the Buddhist concept of Karma and retribution identifies the individual as the cause of all evil, Buddhism encountered strong resistance in medieval China. Buddhists then engaged themselves in strong defense. In her analysis of Xiaodao Lun (Laughing at the Tao), an anti-Taoist polemical text written by the official Zhen Luan and presented to Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou Dynasty in 570 CE, Livia Kohn (1995) observes four distinct lines of reasoning in defense of Buddhism. The first was the argument for difference, which countered the notion of equality between Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism and strongly insisted that Buddhism was fundamentally different from the other two. The second was the Buddhist claim that its teaching was superior “because of its transcendent and otherworldly nature.” The third, which seems to be in direct contradiction to the first two, was its claim that Buddhist teaching was useful in the Confucian state and was more original and effective than Taoism. The fourth argument went one step further to claim that the sages of ancient China were in fact disciples of Buddha and that Buddhism was therefore the very foundation of the Chinese intellectual and social scene instead of being merely one of its additions (p. 38–39).
Buddhist arguments that were specifically directed toward Taoism, claims Kohn, were even more aggressive. One argument accused Taoists of inconsistency between their preaching and practice, claiming that Taoists preached noble philosophies while practicing dishonesty and vulgarity in their ways of dealing with the world. A second Buddhist argument dismissed Taoism as politically useless and harmful, arguing that Taoism, with its betrayal and rebellious practices, was a potential source of political instability and moral degradation of social virtues and thus formed a destructive link in the fine equilibrium of social, natural, and political forces. A third argument by Buddhism “invoked Confucian morality and common sense to move against specific Taoist ideas and practices,” charging that the Taoist practices, as in the interaction between yin and yang, the swapping of wives as part of their ritual, and the use of alcohol, all went against Confucian morality (Kohn, 1995, p. 40). A fourth argument was fired at Taoism, against its claim to universality, arguing that the concept of Tao as the source of all things and as the key to understanding the world was misleading and could endanger the wellness of the state and the empire.
Such were the representative arguments against Taoism, and sometimes against Confucianism, in defense of Buddhism. Xiaodao Lun, the above-mentioned anti-Taoist polemic text, uses all these positions and is, in a way, a conglomerate of all these self-defense Buddhist arguments. Challenging the presumption that Taoism is the best teaching for the Chinese culture, Xiaodao Lun points out the inappropriateness of Taoism for such a role due to its absurdity, nonsensicality, and inconsistency. This work is an illustrative example of the Buddhist self-defense against the threat from orthodox Confucianism and popular Taoism and, in a way, reflects the curious phenomenon of contentious coexistence between Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism throughout most of the Chinese history.
Due to the fact that Buddhism in China is represented by many different schools of thought, and interpretations of Buddhism have been various and sometimes conflicting, it is extremely difficult to summarize Buddhist rhetoric. Nevertheless, it is not impossible to capture a glance at the essence of the Buddhist view of language. Because Buddhists believe “things neither exist nor non-exist in language as ‘nameable constituents,’ they argue that “the ultimate truth is beyond the capacity of language” (H. Wang, 1993, p. 62). “However, they have a firm belief in the crucial role and necessity of language in pursuing the truth in this world” (H. Wang, 1993 p. 65). The dual nature of things, which are at the same time both real and unreal, makes it necessary for us to communicate things and experiences, and language as a “skillful and expedient means to express the supreme truth” becomes a necessary tool, however inadequate this tool might be. The Buddhist view of language, points out Haixia Wang, therefore represents a balanced position between the deconstructionist and foundationalist extremes. Such a rhetorical perspective is in some way an integration of other traditional Chinese rhetorical perspectives, including the Confucian and Taoist rhetorics.
It should be noted, though, that, as I mentioned earlier, there have been other, relatively less influential ideologies, which, however, played important roles in their respective historical periods. For example, Maoism dominated the Chinese ideological scene for several decades in the contemporary history of China. Its influence certainly can in no way be discounted when we consider the recent development of writing technologies. Such a plethora of ideologies makes it almost a certainty that several ideologies might be at work during any given historical period. This, in turn, complicates the issue of technology transfer and development and, at the same time, makes it all the more important to consider the role of ideologies in this complicated process.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
