1) Theravada (Motet pages)
2) Mahayan (Motet pages)
Jeff Huston points out that
many of the advancemants and writings of the Mahayana tradition may have come out of this region [China]. After the sixth cenury, the silk road lost most of its travelers because it became dangerous to pass. Because of this the ties between Indian and Chinese Buddhism were severed and Buddhism's center slowly became China.
Examples?
What does this say about the power of new
cultural contexts to shape religious teachings, practices?
As buddhism reached China, it was forced to compromise some of its importance because of traditional religions such as Daoism and Confucianism.
Has Buddhism never had to compete before with alternative traditions?
What do we know about such competitions - i.e., what happens when two different traditions must compete with one another?
[Think here of how late Vedic thought -
as a "sky-god" religion oriented towards "swaps",
incorporated the religious goal of experiential unity with the
divine (Brahman) as part of its teaching
- just about the time Buddhism first emerged as a new/renewed
focus on such experiential unity.]
However, after the fall of the Han dynasty, which was primarily under Confucianist control, collapsed Buddhism exploded onto the scene. It soon found itself at the forefront of religions in China. Many members of Confucianist followings wre converted to Buddhism. Soon the followers ranged from the elite down to common people. This launched the Golden Age of Buddhism in China which lasted over 250 years. New dynasties sponsored Buddhist monasteries and stupas during this time and Buddhism flourished.
By contrast, what happens to a religion when it becomes dominant in this way?
[There's a clue here: who builds stupas
- and who disapproves of them?
Hint: King Asoka - and what would the Buddha say? (w.w.t.B.s.?)]
Buddhism entered Korea by way of China around the 4thcentury C.E. Several lineages were created over time but in the 7th century, Wonhyo created the Popsong, or dharma essence. It became the model for typical Korean Buddhism because it attempted to unify all of the different teachings.
Vietnam received Mahayanist teachings from China around the 6th and 17th centuries. It created its own form of Zen and combined it with Pure land practices like China and Korea. In 1963, all of the individual lineages of Buddhism were combined to form the United Buddhist Church Of Vietnam.
And what do you think will happen to "religion" when its diversity is reduced down to a unitary teaching?
What are the motives for such unification?
Buddhism came to Japan by way of Korea in the sixth century. On a diplomatic mission, Buddhist scriptures and other images were brought over and soon Buddhism had support of the royalty from where it soon reached the commoners. Two famous monks, Saicho and Kukai, went on a pilgrimage to China and returned to establish lineages in Japan. Saicho returned and established the Tendai lineage, which later gave seed to Chan (Zen) and Pure Land Buddhism, which are prominent in Japan to this day.
Wait a minute! How did Tendai give rise
to two such distinctive traditions? (Or, as the narrator of the
Long Search suggests, perhaps these distinctions are more apparent/important
to us as Westerners than they are to the practitioners?)
Kukai came back with two ideas that stemmed from Chinese Vajrayana lineage, forming Shingon-shu. As Mahayana Buddhism reached central and eastern Asia, its pantheon of Buddhas changed according to location. The pantheon took on mythologies and symbols, as well as indigenous deites from Eastern Asia. The historical Buddha's story resembled those of Chinese sages. Stories connected he buddhas to chinese life, and Buddhas and bodhisattvas were given attributes and powers of the original native deities. In Japan, buddhas were identifieds as indigenous spirits and dieties, or kama.
Given these phenomena - how far is such
syncreticism explained, as you do below, by the "top-down"
model of imperial power defining religion (as a means of social
control)?
In most cases, Sakyamuni Buddha remained central in many of the different schools. However, in others, different aspects of the Buddha were central. An example is the Amitabha Buddha, who is the central figure of Pure Land Buddhism.
In essence, the power of Buddhism in this area depended on the political leaders. It flourished when it had the support of kings and dynasties, and decreased when it had lost favor. Also, in some places, the monastics became too rich and powerful, creating much tension between them and the peasants and the government. This is interesting because the reason Mahayana was created seemed to be to lessen the importance of the monastics. In Central and Eastern Asia, Buddhism found itself under tight political control in many places. Regardless of these controls, Buddhism still plays an important role in the culture and stability of these countries.
Again - there is the "top-down" model which focuses on imperial/hierarchical conceptions of power for explaining the shaping and diffusion of religious ideas (Machiavelli and Marx would be pleased). But in addition to (rather than in opposition to?) the "top-down" model
- there is a "bottom-up" factor: too much hierarchy - precisely in the tradition originally opposed to elitism and hierarchy - can generate a "disconnect" with larger constituencies ("the peasants").
This disconnect, moreover, is consistent
with the last point: "tight political control" (top-down)
cannot fully control the role, development, etc. of "religion"
in the larger constituencies.
--> What does all this tell us about:
"religion" as a worldview/belief system - i.e., is it essentially a static, unchanging "thing"
and/or is it dynamic, always changing in connection with new social/economic/political/cultural contexts?
[Notice: "religion" as dynamic allows it to remain vital and relevant in new contexts. Static traditions tend, by contrast, to die out in changing environments.]
the relationship(s) between "religion" and larger social/economic/political/cultural contexts?
In particular, which models of this relationship seem to work?
"top-down" (and, correlatively, religion as a tool of social control - possibly also as an expression of human experience - and?)
"bottom-up" (and, correlatively, religion as an expression of human experience, as meeting specific "needs" - and?)
and? (alternative models)
In light of these questions, carefully
read the following posting:
East-Religions.5.3: Laura Schmutz (lauraann) Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:23:19 CST (19
lines)
Community Development:
From the beginning, Mahayana Buddhism differed from Theravadan in the relations between the monastics and the laity. It allowed for all people, whether monastic or laity to have the potential to achieve liberation. The life of the layperson centered around the monastery. In order to achieve this liberation, the person must take a vow claiming that they were "earnestly seeking enlightenment for the sake of others" (Fenton, p.124). Anyone who had taken this vow was considered a bodhisattva. The monastics and laity still maintained a traditional Buddhist relationship where the monastics provided religious ceremony, etc; and the laity provided food and clothing to the monastics.
As wealthier people began to sponsor the monasteries, the gifts of the laity became less important and the closeness between the laity and monastics diminished.
As Buddhism moved into East Asia, the laity began to adapt their roles in Buddhism to fit their social lives.
Each class began to adapt their own religious practices, rituals and organizational structures to support these.
According to Fenton, these reforms among the laity was responsible for keeping the Buddhist traditions in East Asia alive and flourishing.