|
|
The First Chinese Buddhism (1) |
|
|
|
E
Bruce Brooks, University
of Massachusetts at Amherst
Abridged Paper (1) Introduction It has been said that Dauism was the first Chinese Buddhism. I here wish to go beyond this useful thought, to suggest that Confucianism was the first Chinese Dauism, and that the Dauist or meditationist aspect of early Confucianism had an actual Indian Buddhist origin. Early Chinese Meditation It is somewhat widely agreed that the breath control techniques mentioned (in a confidential conversation) by Mencius in MC 2A2 are entirely compatible with those described in more detail in a Chi artifact, an 04c jade staff finial, which in turn recognizably appear in the Gwandz piece called Nei Ye ("Inner Cultivation"). They also seem to be evoked if not described in the early chapters of the Dau/Dv Jing (DDJ), and in such remarks as that of Analects (LY) 11:20a, that "Yen Hwei was often empty [kung]." All these texts are from the 04th century, and all are geographically from either Chi or Lu. All attest a common technique both known and prized by groups whose intellectual affinities are usually labeled Confucian, Dauist, and Legalist. That is, the acceptance and use of breath control techniques in this period transcended any ideological differences, and was common to all major points of view other than that of the Micians. That is, it was common to all known elite groups. Thus far the 04th century. In the 05c, we have very few texts to check, one of the few being the early layers of the Analects (LY 4-9). In identifying interpolations in these chapters some decades ago, purely from their formal signals and without regard to presumptions about their content, I did nevertheless entertain some expectations about their content. I expected that, after the intrusive passages had been removed on other grounds, those chapters would be found to contain few or no mentions of the classical texts, to have little or no concern for ritual (li), and to betray no detectable awareness of the supposed ancient sages Yau, Shun, and Yw. All this proved to be correct. I also expected that the traces of meditation technique, such as I mentioned above are to be found in the 04c Analects, would vanish as well. But in this expectation I was disappointed. The passages where Yen Hwei is described as capable of a level of mental concentration far beyond that of the other disciples, or praises his teacher Confucius in terms very like those of any adept to his guru (LY 9:11), remained behind, as obviously part of those chapters, and not later intrusions. The unavoidable, and in fact unwelcome, conclusion was that knowledge of meditation technique was already part of Confucianism in the 05c, and indeed in the first half of the 05c. That knowledge was however not general. It is conspicuous in this part of the Analects that Yen Hwei is the only disciple, indeed the only person, who is described in terms suggestive of meditation technique. This may remind us that later, when meditation as such is explicitly rejected as a means of knowledge (LY 15:x), Yen Hwei is also treated quite differently from before, not as supernaturally perceptive, but rather as extraordinarily stupid. He who once could infer ten things from one thing his master told him (5:12), now cannot even infer the second step from the first, and must ask what it is like any green beginner (12:1). Finally, I note with pleasure, as one thing Tswei Shu missed, my discovery that when in the 03c portion of the Analects, we hear no more of meditation, we also hear no more of Yen Hwei, who is utterly absent from the last five chapters (LY 16-20). He turns up instead in the contemporary Jwangdz text (we know it is contemporary because LY 18:5 is undeniably closely involved in a dispute, in virtually identical language, with JZ 4:7). He there appears, not surprisingly, as a master of meditation, and Confucius, still his teacher, appears as an openly admitted teacher of meditation. The personal equation between Yen Hwei and meditation thus holds good, over a more than two century span of time. We then find, on moving back a century, that meditation knowledge is confined to Lu rather than to both Chi and Lu, and that within Lu it is confined to the Confucian group, and that within that group, it is confined to Yen Hwei, a cousin of Confucius and therefore a functional member of the elite. Our problem of origin has thus been much sharpened. Shamanism In pursuing the meditation question, I should note that these breath control techniques and their results are easily distinguishable from another practice which also appears more or less clearly in our texts, that is, shamanic trances. These too involve a special mental state, but one in which a larger cosmos is explored (not the inner self), and long journeys are undertaken in that cosmos, usually climaxing in a meeting with a familiar spirit or deity which confers insight, foreknowledge, or healing power. Shamanism being thus distinguished, I proceed to leave it to one side. I wish only to ask: Where did early Chinese breath control techniques come from, and when, and how did they get to China from that place? The obvious place where similar breath control techniques are attested is early India, and the place in China to which we must envision them as being imported is limited to Lu, an eastern and not a southern state. If those techniques did make that journey, our question becomes that of finding a technically and politically feasible route, and finding a plausible scenario for contact over that route the first place. I believe that both requirements can be met, and that an Indian, and specifically an Indian Buddhist, origin can be demonstrated.
All lectures and abstracts posted on this site are Copyright © by their authors. 2 Dec 2003 / Contact The Project / Conferences Page |
