[Sawa]

fcharton, on Sep 19 2005, 05:38 PM, said:

Actually, confucianism appeared during the Springs and Autumns, at a time when the "classical" feudal system seemed to be working well. My impression is that considering confucianism (the original for of it) as a religion actually obscures the matter: to me, the confucean canon is more some kind of political theory which strives at explaining/justifying the way the world worked in their time. As such, it could be seen as the equivalent of more modern (western) political theories, such as Machiavel's, Montesquieu's or others... This is, by the way, the position the Jesuits adopted towards confucianism is later times. All through their letters (a great read btw) they step with two feet on Buddhism, which they see as a competing religion, but never miss a kind word for confucianism, which they view as a political theory, perfectly compatible with christianism.

As for Legalism, it sets in much later, after the political decomposition of the Zhou system. Funnily, it has a strong religious component in it (probably comes from its Taoist origins), and Qin Shihuang apparently did try to put religion back into political affairs.

All of this, of course, does not invalidate your comment.

Francois

Ok, the way I see it:

I considered the original social system within the feudal system to be ecclesiastical.

The Spring and Autumn period was feudal, but that is also when social changes were taking place, resulting from the political changes: decrease in Zhou's authority over the other states, such as the Jin's example.

Whether or not the feudal system was working effectively, it was changing, and the social atmosphere also changed within the Spring and Autumn period, which paved the way for the more bloody Warring States.

Confucianism came into this era of changes, supposedly to try to restore some virtue back into society or at least in the governments.

Changing political situations as the Warring States began, led to the creations of new ideologies, if it haven't already started in the late Spring and Autumn era.

Legalism came as the best solution to strengthing the state, in order to dominate the other states. Legalism in its principles stressed law, obedience, discipline and power to the state. Nothing seems 'religious' about it.

So I concluded that if the Spring and Autumn began with the old beliefs, it changed by the end of the era, resulting in a 'pragmatic' approach to governance as best demonstrated by Qin near the end of the Warring States.

[urofpersia]

fcharton, on Sep 19 2005, 06:38 PM, said:

Actually, confucianism appeared during the Springs and Autumns, at a time when the "classical" feudal system seemed to be working well.

Actually Confucianism (in fact Kongzi himself) appeared late in the Spring and Autumn period when Kongzi witnessed the break down of the old social order. Disregarding Confucianism as a more universal philosophy, Kongzi's main aim was to hearken back to an older more stable system. Like many famous philosophers, his teachings only became *relatively* widespread after his death. Certainly even during the Warring States, it was one ideology among many. When looking back upon history we have a tendency to exaggerate the impact or influence of such personas among their comtemporaries.

fcharton, on Sep 19 2005, 06:38 PM, said:

My impression is that considering confucianism (the original for of it) as a religion actually obscures the matter: to me, the confucean canon is more some kind of political theory which strives at explaining/justifying the way the world worked in their time. As such, it could be seen as the equivalent of more modern (western) political theories, such as Machiavel's, Montesquieu's or others... This is, by the way, the position the Jesuits adopted towards confucianism is later times. All through their letters (a great read btw) they step with two feet on Buddhism, which they see as a competing religion, but never miss a kind word for confucianism, which they view as a political theory, perfectly compatible with christianism.

True, except Confucianism is practiced religiously so its not so much how it is seen or interpreted by some but the fact that there are people practising it as such. Part of this is what we choose to attribute to Confucianismi, for example Kongzi felt Lijie 礼节 was very important, he was very much into rituals and the right ways of doing things, many of which have religious associations. I hasten to add that like many famous philosophers/religious personas in History, it is not always so clear what are their teachings, that of their followers or attributed to them much later.

This post has been edited by urofpersia: 19 September 2005 - 08:01 AM

[fcharton]

Too hi Fat, on Sep 19 2005, 12:56 PM, said:

Has there been a true secular state before the French Revolution ? I would like to know.

Actually, not that many states today is truely secular. British and it's colonies sure werent (Anglican with Queen as the head). America ... barely ... with "...under God" in the constitution. Lets not even go on about the Middle East.

In my understanding, "secular" does not imply "atheist", but that church and state are separated. Take for instance modern Germany (or the eastern part of France, ie the formerly german alsace-lorraine), both are secular (I don't think anyone would dispute it), but the churches are subsidised by the state. The point is, the clergy cannot pass a law, do its own justice, or have administrative power.

It is usually considered that the USA were the first modern secular state : their Constitution clearly states the separation of Church and State, that there is a reference to God in it does not change the point. European states introduced the concept of separation of Church and State much later (in France it was in the very beginning of the 20th century). However, I believe there were secular states in antiquity. I would say that the Roman Republic was one, and the ancient Greece was one too.

Francois

[fcharton]

urofpersia, on Sep 19 2005, 02:59 PM, said:

True, except Confucianism is practiced religiously so its not so much how it is seen or interpreted by some but the fact that there are people practising it as such. Part of this is what we choose to attribute to Confucianismi, for example Kongzi felt Lijie 礼节 was very important, he was very much into rituals and the right ways of doing things, many of which have religious associations. I hasten to add that like many famous philosophers/religious personas in History, it is not always so clear what are their teachings, that of their followers or attributed to them much later.

Thanks for the comment, which stresses a very important cultural difference between china and the west. In the west, to put it simply, religions don't mix (that is one of the basic facts of judeo christianism). You can show respect for other religions, but you cannot believe in two different ones. All other beliefs, of moral natures, are termed philosophies. For long, China had a much more syncretist approach to religion, meaning that there were no contradiction believing in several ones (as happened often in chinese history for the three main religiions which were confucianism, daoism and buddhism).

As such, most western observers, since the jesuits, considered that China had one religion (buddhism), and a number of philosophies (including confucianism and daoism). That was probably the Jesuit in me speaking, then...

Back on topic, when would you say confucean religious practice appeared/became common in China. This was certainly the case under the western Han (from 150BC onwards), but was it the case before? since Confucius time?

Francois

This post has been edited by fcharton: 19 September 2005 - 10:25 AM

[philzaga]

Alright, I see that you guys all make very good points. What do you guys think of this argument though:
I see secularization as simply a separation of religion, or religious practices, from state. That is, rituals and such have no influence on state matters and how the government controls its domains. The Zhou were able to exert control in their kingdom by spreading a ritualistic mentality rather than through excessive violence or bridery (any kind of wealth). Ritual does not mean anything necessarily religious in this case. It is used to supress violence and to harmonize human relationships. Confucius says, "If I am not present at the sacrifice, it is as if there were no sacrifice at all." He believed that rituals transform people to have more of a humane mentality. If one is not present at the ritual, then one does not benefit from the "humaness" of its effects. He reforms the way in which people perceive and practice rituals. As the Spring and Autumn period ends, ritualization became less influential and violence became more prominent by the Warring States period. People abandoned the use of rituals and the use of violence and warfare became the way in which to maintain or exert control over their domains. Can this be viewed as secularization? My original question was: Did Chinese culture undergo a process of secularization during the Warring States period? What do you guys think?

[urofpersia]

fcharton, on Sep 19 2005, 11:23 PM, said:

Back on topic, when would you say confucean religious practice appeared/became common in China. This was certainly the case under the western Han (from 150BC onwards), but was it the case before? since Confucius time?

I am hardly the best person to answer this, we do have members here who are much more knowledgeable about confucianism during that period and hopefully they will chime in. My personal impression was Confucianism was one ideology among many during the Warring States, while certainly there were strong proponents I am not sure how much of the attributed popularity is exaggerated by later confucianists. (This includes the role Kongzi himself played as a statesman while he was alive) A common belief was that Qin ShiHuang suppressed confucianism. The Qin of course adopted Legalism.

About syncretism in religious beliefs I would like to point out China is hardly unique in this respect. Certainly under the Persian Empire, elements of syncretism existed. In fact I would go so far as to say syncretism is a more natural attitude towards religion in general. There is of course strong and weak syncretism; the acceptance that different belief systems can be under one tree or actively try to unify the beliefs. If I am not making sense perhaps a crude example: "I have my pantheon of gods, you have your pantheon of gods, we can merge the 2 pantheons" or "I have my pantheon, you have yours, I believe they are really the same but expressed differently"

It was only later with the ascendency of Judeo-christian religions that the west became more dogmatic about such matters, and frankly, I am not sure whether this is an inherent attribute of such religions or should they be more accurately attributed to the early religious institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church, where in my view, certainly they way they handled Christianity shows a lot of the Roman influence in their attitude towards religions. The same applies to the early Jews. I am not sure if they are indeed as monotheistic as how we (and the Jews themselves) define monotheism today. However, having only the shallowest of knowledge in this area, I wont be surprise if I got it wrong and look forward to being corrected.

[fcharton]

urofpersia, on Sep 20 2005, 09:31 PM, said:

It was only later with the ascendency of Judeo-christian religions that the west became more dogmatic about such matters, and frankly, I am not sure whether this is an inherent attribute of such religions or should they be more accurately attributed to the early religious institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church, where in my view, certainly they way they handled Christianity shows a lot of the Roman influence in their attitude towards religions. The same applies to the early Jews. I am not sure if they are indeed as monotheistic as how we (and the Jews themselves) define monotheism today. However, having only the shallowest of knowledge in this area, I wont be surprise if I got it wrong and look forward to being corrected.

Points well taken on syncretism, in fact, one of the most syncretist society in the West was Rome, who started with a local mythology (possibly already merging the gods of several preexisting groups), merged the greek pantheon into it, and then, progressively, added egyptian, persian, etc... divinities.

On judeochristianism, the monotheistic focus is probably as old as Judaism. The word "only god", the interdiction adore idols and false (ie other) gods (which was taken further by some as an interdiction to make representations of any kind of God himself, the true one that is...) is present everywhere in the old testament, from the 10 commandments, to every time God adresses someone (Abraham, Moses, etc...). And these ideas were directly transmitted to both Christians and Muslims (the muezzin call to prayer says exactly this).

My impression is that the influence of Rome over Christianism actually resulted in a (very) weak form of syncretism, through the idea of trinity, the cult of the saints, and, later, the cult of Mary.

Francois

[urofpersia]

fcharton, on Sep 21 2005, 06:44 AM, said:

Points well taken on syncretism, in fact, one of the most syncretist society in the West was Rome, who started with a local mythology (possibly already merging the gods of several preexisting groups), merged the greek pantheon into it, and then, progressively, added egyptian, persian, etc... divinities.

On judeochristianism, the monotheistic focus is probably as old as Judaism. The word "only god", the interdiction adore idols and false (ie other) gods (which was taken further by some as an interdiction to make representations of any kind of God himself, the true one that is...) is present everywhere in the old testament, from the 10 commandments, to every time God adresses someone (Abraham, Moses, etc...). And these ideas were directly transmitted to both Christians and Muslims (the muezzin call to prayer says exactly this).

My impression is that the influence of Rome over Christianism actually resulted in a (very) weak form of syncretism, through the idea of trinity, the cult of the saints, and, later, the cult of Mary.

Francois

Thanks for the clarifying some of my thinking on this subject. Cheers

[philzaga]

philzaga, on Sep 20 2005, 02:25 PM, said:

Alright, I see that you guys all make very good points. What do you guys think of this argument though:
I see secularization as simply a separation of religion, or religious practices, from state. That is, rituals and such have no influence on state matters and how the government controls its domains. The Zhou were able to exert control in their kingdom by spreading a ritualistic mentality rather than through excessive violence or bridery (any kind of wealth). Ritual does not mean anything necessarily religious in this case. It is used to supress violence and to harmonize human relationships. Confucius says, "If I am not present at the sacrifice, it is as if there were no sacrifice at all." He believed that rituals transform people to have more of a humane mentality. If one is not present at the ritual, then one does not benefit from the "humaness" of its effects. He reforms the way in which people perceive and practice rituals. As the Spring and Autumn period ends, ritualization became less influential and violence became more prominent by the Warring States period. People abandoned the use of rituals and the use of violence and warfare became the way in which to maintain or exert control over their domains. Can this be viewed as secularization? My original question was: Did Chinese culture undergo a process of secularization during the Warring States period? What do you guys think?

Can someone comment on this please? Any opinions? Thanks.