Xu Xueying, China News Service
Buddhism made its way into China during the interregnum between the Han and the Wei dynasties, gradually absorbing indigenous cultural thoughts and evolving into a distinctive religious cultural form with Chinese characteristics. This evolution has allowed Buddhism to serve as a cultural force, continuously building bridges between various cultures and regions.
Since the Sui and Tang dynasties, China has increasingly become a vital center for the dissemination of Buddhism abroad. What contributions has this made to cultural exchange among nations? How does the way Buddhism integrated into China provide insights for contemporary Buddhist cultural exchanges globally? What understanding and practical initiatives can the Buddhist communities in China and abroad offer to promote world peace, mutual cooperation, cultural exchange, and connection among people? Recently, Zhang Fanglei, director of the Institute for Buddhist and Religious Studies at Renmin University of China, shared his insights on these questions during an exclusive interview with China News Service.
Here are some highlights from the interview:
China News Service: In your view, what stages has Buddhism’s Indigenization in China gone through historically? How did Buddhism incorporate Daoist and Confucian thoughts to evolve into a religious cultural form unique to China?
Zhang Fanglei: Buddhism originated in ancient India between the 6th and 5th centuries BCE and was introduced to mainland China around the late Han dynasty, marking the beginning of its Chinese integration.
Prominent scholar Tang Yongtong divided the history of Buddhism’s arrival in China and its conflicts and integrations with indigenous culture into three stages. In the first stage, when Buddhism first came to China, there was an initial “harmonization due to surface similarities.” This phase is termed the “pragmatic” stage, where the understanding of Buddhism among Chinese people was comparable to their understanding of mysticism. Philosophically, Buddhism bore some resemblance to the Daoist emphasis on emptiness and non-action; in terms of self-cultivation methods, Buddhist techniques like mindfulness in breathing were quite similar to those found in Taoist practices.
In the second stage, as Buddhism became more established, conflicts arose due to differences. For instance, Confucian scholars criticized monks for shaving their heads and renouncing family duties, arguing that such actions violated the Confucian principle of filial piety found in texts like the “Classic of Filial Piety.” These criticisms highlighted a significant clash between the externally introduced Buddhism and the indigenous Chinese values centered around filial piety and loyalty. Additionally, to help Chinese people unfamiliar with Buddhism grasp its concepts, translators employed a method known as “conceptual equivalence,” using familiar Confucian and Daoist terminology to explain Buddhist terms. For example, “nirvana” was initially translated as “non-action,” and “emptiness” as “originally non-existent.” This led to the incorporation of ideas from indigenous Chinese philosophies into Buddhism, prompting reflection among Buddhist scholars, such as Dao An, who argued that early translations often misrepresented the original meanings of Buddhist concepts.
The third stage is characterized by a reconciliation through the recognition of genuine harmony. Despite the differences and occasional conflicts in Buddhism’s encounter with indigenous culture, the overall trend has been a gradual adaptation to align with mainstream Chinese politics, economics, philosophies, and social customs. This marked a significant characteristic of Buddhism’s Chinese integration. For instance, texts like “Mouzi’s Critique of Delusions” defended Buddhism against charges of conflicting with Confucian values by citing examples where ancient Chinese sages exhibited similar behaviors, thereby demonstrating that Buddhism did not inherently conflict with indigenous values but rather upheld them at a higher level.
In reality, these stages of Buddhism’s integration into China are not strictly delineated but represent an ongoing process of gradual development, conflict, and reconciliation. Chinese monks were somewhat familiar with Confucian and Daoist thoughts before encountering Buddhism, leading to a culturally tinted understanding of the latter. Many Buddhist texts that entered China gradually absorbed local culture and accommodated the prevailing value of filial piety.
China News Service: Beginning in the Sui-Tang period, China gradually established itself as a key player in spreading Buddhism beyond its borders. Over the past millennium, how have Chinese people contributed to cultural exchange with nations such as Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia?
Zhang Fanglei: Cultural exchange is inherently reciprocal. The introduction of Buddhism to China was not a unilateral process. Even during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, Buddhism began to travel from China to Japan and the Korean Peninsula, evolving into a more structured exchange during the Tang Dynasty, exemplified by the travels of the monk Jianzhen.
Tracing its roots, many of the major Buddhist sects in Japan and Korea stemmed from China. After these sects were introduced, they profoundly influenced local politics, culture, and the arts, leaving a lasting imprint on calligraphy, architecture, tea culture, and clothing. During the late Ming Dynasty, Zen Master Ingen traveled to Japan to propagate Buddhism, founding one of Japan’s three major Zen sects, the Obaku School, which maintains close ties with the Huangbo Mountain in Fujian, China, to this day.
While China’s influence has been predominant, there have been reciprocal benefits; for instance, many Buddhist texts lost from China have been recovered from Japan or Korea, facilitating the continuity of our sects.
Moreover, Buddhism did not only flow into China from India and the West but also saw a return flow of knowledge. For example, Master Xuanzang not only translated Buddhist scriptures into Chinese but also translated Chinese classics like the “Tao Te Ching” into Sanskrit. Studies indicate that many texts, often referred to as “apocryphal,” were written by Chinese scholars, heavily infused with Yin-Yang and Daoist thought, and subsequently translated back into China after their circulation in the West.
China News Service: What lessons can the historical integration of Buddhism in China provide for the contemporary cultural exchange between Buddhism in the East and West?
Zhang Fanglei: When Buddhism entered China during the Han period and continued to flourish afterward, particularly from the mid-second century onward, it coincided with the continued development of sectarian Buddhism in India and the West. This interaction occurred when Chinese scholarship, driven by Confucianism and later metaphysical thought, was flourishing, leading to a dynamic environment where cultures could collide and coexist.
Buddhism’s development in China was largely peaceful, due in part to the religion’s inherent cultural humility that did not seek to dominate. Moreover, this integration benefited from the inclusivity of Chinese culture. The fundamental Buddhist spirit, such as the Middle Way, shifted from primarily critical interpretations in its early stages to a more embracing interpretation in China, evolving into a spirit that promotes inclusiveness. This transformation opened doors for more dialogue and cultural exchanges.
Despite contemporary trends like de-globalization, the overall momentum of globalization remains intact. Peaceful cultural exchange hinges on a conducive development environment. A commitment to the concept of a shared future for humanity is essential, emphasizing diverse cooperation and development as the foundation for peaceful cultural interactions.
China News Service: In the rapidly evolving context of unprecedented global changes, what common insights and practical advocacy can Buddhist communities at home and abroad provide to promote global peace, cooperative growth, and cultural connectivity?
Zhang Fanglei: Buddhist cultural principles, particularly in Chinese Buddhism, are grounded in the concept of “dependent origination,” which implies that all phenomena are conditioned and interdependent rather than autonomous. This principle carries inherent meanings of harmony and coexistence. Upon arriving in China, Buddhism shifted from a destructive perspective to a more constructive one, emphasizing inclusivity and interrelatedness, thus laying a significant ideological foundation for building a shared future for humanity.
The trajectory of historical development is shaped by collective efforts. When we strive for a consensus on harmonious coexistence and work together, there is a greater possibility for human history to progress towards a more peaceful and inclusive future, enhancing the prospects of realizing a human community with a shared destiny.
Cultural engagement also serves as a vital force. Academic exchanges, as part of grassroots dialogue, establish a theoretical foundation for constructing cultural communities. Historically, the interactions among the Buddhist, Confucian, and Daoist cultures of China, Japan, and Korea have formed a cultural community characterized by distinctive features of each nation while being rooted in a shared Chinese cultural background. This common East Asian cultural foundation provides a solid historical heritage for building a contemporary human community with a shared destiny.
(End)
Interviewee Profile:
Zhang Fanglei is a member of the 12th, 13th, and 14th National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and the director of the Institute for Buddhist and Religious Studies at Renmin University of China, where he is also a professor and member of the academic committee. He serves as a council member of the China Religious Culture Exchange Association and the Peace Committee of the Chinese Religious Community. His research focuses on Buddhism and traditional Chinese philosophy, particularly the Tiantai school of thought. He has authored numerous works, including “A Biography of Zhi Yi” and “Studies on Zhi Yi’s Buddhist Philosophy,” and has edited academic publications such as “Journal of Religious Studies.” He has also hosted academic conferences on Buddhist studies between China, Japan, and Korea, as well as religious forums across the Taiwan Strait.
