“Interpreting Buddhist Precepts with Confucian Rites” Based on Their Similarity and Dissimilarity: A Perspective of the History of Ideas in Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties

Abstract

The “similarity” (gongtong 共通) and “dissimilarity” (chayi 差異) between the Buddhist precepts and Confucian rites in the Wei, Jin, and Southern and Northern Dynasties reflected a “dialogue of civilizations” (wenming duihua 文明對話) at the levels of concept, system, and life. During these periods, the Chinese system of rites were compared and interpreted with the Buddhist monastic codes by Buddhist monks and Confucian scholars, so a history of the ideas interpretation process of “interpreting precepts with rites” (yi li shi jie 以禮釋戒) was achieved. The result of such a process was two-fold: from the perspective of lay Buddhist ethics, they were in common with each other; from the perspective of monastic precepts, they were irreconcilable contradictions. Thus, on the one hand, the eminent Chinese monks “were emulating the Confucian rites to justify Buddhist precepts” (ni li yi zheng jie 擬禮義證戒) to stress their commonalities. On the other hand, the differences between the precepts and rites continued to be discovered, and the Buddhist subjective consciousness (zhuti yishi 主體意識) of “the distinction between precepts and rites” (jie li you bie 戒禮有別) was gradually established.

1. Introduction

The most remarkable characteristic of the spread of Buddhism in the Wei and Jin Dynasties is that the vocabularies and concepts of the native Chinese philosophy are used to match and compare “names and appearances” (mingxiang 名相) and “thoughts” (sixiang 思想) in the Indian Buddhist scriptures, forming the phenomenon of “matching meanings” (geyi 格義) in Buddhist philosophy.1 As Erik Zürcher, a Dutch Sinologist, points out, the introduction of Buddhism into China meant “not only the propagation of certain religious notions, but also the introduction of a new form of social organization: the monastic community, the saṅgha” (Zürcher 2007, p. 1). Indian Buddhist precepts and Confucian rites originated from different civilizations, and there are obvious distinctions and strong idea-level conflicts between these two sets. Monks’ renunciation not only represents the change in social status, but it also means that they are ready to break through the shackles of the Confucian ritual system to a certain extent and accept the stipulations of Buddhist precepts instead. Thus, the comparison between precepts and rites can be more complex than what the phenomenon of “matching meanings” has to offer, and Chen Yinque’s extension of this phenomenon here, beyond “names and appearances” and “thoughts”, is worthy to be questioned.

While examining the geyi, Chen Yinque argued that “the prevalence of geyi in the Six Dynasties, the rites of Chinese Confucianism and the precepts of Indian Buddhism are matched together, which are granted as a matter of course”. This concept of “no difference between rites and precepts” (li lü shu wu erzhi 禮律殊無二致) was not only prevalent among leaders of the saṅgha such as Lushan Huiyuan, “but general Confucian scholars and Buddhist disciples also held the same view” (Y. Chen 2001, p. 135).

Therefore, during the Wei, Jin, and Southern and Northern Dynasties, Buddhist monks and Confucian scholars compared and interpreted the Chinese local system of rites with the Buddhist precepts, subsequently forming an interpretation process of “interpreting precepts with rites” (yi li shi jie 以禮釋戒). Chen Yinque simply mentioned the “making parallel connection and matching” (lian lei ni pei 連類擬配) between the Confucian ritual system and Buddhist precepts. However, he did not elaborate this concept in detail. The interpretation of Buddhist disciplinary rules by the Confucian ritual system can only clarify the similarity between the two, but it cannot avoid the dissimilarity between them. If the similarity of the two is greater than their dissimilarity, then Chen Yinque’s viewpoint can be established; on the contrary, if the dissimilarity is greater than their similarity, then Chen Yinque’s stance is worth exploring. At the same time, what are the reasons for the similarity and the dissimilarity between the two? How did the Buddhist circles of the Wei, Jin, and Southern and Northern Dynasties resolve the conflicts caused by such dissimilarity?

Special studies on Buddhist precepts and ritual systems are rare, but they are occasionally mentioned together in some studies of Chinese Buddhist precepts.2 Kenneth K.S. Chen discusses filial piety, ancestor worship, the five precepts and the five constant virtues in Chapter 2 “Ethical Life” of his book “The Chinese Transformation of Buddhism” and investigates the impact of the concept of the consistency of the five precepts and the five constant virtues in the “Tiwei Boli jing” 提謂波利經 on Tiantai Master Zhiyi’s “Commentary on the Sutra for Humane Kings” 仁王經疏 and Zongmi’s “Inquiry into the Origin of Humanity” 原人論 (K. Chen 1973, pp. 55–60). Tsuchihashi Shūkō, a Japanese scholar, discusses “Precepts in Chinese Buddhism” 中國佛教戒律 in his book “Study of the Precepts” 戒律の研究 and studies the monastic system and rules of purity from the perspective of “inflection of precepts” 戒律的屈折, but does not mention the background and influence of “rites” on the changes to Chinese Buddhist precepts (Tsuchihashi 1980, pp. 887–924). Satō Tatsugen’s “Research on the Precepts of Chinese Buddhism” 中国仏教における戒律の研究 systematically introduces the evolution of Chinese Buddhist precepts, rules for monasteries, and ceremonial etiquettes. He simply mentions “Ritual Society and Buddhism” 禮教社會與佛教 but does not discuss the concepts of “rites” and precepts in his entire book (Satō 1986, pp. 1–2). Based on the research of Shūkō Tsuchihashi and Satō Tatsugen, Chikusa Masaaki discusses the relationship between the Buddhist monastic system and secular law in China, focusing on the governance and punishments in Buddhism (Chikusa 1993, pp. 1–37). In Chapter 18 on “Precepts and the Ritual System” 戒律與禮制 in “Buddhist Precepts and Chinese Society” 佛教戒律與中國社會, Yan Yaozhong focuses on two aspects: (1) the common ground between Buddhist precepts and ritual systems and (2) the infiltration of Buddhism into Chinese ritual systems (Yan 2007, pp. 278–95).

Based on previous studies, the author thus attempts to use the history of ideas as a method to continue to explore the process of the spread, adaptation and transformation of the concept of Buddhist precepts in the Wei, Jin, and Southern and Northern Dynasties, and to reorganize the interpretations of the precepts by Chinese scholar-officials and Buddhist monks in these periods. Through using the three levels of “rites”, i.e., the righteousness of rites, the formulation of rites and the formality of rites, as the “idea-level background”, this paper reveals how “rites”, which are the inherent tradition of Chinese society, were introduced into the interpretation process of Buddhist precepts, and how the Chinese intellectual circles in these periods understood and interpreted Buddhist precepts as foreign civilizations.

2. Paralleling Precepts with Rites 以禮比戒: A Similarity between Buddhist “Precepts” and Chinese “Rites”

In medieval China, the Confucian “rites” were a unified large cultural system. “Rites” are related to the social organization and normative system of the national political order. Through institutional norms and humanistic education, it becomes the guiding principles of human relationships and codes of conduct that bind all members of society. According to the research methodology of the history of ideas and social history, “rites” can be divided into three aspects, namely, ideas (guannian 觀念), institutions (zhidu 制度) and the way of life (shenghuo 生活) or, more specifically, the righteousness of rites (li yi 禮義), the institutions of rites (li zhi 禮制), and the formality of rites (li yi 禮儀).3 The righteousness of rites refers to the natural law. The “Record of Music” 樂記, a chapter of the Book of Rites 禮記, mentions that “rites are the order of heaven and earth.”4 It shows the order of “heaven-earth-human” which includes following the nature of heaven and earth, adopting the law of the four seasons, conforming to the changes in yin 陰 and yang 陽, and adapting to human feelings. It also presents the principles of order such as righteousness, respect, kindness, and precedence, which are used to handle political affairs and to consolidate the principle of monarchical power (Gao 2017, pp. 17–19). The formulation of rites refers to the establishment of systems, rules, organizations, and even laws according to rites. The formality of rites refers to the life that expresses the concept of “rites”.

Thus, Indian Buddhist precepts and the Confucian ritual system, as constraints and norms for the institutional life of monks or people, share many commonalities in their concepts, systems, and life.

Firstly, according to the concept of “righteousness of rites”, the origins of “rites” and “precepts” are made by sages, and both have the meaning of “sages establish doctrines” (shengren she jiao 聖人設教). The “Conveyance of Rites” 禮運, a chapter of the Book of Rites 禮記 says: “the ancestral kings sought out to continue the Way of heaven, and to regulate the feelings of people.”5 Li Zehou advocates that “rituality is derived from Shamanism, and such rituality is explained as a return to the humaneness”. He says:

“Rites” are not only “numerology”, but also “principle”. They also possess divine qualities. They are all-encompassing and have a role to communicate between heaven and man. Rites replace witchcraft and divination and become a rational judgment of “presuming the good and bad luck of people”. Rites are a solid foundation for the ternary characteristics of Chinese ethics, politics and religions.

(Li 2015, p. 26)

“Rites” originated from ancient religious rituals and social customs. Only through the integration of folk customs and the devise of systems by ancient sages and kings can they become a truly universally binding social norm and ethical code.

Buddhist precepts were promulgated by Śākyamuni Buddha, based on practical matters such as the life and practice of individual monks and nuns and even their community as a whole, in order to rectify and standardize public and individual behaviors. This is why it is said that “[Buddhist] sages regulated the [monastic] rules according to the customs and spread that teaching by adapting to specific places.”6 Before the Buddha passed away, he also clearly told Ananda: “after my nirvāṇa, the precepts I taught are your master.”7 The existence of precepts maintains the Buddha’s wisdom of Dharma-body, and it is related to the existence of the true Dharma. It also ensures that members of the saṅgha dwell in harmony, which is the foundation of upholding the “Three Treasures” (sanbao三寶) of Buddhism.

Based on the commonality of the functions of precepts and the ritual system, scholars in the Wei, Jin, and Southern and Northern Dynasties began to compare Buddhist precepts with the Confucian ritual system, attempting to allow the saṅgha system to be truly “embedded” into Chinese society by advocating the approach of “paralleling precepts with rites” (yi li bi jie 以禮比戒). In the fifteenth year of the Jianyuan reign period of the Early Qin Dynasty (379 AD), Dao’an wrote a preface for the translation of the Ten Recitations Bhikṣu Prātimokṣasūtra 十誦比丘戒本 translated by Tanmochi 曇摩持 and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念. When faced with cumbersome words, Dao’an wished to simplify the precepts, but he was opposed by Huichang 慧常. Huichang emphasized that “precepts” are like “rites” (jie you li 戒猶禮)8, which belong to the ancient sages or kings and have supreme sanctity. Instead of complying with the expediency of the local language, it is better to uphold the original appearance of Indian elegance, so as to make the public realize the seriousness of abiding by the precepts and to reveal their function of restraining both mind and body, and bringing liberation to the practitioners. This is exactly what “sages establish doctrines” means.

There was also Xiao Ziliang 蕭子良, the Duke of Wenxuan of the Southern Qi Dynasty, who, on attempting to make the precepts more similar with the ritual system, even quoted scriptures for comparison and understanding. He stressed that Buddhist precepts are not contradictory to Confucian theories and highlighted the normative role of the two in regulating human moral behavior. In the Jingzhuzi jingxing fa 淨住子淨行法 (Methods of Pure Practices of the Pure Abider), he states:

When a monk contemplates the emptiness and impermanence, he is weary and abandons birth and death. The supramundane teachings he follows are called the “internal” doctrine, as opposed to the “external” doctrine. A layperson takes refuge in the Three Treasures, adheres to the precepts, performs good deeds and follows ritual practices. These practices are also called the “internal” doctrine, as opposed to the “external” doctrine.9

Xiao Ziliang believes that Buddhism and Confucianism, as the two doctrines from outside and inside China, share the same fundamental purpose and moral edification, and there is no difference between them. In this view, the so-called “internal” doctrine refers to the responsibility corresponding to the principle of Dependent Origination. Monks practice the method of liberation and world-transcendence, whereas laypersons keep precepts, cultivate goodness, and observe ritual practices. Such practices are included in “internal” doctrine, as long as they can maintain their standard and perform their own duties; otherwise, they are classified into “external” doctrine. Xiao Ziliang’s attempt is to resolve the differences between precepts and rites, or between Buddhism and Confucianism in order to achieve the goal of the unity of these two traditions through diligently cultivating internal goodness and getting rid of external evils, which are taken as a sign to distinguish between internal and external doctrines.

Secondly, according to the institutional norm of the “ritual system” (lizhi 禮制), precepts and rites, as a code of conduct, have a strong moral binding force and power to teach all members who belong to the system. In A Biography of Vinaya Master Zhicheng of Anle Monastery in the Southern Qi 南齊安樂寺律師智稱法師行狀, it states: “for making the rulers at ease and the people orderly, there is nothing better than rites; for preventing unwholesome deeds and for giving wholesome correction, there is nothing better than precepts.”10 These remarks highlight the significant role of precepts and rites in avoiding bad deeds, promoting good deeds, and guiding people through folk customs.

Among them, the most direct manifestation is to connect the most fundamental precepts of Buddhism, called the “five precepts” (wujie 五戒), with the “five constant virtues” (Wuchang 五常), which were the most dominant ethical requirements in Chinese ritual culture. In the “Treatise on Buddhism and Daoism” 釋老志 of the Book of Wei 魏書, it says: “there are also five precepts, namely killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drinking intoxicants”. Their general ideas are the same as benevolence (ren 仁), righteousness (yi 義), propriety (li 禮), wisdom (zhi 智), and trust (xin 信), respectively, with the only difference being the terms.11 The “five constant virtues” are the core element of the Confucian ethical system. Moreover, they serve as the foundational values of the culture of rites and music as well as the ritual and legal system in Medieval China. The “five precepts” are considered fundamental to Buddhist precepts, and thus, all other precepts were derived from the five precepts. Although this book does not specifically explain the relationship between the “five precepts” and the “five constant virtues”, this simple analogy and the clear connection between these two concepts in general make it possible for the saṅgha to obtain a legal status in the patriarchal society during the Medieval period, which opens a gap for the integration of Indian Buddhist precepts into Chinese civilization.

Yan Zhitui 顏之推, the Northern Qi scholar, explains further the relationship between the “five precepts” and the “five constant virtues”. There are five prohibitions in the fundamental path for learning Buddhist scriptures. These [five precepts] are consistent with the virtues of humaneness, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trust emphasized in Confucian classics. Yan Zhitui’s interpretation of the “five precepts” and the “five constant virtues” is as follows: not killing is humaneness, not stealing is righteousness, not committing sexual misconduct is propriety; for those who do not use intoxicants, they can keep their sensibility, and for those who do not tell a lie, they can win people’s trust. This interpretation more clearly exhibits a one-to-one correspondence between these two sets. The corresponding relationship between the “five precepts” and the “five constant virtues” shows that Buddhist precepts and Confucian ritual culture not only have general and formal similarities, but also have distinct parallels in their fundamental spirit and specific principles. It had established the foundation for Chinese scholars to embrace a foreign religion such as Buddhism, and to accept monks’ ordination and their behavior.

Thirdly, according to the “formality of rites”, “paralleling precepts with rites” (yi li bi jie 以禮比戒) means comparing the conduct of monks to “ancient ceremonies” (gu zhi dianli 古之典禮) and comparing the fasting of monks to Chinese traditional rite of fasting (zhaijie 齋戒). In Mouzi lihuo lun 牟子理惑論 “Treatise for the Removal of Doubts by Master Mou”, Mouzi once introduced Buddhist precepts as follows: “The monks uphold 250 precepts and fast every day. However, these precepts are not applied to lay followers. Their ceremonies and liturgies do not differ from the classical ceremonies of antiquity.”12 There is a full set of precepts, which are two hundred and fifty precepts for bhikṣus, so it is called the two hundred and fifty precepts. In ancient China, before performing formal sacrificial and ceremonial activities, people were required to fast and bathe to demonstrate their devotion. According to the Chinese etymological dictionary Shuowen 說文, “fasting (zhai 齋) is to purify oneself through abstinence”, which means to bathe the body and guard against one’s own conduct. It has something in common with the way of Buddhist monks and nuns in strictly keeping the precepts and purifying their mind. Therefore, during the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties, most people regarded the observance of monastic precepts as “daily fasting” (riri zhai 日日齋). Apart from these precepts, Buddhist monks and nuns must also observe in everyday life the corresponding subtle rules of action such as walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, which are called the (regulations concerning) “four awe-inspiring deportments” (si weiyi 四威儀). In addition, each of these four postures has two hundred and fifty precepts, so they combine into a thousand precepts. These one thousand percepts again have three categories of bodhisattva precepts, namely, precepts for the maintenance of restraint, precepts for cultivating goodness, and precepts for benefitting all sentient beings. Accordingly, they become “three thousand regulations” (sanqian weiyi 三千威儀). These “three thousand regulations” have similarities in their essence with Confucian teaching that “one must not be disrespectful; he should think solemnly, and talk calmly” 毋不敬，儼若思，安定辭, as advocated in the “Specific Rites of Propriety” 曲禮, a chapter of the Book of Rites. Moreover, the number also coincides with the so-called “the three hundred rules of rites, and the three thousand rules of manners” 禮儀三百，威儀三千 in the Doctrine of the Mean中庸. Therefore, Zhu Zhaozhi 朱昭之 of the Liu Song Dynasty, in “Refuted Gu Huan Daoist Master’s Yixia lun (Treatise on Foreigners and Chinese)” 顧歡道士<夷夏論> exclaims that although Chinese customs and foreign customs are different and Confucianism and Buddhism also have some different teachings, “according to the purification rites in the chapter of the “Specific Rites of Propriety”, the number of rules of rites [in Buddhism and Confucianism] are the same as about three hundred and their rules of manners are also the same as three thousand.”13 Buddhist regulations on the fine demeanors of monks and nuns such as walking, standing, sitting, and lying down are very similar to the moral standards on individual manners according to Confucian traditional rites, for example, to advance or withdraw, to look down or up, etc.

In Confucian ritual culture, a category that is often compared with “rites” is “music” (yue 樂). As it is said, “music can cultivate sentiment; rites can regulate appearance; rites and music can complement each other until they are revealed from the inner mind to the outer appearance. Because of these [two factors], one can grow smoothly and develop a gentle temperament with both virtue and gentleness.”14 In the view of Confucians, rites are external codes of conduct, which articulate a normative standard. Music, however, focuses on inward influence and guidance and serves to nurture artistic ability. The combination of rites and music can realize the educational constraints on the thought and behavior of members of society. The use of vocal music to express beliefs, to make offerings to Buddhas, and to delight human feelings is also very popular in Indian Buddhist traditions. According to the Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 Biographies of Eminent Monks, Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什 once said to his disciple Seng Rui僧叡: “Indian custom values highly writing regulations. The syllable words must be rhymed to form the metric pattern. When people present to the king, they must sing to praise his virtue. In the same way, when people see the Buddha, they sing hymns to praise his noble qualities. These sacred verses in the scripture followed this style of hymn.”15 During the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties, prominent monks and laymen, including Zhi Qian支謙, Kang Senghui 康僧會, Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty 梁武帝, and more tried to adapt classical folk songs to Buddhist music, forming Buddhist chanting (fanbei 梵唄), which has characterized Chinese traditional culture.

Huijiao 慧皎 discussed the similarities and dissimilarities between traditional Chinese songs and Buddhist chants in the Biographies of Eminent Monks:

In Mao’s Prefaces to the Book of Songs (Shi xu 詩序) it reads: “when emotions are in the heart, they are conveyed in words. If they cannot be fully expressed in words, they are expressed by singing”. For Chinese songs, it is natural that the lyrics must rhyme so that they can be sung; for Buddhist eulogies, poetic verses (gāthās) are used as hymns. Although songs and eulogies are different, they both meet the requirements of harmonic musical notes and tones, and hence they can make an indescribably wonderful impression. Based on this, singing with metal drum accompaniment is called music, whereas using flute and string instruments as accompaniments to praise the Buddha is called Buddhist chanting. The sages created music, which has four benefits: (1) to make heaven and earth sense the emotions in the world; (2) to communicate the relationship between humans and the gods; (3) to make people live peacefully and spiritually; and (4) to cultivate humankind’s natural character. There are five benefits when people listen to chants: (1) the body will not be tired; (2) people will not forget what should be remembered; (3) the spirit will not slacken; (4) the voice will not be hoarse; and (5) all gods will be delighted.16

In Huijiao’s opinion, although the Chinese folk music and songs are different from the Indian Buddhist hymns and sacred verses (gāthās), they both achieve the beauty of melody by coordinating the rhythmic expressions, and they are also consistent with the actual effect of pleasing people and guiding the world.

Therefore, the similarity of the Confucian rites and Buddhist precepts is that both emphasize “sages establish doctrines” and the sanctity of restraining rules, and advocate the comparison of “precepts and rites”. Additionally, the comparison of the five precepts and the five constant virtues on the ethical level, the understanding of the dignified life of a monk with “ancient ceremonies”, and the consistency of the efficacy of Buddhist chants and ritual music are all idea-level arguments and explanations of “paralleling precepts with rites”.

3. Drawing on the Righteousness of Rites to Prove Precepts 援禮義證戒: The Dissimilarity between “Precepts” and “System and Formality of Rites”

Buddhist monastic precepts were mentioned by Huiyuan in the Treatise on the Śramaṇas Not Having to Bow to the Ruler 沙門不敬王者論 as follows:

Such kind of people express their vow and determination to become a monk by shaving their hair and changing their style of dress. Therefore, all monks who renounce the world live in seclusion to pursue their own aspirations and change their customs to achieve their path. As for changing the customs, their clothes cannot be standardized in the same manner as the secular classics. As for living in seclusion, they should carry out noble deeds.17

Huiyuan emphasized that monks show their will to become a monk by cutting their hair, wearing monastic clothes, and living a life that is different from the worldly customs. For this reason, the Emperor should not ask them to follow the secular ritual system. Moreover, he should respect their behavior that transcends worldliness. Huiyuan and the Buddhist circles in the Wei, Jin, and Southern and Northern Dynasties regarded monks as hermits and positioned them in the Chinese traditional system and culture (Kobayashi 1993, p. 81). However, at the institutional level, there are greater conflicts between precepts and rites. The dissimilarity between them is much larger than their similarity. Consequently, Buddhism needs its own strength of greater political wisdom, and a sort of “expedient means” (fangbian 方便) is also required to adapt to the imperial repression and institutional constraints.

In the sense of edification, both precepts and rites can be used together as the source of social morality. As the standard for people’s behavioral choices, they have become the basis for social ethics (Yan 2007, p. 282). Like the chapter on the “Exegesis of Vinaya” 明律 in the Biographies of Eminent Monks says:

Wisdom relies on meditative concentration; meditative concentration relies on precepts. By this, they are orderly classified into three categories: precepts (jie 戒), meditative concentration (ding 定), and wisdom (hui 慧). Thus, one should know that precepts are a basis for becoming a monk, while the righteousness of rites is a precondition for living a lay life. As the Book of Rites says: “without rites moral virtues like humaneness and righteousness cannot be formed; without rites teachings meant to reshape worldly customs cannot be completed”. With precepts as the ground, all wholesome [dharmas] arise. The path to the Buddhahood of the three times (the past, present, and future) remains steady with the aid of precepts.18

This edification has identical meaning for both Buddhist lay followers and Confucianists. Nonetheless, the most serious conflict between Buddhist precepts and Chinese traditional rites is that the idea of renunciation of householder status by going forth (from home into homelessness), which causes the loss of the legal qualification to participate in the ritual system and comporting oneself according to ritual formality. Chinese society highlights the importance of rites in establishing social order and regards rites as people’s behavioral norm. Observance of rites is considered as the moral basis of society. So, if Buddhism wants to enter such a dignified society, Buddhist ethics preached by monks must inevitably be based on respect for Chinese ethics and the strict observance of precepts, while emphasizing the dignity of Buddha’s dharma (Satō 1986, p. 2).

Therefore, monastic precepts and rites are consistent in the sense of moral ideal and edification. However, there is a substantial conflict between the “system of rites” and “formality of rites” at the levels of political system, social behavior, and daily life.

First of all, at the level of rites, the political issue that “Buddhist monks have to pay respect to the Emperor” 沙門禮敬王者, and all legal punishments have some certain conflicts with the functioning of the precepts. In the Mouzi lihuo lun 牟子理惑論 “Treatise for the Removal of Doubts by Master Mou”, when faced with challenging questions and mockeries that those Chinese people who believe in Buddhism had abandoned Chinese civilization and even learned the art of the barbarians, Mouzi replied: “I grant that you see the [outer] beauty of the ceremonies and rules, but you are in the dark about the essence of the Way and its virtue. You squint in the light of torches and candles, but never gaze at the sun in its heavenly abode.”19 In Mouzi’s view, a similar connection also exists between “reality” and “showiness” in the relationship between the “ritual system” and “morality”. The “ritual system” is “showiness”, while “morality” is “reality”. To focus only on the “formulation of rites” (regulations and standard of rites) and to ignore the “righteousness of rites” (the moral essence of rites) means to neglect fundamentals and concentrate on trifles. This stance and approach of “emphasizing the righteousness of rites while neglecting the formulation of rites” (zhong liyi er qing lizhi 重禮義而輕禮制) became a key strategy for Chinese Buddhists to fight back in defense of the rationality of Buddhist precepts when being compared with the ritual and musical traditions.

Secondly, in terms of rites, there is a striking difference between the custom of Buddhist monks in connection with Indian civilization and the custom of Chinese traditional rites. Gu Huan 顧歡 once described in the Yixia lun 夷夏論 the difference between Chinese rites and Indian rules and ceremonies which can be concentratively expressed in the following three aspects:

First, in terms of clothes, though Buddhism, like China, shares the position of rejecting and avoiding nudity (Kieschnick 2003, pp. 87–88), Chinese tradition pays attention to presentable attire and dignified appearance which determine a person’s social rank, while Buddhist precepts require monks to drop their headgear, cut their hair, simplify their clothes, and remove all decorations. The change in clothes and appearance of Buddhists made the symbolic meaning and cultural implication of Chinese clothes fail to gain a significant foothold as before. As a result, such reform was severely criticized (Kieschnick 2003, p. 103).

Second, in terms of daily behaviors, Chinese traditional rites place great emphasis on the guibai 跪拜 ceremony of lifting one’s hands, kneeling down, and bowing low like a chime. This is why when seeing Buddhists’ positions, prostrating in front of a statue of the Buddha and kneeling down with only the right knee touching the ground, such manner was regarded by Chinese non-Buddhists as an indecent posture like a squatting position of canids. Confucian ritual methods use these respectful regular rites to express sons’ filial piety and ministers’ humility. However, Buddhist precepts allow monks to be exempt from paying respect to their ruler and relatives, but the precepts themselves are often inconsistent with Confucian-specific rites, which has aroused strong dissatisfaction among Chinese scholars.

Third, in the aspect of funeral rites, Confucianism, influenced by the patriarchal system and the concept of filial piety, has formed a complete set of rites for coffin and funeral systems. Unlike Confucianism, Buddhism does not express grave concern about the human body. The two most common types of funeral ceremony are cremation and the “exposure of the corpse”20. Under the influence of this funeral concept of carefully protecting ancestors’ hair and skin, Confucians naturally regard the Buddhist practice of water burial and cremation as extremely cruel.

Gu Huan’s Yixia Lun had a far-reaching impact at that time. In view of the conflict between Buddhist precepts and Chinese ritual system in the level of institution and the level of life, there were some distinctions between the local customs habits of the two major civilizations of India and China. This point was already known in early Chinese Buddhism, such as in the Mouzi lihuo lun. It states:

During the times of the Three Emperors, people ate raw meat, wore skins, lived in the trees, or lodged in caves. Thus they revered a natural simplicity. Why then do we now need those ostentatious and embroidered caps, and wrap-around fur adornments? Those people are said to have had virtue, straightforward sincerity, and non-action. The monks’ conduct is just like their conduct!21

Here, Mouzi also responds to the attack on the Confucian way of rites with the respect of the ancient three emperors’ way of advocating simplicity, implying that the mumbo-jumbo of Confucianism is the result of the states of “low virtue” (xiade 下德) and “no virtue” (wude 無德). Only the essence of Buddhist precepts of “removing excessiveness” is in line with the Confucian ideal of “great simplicity without loss.”

Zhu Zhaozhi focused on defending Buddhist precepts from the view that rites must change according to customs and human feelings. In “Refuted Gu Huan Daoist Master’s Yixia lun (Treatise on Foreigners and Chinese),”22 Zhaozhi emphasized that the root of the difference between Buddhist precepts and the Chinese ritual system was the sharp distinction of local customs and human feelings between China and India. Specifically, China was so luxurious that headgear with decorations were dignified and grand, and Chinese ritual and music culture was also fully equipped. The purpose of this custom practiced in China is to guide people to practice the Dao (literally means ‘path’ or ‘way’) from the simple aspects of life. India, on the other hand, emphasized simplicity. For this reason, Indians opposed excessive modification of hair and clothes, and advocated the cultivation of spiritual wisdom by resisting worldly desires and developing spiritual insight. The purpose of this custom practiced in India is to guide people to explore a deeper and distant spiritual world. Rites are related to human feelings and change with time. This has always been an important principle for Confucianism to make rites and music. Since the creation of ritual and music is based on human feelings and folk customs, it is unfair in itself to judge Buddhist precepts which derived from a different civilization by the principles of the Chinese ritual system.

The essence of filial piety23, funeral affairs24, and rules of mourning varied depending on customs and sentiments of the two major civilizations of China and India. The gap between the Confucian ritual system and Buddhist monastic code could not be bridged by the concept of “the righteousness of rites”. Of course, whether the Confucian scholars could accept this difference, such as the debate triggered by Gu Huan’s Yixia Lun, this represents the rejection and criticism of Buddhism as a path toward the edification by the Confucian scholars in the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties. In the meantime, while sticking to its own monastic principle, the Buddhist community also required self-adjustment and conceptual interpretation, put aside a certain system and pattern of life that do not conform to Confucian rites, and innovated the monastic system and pattern of life that were suitable for Chinese civilization.

4. The Distinction between Precepts and Rites 戒禮有別: The Establishment of the Subjective Consciousness主體意識 of Buddhist Precepts

Victor H. Mair stresses that “by the end of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth century, geyi had already long since ceased to exist as a functioning device, and—even in memory—it was thought of with opprobrium” (Mair 2012, p. 42). A similar situation is far more obvious in the case of Buddhist precepts, and that is because the strategies of “paralleling precepts with rites” and “drawing on the righteousness of rites to prove precepts” emphasise the commonality and consistency of Confucian rites and Buddhist precepts. However, over-emphasizing the similarities between these two has also left behind a hidden theoretical danger. If there is no difference between the two, all members of society can only act according to rites. What is the need then for the independent existence of precepts? This loophole was finally clearly put forward in the imperial edict of Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou Dynasty 周武帝 to exterminate Buddhism. According to Emperor Gaozu of Zhou Inspected the Capital Ye to Eradicate the Buddhadharma, the Former Monastic Leader Daolin Presented a Petition to [Re]open the Dharma (Zhou Gaozu xunye chutian fofa you qianseng Ren Daolin shangbiao qingkai fashi 周高祖巡鄴,除殄佛法,有前僧任道林上表請開法事), it is recorded that:

The edict reads: “although Buddhist principles are broad, I myself have also read and found them superfluous and unrealistic. The discourse is unsettled and boastful. [In Buddhist teaching] faults are pushed to the past, while misfortunes are pointed to the future. There is no proof of Buddhist theory and there are many doubts in its practice. When discussing on how to persuade people to cultivate goodness, there is no different with the ancient rites; when studying thoroughly on how to eliminate evil, how could [Buddhist precepts] be different from the secular law? In the past, it fell into disuse, so I learned it just temporarily. [Now] I know surely it is in vain, so it should be gotten rid of.”25

Emperor Wu of the Zhou Dynasty had his doubt that Buddhist precepts, as a code of conduct to persuade people to do good, are any different to ancient rites. As an institutional norm to destroy the evil in human beings, it is no different from the secular law. If so, what is the significance of its existence in Chinese society, which has complete rites and law? Moreover, some regulations in Buddhist Vinaya, such as not worshiping the rulers and not paying respect to relatives, will have an impact on the complete moral edification system of “rites, music, penalties, and statutory regulations” (li yue xing zheng 禮樂刑政) in China. So, when discussed in the extreme context of the survival and abolition of the three teachings (Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism), the controversial issues of “heterogeneity” between civilizations and traditions was raised again. Moreover, when this issue was focused and magnified, Buddhism had no choice but to reflect on and respond to it.

Buddhism’s first strategy for responding to such problems is to demarcate the scope of application of Confucian rites and Buddhist precepts based on the differences between “laypeople” (zaijia 在家) and “monastics” (chujia 出家), “becoming a monk” (rudao 入道) and “living a secular life” (jusu 居俗), etc. As early as the Eastern Jin Dynasty, Huiyuan, while composing the Treatise on the Śramaṇas Not Having to Bow to the Ruler 沙門不敬王者論, divided Buddhists into two categories: “laypeople” and “monastics”. He also clearly pointed out that the two types of Buddhists should follow different codes of conduct: “[the title of] the first [chapter] is ‘laypeople’, which speaks of those who abide by the secular laws. They are householders who conform with the teaching of rites, follow the worldly emotions which will never change their customs, and behave in the same way as the secular world. So, they have natural intrinsic affections [for their family, and loyalty to the ruler], and respect the rites of the ruler. The respect contained in the rites has its own foundation, and thus it becomes the secular teaching. [The title of] the second [chapter] is ‘monastics’, which speaks of those who withdraw from the world to pursue their own aspiration, and change their customs in order to reach their path of cultivation. Since they have changed their customs, their clothing will not be the same as that of the world; since they have withdrawn from the world, their conduct should be noble.”26 Huiyuan believes that “laypeople” are individuals who have a natural love for relatives. As it is said, “because of the son’s respect for the father, [the relationship based on] superiority and inferiority between ruler-minister is established; the legal system is customized and the ritual order is praised.”27 Kinship and family life are the cornerstone of the construction and implementation of Confucian rites and law. The laypeople whose “love has not changed according to the customs” should naturally abide by the Confucian rites and law, pay honor to noblemen, and show filial respect for parents. On the contrary, “renunciation” means the denial of the basic living condition of “being a son”, and it also symbolizes the double abandonment of home and the country. As “guests from other places”, monastics have the freedom of conduct to “escape from the world for pursuing their aspirations and change their custom to achieve their path”. However, “renunciation” means “entering the religion”, as Buddhists, monks and nuns must accept the stipulation of precepts. Because “religious norms and restraints are the essential form of religious moral power”, they are not only the bond that binds the Buddhist order, but also the boundary line between the Buddhist order and other religious orders and social groups (Yan 2007, p. 3).

After Huiyuan, the principle that “the teaching of poetry and rites is for regulating the scholars of the imperial court, and the prohibition in Buddhist scriptures and precepts is for regulating the monastic order”28 and “becoming a monk is fundamentally based on precepts while living a secular life gives priority to righteousness of rites”29 gradually became the consensus of Buddhist monks. This indicates that Buddhist monks have a clear awareness of maintaining the independent life of the saṅgha and the independent status of Buddhism in Chinese society. As Buddhism developed, it was confronted with the challenge of Confucian “ritual and music tradition”. The response strategies of Buddhism also shifted from reversing the righteousness of rites for self-explanation to consciously acknowledging its own unique position and tradition. The “debate on squat-eating manners” in Tongtai temple particularly demonstrates this point. To deal with the issue involving the rites of “squat-sitting”, which was regarded by Confucianists as a typical “barbarian” behavior, Zheng Daozi 鄭道子 points out in “Discussing on Squat-eating with Chan Masters’ Book” 與禪師書論踞食30, the teachings of the sages should “correct human basic nature, remove the branches [of ignorance], and educate according to the mind”, which implies that the inherent meaning of ritual and music edification should receive major emphasis. However, the relationship between the “righteousness of rites” and the “formality of rites” cannot be separated, and at the same time, the inherent consistency of rites and teachings must be adhered to. The “righteousness of rites” is both an ethical value and a goal to be achieved in the process of “edification”, while the “formality of rites” is a practical means to accomplish the corresponding edification. These two factors cannot be neglected. Because of that, Zheng Daozi stresses: “without going against [basic human] nature and its appearance, one cannot make the edification broad and deep”. In reality, it negates the idea of unilaterally emphasizing the “expressiveness” but not putting stress on the “ritual procedure”.

Confronting Fan Tai’s criticism of “squat-eating” from the perspective of “rites”, the monk Huiyi responds31 that it is always emphasized that “precepts” are not “rites”. The precepts should not be modified easily, based on the principles that “as for rites, time counts the most” and “[rites] change at any time”, since precepts and rites were derived from different sources. Furthermore, it is impossible to use the “extreme context” to exercise the power of the “righteousness of rites” to modify the “standardized system” promulgated by the Tathāgata. Not only that, when there is a conflict between “precepts” and “rites”, Buddhists should follow “precepts” rather than “rites”.

To illustrate this example, Huiyi 慧義 demonstrates the “ethical dilemma” that appeared in the Mencius 孟子. It emphasizes the importance of rites in which men and women should keep the proper distance. However, when coming to the case of the drowning sister-in-law, the question is “shall one rescue her with his hand?” The Duke of Zhou 周公 and Confucius 孔子 both believe that the “righteousness of rites” (humaneness) must come first and, thus, saving human lives should be a top priority. That is because in this extreme context, “righteousness of rites” is more fundamental than “formality of rites”. One of the monastic precepts, however, does not allow monks to “touch women with their hands”, so those who observe the precepts should strictly stick to this precept.

When the Chinese scholars proposed to adjust the precepts based on certain principles under the tradition of ritual and music, the monks were keenly aware of the essential difference between rites and precepts in terms of value sources and their essence of demands. In the discussion between Huiyi and Fan Tai 范泰, Huiyi clearly suggests that the basic position of the principle of “showing affection to one’s own relatives” (qinqin 親親) in Chinese ritual tradition cannot be directly applicable to the principle of precepts. Rites and precepts are two independent systems, and the principles of one system may not be easily transferred to another system. No matter the teaching of rites and music or the teaching of Buddha precepts, the “righteousness” of these two teachings is significant. Moreover, they both have clear ethical values or general religious values. Hence, the two systems should not be confused. Also, it is precisely because Huiyi clearly points out that there are essential differences between Chinese rites and Buddhist precepts. For this reason, Fan Tai, in the subsequent debate, no longer discusses “rites” as a ground for the arguments, but instead uses “precepts” to discuss “precepts”. We can regard this as an awakening of the Buddhist subjective consciousness.

5. Conclusions: The Similarity and Dissimilarity between Confucian Rites and Buddhist Precepts from the Perspective of “Dialogue of Civilizations” 文明對話

The geyi “matching of meanings” between Buddhist doctrine and Lao-Zhuang thought and the “interpreting the Buddhist Precepts with Confucian Rites” were pivotal approaches for introducing Buddhism into China in the early Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties. This is a “dialogue of civilizations” (wenming duihua 文明對話) between the two civilizations based on similarity and dissimilarity. The emergence of the practicability of such “dialogue of civilizations” includes the two truths concerning Buddhist wisdom—“the ultimate truth” (zhendi 真諦) and “the conventional truth” (sudi 俗諦)—as well as the scope and method of China’s inherent “the track” (ji 跡) and “that which makes the track” (suoyi ji 所以跡). The Japanese scholar, Yoshikawa Tadao, stresses that “the track” and “that which makes the track” are extremely crucial keys to the development of the spiritual history of the Six Dynasties. During the Six Dynasties period, in which Confucian, Buddhist, and Daoist values coexisted, people fully realized the difference in “the tracks” between Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. However, “that which makes the tracks” between these three teachings is considered to be consistent. Therefore, the combination of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism deepens the wisdom of “that which makes the tracks”, so that the state of spiritual disorder will never happen (Yoshikawa 2010, p. 16). The “tracks” are different, while “that which makes the tracks” is the same. This is exactly the approach to the “dialogue of civilizations”. The “righteousness of rites” and the “concept of precepts” are “that which makes the tracks”, while the “formulation of rites”, “formality of rites”, “system of precepts”, and “life guided by precepts” are “the tracks”. Both the “regulation of precepts” and the “formation of rites” have certain similarities and dissimilarities in terms of concept, system, and life.

At the idea level, precepts and rites are both similar and dissimilar. In the truth level of the Dao, precepts and rites are “similar”. Both are the teachings of sages, and have the function of transforming the world and guiding secular people. Moreover, Buddhist ethical doctrine for lay followers is in line with the spirit of ritual and music culture. However, the “righteousness of rites” is centered on “family”, emphasizing the concept of “showing affection to one’s own relatives and respecting those who are respectable”. As a result, the system of “family-state-world” (jia-guo-tianxia 家國天下) are integrally constructed, while the ethical principle of filial piety focuses on intergenerational continuity. Buddhist precepts underline “renunciation”, which directly destroys the family structure as a central unit in the system. It thus cuts off the continuity between generations. More than that, the prerequisites for rites and their foundation are concerned with the matters of customs and human feelings, and to settle the interpersonal ethics and emotional concepts with “harmonious joy” and “emotional suitability”. Buddhist renunciants, however, advocate the ethics of preventing desire and transcending the emotional entanglement with compassion, and this is where precepts and rites differ. Therefore, the strategies of “comparing precepts with rites” and “drawing on the righteousness of rites to prove precepts” are feasible on the idea-level, and they were accepted by the regimes and scholars of the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties, but they were with conflicting risks at the same time due to the dissimilarities from the issue of “family” and from the matters of customs and human feelings.

At the institutional level, there are greater conflicts between precepts and rites. The dissimilarity between them is much larger than their similarity. As a consequence, Buddhism needs its own strength of greater political wisdom, and a sort of “expedient” thinking is also required to adapt to the imperial repression and institutional constraints. For instance, when Dao’an fled from the civil war, he instructed the crowd of his disciples: “now [we] are encountering a harsh year. [If we] do not submit to any ruler, it will be difficult to establish the Dharma [across the country]. Moreover, [no matter how difficult it might be,] the essence of Buddhist teaching must be spread widely.”32 Meanwhile, Dao’an formulated a number of rules in the Buddhist monastic system as the standard for monks and nuns and incorporated them into the regular routine of monastic cultivation, stating, “[all] temples in the entire realm conform to [this] norm and obey it.”33 This became the first of its kind in a hundred generations, which is recognized to have made a creative contribution to Buddhist monasticism in China.

At the level of life, the difference between the precepts and rites exhibits a certain degree of “complementarity” (hubu 互補). Because, in real life, Chinese monks are the main part of the ritual system and also the core members who actively engage themselves in observing disciplinary rules. Being applied to daily life, Buddhist precepts and Confucian rites gain some space for greater freedom and mutual appreciation. Social customs, such as clothes, food, sitting posture, and human relations show a greater integration of life which has been integrated into the Chinese ritual system.

For these reasons, the Buddhist precepts and ritual system in the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties reflects a strong “dialogue of civilizations” in terms of concept, system, and life. The similarity of the two makes dialogue possible and foundational. The dissimilarity between the two, on the one hand, reveals the unique value of Buddhism and the necessity of interpretation and innovation, but on the other hand, it represents the necessity of “dialogue of civilizations”. Generally, the dissimilarity between Confucian rites and Buddhist precepts are far greater than their similarity. Chen Yinque’s so-called concept of “no difference between rites and precepts” is thus untenable. However, he raised good questions and guided us to explore further Confucian rites and Buddhist precepts.