Debates Among Buddhists and Taoists in Medieval China

·期刊原文

Laughing at the Tao:
Debates Among Buddhists and Taoists in Medieval China

Reviewed by Farzeen, Baldrian-Hussein

Asian Folkore Studies

Vol.55 No.2 Pp.361-363 Oct 1996

COPYRIGHT 1996 Asian Folklore Studies (Japan)


This new book by Professor Kohn is a fully annotated translation of
a sixth-century anti-Taoist polemical text written by the official
Zhen Luan during the reign of Emperor Wu (r. 560-78) of the Northern
Zhou dynasty (556-81). The text, entitled Xiaodao lun [Laughing at
the Tao], is one of many documenting the struggle for power and
influence at court by rival Buddhists and Taoists. Acrimonious
debates between the two began in the third century, when a Taoist
named Wang Fou forged a sutra, the Huahu jing [Scripture of the
Conversion of the Barbarians], in which Laozi is said to have
traveled to the West and there, as the Buddha, convened the
"barbarians" to Buddhism. Taoism was thus claimed to be superior to
Buddhism. This was denied by the Buddhists, starting a debate that
continued throughout the fifth and sixth centuries and later.
The Xiaodao lun is important for understanding not only the history
of Chinese religion and its complex relationship to statecraft and
society, but also the nature of medieval Taoism, since the text is a
treasure trove of quotations from Taoist texts, many no longer
extant. Zhen Luan, a metropolitan commandant, renowned
mathematician, and astronomer, was equally at home with Confucian,
Buddhist, and Taoist literature. Although a staunch Confucian, he
had been attracted to Taoism in his youth but distanced himself from
it out of disgust for the sexual rites practised by the Taoist
community. When the emperor, in search of a unifying orthodoxy to
integrate all the teachings and beliefs of the time, commissioned
Zhen Luan to evaluate Buddhism and Taoism, he hoped thereby to
install the latter as a state religion. By keeping Confucianism on
the political plane and Taoism on the religious, the emperor, of
non-Chinese origin, intended to demonstrate his complete
Sinicization. Buddhism was seen as a negative, outlandish religion
incapable of adapting itself to Chinese culture and Confucian
tradition, while indigenous Taoism was seen as part of the ethnic
Chinese heritage and thus as superior to the religion of the
"foreign barbarians."

It was under these circumstances that Zhen Luan wrote the treatise
presented to the emperor in 570 CE Zhen was not a devout Buddhist,
but he felt that Buddhism was a more appropriate state religion than
organized Taoism (philosophical Taoism was deemed acceptable) with
its exorcisms, talismans, vulgar sexual rites, and immortality
techniques. He consequently set himself the task of denigrating and
ridiculing all aspects of Taoism, drawing upon Taoist texts and
scriptures to lay bare their doctrinal inconsistencies, lack of
logic, and superstitions.

In his zealous attempt to revile the Taoists, Zhen Luan proved that
he had understood neither Taoism nor the intentions of the emperor.
The emperor's desire was to legitimate the dynasty and show that he
had received the mandate of heaven from a "Master of the Country",
similar to the legitimation of the Wei (220-65) and Liu Song
dynasties by a dynastic teacher (SEIDEL 1969, 82). Zhen's examples
of Taoist plagiarism of Buddhist texts simply proved to the emperor
that Taoism had assimilated Buddhism without loss of identity
(LAGERWEY 1981, 29-30). The emperor, unconvinced by Zhen's
arguments, had the treatise "burned then and there" (32); neither
Kohn nor Lagerwey explain the provenance of the extant version of
the text.

Kohn's translation, based primarily on Japanese scholarship, was
made during her participation in a research seminar at the Institute
for Research in Humanities (Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyujo), Kyoto, in the
1980s and revised to its present form after publication of the
research material in Japanese. She draws upon the ample annotations
and textual identification of Chinese sources in the Japanese
version but leaves out the philological notes. In her own notes she
adds a wealth of information from secondary sources, including
analyses and discussions of texts, interpretations, and comparisons.
The notes and references to numerous studies on the subject in
Western languages should prove invaluable both to the general reader
and to specialists in the field.

The book contains an introduction (1-46); translation (44-156) with
copious notes; summaries of the major texts of medieval debates
(Appendix 1, 159-86); short entries discussing provenance, dates,
editions, and contents of Taoist texts cited in the Xiaodao lun
(Appendix 2, 187-223); Chinese titles of texts cited (Appendix 3,
225-34) (these without Chinese characters or page references);
glossary of Chinese names, terms, and book titles (234-43) (with
characters but no page references); bibliography (245-65); index
(267-81).

The book is very well structured, but there remain some minor points
that detract from its overall value. The lack of Chinese characters
is the first problem, especially in the case of reign titles.
Translations such as "Established Prime (140 BCE)" or "seventh year
of Everlasting Peace (64 CE)," (58, 93) are, without transcriptions,
difficult reading for the specialist, while the general reader
probably pays more attention to the date than to the ornate
translation. If characters were too difficult to include in the book
(surprising in this day and age), some transcriptions at least could
have been added. Moreover, a reduced photocopy of the Xiaodao lun,
which is not a very long text, would have helped avoid some
confusions arising in the translation.

Regarding the sentence "His feet are one hundred paces wide," Kohn
states in note 7 that she "read 'feet' for 'body'" following the
Japanese version (113). But the standard edition of the Xiaodao lun
also reads, so why the correction? On the same page a text entitled
Laozi yi bai bashi jie [The one hundred and eighty precepts of
Laozi] is quoted, but the standard edition gives the title as Laozi
bai baishi jie zhonglu [Hundred and eighty important rules], a title
commonly used in Tang texts. There are also some problems of
interpretation. "Daoshi shou sanwu jiangjun, jin yan zhi fa" is
rendered, "Taoists receive the commanding general's method to
control the three [forces] and five [phases]," yet here the numbers
three and five are clearly referring to registers of protection that
enable the Taoist to control and exorcise noxious elements (see the
list of Registers in CHEN 1963, 352). There exist other anomalies,
such as "Size of the Sun and the Moon" (83, heading) for textual
differences concerning the diameter of the sun.

Typographical errors abound, but these are of lesser consequence:
Quig ?? Qing (32, 219), fanzhi ?? fangzhi (56), caudron ?? cauldron
(68), you can served ?? serve (70), Longan ?? Louguan (98, n. 1),
Siuin ?? Sivin (152, n. 14), Hans-Georg Muller or Moller? (Kohn
forthcoming b, 252). Mistakes in the bibliography are more serious,
since these entail a loss of time for the student. An example:
Granet, Marcel. 1918. Universismus and [1892-1910] 1964. The
Religious System of China, 6 volumes. Both of these books are by de
Groot, and Granet's Danses et legendes de la Chine ancienne (written
ancienne) is sandwiched between them.

In sum, setting aside these minor details, the book is well
presented, informative, useful, and a delight to read.

REFERENCES CITED

CHEN Guofu 1963 Daozang yuanliu kao. Peking: Zhonghua.
LAGERWEY, John 1981 Wu-shang pi-yao: Somme taoiste du VIe siecle.
Paris: Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient.
SEIDEL, Anna 1969 La divinisation de Lao Tseu dans le Taoisme des
Han. Paris: Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient.
Farzeen BALDRIAN-HUSSEIN Korntal, Germany