The Cross and the Lotus
Lau Hua Teck
INTRODUCTION
Judging from the Nestorian Documents in Chinese, the first Christians in
T’ang China saw themselves as bearers of a religious message they claimed
to be universal. At the same time, they realized it carries with it the
vocabulary and symbolism, which are in many respects alien to the
Chinese. They proceeded therefore to explain and communicate their
message to the people they found on the Eastern end of the Silk Route by
making bold attempts in using the common currency of the T’ang society.
The synthetic feature of the T’ang Nestorianism had been the studies of
scholars for many years1. Some condemned Nestorianism outright as a
syncretism that deviated from the Catholic doctrine and treated the
Nestorians with contempt2. However, there were others who heralded
their efforts in inter-faiths exchanges and held it as a model for modern
inter-religious dialogues3.
The term syncretism has had different meanings in the history of
religions, depending on one’s viewpoint. In Western ideological disputes,
syncretism was generally regarded as a betrayal of principles or as an
attempt to secure unity at the expense of the truth. The syncretistic thinker
was seen as a suspicious character, like a double agent, whose loyalty and
commitment were absolutely questionable. They were charged by critics
for incorporating other beliefs and practices to the extent of ignoring any
inconsistencies which prevailed4.
However, the term syncretism was derived from a historic incident in
which the citizens of Crete overcame internal disputes and were bonded
together to face a common enemy. In such a paradigm, views were not
reconciled in an arbitrary or irrational way, but for the purpose of survival.
As such, religious syncretism is seen not as arbitrary or irrational, but as
serving a religious purpose. Syncretism in this sense assumes a firm
foundation for religious authority. It is not simply a random mixing of
elements into an idiosyncratic whole, but the incorporation of various
elements into a home tradition. It tends to be highly selective in the
process; a selection based on the particular religious needs and interests of
the syncretistic thinkers and the historical and cultural contexts against
which they emerged. Thus, syncretism requires that borrowed elements be
reconciled, and be accommodated into the worldview and doctrines of the
home tradition5 . In his observations of religious syncretism for ritual
practices in the context of Buddhist religion in Tuva, Piatigorsky sees it as
a situation whereby elements of two or more religions were being
consciously chosen by those who used them for their own ends6. In this
respect, syncretistic thinkers are not the usual ecumenical diplomats
seeking peace among competing traditions; they are religious persons who
seek to respond to new religious differences and needs.
IMPACT OF THE T’ANG SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS CONTEXTS
The Nestorians arrived in China at a time most favourable for the
propagation of foreign religions. Before AD 635, many merchants of
Persian origin lived in Chang-an and undoubtedly, there were some
Nestorians among them. When their numbers increased, Bishop Alopen
led a mission which arrived in the capital city of T’ang China to serve the
Nestorian community there. Alopen and his team were warmly received by
the T’ang court. They were granted permission to translate their sutras and
teach its doctrine. Imperial patronage which began with Emperor T’aitsung
was reported by Ching-cheng and continued by Gao-tsung, X’uantsung,
Su-tsung, Dai-tsung and De-tsung. 7 There were also influential
families and army chiefs who were adherents of Nestorianism and
provided huge support to its advancement in the T’sang society8. Apart
from the attacks and persecutions during the Shen-li and Hsien-t’ien eras
by the Buddhists and the Taoists, the Nestorians had enjoyed almost two
centuries of political favor at T’ang court. This placed the Nestorians on a
different footing with the successive Christian encounters.
Also when Alopen arrived in Chang-an, the Buddhists, having
competed with Taoism and Confucianism for followers in the T’ang
society, already had five centuries of successive growth in China. The
complex religious scene of the T’ang society; with Buddhism, Taoism and
Confucianism dominating the religious scene for centuries, meant that the
Nestorians did not come to China when it was a philosophical and
spiritual vacuum. Thus, encounters between Nestorianism and these local
religions were expected. Successful methods and experiences in other
religions, particularly that of Buddhism, had proven to be of great use to
the Nestorians as they communicated with people in the T’ang society.
Furthermore, the competition for patronage from the Imperial house or
influential families also left its marks on the T’ang Nestorianism. But it was in the area of language that the T’ang society had a great impact on the
synthetic outlook on Nestorianism9.
The best place to account for linguistic impact on the Nestorianism is
in their documents in Chinese. We have the Alopen Documents10 and the
Ching-cheng Documents11; all written after the arrival of Alopen at Chang-an
in AD635, and within a time span of two centuries. On top of these is the
famous Xi’an Stele12, with its inscription composed by Ching-ching at
around AD 780. These materials provide us with good written evidences
of the efforts made by the Nestorians to advance their communication of
the Christian message to the T’ang Chinese. The Nestorians also designed
their own symbol to communicate the Christian message to the Chinese.
They have boldly made use of the Chinese symbols of the dragon, the
white clouds and the lotus, in designing a new logo to present the
Nestorian message of the Gospel of the Cross and the Messiah. This
paper takes the Nestorian symbol as an example, to demonstrate their
knowledge and understanding of the common currency of the T’ang society as
well as their boldness to use them for their own ends.
THE CHOICE OF THE CHINESE SYMBOLS
The Xi’an Stele was originally erected in AD 781, in the Nestorian
Monastery at the I-ning Ward in Hsian-fu, and remained there ever since
until it was recovered in AD 1623. It is ten feet by three and a half feet
wide and a little under a foot thick. The head of the Stele consists of an
immense pearl between two Chinese lungs over twenty feet long. In the
centre of the figurehead right under the pearl is the apex of a triangle, which forms a canopy over nine Chinese characters arranged vertically in
three lines forming the title of the Stele, which reads ‘Ta-ch’in Ching-chao
Liu-shing Chung-kuo Pi’. Upon taking a closer look at the roof shape of
the title on the Stele, one is struck by the design of the unique symbolic
signs of the cross, the cloud, the lotus and two branches of a tree. The
cross symbol undoubtedly shows that the Stele itself is a Christian
monument, but beneath the cross is the white cloud—a characteristic
symbol for the Taoist, and a lotus flower—the characteristic emblem of
the Buddhist (see fig.1)13.
The first impression of the symbolic presentation was that of a design,
used to denote that ‘the three religions are one’. Under this symbolic
heading are the texts, stating the purpose and content for the erection of
the monument, in Chinese and Syriac. It is stated in Chinese that this is a
monument commemorating the propagation of the Ta’chin Luminous
Religion in the Middle Kingdom. It also stated in Syriac, “my lord
Yazedbouzid, the Presbyter and Chorepiscopus of Khumdan, city of the
King, who is the son of the late Presbyter Milis from Balkh, city of
Tahounstan, erected this stone monument in which the Law of our
Saviour was written and that our forefathers preached to the Rulers of
China” 14 . These words show clearly what the Ta-ch’in Ching-chao
represents, and that the purpose of the monument is to declare the Law of
the Messiah. Hence, the unique symbol designed by the Nestorian was not
to denote that the three religions are one, but rather to propagate the
unique message of the cross of the Messiah.
The choice and use of the lotus flower together with the cross,
continued to be the dominant symbol on the inscription of tomb-stones
and relics during the T’ang and the Song periods. Figures 2 and 3 are
pictures of the Ch’uan-chou crosses dated back to the Song period15 ;
whereas figure 4 is the restoration of the remain of a wall painting found
in Kan-su Tuan-hwan Cave in 1908, presently housed in the British
Museum16. The painting depicts a Syriac Nestorian priest, bearing three
crosses—one on the headdress, one on the chest collar with the third on his left hand’s staff simultaneously holding out the symbol of a lotus finger
in his right hand!
The Nestorians in the Yuan Dynasty continued to use the symbol of
the lung with the cross in their witness to the Chinese. The Yuan Dynasty
Stele, which commemorated the founding of a Nestorian Monastery in the
year AD1383, uses the symbols of the cross, guarded by four lungs. The
inscription on the Yuan Stele states that this stone marks the site of the
Monastery of the Cross17. The choice of the symbol of the cloud seems to
have diminished after the T’ang period.
Can we justify the choice and use of these Chinese symbols of the lung
and the lotus together with the cross of Christ Jesus? This essay seeks to
survey the meanings and usage of the symbols of the lotus and the lung in
the T’ang contexts so as to examine the approach and choice of these
symbols used by the Nestorians in their Chinese documents. Hence
confirming the model for religious encounter used by the Nestorians in
their approach to communicate with people in the T’ang society.
THE CHINESE LUNG
The symbol of dragon is widely used in cultures of the East and the West.
In the West, there were the Cosmic dragon, the Greek dragon, the Egyptian
dragon and the Classical dragon18. With very few exceptions, the dragons of
the West were monstrous, evil, earthbound and hideous. They were cavedwelling,
fire-breathing and destructive creatures. Most Western dragon
stories are significantly based on the Bible. They are seen as a form of the
devil himself or as a symbol of destruction both spiritual and physical19.
However, the Chinese lung is almost exclusively benevolent; which
differentiates them from the Western dragons to the extent that it may be
more adequate to consider them as different symbols rather than as the
same symbol interpreted differently20.
The symbol of the Chinese lung has taken different shades of meanings
over the many centuries of China’s cultural history and continues to be a
subject of much debates by the scholars. This essay will deal with three
major usage of the symbol of lung by the T’ang period.
Firstly, the lung as an auspicious spiritual creature. The Chinese folklore
regards the lung as one of the four divine creatures21 that were thought to
be beneficent creatures. The t’ien-lung protects and supports the many
layers of heavens. The shen-lung controls the rain, wind and weather to
benefit earthly agriculture. The t’sang-lung mounts guard on the treasures
hidden in the earth. The lungs were also seen as vehicles for the saints and
the sages to ascend into heavens22. Thus, by the T’ang and the Song
periods, most Chinese see the appearances of these lungs as sign of
auspicious good omen for them and their community.
Secondly, the lung represented a totem, which binds the same tribe and
community together as a unit. Lung as a totem started very early in Chinese
cultural history. As one of the many primitive beliefs, the lung was used to
name the particular tribal community; or taken to be an ancestor by
members of the community and become the symbol of that community.
The Lung as a totem led to other developments. Two of most important
developments were that it should become a religious lung to be worshipped
as a god; as well as a political lung with the status of an emperor. This
second development has grew from strength to strength and became a
norm after the Han Dynasty right through the T’ang and the Song
periods 23 . Thus, the Chinese see lung as a symbol for their race
representing the descendents of the Yean-huang and called themselves
lung-de-quan-ren—the lineage of the dragon. The emperors as sons of the
lung, become the defenders and providers of their subjects. The totem as
the ancestor’s symbol or as tribal protector, however, has become an
object of worship for some in the Chinese communities.
The third usage is that, lung is used as a symbol for life and vitality. This
is a popular view for many generations of literati in the Chinese society.
The author witnessed a discussion by a group of Confucian scholars;
emphasizing lung as symbol of creativity, which is the spirit of the T’ang’s and the Song’s Confucianism. They take the symbol of the lung as a
combination of the various symbolic parts of different domestic animals
to form a powerful sign for creativity. Thus, the horns are those of a deer;
the head is that of a horse; the body is that of the snake; and the claws are
those of the rooster. These parts represent the life-force, creativity and
vitality of various animals. One could judge the age of a deer by the
growth of its horn. An experienced farmer could tell the age of a horse by
looking at its teeth. Similarly, the craws reveal the youth of the rooster;
while the snake enters a new phase of growth by shading its skin. Many
Confucian scholars love the symbol of lung for it represents human vitality
and creativity. Since the Nestorians had enjoyed successive Imperial
patronage at the T’ang court as well as in their direct encounters with the
T’ang literati. The choice and use of the symbol lung is conceivable.
In the Chung-a-han-ching27, the twenty second chapters Ching-pai-Lianhuayu
speaks of the different colored lotus, grown in the water and out of
water, yet untouched by water. Buddhism used the notion of “the lotus
grows in a world full of changes, yet it is untainted or defiled by the
world.” Then, the Mahayana Pure-land Buddhism based its teaching on
the Great Lotus-king; taking it as the manifestation of the fa-jie-zhen-ru—-the
buddha-nature in all thing. The Buddhist zhen-ru is not seen as isolated from
the secular world; but it is in the world and yet not defiled by the world.
Hence, ‘the lotus coming out of the muddy pool and yet not tainted by the muddy water’ has become the emblem of Buddhism28. Again, the text continues to stress that the self-blossoming nature of the lotus is taken up by Buddhism to represent the dhama-nature, permeating in the sentient beings, for those
who take the right path and are able to attest to it. The picture of the lotus
blossom, offering itself totally, for the bees to freely absorb honey, is
analogous to the fa-jie-zhen-ru giving itself to the boddhisattvas.
However, besides these Buddhist images of the symbol lotus, the
Confucians also made a strong claim and use of the symbol of the lotus,
for their own purpose. The great late T’ang/early Song Confucian master
Chou-tun-yi shared his passion for the lotus in his famous poem Ai-lianshou29.
In it, he affirmed the common usage of the symbol—out of the
muddy pool and yet untainted, that is, purity. However, he applied the
notion of chong-tong-wai-tzi to it, to express the way of a jun-tzi, thus
claiming the lotus as uniquely Confucian. Chou-tun-yi had boldly led the
Neo-Confucian tradition to claim the use of the lotus by keeping the
common usage shared by the Buddhists, and incorporating the
Confucian’s idea of chong-tong-wai-tzi to the symbol30.
THE NESTORIAN MODEL OF RELIGIOUS ENCOUNTER
The Nestorian arrived in China when Buddhism was at its zenith, with
several emperors as ardent Buddhists. It was quite natural that they took
up matters addressed by the Buddhists, and tried to interpret things from
the Buddhists’ perspective; and adopt Buddhist methods in translating.
THE SYMBOL OF THE LOTUS FLOWER
The lotus is of unique importance in Chinese symbolism due to Buddhist
influence. In fact, the Buddhists have claimed the symbol of lotus from
Brahmaism. There were references to the many-fold coloured lotus in
ancient India. These are the green, the white, the red and the yellow lotus.
The lotus flowers were linked to the creation of the universe in
Brahmaism. Visnu, the maker of the great waters, produced a golden lotus
from its navel side, on which sat the Brahma King. The Brahma King
further gave birth to eight princes who then created the earth, the heaven,
the human race and other myriad creatures24. But as a tradition critical of
Brahmaism, especially on the notion of existence by creation; Buddhism
did not place great emphasis on the lotus at the early stage. However,
when the symbol of the lotus gained popularity among the masses,
Buddhism started to embrace the symbol of the lotus. The lotus comes
out of the mire but is not itself sullied and also, it is inwardly empty. The
symbol of the lotus was used in the Buddhist texts25, and has since become
the characteristic emblem of Buddhism26.
Nestorian Scriptures. Buddhist mode of thought was after all the major
currency of the day; and the methods and approaches developed throughout
the centuries in translating foreign religious ideas into the T’ang Chinese
were well established by the Buddhists. There was the straightforward
borrowing of terms and ideas in great quantity from Taoism at the early
stage; a method called ke-yi31. Later, translators like Kumarajiva and Tao-an,
had worked hard for the emancipation of Buddhist ideas from Taoism32.
The Chinese Buddhists in the late fourth and early fifth centuries
developed the upaya method in the rhetorical structure of Madhyamika
works, where unfavourable ideas were presented in a favorable way in
essays33. Such works would seem Taoist to the Taoists and Buddhist to
those who understand and gain aesthetic pleasure from them34. Some
literati applied the ‘nei’ and ‘wai’ approach in their writings, when one, who
is basically a Buddhist yet appears to be Confucian 35 . Others simply
employed the skilful writing technique in order to survive amidst
undesirable circumstances.
The Nestorians took up these matters and methods which had been the
norms of the Buddhists and used them for their own ends. This is evident
in their writings and the use of the Chinese symbols to introduce the
Messiah to their readers. The belief of the Triune God, the Person and
work of the Messiah, the Holy Spirit, the fallen human nature and the
Salvation…. are evident in the Chinese Nestorian Documents36.
The symbol of the lotus flower has been chosen to introduce the
Gospel of the Cross of Jesus Christ. Chou-Tun-yi led Song Neo-
Confucians to claim the use of the lotus, by keeping the common ground
and applying the Neo-Confucian’s idea of chong-tong-wai-tzi to the symbol;
claiming the symbol of lotus to be uniquely theirs. Ching-cheng tried to do
the same in the 8th century, about two centuries before Chou-Tun-yi.
It is evident that the Scholars in T’ang society knew clearly that the
Nestorians were preaching a new message, as the eminent monk Yuanchao
of the Tsi-ming Temple commented: “…. A Buddhist monastery and
a temple of Ta-ch’in differ in customs and in their religious practices,
Ching-ching should preach the teaching of the Messiah and the Buddhist
monk must make known the message of Buddhist Sutra….. Truth and
error are not the same, just like the Ching River and the Wei River are not
alike….”37 Yuan-chao saw clearly the uniqueness of the Nestorian message
and the Ching-ching missionary position38.
With the re-discovery of the Ta-Ch’in pagoda39, a few miles from the
great Taoist Center—Lou Guan Tai, it reveals the most favourable status
of the Nestorians at the T’ang court. Lou Guan Tai was the site declared
as the Imperial Ancestral Temple by AD630. It was alleged to be the site
where Lao Zi wrote his book of Tao Te Ching, before he left the county
through the Pass for the West eventually. The fact that the Nestorians
were granted the permission to build a ‘Church building’ right at the
doorstep of the Taoist’s sacred centre, shows that the Nestorians must
have gained great favour at the Imperial Court and made much inroads
into the T’ang higher society.
MAKING CHRISTIANITY CHINESE
Foster made a very perceptive observation more than half a century ago in
his comparison of the work of the Nestorians and that of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. He says, “Not only was this missionary
(Ching-cheng) endeavouring to make Chinese people Christian he
laboured also to make Christianity, in a worthy sense, Chinese.
Underneath the strange terminology are quotations from the Bible and
ideas, which came from the great Fathers of the Christian Church.
Borrowing from non-Christian sources is but the eastern counterpart of
the debt owed by the Church in the West to Greek philosophy”40. The
Nestorians were not pluralists who practised the belief of universalism, but
rather, theirs is the model of particularism; a new synthesis of exclusivism and
inclusivism. For them, the Gospel of the Cross of Jesus Christ is the normal
and preferred path to God, as the Cross takes the central position in the
design of the Nestorian symbol. But they also believed in natural
revelation; that all revelations of truth come from Christ—the Word
which created all things. They affirmed that there are ‘connects’ as well as
‘disconnects’ between Christianity and other religions. To the Nestorians,
any religion that grasps the truth through natural revelation by the
Universal Christ, can also be connected with the truth given through
special revelation. However, the special revelation of the Historical
Jesus—the Word that became flesh, is uniquely Christian.
There are good reasons for the decline of Nestorianism in China: the
over-dependence on Imperial favour; their negligence of the people in the
market place; the over use of Buddhist and Taoist terms etc… However,
the Nestorians had demonstrated how they advanced the communication
of their message to the T’ang literati. Although they bore a synthetic outlook
which had led to their condemnation by critics as deviating from the
Catholic doctrine, and the Nestorians were being treated with contempt as
syncretists. However, they were the true syncretists in the sense of the
word. They have indeed taken courage to communicate the message of the
Cross of Christ Jesus to the upper class of the T’ang society.
Taken from: http://www.ttc.edu.sg/csca/CS/2003-Aug/LAU.pdf
