As we all know well, in the moment when a good idea gets institutionalised and becomes “disseminated”, it becomes turned and twisted, exaggerated and embellished until it looks so different from the original, “clean” thought, that it becomes even difficult to find parallels. It is mostly true about every bit and piece, which comes into the hands of PRists and communicators either now or in the past, without exceptions of noble “truths” of such peaceful religions and philosophies as Buddhism and Daoism.
This article provides an insight into medieval, what I could call, PR fight between Buddhists and Daoists in China in their fight for the political influence, listing some “facts” disseminated by each party during this quarrel and some methods how ideologies tried to prevail.
This article provides an insight into medieval, what I could call, PR fight between Buddhists and Daoists in China in their fight for the political influence, listing some “facts” disseminated by each party during this quarrel and some methods how ideologies tried to prevail.
Confucius presenting the young Gautama Buddha to Laozi, Wikimedia Commons
In the middle of the 13th century in China, a public fight developed between two of three big actors of the Chinese ethical-religious thought: Daoists and Buddhists (Confucianists were left in peace). Buddhists were complaining to the court that Daoists for centuries were disseminating controversial theories about Buddhism and its relations to Daoism, as well as occupied Buddhist temples and destroyed Buddhist images. In order to solve these complaints, debates were organised between representatives of both parties. Daoist representatives refused to participate in the first of them, however, in two other debates 2 and 25 years later, Daoists experienced a shameful rout.
Though, from these events it might seem that Buddhists were all clean and innocent, it was not the case, and also they had prepared controversial theories about Daoism and their leaders.
Let me introduce you with the selection of these “facts” disseminated by each party during their confrontation as well as other methods used to gain an attention of people (sources used for this collection of “facts” and methods are Buddhism and Taoism Face to Face: Scripture, Ritual and Iconographic Exchange in Medieval China by Christine Mollier and Cultivating Perfection: Mysticism and Self-transformation in Early Quanzhen Daoism by Louis Komjathy):
In addition, it would be interesting to mention that representatives of both religions were plagiarising or cloning scriptures from each other, almost using “cut-and-paste” methods: there were more than one case of transformation of a Daoist text into a Buddhist sūtra, or vice versa. As indicates Christine Mollier,
Though, from these events it might seem that Buddhists were all clean and innocent, it was not the case, and also they had prepared controversial theories about Daoism and their leaders.
Let me introduce you with the selection of these “facts” disseminated by each party during their confrontation as well as other methods used to gain an attention of people (sources used for this collection of “facts” and methods are Buddhism and Taoism Face to Face: Scripture, Ritual and Iconographic Exchange in Medieval China by Christine Mollier and Cultivating Perfection: Mysticism and Self-transformation in Early Quanzhen Daoism by Louis Komjathy):
- Laozi is the historical Buddha
- Buddhism is modified Daoism “fit for barbarians” (i.e., non-Chinese people)
- Laozi (and also Confucius) was Buddha’s disciple
In addition, it would be interesting to mention that representatives of both religions were plagiarising or cloning scriptures from each other, almost using “cut-and-paste” methods: there were more than one case of transformation of a Daoist text into a Buddhist sūtra, or vice versa. As indicates Christine Mollier,
The business was achieved just by a simple change of the narrative frame together with obvious terminological substitutions.
As examples could be mentioned Buddhist’s Lotus Sūtra and On the Two Teachings, or Daoist’s Scripture of the Five Kitchens and Marvelous Scripture for Prolonging Life and for Increasing the Account, Revealed by the Most High Lord Lao, which were pirated and utilised by the counterparties.
Finally, it went so far that even a deity was “copied” – as notes Christine Mollier,
Finally, it went so far that even a deity was “copied” – as notes Christine Mollier,
One of the most prestigious deities of the Taoist pantheon, the Heavenly Venerable Savior from Suffering (Jiuku tianzun 救苦天尊), was modeled on the figure of the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin 觀音), drawing on his personality, function, titles, and image. Not just inspired by the charismatic persona of Guanyin, the Taoists went so far as to compose, at some point during the Tang dynasty, a kind of literary transposition of the celebrated twenty-fifth chapter of the Lotus Sūtra, the “Universal Gateway of Guanshiyin” (Guanshiyin pumen pin 觀世音普門品), in order to promote their deity to the great bodhisattva’s level.
To conclude, though PR efforts to promote a good idea can fail and chosen methods for dissemination can be even contradictory to the idea they convey, it does not automatically makes the idea unworthy. In Latvian we have an expression - “Do not judge a man from the hat he wears”, which means that one should search for the essence and not judge from appearances (in this case - the dark spots in the history of Buddhism and Daoism).