What do you think?
Rate this book
SUNY series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture
Philosophy And Religion In Early Medieval China
Exploring a time of profound change, this book details the intellectual ferment after the fall of the Han dynasty. Questions about "heaven" and the affairs of the world that had seemed resolved by Han Confucianism resurfaced and demanded reconsideration. New currents in philosophy, religion, and intellectual life emerged to leave an indelible mark on the subsequent development of Chinese thought and culture. This period saw the rise of xuanxue ("dark learning" or "learning of the mysterious Dao"), the establishment of religious Daoism, and the rise of Buddhism. In examining the key ideas of xuanxue and focusing on its main proponents, the contributors to this volume call into question the often-presumed monolithic identity of this broad philosophical front. The volume also highlights the richness and complexity of religion in China during this period, examining the relationship between the Way of the Celestial Master and local, popular religious beliefs and practices, and discussing the relationship between religious Daoism and Buddhism.
381 pages, Hardcover
First published June 30, 2010
1 person is currently reading
17 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 28, 2012
Chan and Lo’s edited volume is a much-needed revisit of the complex and burgeoning intellectual landscape in early Medieval China. Despite the continuing purchase power of Han Confucian lexicon and concerns like the relation of heaven and humanity, intellectuals in early medieval China, spurred by a sense of urgency brought by the downfall of Han dynasty, embarked on diverse but connected philosophical and religious quests to restore social order and harmony. Xuanxue, religious Daoism, and Buddhism are only a few umbrella terms that try to summarize the mind-boggling complexity and entanglement of the intellectual world in this era. The articles included in this volume aim to unravel and clarify some aspects of the labyrinth subsumed under these umbrella terms.
Unlike popular perception of Xuanxue as empty talks and lofty metaphysical speculations, Alan K.L. Chan, Jude Soo-Meng Chua, Tze-Ki Hon, Brook Ziporyn, and Ulrike Middendorf all argue for deeply-rooted practical and political concerns that animated the philosophical quests of leading xuanxue figures such as Wang Bi, Guo Xiang, and Xi Kang. Even the pronounced social practice of reclusion in early medieval China, as argued by Alan Berkowitz, cannot be simply characterized as anti-Confucianism or a turning away from society and politics. In this sense, the new trends as represented by xuanxue never strayed too far away from Han Confucian’s quest for a harmonious cosmos and were “fundamentally concerned with unlocking the profound mystery of the Dao by reinterpreting the teachings of Confucius and other sages.” (p.3).
Neither were innovations that fueled the formation of religious Daoism emerged from thin air. Local and popular religious beliefs like the mystical relations between disease and morality were central to Chinese religious imaginations. The innovations of Tianshi Dao (Heavenly Master Daoism), argues Chi-Tim Lai, lied primarily in its conception of the divine administration of justice—sanguan (three official, heaven, earth, and water) and its promise of health and prosperity through rituals of confession and handwritten petitions to the Three officials. Contrary to earlier scholars’ depiction of later Daoism like Lingbao (靈寶) as a complete surrender to Buddhist theology, Stephen R. Bokenkamp, through a thorough examination of the concept of rebirth in Lingbao scriptures, contends that Lingbao Daoists’ appropriation of the Buddhist rebirth was neither a surrendering nor a misunderstanding. Instead, it epitomizes a creative cultural re-mix to suit the needs of local Daoist communities. As such, both articles on the emergence of religious Daoism call for a more nuanced interpretation of the ‘influence’ paradigm, whether it’s the influence from indigenous beliefs or from foreign theologies.
Influence can be temporal as well. Both Victor H. Mair’s and Kathy Cheng-Mei Ku’s articles have successfully revised earlier scholars’ presentist view of Buddhism in early medieval China and thereby demonstrate the importance of minimizing the distortion of our modern gaze. As Mair argues, geyi— a short-lived exegetical strategy originally used to expound inscrutable Indian Buddhist list of concepts (shishu)—was misconstrued by the 20th century scholars like Chen Yinke and Tang Yongtong as a core translational practice in Buddhist transmission to China. Ku challenges Yan Shangwen and Arthur Wright’s interpretation of Emperor Wu of Liang as the Emperor Bodhisattva through a careful examination of the first ritual of Bodhisattva Protimoksa in 504—evidence that Yan and Wright ignored in their analysis. Combined with iconography of Buddharaja and Maitreya, Ku convincingly reveal to us the political agenda behind Emperor Wu’s conversion to Buddhism—to establish a political order anchored by the Buddharaja Maitreya Wu (daci 大慈 also means彌勒佛王 ). While Ku is successful in clarifying Emperor Wu’s intention to follow the Indian Buddharaja Maitreya cult, it does not fully discredit the Sinicization discourse of Emperor Wu’s legacy: the imperial subjects could have perceived Emperor Wu as the combination of Indian cakravajin, Confucian age-king, and Daoist Zhenren because of their familiarity with Confucian and Daoist ideals. Nevertheless, both theses, if substantiated by further research, would drastically rewrite the history of Buddhist transmission in China.
Despite the groundbreaking research in each individual article and despite the concerted effort to reconstruct the intellectual landscape of early medieval China, all articles tend to deal with an isolated issue in xuanxue, religious Daoism, or Buddhism, except for Yue-Keung Lo’s article on the diverse interpretations of destiny. Hence, it is difficult for readers to fathom the inextricable entanglement of philosophy and religion from the scattered information and fragmentary narratives provided in this volume. Nevertheless, what readers clearly gain are an enhanced sensitivity of historical and social contexts of philosophical debates, a nuanced understanding of “influence”, and a general sense of what needs to be done.
Unlike popular perception of Xuanxue as empty talks and lofty metaphysical speculations, Alan K.L. Chan, Jude Soo-Meng Chua, Tze-Ki Hon, Brook Ziporyn, and Ulrike Middendorf all argue for deeply-rooted practical and political concerns that animated the philosophical quests of leading xuanxue figures such as Wang Bi, Guo Xiang, and Xi Kang. Even the pronounced social practice of reclusion in early medieval China, as argued by Alan Berkowitz, cannot be simply characterized as anti-Confucianism or a turning away from society and politics. In this sense, the new trends as represented by xuanxue never strayed too far away from Han Confucian’s quest for a harmonious cosmos and were “fundamentally concerned with unlocking the profound mystery of the Dao by reinterpreting the teachings of Confucius and other sages.” (p.3).
Neither were innovations that fueled the formation of religious Daoism emerged from thin air. Local and popular religious beliefs like the mystical relations between disease and morality were central to Chinese religious imaginations. The innovations of Tianshi Dao (Heavenly Master Daoism), argues Chi-Tim Lai, lied primarily in its conception of the divine administration of justice—sanguan (three official, heaven, earth, and water) and its promise of health and prosperity through rituals of confession and handwritten petitions to the Three officials. Contrary to earlier scholars’ depiction of later Daoism like Lingbao (靈寶) as a complete surrender to Buddhist theology, Stephen R. Bokenkamp, through a thorough examination of the concept of rebirth in Lingbao scriptures, contends that Lingbao Daoists’ appropriation of the Buddhist rebirth was neither a surrendering nor a misunderstanding. Instead, it epitomizes a creative cultural re-mix to suit the needs of local Daoist communities. As such, both articles on the emergence of religious Daoism call for a more nuanced interpretation of the ‘influence’ paradigm, whether it’s the influence from indigenous beliefs or from foreign theologies.
Influence can be temporal as well. Both Victor H. Mair’s and Kathy Cheng-Mei Ku’s articles have successfully revised earlier scholars’ presentist view of Buddhism in early medieval China and thereby demonstrate the importance of minimizing the distortion of our modern gaze. As Mair argues, geyi— a short-lived exegetical strategy originally used to expound inscrutable Indian Buddhist list of concepts (shishu)—was misconstrued by the 20th century scholars like Chen Yinke and Tang Yongtong as a core translational practice in Buddhist transmission to China. Ku challenges Yan Shangwen and Arthur Wright’s interpretation of Emperor Wu of Liang as the Emperor Bodhisattva through a careful examination of the first ritual of Bodhisattva Protimoksa in 504—evidence that Yan and Wright ignored in their analysis. Combined with iconography of Buddharaja and Maitreya, Ku convincingly reveal to us the political agenda behind Emperor Wu’s conversion to Buddhism—to establish a political order anchored by the Buddharaja Maitreya Wu (daci 大慈 also means彌勒佛王 ). While Ku is successful in clarifying Emperor Wu’s intention to follow the Indian Buddharaja Maitreya cult, it does not fully discredit the Sinicization discourse of Emperor Wu’s legacy: the imperial subjects could have perceived Emperor Wu as the combination of Indian cakravajin, Confucian age-king, and Daoist Zhenren because of their familiarity with Confucian and Daoist ideals. Nevertheless, both theses, if substantiated by further research, would drastically rewrite the history of Buddhist transmission in China.
Despite the groundbreaking research in each individual article and despite the concerted effort to reconstruct the intellectual landscape of early medieval China, all articles tend to deal with an isolated issue in xuanxue, religious Daoism, or Buddhism, except for Yue-Keung Lo’s article on the diverse interpretations of destiny. Hence, it is difficult for readers to fathom the inextricable entanglement of philosophy and religion from the scattered information and fragmentary narratives provided in this volume. Nevertheless, what readers clearly gain are an enhanced sensitivity of historical and social contexts of philosophical debates, a nuanced understanding of “influence”, and a general sense of what needs to be done.
Displaying 1 of 1 review