Buddhism’s strength during the period 200 to 600 C.E. was unremarkable. Not only did it witness competition with Daoism and Confucianism, it also had to be doctrinally “malleable” in order to win acceptance in China. In order to suit the certain climate and situation during that time period, political, economic, and cultural forces actually distorted Buddhism within during this period. Hence, China was indeed a “weak” Buddhist state.

The fractured political landscape during this period also played a large part in Buddhism’s imprint in China, both in the North and South. However, early Buddhism was a “nominal” religion, as rulers used it for their own political gains rather than religious salvation. After the fall of the Jin Dynasty in 311, one of the Xiongnu tribes captured the Jin capital of Luoyang. Buddhism captivated the leader, Shi Le, not just for of the “miracles” it was purported to encompass, but also because it was a foreign religion (Hansen, 159). Since Shi Le could not read or write any classical Chinese, Buddhism offered him and other non-Chinese people an alternative to Confucianism (Hansen, 159). It procured for these early Northern Wei Dynasty “foreigners” a foothold in the existing political administration, while simultaneously preventing the traditional scholar-gentry class from using Confucianism for their toehold on power.

Political change in the sixth century further solidified Buddhism’s standing in Northern China. After Empress Dowager Feng’s ascension to power in 465 as regent, systematic reduction of Tobgach influence subsequently increased the ethnic Chinese officials’ control (Hansen, 179). She did this by using Buddhism as her main weapon. Not only did Feng dispense state funds into building Buddhist monasteries, she also decreed that peasants forward their taxes directly to monasteries instead of government officials, rewarded them with land grants, and also ordered convicts to work at monasteries (Hansen, 179).

In 517, political support for Buddhism in Southern China further solidified. The Liang empire’s support of Buddhism provided monasteries with a genuine source of support, for Emperor Wu offered numerous extravagant acts of reverence towards the monasteries, such as hosting a feast for fifty thousand monks and laymen (Hansen, 187). However, his commitment to Buddhism only reveals the weakness of Buddhism in terms of doctrinal and political status. For a ransom, Wu was able to buy his escape from the monastery when he no longer wanted to be a monk; at the same time, many aristocrats also “paid” their way to salvation (Hansen, 188).

The reunification of China by the Sui empire further coagulated Buddhism’s grip on China’s religious scene, but again for political reasons. In 580, after the Sui conquered the North, it overturned the ban on Buddhism passed by the previous Northern Zhou rulers. Like Empress Dowager Feng in 465, Emperor Wendi also attempted to strengthen his personal rule through Buddhism (Hansen, 193). Hence, he built a national network of monasteries and decreed the chanting of Buddhist prayers during the three months of the Buddha’s birthday; at the same time, his capital housed 120 Buddhist temples (Hansen, 193). Despite such venerable acts, the Sui ruler showed no sincerity in following Buddhist principles. Disregarding Buddhism’s main doctrine in which the “killing of any living being should not be done intentionally,” the Sui ruler unified North and South China through great bloodshed (deBary, 430). Nonetheless, by 589, the Sui established and legitimized Buddhism as a “fixture” in all of China.

Although on the surface, it might have appeared that politics played the largest role in Buddhism’s ascension in China, peeling back the layers of such reasoning will reveal that social and cultural factors played an equally vital part. The cultural landscape was in a pandemonium after 180, for political instability resulted in many Southerners’ disillusionment in Confucianism (deBary, 421). Hence, while it declined in popularity, Daoism and Buddhism surged, for intellectuals looked for alternative religions and philosophies.

In contrast to the North, Southern China’s political setting was in many ways different from the North’s, and consequently its absorption of Buddhism took a distinct course. After the Jin fell in 311, the court and aristocracy migrated to the South and assumed the Eastern Jin Dynasty, but only to be followed by further fragmentation of the Southern Dynasties (317-589). Significantly, Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism coexisted in such a way that despite their rivalry, the three actually complemented each other so much so that certain practices and precepts were often “borrowed” and amalgamated (Hansen, 185). Hence, China was never a “purely” Buddhist state, for Buddhism continuously evolved in the period 200 to 600, and instead developed its own brand of “Chinese-style” Buddhism. Yet, what is most significant is that despite Buddhism’s rise, it had to “bend” and alter its orthodox religious and philosophical precepts to fit the existing cultural climate.

Early Buddhism had to amend its original doctrines in order to suit the existing Southern Chinese population. Hence, its translations often incorporated Daoist terms. One vivid example, nirvana, the termination of suffering, or “blowing out,” was converted into wuwei, which means “letting things follow their own natural course” (Hansen, 162). Such blatant distortion of early Buddhist thought clearly reveals the weakness and subordination of Buddhist ideology to older, more established canons such as Daoism.

The Mahayana school played a large part in Buddhism’s change, and thus further revealed Buddhism’s inherent weakness. Departing from the earlier Hinayana school that originated from India, the Admonitions of the Fanwang Sutra reveals Chinese Buddhism’s shift towards Confucianism. Orthodox principles, such as leaving the family, chu jia, was compromised for “family orientation” as well as “filial piety” (deBary, 429). Yet according to its original teachings, Hinayana thought mainly stressed the escapement of desire and the pursuit of nirvana; there was no mention of any moral guidelines such as the Fanwang Sutra’s (deBary, 417). Such a sharp break from its origins reveals that Buddhism was indeed a fragile doctrine in China, for it had to conform and “bend” to existing Confucian precepts in order to survive.

Women’s participation in nunneries also played a part in Buddhism’s rise. However, such participation was not entirely based on the search for salvation, for many women simply looked to nunneries as an escape from the strict Confucian patriarchal society (Hansen, 160). Moreover, An Lingshou’s argument in severing herself from society also encompasses a strong Confucian rhetoric, for she disputes, “I am setting myself to cultivate the Way exactly because I want to free all living beings from suffering” (Hansen, 160). Ironically, though her words reveal that though she was running away from Confucianism, her argument was still based on Confucian morality.

However, the crucial difference was that while the Northern pro and anti-Buddhists engaged mainly in political conflicts, the South endured in intellectual debates, particularly with the Daoists and Confucianists (deBary, 422). There were two Buddhist monks, Mouzi and Huiyuan, who argued for Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism's coexistence. Their teachings not only led to the wider acceptance of Buddhism, they also revealed that Buddhism manipulated its precepts in order to fit the existing Confucian – and to a lesser extent – the Daoist order. Literature was one of the main tools used in this process.

Mouzi argued that there were similarities among Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism. For example, he disputes that the Confucian “gentleman scholar draws widely on all forms of good and thereby benefits his character,” and thus should not shun the teachings of Buddhism (Bloom, 420). On the controversial topic of marriage, he stresses Daoism’s principle that “wives, children, and property are the luxuries of the world, but simple living and doing nothing wuwei are the wonders of the way” (deBary, 424). However, Mouzi’s opinions blatantly diverged from Buddhism’s ultimate pursuit of nirvana; there was never any mention of “the gentleman” or wu wei in the initial first century C.E. teachings that came from India (deBary, 414).

Huiyuan was a Buddhist who argued that monks did not need to bow to rulers.

He appeased the Southern rulers that Buddhism should not threaten them, for it was an inherently moral religion. Hence, “though inwardly they may run counter to the gravity of natural relationships . . . they do not violate filial piety; though outwardly they lack respect in serving the sovereign . . . they do not lose hold of reverence” (deBary, 428). Huiyuan, too, used Confucian principles to mould a more palatable version of Buddhism to attract a larger following. Moreover, to prevent persecution, Huiyuan, further sculpted Buddhism in such a way as to conform to the existing Confucian order, which was still prevalent despite China’s political instability (deBary, 425).

In fact, despite Buddhism’s shaky foothold, the political and cultural atmosphere in the South remained cloaked in Confucianism. Written by a scholar-official, Yan Zhitui, Mr. Yan’s House Instructions is a text laced with Confucian language, pertaining to “family relations, social customs, the importance of education, dedication to high moral and cultural standards” (deBary, 542). Yan’s work reflects the political and cultural reality of the period, which was influenced by the Buddhist and Daoist dogma, yet veiled heavily under a Confucian order. Yet the strong presence of Buddhism cannot be ignored during Yan’s time in 531 to 591. The author, apprehensive of offending Buddhism, includes a chapter praising Buddhism’s “respect for life [and] moral attribution” (deBary, 543). As a result, Yan’s writings reveal that the three schools of thought were often inseparable, and more importantly, not one school enjoyed true “power” over the other.

Tales of Ghosts and Demons also offers insight into the inter-mixing of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism in China’s cultural landscape as early as the fourth century (Ebrey, 105). Though on the surface, the stories may seem to be folk tales about the supernatural world, further analysis reveals the themes are heavily influenced by the three belief systems. Buddhism’s contribution to the stories comes mainly in the form of the “soul.” Prior to Buddhism’s arrival, the Chinese believed in two souls, one which entered the world of immortals, while the other remained in the coffin (Hansen, 123). As revealed in the stories, Buddhism introduced the concept that after death, the soul carries over the consequential effects of the deeds of the past life and obtain [transmigrates] another form . . . of hell dwellers, hungry ghosts, animals, human beings, spirits, heavenly beings, direct disciples of Buddha, bodhisattvas, or Buddha’s” (deBary, 417). In the story of Lu Chong, the transmigration of Miss Cui’s ghost to a human baby illustrates such Buddhist infiltration into Chinese literature in the fourth century (Ebrey, 107).

Although Buddhist influences appear spasmodically in Tales of Ghosts and Demons, Daoist and Confucian precepts nonetheless remain dominant. The tales are heavily laced in Confucian ethics, one of which is the display of Ho Chang of Jiujiang’s virtuousness during quest to right Su O’s unjust indictment and execution. There are also Daoist influences as Su O the ghost lodges a suit against the living man who had wronged her; accordingly, underworlds were a main precept in Mao Shan Daoism (Hansen, 106). Hence, because these three belief systems interacted and often complemented each other, it further reveals that China was never a predominantly “Buddhist” state.

Economically speaking, China was also never a “pure” Buddhist country. Although its emergence in the third century C.E. was attributed to China’s flourishing silk trade, which “imported” Buddhism from India, Buddhist missionaries, ironically, rarely adhered to the main principles of frugality and asceticism (Hansen, 169). In fact, Buddhist clerics and monasteries received regular donations from goods that were traded on the Silk Road in return for the Chinese merchants’ path to salvation (Hansen, 171). The “religious thirst” was so great that monks such as Faxian, devoted their lives in search of Sanskrit originals of monastic regulations in India and Central Asia. Yet, contrary to its doctrine of discarding worldly possessions, many monks used silk as a form of “spending money” during their travels (Hansen, 174).

Hence, Buddhism’s force during the era 200 to 600 C.E. was far from extraordinary. Because it experienced clashes with Daoism and Confucianism, it had to be ideologically flexible in for survival in China. Since political, economic, and cultural forces transmuted Buddhism within this 400 hundred years in order to suit the existing climate as well as attracting a larger audience, China was indeed a “weak” Buddhist state.

Bibliography

“Ge Hong’s Autobiography.” Patricia Buckley Ebrey, ed., Chinese Civilization: A

Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Cambridge: New York, 1993. pp. 91-96.

Hansen, Valerie. The Open Empire. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 2000.

“House Instructions of Mr. Yan.” Theodore de Bary and Irene Bloom, ed., Sources of Chinese Tradition. New York, 1999. pp. 541-546.

“Tales of Ghosts and Demons.” Patricia Buckley Ebrey, ed., Chinese Civilization: A

Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Cambridge: New York, 1993. pp. 105-108.

“The Introduction of Buddhism.” Theodore de Bary and Irene Bloom, ed., Sources of Chinese Tradition. Columbia University Press: New York, 1999. pp. 414-432.