Typical of Chinese preoccupation with authenticity and scholarship, the motivating force behind many sects of Chinese Buddhism (Fo Jiao) in the period after the fifth century had been primarily exegetical. Each sect longed to be the possessor of authentic theological treatises written in Sanskrit by acclaimed sages in India, holy land of Buddhism known as Tianshu during Tang time (618-907). Each sect dreamed of exegetical supremacy by performing orthodox translation on its own authentic sutra (jing) and by rendering enlightened interpretation. Many holy and zealous sengs (monks) braved horrendous hardship to travel to remote Xiyu (Western District, a term Tang geographers used to include India, referred to as Tianshu), for the purpose of gaining enlightenment from the true source and to bring back original sutras of indisputable authenticity and authority. India was reached at this time from Changan by first following the Silk Route west until Ferghana and Kokand (modern-day Central Asian Uzbekistan), then turning south, through the northeastern corner of Bactria (modern-day Balkh, Afghanistan), cutting across Pakistan to Punjab in northern India. Direct access to India from Xizang (Tibet) was made prohibitively difficult and hazardous by the forbidding Himalayas Mountains, not to mention the hostile Tufans (Tibetans) who inhabit the northeastern foothills of the Himalayas. It is peculiar of Chinese Buddhist culture that while it persistently seeks authenticity from external sources, a deep-rooted aversion to things foreign concurrently requires it to twist its interpretation to conform to characteristically Chinese mentality. It reflects a central contradiction in Chinese culture that is at once attracted to foreign ideas and incurably xenophobic.
Henry C.K. Liu
Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mathew Forstater <forstate at levy.org>
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Date: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 11:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Buddhism
>
> [...]
> >In its
> >best and true version (where best and true are defined by me) Buddhism is
> >atheistic, radically egalitarian, and inseparable from commitment to social
> >justice. There is tremendous evidence for this. But as others point out
> >there is evidence for whatever you want.
>
> Exactly. All successful religions share this property: you can always find
> there something to prove anything and its opposite.
>
> > What has to be remembered is that the
> >historical Buddha (Guatama, Siddhartha, or Sakyamuni) taught for over 50
> years,
> >and changed his mind many times during his life, tried different
> approaches.
> >Different sects of Buddhism correspond to teachings from different parts of
> his
> >life. This is additionally complicated by the usual later preversions and
> >misinterpretations by others. So authoritarian priests or states have
> commited
> >acts in the name of Buddhism that are anything but Buddhist in spirit. But
> I
> >think we should take care in reducing the view of the "individual" in
> Buddhism
> >to anything like modern western notions. Mat
>
> I'm afraid that projecting past views of the world onto our contemporary
> coordinate axes, with the consequent loss of information, is an unavoidable
> part of learning - and often the translation from a language to another adds
> further damage to the accuracy of representation. When we translate, e.g.,
> "chi" as "spirit" or "tien" as "heaven" (sorry Henry, I'd like to use pinyin
> but I don't really know it!) we necessarily evoke to a contemporary western
> listener a number of associated concepts that may not have been intended by
> the original speaker, located on another spot of time-space, and at the same
> time we miss other possible meanings. "Tien", for example, also means
> "nature" or "cosmos", i.e. the world "outside" the sentient self. Hence the
> expression "the other half of heaven", whose literal translation sounds
> otherwise a little incongruous.
>
> Besides, to be perfectly honest, we don't really know what Buddha, or
> Christ, or Socrates, or Lao Tzu really said, let alone how many times they
> changed their mind, due to the fact even their "original" books were written
> by third parties. On the other hand, why should that really matter? Ideas
> are more important than identities, and luckily are not encumbered by
> patents.
>
> Cheers --
>
> Enzo