The Debate in China on Humanistic Buddhism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
《 》學報 ‧ 藝文│第二十一期 外文論文 The Debate in China on Humanistic Buddhism Thierry Meynard S.J., Professor of Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China How does religion relate to society? Are they in opposition or in harmony? This question became very important in modern times in China, and formed a line which divided religious traditionalists from religious reformers. We shall first examine the traditionalist stance of the Chinese thinker Liang Shuming (1893-1988), who upheld a clear separation between Buddhism and society, thereby preserving the function of religion as a vehicle of radical criticism. We shall also examine the agenda put forth by the Buddhist monk Taixu (1890- 1947), the most important Buddhist reformer of the first-half of the twentieth century in China. We shall then examine the debate which arose between Liang on one side, and Taixu, his disciple Yinshun (1906-2005) and the sangha on the other. Since Liang regarded Buddhism to be a religion of pure transcendence, he opposed using it to tackle social problems. Liang instead advocated Confucian- ism, as a form of upāya, which could more effectively lead towards the ultimate Buddhist goal of renouncing to the world. I. Buddhism in Liang’s framework of the three cultures In his master-work, Eastern and Western Cultures and their Philosophies (1921), Liang established a comparative cultural framework in which the three cultures of the West, India and China followed their own specific paths, accord- ing to the three orientations of the will. Therefore, the manner in which the will 164 The Debate in China on Humanistic Buddhism relates to life gives a culture its fundamental orientation. Accordingly, Western culture is sustained by the will to conquer and control life and the environment in order to satisfy individual and collective desires. Chinese culture is sustained by the will to balance the desires. Indian, or Buddhist, culture seeks a total sup- pression of the self and its desires. Liang used a metaphor in which three people, a Westerner, a Chinese and an Indian, live inside the same house. He explained: The first orientation is a need to project, or a conflictual attitude. When a person encounters difficulty, he deals with the future’s possi- bilities. Through his actions, he can transform the situation in such a way that his needs are fulfilled. The second orientation consists of modifying and adjusting one’s desires. When encountering diffi- culties, he does not attempt to solve and transform the situation, but finds satisfaction amid the present circumstances. For example, if he lives in a dilapidated house, according to the first orientation, he would surely move to another house. But, when the same problem is met by those with the second orientation, he does not need to move house, but finds satisfaction by changing his way of looking at it and seeing that this way is equally good. In this case, the person does not deal with a possibility, and does not look ahead, but looks around. He does not want to fight to change the situation, but he accepts it as it is. The third orientation consists of turn- ing around and looking back. Liang Shuming 165 《 》學報 ‧ 藝文│第二十一期 Unlike the first orientation, the person does not want to change the situation. Unlike the second, he does not want to change his own way of looking at things, but wants to radically eliminate the question. This is one way to confront the difficulty, but it completely contradicts the nature of life, because the nature of life is to go ahead. All people who maintain this attitude of suppressing their desires walk along this path.1 This cultural typology has received many critiques. For example, the Tai- wanese scholar Lin Anwu has pointed out the difficulty in reducing all human cultures to just three.2 Indeed, today we are much more knowledgeable about, and aware of, the cultural diversity of our world than Liang was one hundred years ago. However, Liang’s theory seems more advanced than what we see to- day in a Chinese academic discourse dominated by a dualistic vision consisting only of China and the West. The Republican era in China (1911-1949) was char- acterized by greater cultural openness than today, since India and Japan were regarded in that period as serious intellectual partners. To this cultural typology, Liang added a dynamic of historical evolution in which the human will or spirit was the determining factor. This spiritual vision of history went against the materialist view which has prevailed since the nine- teen-twenties in China. Liang stated: Materialist history considers consciousness to be determined. It is unable to determine anything itself. I accept this point, but spirit cannot be compared with consciousness. Materialist history is wrong to use the two words in an undifferentiated sense… I see the human spirit as able to determine economic reality, but consciousness can- not.3 1. Eastern and Western Cultures and their Philosophies, in Complete Works (Liang Shuming quanji), Ji’nan: Shandong People Press, 1989-1993, Vol. 1, p. 380. 2. Lin Anwu, Dangdai Xinrujia Zhexue shilun [History of Contemporary New Confucian Philosophy], Taipei, Mingwen Shuju, 1996, p. 116. 3. Eastern and Western Cultures and their Philosophies, p. 375. 166 The Debate in China on Humanistic Buddhism Liang therefore distinguished between consciousness, which was mo- mentary and individual, and spirit, which was permanent and collective. In that sense, spirit was both a transcendent reality and an immanent reality—a contin- ual activity which was eternal and without rest. Spirit had a cosmic meaning, as it gave birth to the cosmos and allowed history to develop. It also had an ontological meaning, since it was the basis of all that exists. As Lin Anwu has remarked, The human being, who is filled with this spirit, can consider himself to be his own master, as well as of the world and of history.4 While in the past, the three cultures of the West, India and China have tak- en their own independent paths, they have come into closer contact in modern times. Because of the influence of economics and politics, cultures come into conflict with one another. Western culture invades and attacks cultures which have taken the second and third paths. However, Western culture faces the question of “alienation” (yihua), which is created by an excessive concern with forward and external projection and by its desire for conquest and competition. Always projecting itself ahead, Western culture cannot solve its problems by itself. Therefore, in the near future, Western culture shall reorient itself along the line of Chinese culture. The West will not need to completely abandon the fundamental products of modernity, such as science, democracy, and so on, but it will abandon its onward thrust toward progress and adopt a more conciliatory approach to life. Then, China will become the model for world culture. Howev- er, at present China needs to successfully, and sufficiently, appropriate integrate elements of the first path in order to fully develop its traditional, harmonious spirit. This was a subtle balance that China needed to get right; it could not take too much from the first path, which would run against its own spirit, but it needed enough to provide a sufficiently comprehensive material and social basis for the moral principles of Confucianism to fully develop. In a more remote fu- ture, however, humanity would shift to the third path. After having successfully 4. Lin Anwu, 115. 167 《 》學報 ‧ 藝文│第二十一期 resolved the questions of inter-personal relationships and personal cultivation thanks to Confucianism, humanity could then face the radical question of the meaning of life. Then, the Indian, Buddhist path would impose itself on the whole of humanity. After the affirmation and harmonization of the human will, the will would itself be negated. Liang’s position vis-à-vis Buddhism was ambivalent. On one hand, he considered it to be the perfect religion, leading to the supra-mundane reality. However, in order to preserve its transcendent function, Liang considered that Buddhism should not compromise at all with the mundane world. Liang’s theory of the three cultural stages makes this clear. In this, social and moral issues were addressed in the first and second stages, while religious issues were reserved for the future. Therefore, Liang opposed the revival of Buddhism for the present age, since this would lead to social escapism and weaken efforts toward national salvation. Liang thought that calls for a Buddhist revival would be irresponsible given China’s precarious situation. He stated: It is too early to uphold the third attitude. This is very obvious. If someone wishes to walk the Buddhist path for himself, I can accept that. But if he promotes it for society, then I am forced to oppose it.5 With China facing the collapse of its national institutions, as well as civil unrest and encroachments on its national sovereignty, Liang asserted that the Chinese people should adopt the proactive attitude of the West in order to de- fend “their rights to life, to property and other individual rights” and, at the same time, promote the Confucian way of harmonizing conflicts.6 In other words, ac- cording to Liang, while the nation was engaged in a fight for survival, it would be suicidal to promote the Buddhist goal of renouncing the world. Liang clearly understood that, by engaging in conflict, many wrong ideas and imperfect atti- tudes may arise, but he thought that the survival of the Chinese nation and cul- ture was the priority. He stated: 5. Eastern and Western Cultures and their Philosophies, pp. 533-534.