もっと詳しく

summarized some lengthy quotes


← Previous revision Revision as of 08:41, 13 December 2021
Line 13: Line 13:
”Guo” nominally means “fault; mistake; error; excess” and verbally “pass by; go past; surpass; cross; exceed”. The specialized sense of “sin” is usually limited to Daoist usage, except for the Chinese “synonym compound” ”zuiguo(r)” 罪過(兒) “fault; wicked act; sin; offense”, which is a humble expression for “guilty conscience; this is really more than I deserve.”
”Guo” nominally means “fault; mistake; error; excess” and verbally “pass by; go past; surpass; cross; exceed”. The specialized sense of “sin” is usually limited to Daoist usage, except for the Chinese “synonym compound” ”zuiguo(r)” 罪過(兒) “fault; wicked act; sin; offense”, which is a humble expression for “guilty conscience; this is really more than I deserve.”
Words meaning “sin; violation of religious law” are not a [[linguistic universal]]. For instance, the anthropologist [[Verrier Elwin]], who studied the [[Gondi language]], said, “There are no words in Gondi for sin or virtue: a man may be ruined, here and hereafter, for a breach of a taboo, but the notion of retribution for sinners is an alien importation”.{{r|Elwin1947_145}} The [[Gondi language]] word ”pap” “sin” is a [[loanword]] from the [[Marathi language]]. Fürer-Haimendorf explains that,
Words meaning “sin; violation of religious law” are not a [[linguistic universal]]. For instance, the anthropologist [[Verrier Elwin]], who studied the [[Gondi language]], said, “There are no words in Gondi for sin or virtue: a man may be ruined, here and hereafter, for a breach of a taboo, but the notion of retribution for sinners is an alien importation”.{{r|Elwin1947_145}} The [[Gondi language]] word ”pap” “sin” is a [[loanword]] from the [[Marathi language]]. Fürer-Haimendorf explains that Christian missionaries discovered sin was not an universally shared concept across cultures. This raised questions about whether they believed some behaviour was deemed undesirable for the collective and if it influenced their relationship with the supernatural. {{sfn|Fürer-Haimendorf|1974|p=540}}
<blockquote>… throughout the Christian era men and women of the western world believed in the existence of a universal phenomenon which they called sin. The tongues they spoke provided terms (”peccatum”, ”péché”, ”sin”, ”Sünde” etc.) which referred to this phenomenon and it was not until the age of discovery that Christian missionaries encountered languages which did not contain any comparable terms. The existence of such languages leads us inevitably to the conclusion that the concept and with it the sense of sin cannot be common to all branches of humanity. This raises the question whether some societies lack the very idea that certain modes of conduct are not only undesirable in the eyes of other men but that they also bring the actor into conflict with supernatural powers believed to play the role of guardians of morality—in other words whether there exist ethnic groups devoid of any concept of ‘sin’ in the conventional sense.{{sfn|Fürer-Haimendorf|1974|p=540}} </blockquote>
==Historical origins==
==Historical origins==
Line 20: Line 19:
<blockquote>If we apply our definition of “sin” – a violation of a divine code – Chinese folk religion before the Han period (206 B.C.) seems not to have had the concept of sin, although it recognized a great number of supernatural beings. People who offended the deities, spirits, or other supernatural beings by not honoring them or by failing to sacrifice in the right way or at the right time might make them angry. The deities then could or would punish such people. An event of this kind was more or less like any offense against a human superior, with the only difference that deities were believed to be superior to humans; they formed, if this expression be permitted, a social class above the upper class in human society. This class of supernatural beings was structured: some deities had more, others less, power, but the structure was more like a class structure than like a bureaucratic one although one god was vaguely recognized as the highest of all.{{sfn|Eberhard|1967|p=16}} </blockquote>
<blockquote>If we apply our definition of “sin” – a violation of a divine code – Chinese folk religion before the Han period (206 B.C.) seems not to have had the concept of sin, although it recognized a great number of supernatural beings. People who offended the deities, spirits, or other supernatural beings by not honoring them or by failing to sacrifice in the right way or at the right time might make them angry. The deities then could or would punish such people. An event of this kind was more or less like any offense against a human superior, with the only difference that deities were believed to be superior to humans; they formed, if this expression be permitted, a social class above the upper class in human society. This class of supernatural beings was structured: some deities had more, others less, power, but the structure was more like a class structure than like a bureaucratic one although one god was vaguely recognized as the highest of all.{{sfn|Eberhard|1967|p=16}} </blockquote>
The Chinese historian [[Yu Ying-shih]] disagreed with Eberhard’s conclusion that early Chinese religions disregarded “sin” because
The Chinese historian [[Yu Ying-shih]] disagreed with Eberhard’s conclusion that early Chinese religions disregarded “sin” because our understanding of ancient Chinese religion is still developing. For instance, in the ”Analects” Confucius “sin” (tsui) might suggest a violation against divine law.{{r|Yü1968_619}}
<blockquote>… our knowledge of folk religion in ancient China is still too limited to warrant such a general statement. In his ”Analects” Confucius once quoted a saying that was apparently common among the people as follows: “He who sins against heaven has none to whom he can pray.” The word “sin” (”tsui”) here seems close enough to mean a violation of a divine code.{{r|Yü1968_619}} </blockquote>
However, none of the English ”Analects” translations renders ”zui” as “sin”. This context (3/13) quotes Confucius explaining a rhymed [[adage]] about sacrificing to either the [[Kitchen God]] or [[Ancestor veneration in China|ancestral spirits]].
However, none of the English ”Analects” translations renders ”zui” as “sin”. This context (3/13) quotes Confucius explaining a rhymed [[adage]] about sacrificing to either the [[Kitchen God]] or [[Ancestor veneration in China|ancestral spirits]].
*”He who offends against Heaven has none to whom he can pray” ([[James Legge]])
*”He who offends against Heaven has none to whom he can pray” ([[James Legge]])
Line 28: Line 27:
*”If you offend Heaven, there is no one you can pray to” ([[A. Charles Muller]])
*”If you offend Heaven, there is no one you can pray to” ([[A. Charles Muller]])
Bodde also disagreed with Eberhard.
Bodde also disagreed with Eberhard because a broad statement is make while our knowledge of ancient Chinese religion is still developing. {{sfn|Bodde|1991|p=163}}
<blockquote>I see no reason why the idea of sin must derive solely from belief in a divine law court—an obvious projection of the terrestrial law courts of bureaucratic China. On the contrary, the idea of sin could equally well spring from the fear of violating supernatural sanctions, even though not thought of as codified and bureaucratically administered. If one accepts this supposition, it then become evident that the concept of sin was already known in pre-Buddhist China, though in a form less widespread and perhaps less acutely felt than that disseminated by Buddhism and religious Taoism.{{sfn|Bodde|1991|p=163}} </blockquote>
==Chinese Buddhism==
==Chinese Buddhism==
The history of [[Chinese Buddhism]] began circa the 1st or 2nd century CE when [[Silk Road transmission of Buddhism|Silk Road]] Buddhist missionaries (originally perceived as foreign [[Huang-Lao]] Daoists) arrived in China.
The history of [[Chinese Buddhism]] began circa the 1st or 2nd century CE when [[Silk Road transmission of Buddhism|Silk Road]] Buddhist missionaries (originally perceived as foreign [[Huang-Lao]] Daoists) arrived in China.
Line 116: Line 113:
[[Cultural anthropology]] traditionally distinguished two modalities of [[social control]]: a [[shame society]] based on inculcating feelings of shame and the threat of [[ostracism]], and a [[guilt society]] based on feelings of guilt and the threat of punishment. Western scholars generally classify the Chinese and Japanese societies as shame based, emphasizing the psychological fear of [[Face (sociological concept)#Psychology|losing face]].
[[Cultural anthropology]] traditionally distinguished two modalities of [[social control]]: a [[shame society]] based on inculcating feelings of shame and the threat of [[ostracism]], and a [[guilt society]] based on feelings of guilt and the threat of punishment. Western scholars generally classify the Chinese and Japanese societies as shame based, emphasizing the psychological fear of [[Face (sociological concept)#Psychology|losing face]].
Eberhard explained that sin in [[Chinese culture]] can be defined as actions, behaviour, and thoughts which violate rules set up by supernatural powers. This violation of rules set by earthly powers results in the development of the emotional concept of ‘legal guilt’. Evidently, this notion of ‘sin’ and its accompanying emotions are ingrained within the internalised social norms of Chinese culture. The ‘shame’ context are not contradictory to sin but rather adhere to and strengthen Chinese social norms and laws. {{sfn|Eberhard|1967|p=14}}
Eberhard explained that in traditional [[Chinese culture]],
<blockquote>Sin was defined as actions, behavior, and thoughts that violated rules set up by supernatural powers. Sin is the equivalent of legal guilt, which is a violation of rules set up by earthly powers and the emotion which results from such a violation of legal rules. We might say that persons who have such a concept of “sin,” and the emotions accompanying a sinful act or thought, seem to have internalized social norms to a perhaps even higher degree than persons who have only a feeling for legal guilt, because Chinese supernatural rules are based upon social norms. They are not in contradiction to these social norms and laws but strengthen and tighten them.{{sfn|Eberhard|1967|p=14}} </blockquote>
Bode criticized this position: “Eberhard’s separation of shame from guilt and sin seems to be too absolute and arbitrary. Surely in traditional China, as in other societies, all three feelings frequently entered into cases of wrongdoing, even though their proportions might vary according to the background of the particular wrongdoer.”{{sfn|Bodde|1991|p=162}}
Bode criticized this position: “Eberhard’s separation of shame from guilt and sin seems to be too absolute and arbitrary. Surely in traditional China, as in other societies, all three feelings frequently entered into cases of wrongdoing, even though their proportions might vary according to the background of the particular wrongdoer.”{{sfn|Bodde|1991|p=162}}