24
MARJORIE TOPLEY
ments. Finally there might be ties between such institutions and villages with lay-disciples who were "kinsmen" and lived in their own homes.
From Buddhist genealogies I have seen, and from information gained from their owners in Singapore who were members of the Buddhist organization in China before emigrating, it seems that members of "kinship" groups might be dotted over a large area. The numbers and kinds of institution found in an area would probably depend partly on economic circumstances in a region. For example in one district of Kwangtung, Shuntê, there was a particularly large number of vegetarian halls, according to my informants, and which catered for women who refused to marry or live with their husbands. They worked in the silk-mills for cash-earnings and their strength to resist marriage undoubtedly stemmed from this fact (their reasons for not wanting to marry are more complex and I cannot go into them here). In old age such women often had nowhere to go and they sometimes financed the building of vegetarian halls themselves and became their managers.28
It seems unlikely however that Buddhist pseudo-kinship was a significant form of organization for ordinary kinds of peasants in the nineteenth century in most parts of China. Buddhism itself does not appear to have had a very strong structural position at that time. There are indications that it was not well endowed and the number of residents of their institutions small.29 Generally speaking the kinds of persons wishing to make use of Buddhist organization were not very wealthy.
The general lower-classness of the Buddhist clergy would not attract the scholarly men of wealth as disciples. It is said a scholarly family would be despised by the community if it mixed with Buddhist (and Taoist) priests frequently.30 Any scholarly person genuinely interested in the Buddhist faith would not need the instruction of a priest in reading texts and would be unlikely to take instruction anyway from a person beneath him in education and other status. If he wished to "take refuge" in the religion he might take a master as a formality, but it is unlikely the "kinship" connexion thus established would play a significant role in the life of either person.
It was not in fact until the turn of the century that educated laymen took up the Buddhist cause with any vigour. At that time
24
MARJORIE TOPLEY
ments. Finally there might be ties between such institutions and villages with lay-disciples who were "kinsmen" and lived in their own homes.
From Buddhist genealogies I have seen, and from information gained from their owners in Singapore who were members of the Buddhist organization in China before emigrating, it seems that members of "kinship" groups might be dotted over a large area. The numbers and kinds of institution found in an area would probably depend partly on economic circumstances in a region. For example in one district of Kwangtung, Shuntê, there was a particularly large number of vegetarian halls, according to my in- formants, and which catered for women who refused to marry or live with their husbands. They worked in the silk-mills for cash- earnings and their strength to resist marriage undoubtedly stemmed from this fact (their reasons for not wanting to marry are more complex and I cannot go into them here). In old age such women often had nowhere to go and they sometimes financed the building of vegetarian halls themselves and became their managers.28
It seems unlikely however that Buddhist pseudo-kinship was a significant form of organization for ordinary kinds of peasants in the nineteenth century in most parts of China. Buddhism itself does not appear to have had a very strong structural position at that time. There are indications that it was not well endowed and the number of residents of their institutions small,29 Generally speaking the kinds of persons wishing to make use of Buddhist organization were not very wealthy.
The general tower-classness of the Buddhist clergy would not attract the scholarly men of wealth as disciples. It is said a scho- larly family would be despised by the community if it mixed with Buddhist (and Taoist) priests frequently.30 Any scholarly person genuinely interested in the Buddhist faith would not need the in- struction of a priest in reading texts and would be unlikely to take instruction anyway from a person beneath him in education and other status. If he wished to "take refuge” in the religion he might take a master as a formality, but it is unlikely the "kinship" con- nexion thus established would play a significant role in the life of either person,
It was not in fact until the turn of the century that educated laymen took up the Buddhist cause with any vigour. At that time
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.