It's interesting that I'm discussing this topic under the religion section, because neither Chinese classical thought nor Buddhism were originally intended to be religious. Either way, what I'm about to talk about should still be relevant to the discussion on religion and belief systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some unique features of Chinese classical thought:
- The universe is self-creating and self-perpetuating. Because of this, the Chinese originally did not have a creation myth (though many were introduced later).
- Cosmic forces such as ying yang, qi, the 5 agents/elements, and the Dao are in dynamic interaction with each other. Thus, the universe is in constant flux and nothing remains stagnant or permanent. The idea of "to be" (that something just exists) so prominent in Western thought was not a part of classical Chinese thought.
As I see it, these cosmic forces were not exactly religious in nature, rather, they were means by which ancient people could explain the world around them.
- Everything works in correlation. The way that something is comes from the way it relates to everyting else, not from its inherent properties. Therefore, the whole is emphasised over the parts and, in society, the group over the individual.
- No mutual exclusivity. The existence of duality without dichotomy. It is possible to have two mutually defining entities A and B, such that A is A because it is not B, but A can also become B because they are ultimately both part of one big harmonious whole.
The same applies to belief systems; one could potentially be a Confucian in the morning, a Buddhist in the afternoon, and a Daoist at night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this as the fundamental structure of Chinese thinking, later schools of thought (mainly Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism) emerged and integrated themselves in the basic framework to create what we would now call today "Chinese thought."
Daoism
- claims that what's on the surface does not reflect reality, mistrusts words because they cannot fully articulate the Dao
- advocates non-action (wu wei) as the means of aligning oneself with the way of the Dao (which is the ultimate goal of human beings)
- Focused more on individual spiritual living and returning to nature than the other schools.
Confucianism
- The goal of humans is to become moral beings through education, which begins in the family with filial piety. A person must learn his/her proper place in society and act accordingly. Eventually, the things that one wants to do ought to be the same as the things that one should do.
- As you can see, this really isn't a religion, but rather an ethical code governing social relationships and individual life. The only reason why it's an "ism" arises from later historical developments.
Buddhism
- Life is full of suffering. When you die, it doesn't get any better because you are reborn and just begin the cycle of suffering over and over again.
- Desire is the root of all suffering. Buddhists have ascetic practices to control and ultimately eliminate desire. With enough training, one eventually reaches enlightenment and will no longer suffer the cycle of rebirth.
- When Buddhism was introduced to China, it became "popularized" so as to reach a broader audience. An afterlife was introduced, as well as Bodhisattvas (people who have reached enlightenment but choose to remain behind to save everyone else on earth).
Thus, Buddhism, originally more of a philosophy than a religion, became more of a religion than a philosophy.
Posted in
Religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I think that the religions of China made China what it is. As mentioned by Gradpa’s way, Most of these “religions” are mostly just ways of living. I imagine that China will be very different if missionaries existed. I think that it is due to these religions that China kept itself from the rest of the world. None of these “religions” advocate its followers to be violent and they do not tell their followers to go and spread their beliefs or those other religions are wrong. These “religions” tell people to coexist with other religions and over look all differences. So for most of the part, they kept their religions to themselves. On the other hand, if there were Chinese missionaries back in time I can say that the Chinese would have probably conquered much of the world. During the Ming Dynasty the Chinese military was far superior to the rest of the world. It would have been a piece of cake for them to sail to North America and claim it for themselves. Additionally, there was little religions prosecution, so no one had to leave and establish their own place for survival.
very interesting wei, but i'm also interested in which aspects of these thoughts have influenced your life, and if it continues to do so today. will you pass these ideas to forthcoming generations as well?
Hey Grandpa's Way, has it ever crossed your mind that maybe a lot of Chinese thought is just educated guesses and speculation about the nature of the world? I mean, there's obviously more than five elements, and I don't think u can find scientific evidence of the existence of "Chi."
If you really want to learn about Chinese thought, I recommend you check out the writings of Mao Zedong. He's got some good philosophies like "Serve the people." That's my favorite one.
Just another perspective on snakesaywhat's comments. I think it is perhaps more likely that instead of it being "due to these religions that China kept itself from the rest of the world" it is the opposite "because China kept itself from the rest of the world, these religions formed". Religions tend to interact and borrow ideas from one another. Would christianity and islam be what they are today without judaism? Would judaism be the same without zoroastrianism? i think the answers are evident. Perhaps instead of rejecting chinese religions as invalid because of the absence of gods, but rather as a perhaps purer understanding of human belief in higher powers.
Also that "These “religions” tell people to coexist with other religions and over look all differences." I think you are giving them perhaps too much credit. Every culture believes it is superior to others. I don't think China is the one culture that managed to want to live in harmony with everyone.
haha Kevin, Choe invited me to write about TRADITIONAL Chinese thought. They didn't have "science" back then, nor the rational and empirical thinking as developed by the Greeks.
That's why Chinese and Western civilization were so different, because of their fundamental differences, starting with their traditional systems of thought. So of course you can't prove "qi" scientifically, because it's not based on science. But, it served the same purpose of explaining the natural world.
Mao didn't come in until this century. That can be the subject of another (long) discussion. Still, he was in some way or another influenced by the traditional thought that I described earlier. "Serving the people" has long existed as an essential principle for rulers to follow, before Mao, before even Confucius.
To answer Choe's question:
The thing I like the most is the "no mutual exclusivity" principle. It leaves the door open for me to absorb ideas from many belief systems, and choose, for myself, between the good and parts of each. This freedom to choose is the main idea that I will pass on to the next generation.
Going along with these lines, I take the parts from Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism that I think are relevant to my life.
For example, the idea of non-action/passivity so key to Daoist thought is an important concept in my martial arts training. Against an intense opponent, I would not fight fire against fire. Instead, I would become more "ying" in order to curb his "yang." This is why Bruce Lee explicitly said, "Be like water." Water, the softest of things, can conquer the hardest of things. It is the very best representation of how ying/non-action can be used to conquer yang/action.
seagull5000, the religions of China came much earlier than than you think. Confucianism around 500 B.C. and Buddhism from around 120 B.C. Those were the baby day of China. That is either before or just after the establishment of the Qin dynasty. Time before Qin was much less peaceful and more nomadic like and violent. It was the Qin that established the first Chinese Empire. You see, the Chinese before that was pretty invasive, wars went on all the time. So the order which things got introduced is something like this. Religions>>China. Your assumption "because China kept itself from the rest of the world, these religions formed" is incorrect because these religions came long before China's exclusive nature. China was actually quite invasive before the Qin. Also, would Christianity and Islam be what it is today without Judaism? I don’t know but if I was to take a guess, no. There is too much interaction between them. However, would Confucianism be what it is today with out Buddhism? YES, it would be the same. Confucianism states in its own text that it is a way of living, it is philosophical system developed by a philosopher. It was never intended to be religious. Chinese people do not consider it a religion. In fact a lot of Confucius followers don’t believe in gods. So not it is not human belief in higher powers.
I’ll agree with you that every culture believes it is far superior to others, but that does not mean it wants to invade others. If you look at the history of China you can tell that we were the victims of conquers. You state that “I don't think China is the one culture that managed to want to live in harmony with everyone.” Can you provide some examples of that? Please don’t say the Tiananmen Square incident or anything that have to do with Tibet, which is internal matter. Find an instance where China wanted to invade someone else in search for resources or just wanted more land.
There are other ways to exert your power and influence than conquering people, and there are other motivations than land and resources. It is often about controlling other people and wanting to make them more like you. That's why I think Tibet is a fair example to use. Even though it may be internal, the Tibetan people want to live their lives one way, and China does not want to let them and is using its power to stop them. This does nothing to change the ideals of Chinese religion, I also agree that they are probably the most open and accepting. I just don't think these ideals are always realized.
Tibet has been part of China for hundreds if not thousands of years. I believe it was back in the Yang Dynasty that Tibet became part of China. Although in the beginning Tibet did have some autonomy, they would always consult the emperor before doing anything. I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that Tibet has always been part of China. People question what happened during the Chinese civil war, when Mao invaded Tibet. What he did was free the slaves that were under the control of the Lama. You can check this with history if you like, but its the truth. Dalai Lama and the upper class enslaved the poor and Mao saw that as anticommunist, and against human rights. For the people who are pro-human rights, there is something you didn't know.
Tibet people are given special rights in China. They are considered one of the "scarce races." China is made up of 56 different races of people. Tibet is just one of them. They are given special permission to have more than one kid and given special attention when they open up business. Do you call this suppressing people? I am part Mongolian. My uncles are part of the "scarce race" and indeed they do get these treatments. Please don't question the reality of these facts unless you have lived in China or is part of the "scarce race".
Recently, Tibet has seen huge growth; both their economy and the lives of people have greatly improved. There are schools and hospitals there. The Chinese government has invested millions of dollars into the region. Do you see this as mistreatment? Now, some people say that the Hans have invaded Tibet, which is why these protesters are smashing Han's business. The Americans marched across the continent invading Native American's land. If the Native American's caused a riot in Chicago, smashing up Michigan Ave. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN??? They are going to get their ass kicked by the police. Similar to what you see on TV of what is happening to Tibet. If they were having a peaceful protest and the police beat them then we have a different story. However, it was not peaceful. Tear gas and sticks were necessary to ensure public safety. What you seen in the medias are highly distorted, many time they post up picture of uniformed men beating up protesters and labeled them as Chinese. In fact, anyone who lived in China can tell you that the Chinese police do no wear such uniforms. I think you view is heavily based on American media, thus distorted and highly misunderstood. I wish you had study the matter more before posting a comment like this.
The British returned Indian and many of the countries in Africa because it was gained by invasion. The British was never part of their culture. Tibet has been with China for thousands of years. There is a difference between invasion to enslave people, which is what the British did and Tibet who has always been part of China. What china has done for these western autonomous regions such as xinjiang, tibet, guangxi etc has been to not only develop these places economically, but they have also shown care in preserving the cultures of these ethnic minorities. These minorities get special rights such as birth of more than one child, in order to preserve these people and their culture. China accepts the fact that Tibet is different, it is not trying to change the Tibet culture! Do you see the Chinese government trying to stop them from practicing their religion? Do you see the Chinese government trying to tell the Tibet people they can’t have their temples and wear their robes? Your statement of the Chinese government wanting to control “other people and wanting to make them more like you” is wrong. The Chinese government won’t let the Tibetan people be autonomous but it is in no way destroying their culture or pushing the Han’s culture onto them. In fact, the Chinese government wants to preserve them, as mentioned above.
I reused this from facebook if anyone noticed.
snakesaywhat, I think you have misinterpreted what I have been trying to say. My point is not that China is enslaving or ruining the lives of the people of Tibet, or even giving them unequal rights. My point is that China is not allowing the Tibetin people to run their own lives. I don't question that China has invested millions of dollars in Tibet. I do question some of the other things you say.
"I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that Tibet has always been part of China."
The fact is Tibet has not always been a part of China, and that it is still debated under international law whether it is today. Check your history- Tibet was a free and independent kingdom before the mongols conquered it in 1300 ce and incorporated it into China. From 1913-1949, Tibet was independent of Chinese rule. It was only in 1950 when Tibet was, significantly, "invaded" by China. There was fighting between China's army and Tibet's army, and Tibet was forced to surrender due to their inferior forces. It is currently debated whether this was legal under international law.
"What he did was free the slaves that were under the control of the Lama"
The claim that the Tibetan poor had been enslaved by the rich is based on a total misrepresentation of the situation by the Chinese to justify their invasion. The fact is while one area of Tibet did have a feudal system, the vast majority of the population owned their own land. The UN condemned China for "violations of fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people" after the invasion.
"If they were having a peaceful protest and the police beat them then we have a different story. However, it was not peaceful. Tear gas and sticks were necessary to ensure public safety."
It is ambiguous what protest this is referring to. I have not found any record of violent protests in Tibet.
"China accepts the fact that Tibet is different, it is not trying to change the Tibet culture! Do you see the Chinese government trying to stop them from practicing their religion?"
I think this is severly misguided. This can be seen clearly with Tibetan Buddhism. During the Tibetin uprising, China destroyed hundreds of monastaries. The religious leader of Tibetin Buddhism has since been in exile. China has tried to force Tibetin buddhists to accept a man of China's choosing as their leader (a sort of vice Dalai Lama). Rome picked religius leaders of conquered cultures to bring them into their empire. China is trying to do the same thing in Tibet. How is this any different? It would be like the Italian government picking the pope. China has controlled and limited the practice of Buddhism in Tibet. How is this not an example of China trying to control Tibetin culture?
I hope you realize that I have done some research on the subject, and am not just writing what comes to my mind. I ask you not to take my word for it, but go look up these facts for yourselves.
China and Tibet’s relationship could be traced back to the first rulers of Tibet. One of the first emperors of Tibet, Gampo married a Tang Dynasty Princess (文成公主). The Princess was a Buddhist, and thus introduced Buddhism to Tibet. Her statue survived till this day and upon the statue there is an inscription, it reads, “"The two sovereigns, uncle and nephew, having come to agreement that their territories be united as one, have signed this alliance of great peace to last for eternity! May God and humanity bear witness thereto so that it may be praised from generation to generation." So you see, Tibet was under China long before.
So what if the Mongols invaded Tibet? What was the rest of the world like in 1300? War was how people settled things back then. When you are conquered he become the property of you conqueror. Genghis Khan, not only ruled Tibet but ruled much of the world. When he died, he gave part of his land to his grandson Kublai Khan, who started the Yuan dynasty, which included Tibet. When the Yuan dynasty was replaced by the Ming, it inherited Tibet. That’s how things worked back then, you loose your land when you loose the fight. Didn’t we win part of Mexico due to wars? Didn’t the Romans gain their land through wars? So if you accept the Yuan Dynasty as part of China (I don’t believe there many scholars out there than disagrees with this) then the Yuan owned Tibet, thus China owned Tibet. However, if you disagrees what China is, then that’s a whole different topic.
"If they were having a peaceful protest and the police beat them then we have a different story. However, it was not peaceful. Tear gas and sticks were necessary to ensure public safety."
I was refereeing to the destruction of Han’s shops and business during the recent protest (around the start of the Olympics). News of this can be found on CNN’s website. Violent protests also took place around the world which was also put down using force. The recent beating of Tibetans shouldn’t be viewed as suppression of Tibetan culture, the Chinese government was trying to maintain peace and safety, that is what I was arguing.
“During the Tibetan uprising, China destroyed hundreds of monasteries.”
We are talking about a different China (now and then). Tibetans weren’t the only one who suffered loses in culture and prosperity. The Chinese people, like the Tibetan people have suffered greatly under “The Great Leap Forward” and “The Culture Revolution”. Anyone who refused to acknowledge of the PRC was taken away and punished, this was not isolated to the Tibetans. “Invasion” depends on if you believe in if Tibet was always under the rule of China.
“The claim that the Tibetan poor had been enslaved by the rich is based on a total misrepresentation of the situation by the Chinese to justify their invasion.”
95% of production was controlled by 5% of the population. Let us use numbers to justify this point.
“China has tried to force Tibetin buddhists to accept a man of China's choosing as their leader”
China picks the governing leader of Tibet, not the spiritual leader. It has never forced a different Dalia Lama on to the Tibetan people. Monks cannot be forced to follow a leader they don’t want to. I don’t understand why the Chinese government would even want to do this. What is this “vice Dalia Lama” you are speaking of?
The point is, this a different China than before. I’ve seen the dramatic changes in person. The current Chinese don’t get a rat’s ass about what you believe in. They want to preserve China’s history and culture. Many events you are referring to happened in the “old China” which the Chinese people themselves dislike. Even the Dalia Lama recognizes that Tibet is part of China. In an interview with the South China Morning Post "We are willing to be part of the People's Republic of China, to have it govern and guarantee to preserve our Tibetan culture, spirituality and our environment." Trust me, if you visit China and fully understand what the government is trying to accomplish you’ll know that it is trying to preserve the different cultures of China not destroy it. I don’t understand how “China is not allowing the Tibetin people to run their own lives.”
Trust me I know the facts, not only that I have personal experience in this.
Post a Comment