![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yesterday I finished reading the third book that was on my reading list for reading week. It was very good, it actually took me a couple days to read which should give you some idea of it's density. It was called The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture by John Kieschnick. I think it might be one of the best books I've read all year. He used a wonderful array of sources and argued many new and interesting ideas and had a fascinating and original approach..
The introduction looked at the way material culture had been viewed in studies on the history of religion, how these items were often ignored in favour of a purely textual approach. How even though archaeologists were discovering hoards of new artefacts people were still not sure how to incorporate them into the study, the purpose of his book was to show how this could be done. Kieschnick argues that artefacts can show how the religion was really practised whereas a text often merely shows the ideal. He sites the example of monks from ancient India who were not supposed to own property but the archaeological evidence shows otherwise. He argues that by focusing on material culture you gain new insight into the religion and new questions are raised.
Kieschnick divides his work into several chapters looking at several different types of objects, and how these are integrated into Chinese culture. The articles he focuses on first are those with sacred power. To start with he has a discussion about the history of religions and animism which is quite enjoyable. He looks at the sacred nature of objects before Buddhism was introduced and then the Buddhist view. He first looks at relics. He tracks the use of Indian relics and later indigenous relics. One of the most interesting points that he mentioned was the fact that even the people in opposition to the relics never claimed that they might be imitations. He focused on the political use of relics from the time of the Sui and from communist China. The second half of the chapter was devoted to Icons. He addressed the issue of the sanctity of icons. He looked at both those who sanctioned their use and wanted them built and those who criticised them as a waste of money and effort.
The chapter on "symbolism" looked first at the monk's robes and possessions. This chapter showed clearly the difference between studying a text alone and what was actually done. I enjoyed the way he showed how monks frequently violated the rules for their garments, and how eventually the change was excepted. This was one of the few times that nuns were addressed as their traditionally ran the risk of showing of a breast and so were altered for modesty even though it was strictly against the rules. The look at the Purple Robes given to monks by the rulers were particularly interesting. In Ennin's diary he mentions several times when Taoist and Buddhist monks were brought to the Imperial palace for debates and the Taoist monks were awarded the Purple robes but the Buddhist monks were not. Kieschnick looks at the tradition of the Purple robes and explains how it was started as a way to show monks of extreme merit, but later became something that was for sale.
The discussion on the rosary was also particularly interesting to me. This was an object that seemed to have a real impact and transformation through the centuries. By the late Qing it was seen as a gift to be given without an religious significance, it was discussed in literature purely on aesthetic grounds. . In the Tang it was also given as gifts but as monks would pass on to their benefactors. Kieschnick argued that this is because it was one of the few valuable things that they owned. One of the things that was interesting about this chapter was that Kieschnick was very up front with the inconsistencies and difficulties he encountered trying to trace the development of objects. How often the information was simply lacking and a clear conclusion was unable to be drawn, this was particularly obvious in the case of the RuYisepter.
The second half of the book though was the most interesting to me. Chapter three discussed the principle of merit. How acts were carried out for the benefit of either the donor or their designated benefactors. He traced the idea of religious merit to Indian Buddhism with no previously existing Chinese idea. I found it interesting how he raised the point of merit contributing to the development of printing. The whole part about book making was quite interesting, particularly as he was looking at books as material objects, rather than simply as a textual source. This chapter looked more at the relationship of the monasteries with the world around them. This was particularly poignant in the section on building bridges. This was not something I had been aware of, however it was a very satisfying look at something that the monks offered as a skill, and something they were forced to do by the government. However, I felt that he did downplay the role of the lay elite in this section.
The last chapter looked at the chair, sugar and tea. I think this was the most interesting. The way he approached the adoption of the chair was particularly good. It wasn't a matter of technical ability, rather a matter of social change. In this case I thought the argument was particularly interesting. Tea was also interesting, but again I felt he focused too much on the role of monks and not enough on the role of the lay elite in the propagation of drinking tea. Also I was puzzled by the fact that he completely neglected to mention the tea houses that were established, as a form of merit, to provide tea to travellers. Perhaps it's because he mentioned tea separately from his merit chapter, however it seems like it would have been an interesting and important avenue to explore.
One of the things that became clear to me at the end of the book was that this was not simply a book on the impact of Buddhism on Chinese material culture but rather it was a look at the impact of Buddhist monks on Chinese material culture. Kieschnick himself admitted this in his conclusion. He stated this was because the monk had access to more areas of society than anyone else and could travel freely around the country. He stated that monks saw themselves as partly inheritors of Indian culture and were therefore more open to outside ideas and adaptation. What he failed to address was the fact that these monks were originally Chinese, raised in a Chinese household with Chinese beliefs. He failed to address at all what type of household these monks came from. Were they rich or poor? Did this have an impact on their life in the monastery? Were the monks who worked with the nobility more likely to have come from an elite background? How were they viewed? From inscriptions of monks to their families it seems like ties between a monk and their secular families were not abandoned all together. Large families establishing monasteries for tax purposes would also seem to be further proof of this. I saw that earlier Kieschnick's previous book was all about Buddhist monks and no doubt addressed these issues, however reading this book and not having read his first I felt the lack of some of that knowledge. I also felt that perhaps the reason he focused so much on the monk's as contributors was because that was his particular area of study, rather than they were the biggest contributors. I would think that a powerful elite Buddhist would be able to wield the same amount of influence. Government officials also travelled throughout the empire and would be the ones to pay for and provide for the new innovations, icons, merit works, monasteries etc. Likewise Kieschnick said he knew little about the influence of nuns. It seems to me this would be a very interesting inquiry to pursue. Nuns frequently came from wealthy households, they enjoyed many freedoms and were able to visit the restricted women's quarters. Women being in charge of matters in the home would surely be influenced by their visitors. It made me really want to look at the difference between monks and nuns in medieval china and the influences they had, and also the role of lay Buddhists.
I have always preferred books that look at the archaeological evidence in conjunction with the texts being examined. I think that this book points out well how important the context and society around a religion can be and the influence they can have on each other. In a way I would like to go a step further as I dislike separating out the two, one secular and one sacred, as I think this can be a rather artificial dichotomy. I think it's important to look at the entire picture in order to begin to understand how life was being lived at that time.
I did enjoy the book, I liked the fact that it gave me ideas and questions that I want to research further. I thought it demonstrated well how to use sources, material and textual, to construct a good sound argument. It reinforced my desire to read Teiser's book The Scripture of the Ten Kings (which I have now started) and look again at the works of Anna Seidal.
The introduction looked at the way material culture had been viewed in studies on the history of religion, how these items were often ignored in favour of a purely textual approach. How even though archaeologists were discovering hoards of new artefacts people were still not sure how to incorporate them into the study, the purpose of his book was to show how this could be done. Kieschnick argues that artefacts can show how the religion was really practised whereas a text often merely shows the ideal. He sites the example of monks from ancient India who were not supposed to own property but the archaeological evidence shows otherwise. He argues that by focusing on material culture you gain new insight into the religion and new questions are raised.
Kieschnick divides his work into several chapters looking at several different types of objects, and how these are integrated into Chinese culture. The articles he focuses on first are those with sacred power. To start with he has a discussion about the history of religions and animism which is quite enjoyable. He looks at the sacred nature of objects before Buddhism was introduced and then the Buddhist view. He first looks at relics. He tracks the use of Indian relics and later indigenous relics. One of the most interesting points that he mentioned was the fact that even the people in opposition to the relics never claimed that they might be imitations. He focused on the political use of relics from the time of the Sui and from communist China. The second half of the chapter was devoted to Icons. He addressed the issue of the sanctity of icons. He looked at both those who sanctioned their use and wanted them built and those who criticised them as a waste of money and effort.
The chapter on "symbolism" looked first at the monk's robes and possessions. This chapter showed clearly the difference between studying a text alone and what was actually done. I enjoyed the way he showed how monks frequently violated the rules for their garments, and how eventually the change was excepted. This was one of the few times that nuns were addressed as their traditionally ran the risk of showing of a breast and so were altered for modesty even though it was strictly against the rules. The look at the Purple Robes given to monks by the rulers were particularly interesting. In Ennin's diary he mentions several times when Taoist and Buddhist monks were brought to the Imperial palace for debates and the Taoist monks were awarded the Purple robes but the Buddhist monks were not. Kieschnick looks at the tradition of the Purple robes and explains how it was started as a way to show monks of extreme merit, but later became something that was for sale.
The discussion on the rosary was also particularly interesting to me. This was an object that seemed to have a real impact and transformation through the centuries. By the late Qing it was seen as a gift to be given without an religious significance, it was discussed in literature purely on aesthetic grounds. . In the Tang it was also given as gifts but as monks would pass on to their benefactors. Kieschnick argued that this is because it was one of the few valuable things that they owned. One of the things that was interesting about this chapter was that Kieschnick was very up front with the inconsistencies and difficulties he encountered trying to trace the development of objects. How often the information was simply lacking and a clear conclusion was unable to be drawn, this was particularly obvious in the case of the RuYisepter.
The second half of the book though was the most interesting to me. Chapter three discussed the principle of merit. How acts were carried out for the benefit of either the donor or their designated benefactors. He traced the idea of religious merit to Indian Buddhism with no previously existing Chinese idea. I found it interesting how he raised the point of merit contributing to the development of printing. The whole part about book making was quite interesting, particularly as he was looking at books as material objects, rather than simply as a textual source. This chapter looked more at the relationship of the monasteries with the world around them. This was particularly poignant in the section on building bridges. This was not something I had been aware of, however it was a very satisfying look at something that the monks offered as a skill, and something they were forced to do by the government. However, I felt that he did downplay the role of the lay elite in this section.
The last chapter looked at the chair, sugar and tea. I think this was the most interesting. The way he approached the adoption of the chair was particularly good. It wasn't a matter of technical ability, rather a matter of social change. In this case I thought the argument was particularly interesting. Tea was also interesting, but again I felt he focused too much on the role of monks and not enough on the role of the lay elite in the propagation of drinking tea. Also I was puzzled by the fact that he completely neglected to mention the tea houses that were established, as a form of merit, to provide tea to travellers. Perhaps it's because he mentioned tea separately from his merit chapter, however it seems like it would have been an interesting and important avenue to explore.
One of the things that became clear to me at the end of the book was that this was not simply a book on the impact of Buddhism on Chinese material culture but rather it was a look at the impact of Buddhist monks on Chinese material culture. Kieschnick himself admitted this in his conclusion. He stated this was because the monk had access to more areas of society than anyone else and could travel freely around the country. He stated that monks saw themselves as partly inheritors of Indian culture and were therefore more open to outside ideas and adaptation. What he failed to address was the fact that these monks were originally Chinese, raised in a Chinese household with Chinese beliefs. He failed to address at all what type of household these monks came from. Were they rich or poor? Did this have an impact on their life in the monastery? Were the monks who worked with the nobility more likely to have come from an elite background? How were they viewed? From inscriptions of monks to their families it seems like ties between a monk and their secular families were not abandoned all together. Large families establishing monasteries for tax purposes would also seem to be further proof of this. I saw that earlier Kieschnick's previous book was all about Buddhist monks and no doubt addressed these issues, however reading this book and not having read his first I felt the lack of some of that knowledge. I also felt that perhaps the reason he focused so much on the monk's as contributors was because that was his particular area of study, rather than they were the biggest contributors. I would think that a powerful elite Buddhist would be able to wield the same amount of influence. Government officials also travelled throughout the empire and would be the ones to pay for and provide for the new innovations, icons, merit works, monasteries etc. Likewise Kieschnick said he knew little about the influence of nuns. It seems to me this would be a very interesting inquiry to pursue. Nuns frequently came from wealthy households, they enjoyed many freedoms and were able to visit the restricted women's quarters. Women being in charge of matters in the home would surely be influenced by their visitors. It made me really want to look at the difference between monks and nuns in medieval china and the influences they had, and also the role of lay Buddhists.
I have always preferred books that look at the archaeological evidence in conjunction with the texts being examined. I think that this book points out well how important the context and society around a religion can be and the influence they can have on each other. In a way I would like to go a step further as I dislike separating out the two, one secular and one sacred, as I think this can be a rather artificial dichotomy. I think it's important to look at the entire picture in order to begin to understand how life was being lived at that time.
I did enjoy the book, I liked the fact that it gave me ideas and questions that I want to research further. I thought it demonstrated well how to use sources, material and textual, to construct a good sound argument. It reinforced my desire to read Teiser's book The Scripture of the Ten Kings (which I have now started) and look again at the works of Anna Seidal.