Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol. 3 — A Reader’s Guide

Chu-Hsi and the Confucian Response to Buddhism

Eliot devotes considerable space to the Song dynasty philosopher Chu-Hsi (1130–1200), describing him as "the celebrated commentator on Confucius who reinterpreted the master's writings to the satisfaction of succeeding ages." The text notes that Chu-Hsi studied Buddhism in his youth, and while he condemned it on important points, Eliot observes that "if Mahayanism had never entered China this new Confucianism would probably never have arisen." The excerpt highlights specific Buddhist influences in Chu-Hsi's thought: he accepted the doctrine of world periods in an eternal series, taught a form of transformation of matter into living forms (not exactly transmigration), and described sages with ideals akin to Arhats and Buddhas. Eliot also mentions Chu-Hsi's discussion of a natural Karma where good or bad actions receive rewards in kind, though in a period of decline nature becomes vitiated. These observations are drawn directly from the text and illustrate how Eliot traces conceptual borrowings without overstating direct influence.

The Controversy with Lu Chiu-Yüan

Eliot recounts a celebrated controversy between Chu-Hsi and Lu Chiu-Yüan, a thinker commemorated in Confucian temples despite being accused of Buddhist tendencies. Lu held that learning was not indispensable and that the mind could in meditation rise above the senses to perceive truth. Eliot notes that Lu "strenuously denied the charge of Buddhist leanings," yet his doctrine is "near in spirit to the mysticism of Bodhidharma" and sets no store on the practical ethics and studious habits essential to Confucianism. This section of the excerpt shows Eliot's method of comparing doctrinal positions across traditions, using specific terminology such as "Bodhidharma" to anchor the comparison in a known Buddhist figure. The passage illustrates how internal Confucian debates mirrored broader tensions between indigenous and imported religious frameworks.

Mongol Patronage and the New Religious Order

Eliot describes the Yuan or Mongol dynasty (1280–1368) as introducing "something new" in its attitude toward Buddhism. Unlike previous Chinese emperors who governed within a Confucian institutional framework, the Mongol court lacked that prejudice. Khubilai Khan, like Akbar in India, patronized all religions of his subjects, with the real object of humanizing his "rude Mongols." Buddhism was more congenial to them than Confucianism, and they had made its acquaintance earlier. Eliot mentions the Tibetan lama Pagspa (Pa-ssŭ-pa) as a trusted adviser who received the title Kuo-Shih. The text notes Khubilai's favor toward Buddhists, Mohammedans, Christians, and Jews, but prejudice against Taoists. This section provides a concrete example of how political power reshaped religious hierarchies, moving away from Confucian orthodoxy toward a more pluralistic imperial policy.

Readers approaching this volume should note that Eliot's analysis is grounded in specific textual and historical evidence rather than broad generalizations. The excerpts reveal a scholar attentive to nuance—acknowledging where influences are probable but not provable, and where doctrines diverge despite apparent similarities. The work rewards careful attention to the footnotes and references to primary sources, which anchor the discussion in the scholarly debates of Eliot's time.

There’s something about reading Chu-Hsi’s careful weaving of Confucian order into Buddhist thought that reminded me of how old beliefs quietly layer into new ones, never fully disappearing. It’s the same gentle unease I felt with Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning — Reading Notes—not a rush of answers, just a slow awareness of how much we carry without knowing it. Those resonances stayed with me long after closing the page.