doctrines have led him to understand that(all) sorrows and fetters are caused by his having a body, and that bynot preserving the body one may terminate sorrow. He knows thathis birth and rebirth are the result of his being subject to (universal)transformation, and that by not complying with (this process of trans-formation) one may seek the (highest) principle. . . . He is one whoseprinciples run counter to those of the world, and whose way isopposed to common practice. Therefore all who have left the house-hold dwell in seclusion to seek (the fulfillment) their aspirations, andalter the common practice to realize their Way. Having altered thecommon practice they cannot share the Rites imposed by secularcodes; dwelling in seclusion they may make their deeds sublime. Onlythis way they are able to save the drowning world from the deepstream, to pull out the hidden roots (of existence) from the successiveeons, far-away to wade through the ford of the Three Vehicles,broadly to open the way to manhood and divinity. Therefore within(the family) they deviate from the veneration due to natural rela-tionships and yet do not swerve from filial piety; outside (the family)they refrain from reverence in serving the ruler and yet do not loosetheir respect (towards him).10

Huiyuan further explained,

Therefore they who rejoice in the doctrine of S,akya(muni) always

first serve their parents and respect the ruler. Those who want tochange their secular life and to throw away the hair-pin (to becomemonks) must always first wait for (the ruler’s and their parents’)sanction and then act accordingly. If the ruler or their parents havedoubts, they must retire and strive (by other means) to fulfill their

253controversy on filial piety

desire, until both (ruler and parents) have become enlightened (andgrant them permission).11

Just as Zurcher pointed out, Huiyuan’s argumentation is well founded,as there is a Vinaya rule that all persons who were in the service of theking, such as soldiers, or who had not obtained their parents’ permis-sion to join the Sangha, were not accepted for ordination.12 However,this rule was established for the prevention of the possibility of con-flicts, not for reasons of filial piety. But in effect this rule also served asa way to show filial piety to parents and loyalty to rulers.

The debate on monks’ not paying homage to the ruler is a precur-sor to the debate on “Chinese and Barbarians” which is also thesecond stage of refutation. During the Southern and NorthernDynasty (420–577), Buddhism developed in China with an amazingspeed. Apart from the above mentioned two reasons, social and intel-lectual, many emperors and kings also took up Buddhism as theirpersonal belief, and this in turn also influenced the nobility andcommon people. The conflict between Buddhism and Confucianismand Daoism took different forms in the Southern and NorthernDynasty. In the north, it took the violent form of persecution:The firstoccurred in the time of the emperor Tai Wudi in the NorthernWei (386–534), and the second in the time of the emperor Zhou Wudi

of the Northern Zhou (557–581). In the south, it took on amilder form, through debate by writing articles which are recorded inbooks such as Sengyou’s Hongming ji .13 According tothe Chinese scholar Tang Yongtong , these scholarly writingscan be classified into two main areas: (i) the Chinese and the Barbar-ian; and (ii) Form and Spirit.14 The former concerns the cultural dif-ferences between China and Central Asia, for instance, differences infilial piety, way of life, and rituals; whereas the latter focuses onphilosophical discussions of the “imperishable spirit.”

Our concern is the first kind of debate since it relates to filial piety.The entire debate was started by Gu Huan , a Daoist, who wrotean article Yixia Lun (Barbarian and Chinese). There isnothing new in his article as the criticisms were already found inprevious articles such as the Mouzi Lihuolun. But it represents agroup of people who had the superior feeling of Chinese culture anddespised other cultures. Although Gu Huan wrote the article with anaim to conciliate the conflict between Daoism and Buddhism, he tookBuddhism as Barbarian culture from the traditional Chinese stand-point of view. His arguments can be summarized into the followingthree points: (i) the Chinese tradition was to keep the hair long andwear nice and colorful cloth while that of the Barbarians (Buddhistclerics) was to cut their hair and wear cloth in a “strange way”; (ii) theChinese custom for the dead was to bury in a coffin, while the Bar-

254 guang xing

barian custom was to burn by fire or sink in water; and (iii) thus,Confucian philosophy was a teaching to continue the good, with acomplete physical body and observance of Chinese custom, whileBuddhism was a teaching to extinguish the bad, by destroying theappearance and changing the nature of Chinese people. Then hecriticized Chinese people who imitated the Barbarian way of lifewhile abandoning their wives and ancestor worship. Thus, he asked,where is righteousness?

Gu Huan’s Yixia Lun caused a huge reaction from the Buddhistsand at least six articles written by both Buddhist monks and laypeople to refute the charges are preserved in Sengyou’s HongmingJi.15 We can summarize their arguments and refutations into the fol-lowing three points.

First, the Chinese Buddhists refuted Gu Huan’s idea of superiorityof Chinese and uncivilized barbarians (Buddhists) with an open-minded attitude. Xie Zhenzhi said that human beings had thesame inclination as “the seven treasures are loved by all people soChinese and barbarians value the same thing. Respect and honor areappreciated by all so all nine classes of people are peaceful andgentle.”16 In this way, Zhu Guangzhi criticized Gu Huan’s ideaof “the nature of Chinese is purely good, and of barbarians is bad, bytheir origin” as totally wrong. He said that there were both good andbad people in Chinese and barbarians,17 so one should not criticizeothers because of differences in custom and clothes, but one shouldhonor others with respect. Huimin further said that terms likebarbarian should not be used, instead “Chinese and foreigners”should be used.

Second, Chinese Buddhists argued that people should appreciatethe value of the theory and teaching rather than the custom andtradition of a religion or culture. Ming Sengshao argued thatthose who preserved their physical appearance intact and observedritual might not in fact be gentle people, whereas those who harmedtheir physical appearance yet abstained from evil might not be bad atall.Therefore good and bad were not found in the custom and appear-ances, but in the conduct and behavior of people.18 Thus people shouldappreciate the value of the foreign culture itself rather than argu-ments on minor matters.

Third, Chinese Buddhists distinguished philosophical Daoism fromreligious Daoism and praised the former, particularly Laozi’s thought,as a teaching for self-cultivation and governing the state, and criti-cized the latter as a doctrine for longevity which could never beobtained. Huitong criticized that “Laozi wrote an essay with onlyfive thousand words, and other writings are confused and some evencontain bad teachings.”19 Ming Sengshao also had a similar opinion,

255controversy on filial piety

and criticized the bad practices of religious Daoism while admiringLaozi’s thought. As Kong Fan comments, all those Buddhistmonks and lay scholars who supported Buddhism and refuted theYixia Lun are Chinese people who themselves learned Confucianteachings and the Xuanxue of Laozi and Zhuangzi. So they them-selves presented the pervasive and inclusive understanding of Confu-cian, Buddhist, and Daoist doctrines.20

Apart from Gu Huan, another Daoist wrote Sanpo Lun(On Three Destructions) in the name of Zhang Rong , a well-known person in the Southern and Northern Dynasty (420–577). Theauthor of the book attacks Buddhism from Confucian moral groundsas a teaching of destruction to the nation, to the family, and to theperson who believed in it, because the Confucian teaching is on stategoverning, family regulation, and personal cultivation. This article isnow lost, but we can get the gist of its ideas through two other articleswritten to refute it, Liu Xie’s Miehuo Lun (Extermi-nation of the Delusion) and Sengshun’s Shi Sanpo Lun

(Interpretation of “On Three Destructions”) in Sengyou’sHongming Ji.

The Sanpo Lun mainly criticized Buddhism from the point of view offilial piety. First, Buddhism was destructive to the state, because itexhausted the wealth of the state and the people by building magnifi-cent monasteries, and Buddhist monks also did not do productivework. Liu Xie refuted that it was not because of Buddhism that thestate declined, and in fact the state became prosperous after theintroduction of Buddhism.21 Sengshun argued that Buddhism contrib-uted to the imperial rule by way of teaching people to cultivate virtue.22

Second, the Sanpo Lun criticized that Buddhism was destructive to thefamily, because monks left their family and parents, hence it wasunfilial. Liu Xie refuted that filial piety in its ultimate form was thesame in both lay people and monks. Lay Buddhists practiced theConfucian teaching and performed filial piety accordingly, while Bud-dhist monks cultivated themselves in virtue and also performed filialpiety by saving their departed relatives.Sengshun refuted this criticismby quoting the Buddhist teaching from the Shanshengzi Jing

that taught people to respect six groups of people: parents,teachers, wife, relatives, servants, and religious people.23 In general, thetext teaches the importance of the proper observance of social norms.Third, the Sanpo Lun criticized that Buddhism was destructive to theperson because monks cut their hair and were without posterity. LiuXie refuted by saying that filial piety was not found in the hairs but inthe mind. Buddhist monks practice great filial piety by abandon-ing minor filial acts because they worked to save their ancestorsforever. Sengshun explained that the physical body was a prison for

256 guang xing

one to practice the higher aim, as it was for Daoism, and that thereforeBuddhist monks abandoned their fame and profits for the spiritual life.Of course, the criticism on posterity was still not answered sinceBuddhist and Confucian ways of life are different.

The third stage of refutation is during the Tang and Song Dynasties.At the beginning of the Tang Dynasty, Confucian criticism of Bud-dhists on filial piety continued with renewed strength supported byDaoists. At the beginning of the Tang Dynasty, the Daoist Fu Yi(555–639), who was the grand astrologer of the Tang court, madeseveral suggestions to the emperors that Buddhism was bad for thenation because it did not teach both filial piety and loyalty, andbecause the Buddhist clergy escaped taxation, and therefore theyshould be ordered to return to lay life. Other Daoists also joined thisdebate against Buddhism, such as Li Zhongqing , who wrote anarticle called Shiyi Jiumi Lun (Ten Deviations and NineSuperstitions), and Liu Jinxi , with his article Xian Zheng Lun

(Manifestation of Righteousness). In the mid-Tang, Han Yu(768–824), a well-known Confucian scholar, also criticized Bud-

dhism as “the teaching of barbarians,” claiming that it was not goodfor Chinese people who practiced Confucian morality which focuseson filial piety and loyalty.

The Buddhist response to the above criticisms can be seen fromtwo levels, the popular and the intellectual. On the popular level,Chinese Buddhists popularized Buddhist stories and parables teach-ing filial behavior as discussed above. On the intellectual level,Buddhists responded in three ways: first they continued to writerefutations as before, such as Faling , who wrote an article Po XieLun (Defeat of Iniquity) to refute Fu Yi’s argument, and theBian Zheng Lun (Clarification of Righteousness) to refutethe charges from other two Daoists. Other Buddhist monks such asHuijing and Zhishi also participated in this debate. Second,Buddhists also continued to translate texts which either directly orindirectly taught filial piety. Third, Zongmi compared the Con-fucian and Buddhist concepts and practices of filial piety, and came tothe conclusion that both taught filial piety. Later in Song Dynasty,Qisong in his Xiao Lun, argued that Buddhist teaching on filialpiety was even better than that of Confucianism.

In his commentary to the Ullambana Sutra, Zongmi started with adeclaration that both Buddhism and Confucianism had filial piety astheir central teaching.24 He said that filial piety’s centrality in theConfucian teachings was evidenced in the Xiao Jing’s position that itwas “a perfect virtue and all-embracing rule of conduct.” Zongmi thenillustrated that Buddhism also had filial piety as its central teaching byquoting from two influential Buddhist scriptures in China. Zongmi

257controversy on filial piety

explained that Buddhist teachings were found in the sutras andvinaya, the former explained the theory while the latter explained therules of conduct. Although there were many rules of conduct, thepurpose was for the practice of filial piety. It was said in the Fan WangJing , “[One should have] filial piety toward parents, teach-ers, monks, and the three treasures (Buddhism). Filial piety is a teach-ing of the ultimate way [to attain enlightenment]. Filial piety is calledprecepts, and also called prevention.”25 In the Nirva

�na Sutra, the

Buddha also said,

Oh, how dreadful that my mother had to undergo great pain. For tenmonths she guarded and carried me. After my birth, she took carethat I should always be in dry place instead of damp, and cleaned myexcretions; she gave me milk and fed me so that I have grown up. Forall of this, I must repay her what I owe her, see to her feelings, beobedient to her and serve her.26

With such quotations as a basis, Zongmi then compared Buddhist andConfucian practices of filial piety and came to the conclusion thatthere were seven similarities and five differences.27

Qisong composed the Xiao Lun by imitating the Confucian XiaoJing, and discussed filial piety under twelve headings. He states at thevery beginning that “Filial piety is venerated in all religious teachings,but it is especially true in Buddhism.”28 This is his central argumentand the rest of his article supports this theme from different aspects.

Qisong said that according to Buddhist sutra, filial piety was called“precept.” This meant that filial piety was the beginning of preceptsbecause filial piety came before precepts and all virtues came fromprecepts. The five precepts of abstaining from killing, stealing, adul-tery, lying, and intoxicating drinks were the components of filial pietyin Buddhism, and these were the same as the Confucian five virtuesof benevolence, righteousness, propriety, fidelity, and wisdom. “Onecannot repay the debts to his parents by serving them, so the sages(Buddhas) repaid them by [the practice of] virtue; virtue cannot reachtheir parents, so the sages use the teaching to reach them.” Therefore,“one who practices these five [precepts] becomes virtuous and henceglorifies his parents, is this not filial piety?” The filial piety practicedby worldly people was small when compared to that of Buddhists,because the latter not only respected their parents in this life, butpaid their filial duty to seven generations of the departed. This wasin conformity with the Confucian saying, “one carefully attends thefuneral rites of parents, and follows them when gone with due sacri-fices.” So too, Buddhist filial piety was to love and respect all creaturesbecause they might be one’s past parents. Thus, Qisong came to theconclusion that the Buddhist concept of filial piety had the character-istics of universality and superiority. It was universal because Bud-

258 guang xing

dhists respected all living beings without harming them, so thatpeace pervaded in the world, and it was superior because Buddhistsextended the practice of filial piety not only to their own parents, butto all sentient beings.

With the above discussion, we may come to a tentative conclusionthat Chinese Buddhists refuted the criticisms on filial piety from bothConfucianism and Daoism by reference to scriptures and examplesfrom all three religions, and by the Tang and Song Dynasties arrivedat the conclusion that the Buddhist concept and practice of filial pietywas better than that of Confucianism. However, this idea may not beaccepted by Confucian scholars since the two ways of life weredifferent.

THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONGHong Kong, China

Endnotes

The author would like to express his gratitude to Professor Chung-ying Cheng for hisimportant and thorough comments for improvements, to Dr. Linyu Gu for her detailedand critical suggestions, and also to Dr. Zhihua Yao Ven. Hui Feng (Orsborn MatthewBryan) for their assistance in editing the article.

1. John P. Keenan has made an English translation and study of the text: How MasterMou Removes Our Doubts: A Reader-Response Study and Translation of the Mou-tzuLi Huo Lun (Buffalo: State University of New York Press, 1994).

2. Kenneth K.S. Ch’en, “Filial Piety in Chinese Buddhism,” Harvard Journal of AsiaticStudies 28 (1968): 81–97.

3. “Filial Piety in Early Buddhism,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 12 (2005): 82–106.http://www.buddhistethics.org/12/xing-article.html

4. I have already discussed this matter in “Xiao Ming Wei Jie: Zhonguoren duiFojiao Xiaodaoguan de Fazhan” “ ,” inYang Zangwen Xiansheng Qishi Zhi Shoujing Jinian Lunwenji

, ed. Huang Xianian and Ji Huachuan (Beijing:Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Press, 2009), 807–25.

5. There are many public lecture notes and painted illustrations related to filial pietyfound of in Dunhuang and other caves in China. Please see Ma Shichang’s“Fumu Enzhong Jing Xianben Yu Bianxiang” inZhongguo Fojiao Shiku Kaogu Wenji (Taiwan: Jue FengBuddhist Art & Culture Foundation, 2001), 467–80.

6. For detailed discussion of the festival, please read Stephen F. Teiser’s The GhostFestival in Medieval China. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988).

7. Keenan, How Master Mou Removes Our Doubts, 83–94.8. The examples are found in the Lunyu , 16.12 “The Duke Jing of Qi had

a thousand teams, each of four horses, but on the day of his death, the people did notpraise him for a single virtue. Bo Yi and Shu Qi died of hunger at the foot of theShouyang mountains, and the people, down to the present time, praise them.” Thetranslation is adopted from James Legge with small changes.

9. Taisho Shinshu Daizokyo eds. Takakusu Junjiro and WatanabeKaigyoku (Tokyo: Taisho Issaikyo Kankokai, 1924–1932), Vol. 52, no. 2102, 17a–c.(Henceforth, references to the Taisho Tripitaka will be in the standard abbreviatedform of T. [vol. no.]). All Sun Chuo’s discussions are mentioned here.

259controversy on filial piety

10. The translation is adopted from E. Zurcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China: TheSpread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China (Leiden: Brill, 2007),258.

11. The translation is adopted from Zurcher, Buddhist Conquest of China, 283.12. Zurcher, Buddhist Conquest of China, 283.13. Other books in which these scholarly writings are preserved are Daoxuan’s

Guang Hongming Ji and Ji Gujin Fodao Lunheng , andZhisheng’s Xuji Gujin Fodao Lunheng . All the three booksare found in T52 as nos. 2103, 2104, and 2105.

14. Tang Yongtong, Hanwei Liang Jin Nanbeichao Fojiao Shi(Beijing: Konglun Publication, 2006), Vol. 1, 407. Sengyou, in the end of his bookHongming Ji, lists six major Confucian objections to Buddhism as the basis fordisputes and eventual reconciliation: (i) Buddhist writings are vague and extensive;(ii) death is final, so there can be no rebirth; (iii) Buddhism is useless for governing thepeople; (v) none among the rulers of antiquity knew of the Buddha; (v) Buddhism isbarbarian in origin; and (vi) Buddhism is nontraditional and had no impact before theJin (T52, no. 2102, 95a.).

15. They are Ming Sengshao’s “Zheng Erjiao Lun (On the Right of the TwoReligions),” Xie Zhenzhi’s two articles: “Yu Gudaoshi Shu (A Letter toDaoist Gu)” and “Chong Yu Gudaoshi Shu (Another Letter to DaoistGu),” Zhu Zhaozhi’s “Nan Gudaoshi Yixia Lun (Criticism ofDaoist Gu’s ‘Barbarian and Chinese’),” Zhu Guangzhi’s “Zi Gudaoshi Yixia Lun

(An Inquiry into the Daoist Gu’s ‘Barbarian and Chinese’),”Huitong’s “Bo Gudaoshi Yixia Lun (A Refutation to Daoist Gu’s‘Barbarian and Chinese’),” and Huimin’s “Ronghua Lun—Xi Gudaoshi Yixia Lun

(Barbarian and Chinese—An Interpretation of DaoistGu’s ‘Barbarian and Chinese’).”

16. T52, no. 2102, 41c. Jiu Fu is an archaic term. According to the Zhou Li, in ancient China, a thousand li around the emperor palace

is called Wangji and every five hundred Li outside the Wangji is called a Fu ordistrict. There are nine Fu or classes outside the Wangji according to the distance.

17. T52, no. 2102, 45, 38b.18. Ibid., 37.19. Ibid., 45c.20. Ren Jiyu and Kong Fan, ed. Zhongguo Zhexue Fazhan Shi: Wei Jin Nanbei Chao

(Beijing: Renming chu ban she, 1998), 865–66.21. T52, no. 2102, 50a.22. Ibid., 52c.23. The text was first translated into Chinese by An Shigao as Shijialuoyue Liufangli Jing

in 148–70 and again by Dharmaraksa�

(active in China during in266–313) as the Daliu Xiang Bai Jing which is unfortunately lost. Thethird translation by Zhi Fadu in 301 is named as the Shanshengzi Jing

.24. T39, no. 1792, 505a.25. T24, no. 1484, 1004a. People may question about the authenticity of the Fan Wang Jing

and say that it might be an apocryphal text composed by Chinese. But this does notaffect the argument in this article because it has been an influential Buddhist textfrom the time of Master Zhiyi in the sixth century. Many commentaries havebeen written by Chinese Buddhist masters who took it as a genuine Buddhistscripture.

26. T12, no. 374, 419c. The Nirvana�

¯ Sutra was quite influential in the Southern andNorthern Dynasty and many commentaries have been written. So the passage quotedhere must be known to Chinese Buddhists from that time.

27. For a detailed comparative study, please read my article “Zhaoqi Rufo Xiaodaoguande Bijiao Yanjiu ” (Early Buddhist and Confucian Con-cepts of Filial Piety: A Comparative Study), Universal Gate Buddhist Journal 45(2008): 169–210.

28. T52, no. 2115, 660a.

260 guang xing