Yunqi Zhuhong’s Thought on Abstaining from Killing and Releasing Life and the Buddhist–Christian Debate in the Late Ming Dynasty

Abstract

As a major proponent of the Buddhist revival movement in the late Ming dynasty, Yunqi Zhuhong authored works such as Jieshu fayin, Jiesha wen, and Fangsheng wen, which had a profound impact on lay Buddhism. Using the Buddhist six realms of rebirth as a theoretical foundation, he combined doctrinal analysis with narratives of spiritual efficacy to systematically expound upon the Buddhist ethics of refraining from killing, releasing life, and compassionately protecting living beings. During the same period, the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci had come to China and wrote his book Tianzhu shiyi with reference to Catechismus Japonensis and Tianzhu shilu. A comparison of the contents of these three missionary works reveals that Ricci paid particular attention to the Buddhist doctrine and practice of abstaining from killing, and for the first time, he listed it in a missionary work and offered a targeted critique. Afterward, Ricci wrote Jiren shipian, which also included content on “The True Purpose of Fasting and Abstinence Does Not Arise from the Prohibition of Killing”. Relevant letters prove that Zhuhong had already read both of these works by Matteo Ricci as early as the 36th year of the Wanli era (1608), yet he did not immediately offer a direct refutation. At first, it was his disciple Yu Chunxi who wrote articles such as Tianzhu shiyi shasheng bian, initiating a preliminary direct debate with Ricci. As the influence of Catholicism gradually grew and expanded between 1608 and 1615, Zhuhong, after seven years of silence, wrote the three essays of Tianshuo and Tianshuo yu to offer a direct response to Catholicism. When expounding on the doctrine of abstaining from killing and releasing life, Zhuhong adopted new argumentative strategies, both to defend Buddhism and to remind and persuade Confucian intellectuals not to turn to Catholicism.

1. Introduction

Yunqi Zhuhong 雲棲袾宏 (1535–1615), courtesy name Fohui 佛慧 and alternate name Lianchi 蓮池, was one of the Four Great Masters of the late Ming dynasty. In his twenties, he suffered the pain of losing his wife, son, and both parents. This, combined with successive failures in the civil service examinations, led him to a profound sense of life’s impermanence. In the 45th year of the Jiajing 嘉靖 era of the Ming dynasty (1566), Zhuhong was tonsured by Master Xingtian Li 性天理 of Xishan and later received the full monastic (bhikṣu) and Bodhisattva precepts at the ordination platform of Zhaoqing Temple 昭慶寺 in Hangzhou. Following his ordination, in accordance with the tradition of itinerant monks, he spent six years traveling to various places in search of teachers and the Way.

In the fifth year of the Longqing 隆慶 era (1571), Zhuhong returned to his hometown of Hangzhou. After gaining the support of local villagers for successfully praying for rain and taming a tiger menace, the grateful villagers voluntarily helped him rebuild the ruins of an ancient temple on Yunqi Mountain.1 The establishment of Yunqi Temple offered Zhuhong a stable place to practice and teach and also provided a spiritual anchor for the local populace. Throughout his life, Zhuhong advocated for the Pure Land Doctrine and dedicated his efforts to making Yunqi Temple a model monastery for Pure Land practice and strict adherence to the precepts. While serving as abbot, he formulated new regulations to reform the monastic community; selected, compiled, and interpreted Vinaya texts; and authored works such as Jieshu fayin 戒疏發隱 [Elucidation of the Commentary on the Precepts Contained in the Sutra of Brahma’s Net] and Jujie bianmeng 具戒便蒙 [Primer of Precepts for Monks]. He also compiled the virtuous words and deeds of eminent monks into the Zimen chongxing lu 緇門崇行錄 [Record of the Exalted Acts of Buddhist Monks] and drafted the Yunqi gongzhu guiyue 雲棲共住規約 [Yunqi Regulations for Communal Living], which detailed rules governing all aspects of monastic life.

In addition to his great efforts in Vinaya revival and monastic reform, Zhuhong also had a profound influence on the late Ming lay Buddhist movement. His Jiesha wen 戒殺文 [Essay on Abstaining from Killing] and Fangsheng wen 放生文 [Essay on Releasing Life] were widely circulated and repeatedly reprinted among the populace, and his teachings on compassionate protection of life became a doctrinal basis for lay Buddhism. Furthermore, the system of merits and demerits in his Zizhi lu 自知錄 [Record for Self-Knowledge] served as a tool for the moral education of the masses. At the same time, the era in which Zhuhong lived was not limited to the interactions between Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism; with the arrival of Jesuit missionaries in China, Buddhism had to confront the challenges of Catholicism, a faith with a fundamentally different foundation. Between the 23rd year and the 31st year of the Wanli 萬曆 era (1595–1603), Matteo Ricci, referencing the Alessandro Valignano’s Catechismus Christianae Fidei and Michele Ruggieri’s Tianzhu shilu 天主實錄 [The True Record of the Lord of Heaven], wrote the book Tianzhu shiyi 天主實義 [The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven]. A comparison of the contents of these three works reveals that Ricci paid particular attention to the Buddhist doctrine and practice of abstaining from killing, and for the first time, he included it in a missionary work and offered a targeted critique. Then, in the 34th year of the Wanli era (1606), Ricci completed the writing of Jiren shipian 畸人十篇 [Ten Discourses on the Extraordinary Man]. In the 35th year of the Wanli era (1607), Tianzhu shiyi was recarved and published at the Wang family ancestral hall (Yanyitang 燕貽堂) in Hangzhou, which was precisely the center of Yunqi Zhuhong’s activities. Relevant letters prove that Zhuhong had already read Ricci’s Tianzhu shiyi and Jiren shipian as early as the 36th year of the Wanli era (1608), yet he did not immediately offer a direct refutation. Unlike Zibai Zhenke 紫柏真可 and Hanshan Deqing 憨山德清, who were actively engaged with the secular affairs, Zhuhong established his own lineage within the late Ming monastic communities through quiet cultivation and was less willing to become overly involved in worldly disputes. In the early stage, it was Zhuhong’s disciple Yu Chunxi 虞淳熙 who wrote articles such as “Tianzhu shiyi shasheng bian” 天主實義殺生辯 [A Refutation on the issue of Killing in Tianzhu shiyi], initiating a direct debate with Ricci. However, as the influence of Catholicism gradually grew in the Hangzhou region, especially after the official establishment of the Catholic mission in Hangzhou in the 39th year of the Wanli era (1611), this became a reality that the Hangzhou Buddhist community could no longer ignore. After seven years of silence, in the 43rd year of the Wanli era (1615), the year of his death, Zhuhong completed the writing of the three essays of Tianshuo 天說 [On Heaven] and Tianshuo yu 天說餘 [Postscript to On Heaven], offering a direct response to Catholicism. The style and intent of these essays were very different from his earlier expositions of Buddhist doctrine, perhaps reflecting Zhuhong’s anxiety in the face of the Catholic challenge.

Scholars have discussed extensively on the subject of Yunqi Zhuhong and the late Ming Buddhist–Christian encounter. Iso Kern regarded Zhuhong and his disciples as important figures in the first phase of the 17th-century Buddhist movement against Catholicism. As with Jacques Gernet, Sangkeum Kim, Nishimura Rei, Liu Hongmei, Wang Jianhua, and other scholars, the focus of discussion has been more on the analysis of concepts such as “Lord of Heaven,” “reincarnation,” and “filial piety” in the debates between Catholicism and Buddhism. Even when “abstaining from killing and releasing life” is mentioned, it is not examined within the overall context of Zhuhong’s thought (Kern 1984, 1994; Gernet 1985; Kim 2004; Ryo Nishimura 2010; Liu 2008; L. Wu 2014; H. Zhou 2015; J. Wang 2015; Xiang 2014; Zhang 2020). I choose to focus on Zhuhong’s thought on abstaining from killing and releasing life as well as the late Ming Buddhist–Christian debate on this topic, for the following reasons: First, although the current scholarship on Zhuhong is quite rich, with the most representative comprehensive studies being the works of Araki Kengo, Yü Chün-fang, and Zhou Tiance, and many scholars have also specifically examined Zhuhong’s thought on abstaining from killing and releasing life and its reception in early modern Japan,2 they have rarely compared the differences between Zhuhong’s early promulgation of this idea and his later references to it in the context of the Buddhist–Christian debate. Studies on Tianshuo have focused more on its doctrinal differences with Ricci’s teachings and has seldom explained the state of Catholic development in Hangzhou and the overall social atmosphere at the time Zhuhong wrote Tianshuo. Furthermore, the statements of his disciples, such as Yu Chunxi and Ge Yinliang 葛寅亮, on the theory of abstaining from killing and releasing life, as well as the attitudes revealed in Zhuhong’s letters to his disciples, have also been seldom analyzed. In addition, besides Tianshuo, Zhuhong wrote several short essays in his later years, such as Fuxishi wanggu 伏羲氏網罟 [The Fishing Nets of Fuxi] and Shasheng feiren suowei 殺生非人所為 [Killing is Not a Human Act], the content of which may have been influenced by Ricci’s line of reasoning; these are documents that previous scholars have paid little attention to and have not utilized. Second, when Matteo Ricci wrote Tianzhu shiyi, he heavily referenced Alessandro Valignano’s Catechismus Christianae Fidei and Michele Ruggieri’s Tianzhu shilu. By comparing the contents of these three works, I have noted that one of Ricci’s creative contributions was to add the section on “the fallacy of abstaining from killing” in the fifth part, which indirectly shows that he was keenly aware of the prevalence and influence of this doctrine in Chinese society at the time. Since the original Catechismus Christianae Fidei is written in Latin and has not yet been translated into Chinese, few scholars have compared the contents of the two works.3 I will translate and analyze relevant passages from the Catechismus Christianae Fidei in this article to clarify how Ricci’s refutation of the doctrines of reincarnation and abstaining from killing differed in its approach from that of the Jesuits in Japan. In addition, Ricci also wrote Jiren shipian, a text that has not received sufficient scholarly attention. I will make active and effective use of relevant passages from it. Third, the doctrine of abstaining from killing and releasing life became one of the core themes of the late Ming Buddhist–Christian debate because it was a visible and concrete practical consequence stemming from the Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation, and on a philosophical level, it profoundly reflected the differences between Buddhism and Catholicism in their views of the soul. In the 36th year of the Wanli era (1608), after reading Tianzhu shiyi, the only response written by Zhuhong’s disciple Yu Chunxi was “Tianzhu shiyi shasheng bian”, and the entire second part of Zhuhong’s Tianshuo is devoted to this matter, which shows that among the many issues concerning Buddhism in Tianzhu shiyi, abstaining from killing and releasing life was a key area of focus for Zhuhong and his disciples.

Overall, building on previous research, this article not only explains the influence of Yunqi Zhuhong’s thought on abstaining from killing and releasing life on the lay Buddhist movement but also further places it in the historical context of the direct contact between Catholicism and Buddhism in the Hangzhou region between 1608 and 1615. In his early years, when Yunqi Zhuhong advocated for abstaining from killing and releasing life, he did so from a Buddhist standpoint; he was an active reformer of the Buddhist movement. In his later years, when he faced a new religion from a foreign land, he initially maintained a calm and observant attitude. As the influence of Catholicism gradually grew in the Hangzhou region, he adopted new argumentative strategies when expounding on the doctrine of abstaining from killing and releasing life, both to defend Buddhism and to remind and persuade Confucian intellectuals not to turn to Catholicism. All things are impermanent; perhaps Zhuhong never imagined that a new religion from across the ocean could have such charm, which flourished throughout China in a short time, forming a powerful competition with Buddhism and attracting the favor of many intellectuals.

2. The Late Ming Lay Buddhist Movement and Zhuhong’s Thought on Abstaining from Killing and Releasing Life

Jushi 居士 (Lay Buddhist), in a broad sense, refers to all secular followers of Buddhism. However, in practice, the scope is often more limited, typically referring to those who “possessed assets, lived affluently, had a higher level of culture and education, believed in Buddhism, and were well-versed in its teachings” (Ren 2000, p. 2). By participating in “Buddhist activities such as forming societies and attending Dharma assemblies, as well as Dharma-propagating endeavors like translating, carving, and composing scriptures, and actively engaging in Buddhist-Daoist controversies and debates between Confucian, Buddhist, and Daoist teachings” (Pan 2000, p. 9), lay Buddhists played a pivotal role in promoting and protecting the development of Buddhist enterprise and culture. A major trend in late Ming Buddhism was the flourishing of the lay Buddhist movement. Some scholars link this to the decline of the monastic community at the time, seeing it as a supplement or even a replacement for monastic Buddhism. However, other scholars argue that it was precisely due to the efforts of eminent late Ming monks in rectifying monastic Buddhism and harmonizing the three teachings, using simple and accessible practical methods, that lay Buddhism thrived. “If there had been no revival of monastic Buddhism in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, lay Buddhism would not have emerged. Lay Buddhism, then, reflected the new energy of monastic Buddhism in the late Ming. It did not emerge as a substitute for the latter.” (Yü [1981] 2020, p. 72)

One of Yunqi Zhuhong’s influences on the late Ming lay Buddhist movement was his strong advocacy for observing the precepts of abstaining from killing and releasing life. These practices have a clear doctrinal basis in the Fanwang jing 梵網經 [Sutra of Brahma’s Net]: abstaining from killing is the first of the ten major precepts, and releasing life is the twentieth of the forty-eight minor precepts.4 Zhuhong provided detailed commentaries on them in his Jieshu fayin. For instance:

From all Buddhas and sages down to the most minuscule crawling creatures, of the four modes of birth and six destinies, as long as they possess the aforementioned form, mind, and life-faculty, one must not kill them... [A Bodhisattva] should have three qualities: compassion, filial piety, and the will to save and protect. The act of killing goes against heaven and reason, and is thus unfilial and disobedient. Furthermore, all sentient beings have been our parents in many past lives; to harm them is to harm our own parents. 自諸佛聖人，乃至蜎蝡微流，四生六趣，但有如上所說色心命根，皆不得殺。……（菩薩）應有三，謂慈悲、孝順、救護也。殺事逆天悖理，即是不孝不順。又一切眾生皆多生父母，惱害之，即惱害吾父母。

(Yunqi Zhuhong, Fanwang pusajiejing yishu fayin, p. 168b)

Question: Mozi’s doctrine of “universal love” was labeled heterodox. How can it be that all sentient beings are our parents? Answer: Confucianism and Daoism only discuss this present life, while the Buddhadharma speaks of previous incarnations. Since we have undergone countless rebirths, we have certainly been born into all the realms of existence. Thus, how could it not be true that all beings in the six realms have been our parents? Only those who cling to recent traces and fail to perceive distant karmic connections would dismiss it as heterodoxy, it is not necessary to find this strange. 問：墨子兼愛，號為異端，雲何眾生皆我父母。答：儒道止談今世，佛法乃論前身，受身既曆多生，托胎必遍諸趣。六道眾生皆我父母，豈不然乎？惟拘近跡，不審遠緣，等之異端，悉足為怪。

Question: The four great elements are external matter. What do they have to do with one’s own body? Answer: Sentient beings are deluded; they mistake the illusory for their true, permanent body. They regard external matter as themselves, grasping onto earth, water, fire, and wind, and consider them to be their own body. The blood, flesh, warmth, and breath are born from the combination of these four elements, and die from their dispersion. Apart from the transformation there is only the division of bodies, no body is ever separated from these. 問：四大外物，何關己身。答：眾生顛倒，迷真常身，認物為己，攬彼地水，及與火風，為我自身。血肉暖息，繇此四大和合而生，散滅而死，惟除變易，自餘分段，終無離此而有身也。

(Yunqi Zhuhong, Fanwang pusajiejing yishu fayin, p. 191c)

Killing is contrary to heaven and reason. Zhuhong, proceeding from the idea that harming others is in fact harming oneself, no longer demarcates the subjectivity between individuals, but instead achieves a cognitive model of co-existence that deconstructs the self. Zhuhong also employed this logic in his exposition on preserving life. He used a question-and-answer format, asking, “How can all sentient beings be our parents?”, “What do the four great elements, as external matter, have to do with one’s own body?”, and “If the self and others are both composed of the four great elements, then our energies should flow together. Why is it that when another is cut, I feel no pain?” His response is based first on the different premises of Confucianism and Buddhism: Confucianism is limited to this world, whereas the aim and vision of Buddhism extend to the six realms of rebirth. Second, people cling to the false self composed of earth, water, fire, and wind, and due to their inverted delusions, they fail to realize that their own bodies and the bodies of others are both the same and different. Lastly, Confucianism speaks of a hierarchy of relationships, while Buddhism puts others before oneself, demonstrating that Buddhist compassion is ultimate, knowing only how to benefit others.

In short, Zhuhong, based on Buddhist doctrine, went beyond mere preceptual preaching. He argued from a more profound and thorough ontological point of view for the necessity and importance of abstaining from killing and preserving life. “When a person killed another sentient being, he broke the hidden bonds among all forms of life. Violence alienated the violator not only from a sense of cosmic harmony but also, ultimately, from himself. For although the act of killing was an extreme assertion of the self, the self, which was so isolated and delimited, ironically ceased to have any real life or to have any real meaning” (Yü [1981] 2020, p. 80). Only by breaking free from the attachment to self and realizing the shared structure and connection between all beings can one fundamentally sever the thought of harming others, eliminate selfish desires, and give rise to actions that protect all beings and regularly release life.

To promote and popularize the practice of abstaining from killing and releasing life among the people, rather than letting it remain a topic of doctrinal speculation, Yunqi Zhuhong also wrote the Jiesha wen and the Fangsheng wen. These works, which promoted compassionate protection of life, had a great impact. First, the two essays were repeatedly reprinted among the populace, initiating the organization of life-releasing activities by lay groups. Second, the Empress Dowager dispatched a special envoy to request that he deliver a Dharma talk. Compared to the profound arguments in Jieshu fayin, the Jiesha wen and the Fangsheng wen lean more towards skillful means and narratives of the supernatural. The Fangsheng wen consists almost entirely of a list of incidents to illustrate that every act has its recompense and that these matters are not without evidence. For example, when the Xu Zhenjun 許真君 shot a deer, its mother did not survive for a long time. When he opened its abdomen, he saw that the mother deer’s intestines were broken inch by inch out of grief for her child’s death. Overcome with remorse, he broke his bow and arrow, entered the mountains to cultivate the Way, and ultimately attained immortality. In another story, a young novice (śrāmaṇera) who was fated to die in seven days saw a swarm of ants trapped by water. He made a bridge to help them cross, and because the ants were saved, the novice’s short life was transformed into a long one.5 This kind of pedagogical method utilizes the common believer’s hope for reward to guide them to abstain from killing and release life, teaching that as long as one is compassionate even to the smallest creatures like ants, there will surely be blessings.

Furthermore, Zhuhong not only adapted Buddhist stories such as cutting one’s flesh to ransom a dove or elephants carrying water from winebags to save lives in a drying pond, but he also skillfully used stories from the Confucian classics. For example, King Chengtang of the Shang dynasty 商王成湯, upon encountering a hunter who had set nets on all four sides, had three sides removed, leaving only one. In another case, when someone presented live fish to the statesman Zichan 子產 of Zheng, Zichan did not eat them but had them raised in a pond. From these, Zhuhong concluded that “releasing life is not exclusive to Buddhism; gentlemen in the Confucian tradition all practice it.” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Fangsheng wen”, p. 759a) This also reflects the integration of Confucian thought in the persuasive practices of late Ming Buddhism.

Zhuhong was not only adept at using stories of karmic retribution for good and evil and the great accumulation of hidden merit, but he also provided concrete plans for practice. In the Jiesha wen, Zhuhong lists seven occasions and situations where killing is inappropriate: birthdays, the birth of a child, ancestral sacrifices, weddings, banquets, prayers for blessings, and livelihood. He explains the reasons for each and provides examples. For instance, one should not kill on one’s birthday because “the day of one’s own birth is the day of one’s parents’ impending death. On this day, one should observe the precepts against killing, maintain a vegetarian diet, and perform good deeds widely, so that one’s deceased ancestors may soon attain liberation, and one’s living parents may have their blessings and longevity increased.” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Jiesha wen”, p. 757c) If one indiscriminately kills the innocent, it is not only detrimental to oneself but also implicates one’s parents. One should not kill for ancestral sacrifices because “on the death anniversaries of the deceased and during the spring and autumn tomb-sweeping, one should abstain from killing to increase their posthumous fortune. To kill for sacrifice only increases their negative karma. Even if eight delicacies are laid out before them, how can they rouse the bones from the netherworld to eat? It is of no benefit and only causes harm.” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Jiesha wen”, p. 757c) In the past, Emperor Wu of Liang 梁武帝 did not consider a vegetarian diet to be lacking; he used flour to make sacrificial animals. What is important is to cultivate one’s own character, not to kill oxen and use their blood. One should not kill for a living. For the sake of livelihood, clothing, and food, people may hunt, fish, or work as butchers. However, “of those who prosper through killing, not one in a hundred is found. They plant deep roots for hell and receive evil retribution in future lives.” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Jiesha wen”, p. 758a) Stories of sheep butchers bleating like sheep or eel sellers whose heads being like eaten by eels before they died were not uncommon.

At the same time, Zhuhong also considered that ordinary believers might not be able to completely avoid these seven situations in their daily lives. Thus, he proposed a flexible method: “reduce [killing] as you can according to your ability, whether by abstaining from four or five, or forgoing two or three.” That is, one should try to observe the precept against killing as much as possible within one’s means. Each instance avoided helps to eliminate a portion of negative karma. If one cannot completely give up meat, one should at least not kill the animals personally. Daily practice should emphasize gradual progress and the cultivation of a compassionate mind. Additionally, one could paste a sheet of paper on the wall to record one’s adherence to the precept against killing for the whole year. Not killing for a month is considered a lower good, not killing for a year a middle good, and not killing for a lifetime an upper good. Similarly, the Fangsheng wen also contains practical guidance. For example, everyone should do good according to their actual ability. Those with means can extend their grace to many lives, while those without can benefit a single insect; both are good deeds. What is important is to accumulate these acts day by day and month by month. If, when performing meritorious deeds, one can also chant the name of Amitābha Buddha and recite various Mahāyāna scriptures, one’s blessings and wisdom will be even greater. If the release of life is delayed for a long time due to setting up a ceremonial space, causing half of the creatures to die, then such a life release is meaningless.

Although Buddhism has always advocated for abstaining from killing, releasing life, and compassionately protecting all things, Zhuhong explored and interpreted these concepts more profoundly in his Jieshu fayin, re-arguing for the necessity of these practices from the fundamental logic of the six realms of rebirth and continuous reincarnation. At the same time, his Jiesha wen and Fangsheng wen are models of combining reason and emotion, providing a practical guide for lay Buddhist groups in the late Ming. Zhuhong’s contributions to the development of the thought and practice of abstaining from killing and releasing life are reflected in several aspects: First, on a theoretical level, compared to the commentary on the Sutra of Brahma’s Net by Zhiyi 智顗 of the Sui dynasty, Zhuhong’s Jieshu fayin more clearly reflects the late Ming trend of syncretism between Buddhism and Confucianism. Zhuhong elaborated extensively on content related to filial piety. Overall, Zhuhong was skilled at incorporating Confucian thought without conflicting with it, even using Confucian classics to support Buddhist arguments and emphasizing the importance of harmonizing Confucianism and Buddhism—that is, the compatibility, rather than conflict, between Confucian moral norms and Buddhist precepts. Second, regarding the social environment, Araki Kengo has analyzed that due to the development of handicrafts and light industry in the late Ming, a trend of luxury permeated all aspects of people’s lives. The demand for meat surged, and the phenomenon of animal slaughter in society increased accordingly. In such a social environment, Zhuhong inherited and promoted the Buddhist tradition of not killing. “Standing against the deteriorating and endlessly violent society of the late Ming, his intention to use what should be a fundamental reflective act of humanity to halt the various actions leading to the decline of civilization was bound to attract the world’s attention” (Araki 1985, pp. 13–24). Third, on a practical level, life-release activities had appeared as early as the sixth century,6 and by the Song dynasty, they had become a widespread popular practice actively participated in by the common people, but they lacked a formal organizational structure and regulation. In late Ming society, popular Buddhist rituals were prevalent. Because the government feared that monastic clergy and religious activities, which were gradually escaping its supervision, posed a threat, it enacted strict laws and measures.7 Zhuhong also had concerns about popular societies, fearing that drifters would illegally gather crowds under the false pretext of Buddhism.8 Therefore, his Jiesha wen and Fangsheng wen served to regulate and protect legitimate ritual activities, which could both prevent the scattered and disorderly nature of popular activities and avoid being banned by the government. Although Zhuhong himself was cautious about forming societies, because he had “accumulated sincere practice in doctrine, Chan, and Vinaya, the number of people who admired his virtue gradually increased, to the point where it evolved into the largest Amitābha-recitation community of the time” (Araki 2010, p. 155). His followers and disciples actively organized societies and carried out numerous popular practices, building a life-release pond at both Changshou Monastery 長壽庵 and Shangfang Monastery 上方寺 near the north gate of Hangzhou.9 However, just as the three teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism were gradually reaching a state of harmony, the arrival of Jesuit missionaries sparked a new cultural collision.

3. Matteo Ricci’s New Observations: “The Fallacy of Abstaining from Killing” in Tianzhu Shiyi and Jiren Shipian

In the eleventh year of the Wanli era (1583), Matteo Ricci 利瑪竇 (1552–1610) arrived in Zhaoqing, Guangdong, as an assistant to the Italian Jesuit Michele Ruggieri, where he studied Chinese and began his missionary activities. When Ricci arrived in China, his understanding of Buddhism was not a blank slate; rather, he inherited the decades of experience of other Jesuits who had been missionaries in Japan.10 From 1579 to 1582, the Jesuit Visitor to Asia Alessandro Valignano wrote the Catechismus Christianae Fidei in Japan, which is also known as the Catechismus Japonensis 日本要理本. This work was later published in Lisbon and primarily included the main points of Catholic doctrine, as well as the errors of various Japanese schools and popular Buddhism (Valignano 1586). Almost simultaneously, the first missionary to settle in mainland China, Michele Ruggieri 羅明堅, published his work Xinbian xizhuguo tianzhu shilu 新編西竺國天主實錄 [A New Edition of the True Record of the Lord of Heaven from the Western Land], also known as Tianzhu shilu 天主實錄, in 1584. This was the first book published by a European in China. According to the classification by the Italian scholar Gianni Criveller, “catechisms” 要理本 were written for non-Catholics in different faith communities, with the hope that people would discuss the existence of God and the immortality of the soul through natural reason; the writing could flexibly adopt different arguments to persuade non-believers. “Doctrinal texts”, 道理本 on the other hand, were written for Catholics to teach the important dogmas of the Catholic faith, and their content needed to strictly follow the official Latin version from Rome (Criveller 2010, pp. 39–76). Because the Catechismus Japonensis and Tianzhu shilu were written for non-Catholics, they are both classified as “catechisms”. However, as they were early missionary works, their content was sometimes ambiguous. For example, Tianzhu shilu also contained Catholic doctrines such as the Ten Commandments and baptism, as well as scientific knowledge like the planetary system (Ruggieri 2013, pp. 1–25).

To better propagate Catholic thought, in the 21st year of the Wanli era (1593), Alessandro Valignano requested that Matteo Ricci write a new “catechism” to replace The Tianzhu shilu, which was cruder and more contradictory in both language and position. Thus, Ricci began writing Tianzhu shiyi in 1595. When writing this book, Ricci referred to the content of the Catechismus Japonensis and Tianzhu shilu, but he also had his own structure and content arrangement. Although there is no clear evidence that Ricci had direct contact with the teachings of Yunqi Zhuhong or other eminent Buddhist monks at that time, I believe it is necessary to discuss Ricci’s doctrine in this section for two reasons. First, by comparing the content of Tianzhu shiyi with the Catechismus Japonensis and Tianzhu shilu, I have found that the fifth section, on “the fallacy of abstaining from killing,” is entirely a new addition by Ricci, not found in the corresponding chapters of the Catechismus Japonensis or Tianzhu shilu, a point that will be discussed in detail later. Second, after Tianzhu shiyi was printed and published in Hangzhou in 1607, Zhuhong and his disciples all responded to the content regarding “abstaining from killing”. Therefore, as a preliminary to that discussion, it is necessary to state Ricci’s views on this topic.

In the 31st year of the Wanli era (1603), Tianzhu shiyi was officially published. The book consists of eight sections,11 introducing the Catholic faith and refuting other prevalent ideas in China, with a large portion dedicated to criticizing Buddhism. The fifth section is titled “Refuting the Fallacies of Reincarnation in the Six Realms and the Prohibition of Killing Living Beings, and Revealing the True Purpose of Fasting and Abstinence”. In it, Ricci concentrated his critique on the Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation and its practical consequences: abstaining from killing and vegetarianism. In contrast, the sixth chapter of Tianzhu shilu is titled “On the Immortality of the Human Soul and its Great Difference from Animals,” and the fourth chapter of the Catechismus Japonensis also includes refutations of popular Buddhism and the doctrine of reincarnation. Neither mentions the Buddhist doctrine of abstaining from killing, as will be detailed below.

The fifth section of Tianzhu shiyi can be divided into three main parts. The first part refutes reincarnation from its theoretical origins. Ricci claims that the doctrine of reincarnation was first invented by Pythagoras (閉達臥刺 Bidawola). Pythagoras proposed that “those who do not act virtuously will surely be reborn in the next life to face retribution, either into a difficult and impoverished family or transformed into an animal” (Ricci 2014, p. 145). After his death, his disciples spread his teachings abroad, eventually reaching India. Sakyamuni appropriated the concept of reincarnation, added the six realms, and thereby established a new religion, compiling books into scriptures. Buddhism later entered China, but from a historical perspective, there is no credible transmission or solid principle to rely on. Furthermore, Ricci scornfully denounced India as a country without culture, etiquette, or virtuous conduct, and therefore, a doctrine originating from India could not possibly have universal applicability. The idea that the doctrine of reincarnation originated with Pythagoras, although not mentioned in either Tianzhu shilu or the Catechismus Japonensis, was a very natural view within the cognitive framework of 17th-century European intellectuals. For example, the 17th-century Italian traveler Pietro Della Valle, who journeyed to India, also mentioned in his travelogue that India’s doctrine of reincarnation was consistent with the teachings of the ancient Greek Pythagorean school and ancient Egypt, advocating that the soul not only reincarnates among humans but also transmigrates between humans and animals (Della Valle 1892, p. 68).

The second part targets the doctrine of reincarnation itself, where Ricci points out six fallacies. The first five fallacies are: First, if a person’s soul could truly be reincarnated and transmigrate, then they should be able to remember their past lives. Why are there no such people, or why are such people limited to followers of Buddhism and Daoism? Even if the soul undergoes transmigration, “its essence remains the same, so why can it not remember past events?” (Ricci 2014, p. 147). If reincarnation serves to encourage good and punish evil, then it would be all the more necessary to remember past deeds. Second, the Lord of Heaven created humans and animals, giving them different kinds of souls, and did not ordain that sinful people be transformed into animals. The souls of animals have never been different from what they are today. Third, souls are divided into three grades: “The lowest grade is the vegetative soul (生魂 shēnghún), which only sustains the life and growth of what it is endowed to; this is the soul of plants. The middle grade is the sensitive soul (覺魂 juéhún), which can sustain life and growth and also enables the endowed being to see and hear with its eyes and ears, taste and smell with its mouth and nose, and perceive things with its limbs; this is the soul of animals. The highest grade is the rational soul (靈魂 línghún), which encompasses the vegetative and sensitive souls, enabling growth and perception, and also endows its possessor with the ability to reason about things and distinguish principles and righteousness; this is the soul of human beings” (Ricci 2014, p. 147–48). The souls of animals and humans are fundamentally different. Fourth, the souls of different humans are also different. The idea that a person’s soul could inhabit another’s body or enter an animal’s body and be reborn into the world is untenable. Fifth, if a person commits evil, the Lord of Heaven will punish them. If in the next life they become an animal, shedding their human form, this is not a punishment but rather an accommodation of their base desires, leading to shamelessness and recklessness. Thus, reincarnation is not beneficial for deterring evil and encouraging good.

Almost all these five fallacies presented by Ricci can be traced back to the sixth chapter of Tianzhu shilu. In particular, the sections on “the souls of humans and animals being different” and “souls being divided into three grades” are almost identical.12 When describing how a human soul cannot enter an animal’s body, Ricci directly copied the analogy used by Michele Ruggieri: “Just as a knife only fits in a knife’s sheath, and a sword only in a sword’s sheath, how can a knife fit into a sword’s sheath?” Furthermore, the Catechismus Japonensis presents five arguments to refute the six realms of rebirth, but they are all based on the traditional scholastic arguments. Their purpose seems not to be to directly persuade outsiders, but rather to provide theoretical support for the missionary community. Alessandro Valignano used the relationship between substantial form and matter to explain the correspondence between body and soul:

In order to combine the substantial form with its matter, it is necessary to let the matter at first be prepared for the form (which it will accept), natural disposition, and creation: just as the form of fire cannot be induced from wood until the wood is kindled owing to hotness and dryness; also, for the difference of substantial forms there are different affections and preparations of matter, which are like ornaments, whose form demands itself to appear in the matter. But in the bodies of beasts and humans there are thoroughly different affections and qualities, therefore it is impossible for such different bodies to be imbued with the same form according to species: but rather, just as the qualities of bodies are different, the forms are also different.

[…ut substantialis forma suae materiae coniungatur, necesse est, ut materia prius debite praeparetur pro formae, quam susceptura est, ingenio, et conditione: sicut forma ignis in lignum induci non potest, donec lignum debito calore, et siccitate inflammetur: et pro diversitate formarum substantialium diversae sunt affectiones, et praeparationes materiae, quae sunt veluti ornamenta, quae forma ad suum in materiam adventum postulat. At in belluarum, et hominum corporibus diversae penitus affectiones, et qualitates sunt: fieri igitur non potest, ut haec tam diversa corpora eadem secundum speciem forma imbuantur: sed potius sicut diversae sunt corporum dotes, ita diversae sunt formae.]13

Thus, Ricci’s arguments refuting the doctrine of reincarnation were more localized in both form and content, with basically no scholastic terminology. The fundamental disagreement between Catholicism and Buddhism over the doctrine of reincarnation lies in their different views of the soul. Buddhism holds that after the body dies, the soul does not disappear—the so-called “immortality of the spirit”—and it carries “karma” as it transmigrates to the next life. Because the actions of body, speech, and mind of sentient beings in previous lives are infinitely varied, the results they bring about are also vastly different, leading to rebirth in the six realms (devas, asuras, humans, animals, hungry ghosts, and hell-beings). Thus, the karma-bearing soul is independent; depending on its karma, it may be reborn as a human, an animal, or a hungry ghost. However, in the Catholic understanding, the body and soul of every person and every animal are unique and eternal; there is no phenomenon of transmigration. After death, a person goes to heaven or hell, and the boundary between humans and animals is very clear.

Next, Matteo Ricci presented the sixth fallacy of the doctrine of reincarnation, namely “the fallacy of abstaining from killing,” a section not discussed in either the Catechismus Japonensis or Tianzhu shilu. Ricci argued that if the Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation were followed to its logical conclusion, both agriculture and animal husbandry would be impossible, because if Buddhist believers feared that the oxen or horses they slaughtered might be their parents in a new form, they would naturally not be able to tolerate making oxen toil in the fields and pull carts. That Ricci could write a sentence like “Those who abstain from killing do so for fear that the ox or horse I slaughter may be my parents in a new form” (Ricci 2014, p. 147) indicates that he was already quite familiar with the Buddhist theory of abstaining from killing. The Sutra of Brahma’s Net contains the basic tenet that “all sentient beings in the six realms are my parents”, and Ricci was perhaps criticizing this very statement. Next, based on Catholic doctrine, Ricci proposed that “the Lord of Heaven created this heaven and earth and all the myriad things, and there is nothing that was not created for human use” (Ricci 2014, p. 151). The sun, moon, stars, the five colors, and the five tones exist to delight human eyes and ears. The Lord of Heaven created all things for humankind’s use, to nourish the body externally and regulate the mind internally. Therefore, people should be grateful for the grace of the Lord of Heaven and use all things in creation with care. Furs and hides can be made into garments and shoes, bones, horns, and shells can be fashioned into fine implements, potent medicines can cure diseases, and delicious foods can nourish the old and young. Only by making full use of all things in the world can one be said to have received the Lord of Heaven’s good will. If the Lord of Heaven did not permit humans to slaughter animals, why would he have created them? The sages of all nations have a tradition of eating meat. For animals, plants, and goods, using them with moderation is sufficient.14

The third part deals with fasting and vegetarianism. Ricci opposes using reincarnation and abstention from killing as the basis for abstinence. It is reasonable, however, to fast based on Catholic doctrine, for three reasons: first, a person repents for the evil they have done, eating less and choosing simple foods, afflicting themselves to atone for their old and new sins; second, to overcome the pleasure of selfish desires, those who are committed to the Way wish to reduce their desires and look upon their bodies as an enemy;15 third, the joy of virtue is the soul’s original joy; a gentleman pursues benevolence, righteousness, self-restraint, and rectitude, and a full stomach of rich food will surely drag one’s aspirations down to a base level. Afterward, Ricci shares the fasting practices he has heard of from various countries, such as fasting at specific times, fasting from certain foods, fasting from meals, public fasting, and private fasting (Ricci 2014, pp. 157–58).

In summary, the first part of the fifth section of Tianzhu shiyi refutes the doctrine of reincarnation from its origins; the second part negates it based on six major fallacies (as mentioned, the sixth fallacy, “abstaining from killing,” only appears in Tianzhu shiyi); and the third part supports fasting from the perspective of Catholic doctrine. Previous scholars who have investigated the timeline of Ricci’s writing of the various sections of Tianzhu shiyi have suggested that he wrote the first and second parts of the fifth section between 1594 and 1596.16 By that time, Ricci had already lived in China for ten years. I have reviewed Ricci’s missionary records and found that at the end of 1591, he met a merchant from Nanxiong named Ge Shenghua 葛盛華. Ricci wrote, “Ge Shenghua was a devout Buddhist who had been a vegetarian his entire life, eating no meat, fish, dairy products, or eggs, and subsisting only on vegetables, beans, and rice” (Ricci 2017, p. 173). It is clear that, whether through theoretical study or life observation, Ricci had already taken note of the importance that Chinese Buddhists placed on abstaining from killing and vegetarianism. The third part, on fasting and vegetarianism, was written in 1601. In that year, Ricci began to have contact with the official from the Ministry of Works, Li Zhizao 李之藻. During a banquet, Li Zhizao noticed that Ricci was practicing vegetarianism and asked him the reason. Ricci then explained to Li Zhizao that his vegetarianism was based on Catholic doctrine, not on the Buddhist prohibition of killing. Later, Ricci added this part to Tianzhu shiyi.

The scene of this conversation between Matteo Ricci and Li Zhizao also appears in Ricci’s Jiren shipian, written in the 34th year of the Wanli era (1606). This work is divided into two volumes and adopts a dialogical question-and-answer format. Most of his interlocutors were high-ranking officials in the central government or local administration, and the work cites various Western fables, making it more readable and widely disseminable. In a letter written to Father da Costa in Rome in 1608, Ricci said, “Among the books I have written in Chinese, the most popular and influential is the recently published Jiren shipian; the title roughly means ‘extraordinary views’” (Ricci 1986, p. 357). The sixth discourse in Jiren shipian is titled “The True Purpose of Fasting and Abstinence Does Not Arise from the Prohibition of Killing”. It begins by recounting how Li Zhizao hosted a banquet for Ricci and asked why he practiced vegetarianism. Ricci replied, “In China, before the Three Dynasties, before the introduction of Buddhism, no one followed the Buddha; all served the Supreme Lord with the grand sacrifice. None abstained from killing animals. However, before the sacrifice, there was both the ‘preparation fast’ and the ‘concentrated fast,’ and during the fast, all abstained from wine and meat. The scholar-officials I see today, when encountering the grand suburban sacrifices, all abstain from wine and meat and reside in their official quarters. This shows that the meaning of fasting and abstinence did not originate with the Buddhists”.17 Afterward, Li Zhizao said that Confucians “fast to concentrate the will and achieve purification” and asked why Catholics fast. Ricci then explained to him the reasons for Catholic fasting, and this part is similar in content to the third part of the fifth section of Tianzhu shiyi mentioned above.

It can be observed that when Ricci criticized Buddhism in his writings, he often cited Confucian doctrines to support the consistency between Catholicism and Confucianism, a practice that was inseparable from his missionary strategy. From 1597, Ricci served as the Superior of the Jesuit China Mission. After gradually recognizing the mainstream status of Confucianism in traditional Chinese society, he re-evaluated his missionary strategy and policy, shifting from presenting himself as a “Western monk” to a “Western scholar,” trading his monastic robes for Confucian attire and using the language of the Confucian classics to translate Catholic theology. Ricci summarized this series of major decisions as a strategy to “supplement Confucianism and replace Buddhism,” which involved taking a fiercely critical stance against Buddhism and Daoism while adopting a deferential attitude towards Confucianism, even as he subtly revised and criticized it (Tiangang Li 2019, p. 23). In the previous section, I mentioned the trend of syncretism among Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism in the late Ming. Buddhist monks like Yunqi Zhuhong also emphasized the harmony, rather than conflict, between Buddhism and Confucianism. This led to a phenomenon in the late Ming where both Buddhism and Catholicism “borrowed rhetorical arguments from Confucianism, intending to be considered part of a universal orthodoxy. The concept of orthodoxy in the 17th century was not compartmentalized or segregated into different hierarchical ranks. Furthermore, an overwhelming religious culture that favored a syncretic pattern among religions created a situation where, when ‘orthodoxy’ was mentioned as an overarching discourse, no one could claim it was solely Confucian, Daoist, or Buddhist orthodoxy. Instead, there was only one single orthodoxy that permeated the universe” (J. Wu 2019, p. 109).

The friendship between Matteo Ricci and Li Zhizao laid the groundwork for the later propagation of Catholic doctrine in Hangzhou. In the 33rd year of the Wanli era (1605), the Ming court conducted an evaluation of officials in the capital. Li Zhizao was demoted in the evaluation after being accused of excessive indulgence. He did not immediately take up his new post but returned to Hangzhou. Because Li Zhizao had previously been fascinated by the Western geographical, astronomical, and mathematical knowledge brought by Ricci, he had consulted with Ricci many times and had become one of Ricci’s closest Chinese friends at the time. After returning to Hangzhou, Li Zhizao discussed plans with his friend Wang Ruchun 汪汝淳 and others to republish Tianzhu shiyi. In the 35th year of the Wanli era (1607), Tianzhu shiyi was recarved and published at the Wang family ancestral hall (Yanyitang) in Hangzhou, with a preface by Li Zhizao. In the same year, another edition was carved in Hangzhou by Weng Rujin 翁汝進. From this, it is known that Tianzhu shiyi was circulating among the intellectuals of Hangzhou by 1607 at the latest, and Hangzhou was precisely the center of Yunqi Zhuhong’s activities. This set the stage for Zhuhong’s direct response to Catholicism in 1615.

4. A Belated Response: The Debate Between Catholicism and Buddhism in the Hangzhou Region (1608–1615) and Zhuhong’s Tianshuo, Which Cites Confucianism to Refute Christianity and Reaffirm the Original Intent of Abstaining from Killing

Hangzhou was a major center of the Buddhist revival in the late Ming. As mentioned earlier, Yunqi Zhuhong dedicated his life to making Yunqi Temple a model monastery for Pure Land practice and strict adherence to the precepts, and his advocacy for abstaining from killing and releasing life had a profound impact on the lay Buddhist movement in Hangzhou. The cultural elite among the lay Buddhists were the main actors in Hangzhou’s religious and cultural field. With the republication of Tianzhu shiyi in Hangzhou in the 35th year of the Wanli era (1607) and the circulation of Jiren shipian, the local cultural elite, either voluntarily or involuntarily, began to discuss the contents of these works. A direct debate between Buddhism and Catholicism ensued,18 and one of the catalysts was the invitation extended by the Hangzhou prefect, Weng Rujin, to Zhuhong’s disciple, Yu Chunxi, to write a preface for Matteo Ricci’s Jiren shipian.

Yu Chunxi, courtesy name Changru 長孺, and style name Deyuan 德園先生, was a native of Qiantang. He became a jinshi 進士 in the 11th year of the Wanli era (1583), first serving as a Director in the Bureau of Operations of the Ministry of War, then was transferred to Vice Director in the Bureau of Receptions of the Ministry of Rites, and later reassigned to Vice Director of the Bureau of Honours in the Ministry of Personnel. He was later dismissed from office due to slander and lived in seclusion in his hometown, where he embarked on the path of Buddhist practice.19 According to the Jushi zhuan 居士傳 [Biographies of Lay Buddhists], during the three years of mourning for his parents upon returning home, from the 13th to the 15th years of the Wanli era (1585–1588), Yu Chunxi took refuge and received the five precepts from Zhuhong.20 Afterward, Yu Chunxi devoted himself to studying and propagating the Buddhadharma. Zhuhong, deeply impressed by his scholarship, which spanned both Confucianism and Buddhism, praised him, saying, “The layman’s remarkable and broad talent and profound learning have few equals in the land of China. Now in the Chan school, both Confucians and Buddhists look to him as a standard-bearer” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Mituoshuchao da: da Yu Deyuan”). Yu Chunxi was deeply inspired by Zhuhong’s concept of abstaining from killing and releasing life and put it into practice. He actively participated in and supported life-release activities in Hangzhou, not only forming the Shenglianshe 勝蓮社 [Victorious Lotus Society] at West Lake with both clergy and laity but also advocating for the restoration of the Santan life-release pond.21

Among Yu Chunxi’s friends in Hangzhou, many had contact with Matteo Ricci.22 One of them was a fellow disciple of Zhuhong, Ge Yinliang, who was also a member of the Shenglianshe at West Lake. During the metropolitan examination in the capital in the 29th year of the Wanli era (1601), he had a conversation with Ricci. “In the past, in the capital, I saw Matteo Ricci describe the rulers of his country as all being men of virtue who were chosen to rule, known as ‘kings of culture.’ Such a person must not marry and have no sons, nor must he hold the position of prime minister; only the virtuous are appointed, and this has not changed to this day, and there is never any contention. His teachings, such as not sacrificing to ancestors and the doctrine of killing and eating, are greatly erroneous, but the principle of succession of the country’s ruler is very good”.23 Thus, Ge Yinliang greatly admired the Western “kings of culture” (possibly referring to the concept of the “philosopher king”) discussed by Ricci, but he completely disagreed with the Western practices of not sacrificing to ancestors and killing animals for food. In the early days, Yu Chunxi only learned about Ricci and his teachings indirectly through these friends. It was not until the 36th year of the Wanli era (1608), when the Hangzhou prefect Weng Rujin24 invited Yu Chunxi to write a preface for Ricci’s Jiren shipian, that Yu Chunxi had his first direct contact with Ricci.

As to why Weng Rujin invited Yu Chunxi to write a preface for this book, some scholars suggest that it was likely at Ricci’s own request (Xiongxiong Li 2009, p. 24). Since the publication of Tianzhu shiyi, some intellectuals who revered Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism had adopted a critical attitude towards it, which put some pressure on Ricci. Perhaps he wanted to ease the conflict and show that Catholicism held a friendly and open attitude. Furthermore, Ricci, who was in Beijing, hoped to observe the attitudes of local Buddhist believers through his social network in Hangzhou, and even to win them over. “If Yu Chunxi were to publicly denounce him, it would align with Ricci’s goal of impacting the religious and cultural field to expand Catholic influence; if Yu Chunxi were willing to write a preface for his book and praise it, it would create an opportunity to persuade him to convert to Catholicism. If Catholicism could gain the trust and admiration of Buddhist scholar-officials like Yu Chunxi, it would be greatly beneficial for its entry into the religious field of Hangzhou and even the entire Jiangnan region” (Zhang 2020, p. 54).

Shortly after receiving the invitation, Yu Chunxi wrote the Jiren shipian xu 畸人十篇序 [Preface to Ten Discourses of the Extraordinary Man] and, at the same time, wrote a reply to Ricci, Da Li Xitai 答利西泰 [An Answer to Matteo Ricci]. In the Jiren shipian xu, Yu Chunxi politely praised Ricci’s extensive knowledge and clear reasoning, his eloquent and skillful rhetoric, and his tireless study of the Chinese classics in an attempt to use them to propagate Catholicism. On the other hand, he sharply pointed out that the doctrines Ricci was spreading did not conform to the Chinese Confucian concept of “preserving the mind, nourishing the nature, and looking inward with clarity,” and that a great chasm existed between China and the West. “Our country is where the sun rises, the Yang of spring, the way of life; that which nourishes life spreads its blessings far. The Western regions are where the moon appears, the Yin of autumn, the way of death; those who await death return to the source quickly. Return, return! Submerge the spirit and return to destiny, back to the imperial homeland. Is this truly a beneficial friend to our country? As for the foreign music and calendar, these are what the interpreters present and the astronomers hold; even if the tribute is generous, they are not things that our Cathay lacks. Let us have a spiritual friendship with Xitai, each holding the tally of the East and the West. Wherein lies the extraordinary? Wherein lies the extraordinary?”25 Thus, from the standpoint of Chinese Confucianism, Yu Chunxi exposed Ricci’s attempt to use Confucianism to spread Catholicism. In his reply to Ricci, Da Li Xitai, Yu Chunxi first humbly stated that the preface he wrote was insignificant, and then began to formally challenge Ricci. Yu believed that Ricci’s knowledge was insufficient and that he did not truly understand Buddhist doctrine. “To launch an attack without a full grasp of its secrets, how can the fortress of Sravasti be so easily broken?”26 He suggested that Ricci should first seriously read and study the Buddhist classics before discussing the differences and similarities between Catholicism and Buddhism. Yu even provided Ricci with a reading list of Buddhist texts, including the Zongjing lu 宗鏡錄 [Mirror Record of the Sources], the Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 [Forest of Pearls in the Garden of the Dharma], the Shenseng zhuan 神僧傳 [Biographies of Spiritually Powerful Monks], and Zhuhong’s work, Jieshu fayin. Yu then described how Buddhism had been deeply integrated into Chinese culture for over a thousand years and finally advised Ricci to adopt a cautious attitude and stop attacking Buddhism.

After receiving the letter, Matteo Ricci wrote another letter back to Yu.27 This time, Yu Chunxi did not reply directly but forwarded the letter to Yunqi Zhuhong, hoping that Zhuhong would respond on behalf of the Buddhist community. However, in his reply to Yu Chunxi, Zhuhong showed an unwillingness to contend with Catholicism. In the letter, Zhuhong mentioned, “The language of the two books, Tianzhu shiyi and Jiren shipian, is convoluted and difficult,” which indicates that he had read both of Ricci’s works. Zhuhong considered Ricci’s critique of Buddhism to be shallow and ridiculous. “Even the eloquence of Han Yu and Ouyang Xiu, and the philosophical learning of Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi, could not destroy Buddhism, so how could this insignificant little demon? This little demon is not worth debating” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Da Yu Deyuan quanbu”, p. 129b). Thus, Zhuhong believed it was not worthwhile to debate with the shallow teachings of Catholicism, even describing them as “the songs of fishermen and shepherds, the buzzing of mosquitoes and the croaking of frogs”. However, at the same time, Zhuhong had already noticed that many intellectuals were beginning to favor Catholicism and were willing to support it, and he expressed his regret and sorrow for them. Zhuhong also stated that if the teachings of Catholicism continued to spread to the point where all the famous and noble were deluded, he would, despite his illness and without regard for creating negative speech karma, rise up to save them.

After reading Zhuhong’s reply, Yu Chunxi wrote an essay titled Tianzhu shiyi shasheng bian 天主實義殺生辯 [A Refutation on the issue of Killing in Tianzhu shiyi] to respond to Matteo Ricci. Tianzhu shiyi covers several topics, but Yu Chunxi only responded to the topic of “abstaining from killing,” which shows the importance he attached to it. As mentioned earlier, Ge Yinliang, a fellow disciple of Zhuhong, had also specifically mentioned his complete inability to agree with Ricci’s views on “killing”, which may be related to their being part of the lay Buddhist movement for abstaining from killing and releasing life advocated by Zhuhong; they were particularly sensitive to this issue. Yu Chunxi’s Tianzhu shiyi shasheng bian responded point by point to Ricci’s arguments on “the fallacy of abstaining from killing”. First, regarding Ricci’s division of the soul into three grades—vegetative, sensitive, and rational—and his belief that the souls of plants, animals, and humans are fundamentally different, Yu Chunxi argued that Ricci did not understand the principle of “all things are of one body”. Animals and plants both have a spiritual nature and should not be treated differently; Buddhism treats all things with equal compassion. Second, regarding Ricci’s statement that the Lord of Heaven created all things for human use and that as long as people are grateful and moderate, they can eat animals, Yu Chunxi countered that if this logic were followed, did the Lord of Heaven create humans to feed poisonous insects and ferocious beasts? “If you say that Heaven created meat and sea creatures to nourish people, will you also say that Heaven created people to nourish poisonous insects and ferocious beasts?” (Yu Chunxi, “Tianzhu shiyi shasheng bian”, p. 1341). Here, one can see the fundamental disagreement between Catholicism and Buddhism on whether humans, animals, and plants are equal. Yu Chunxi also argued that monks who observed the precepts and engaged in farming had more energy than those who ate meat, because monks were happy and fulfilled internally and did not rely on rich foods to satisfy their appetites. Third, Ricci had extremely argued that if Buddhists truly feared that oxen and horses were their parents in a new form, it would make agriculture and animal husbandry impossible, and that rather than watching oxen and horses suffer a lifetime of labor, it would be better to “strangle them, so the pain lasts only for a moment” (Ricci 2014, p. 154). Yu Chunxi seized on the flaw in this statement, criticizing Ricci’s teachings as extremely cruel. If that were the case, why not kill all the laborers, servants, soldiers, and people suffering in prisons and on sickbeds in the world? Finally, Yu Chunxi once again pointed out that Ricci’s distinction between the souls of humans and animals and his encouragement of killing and eating meat was an act of attachment to worldly life and greed for existence. Catholicism could not understand that animals also cherish their own lives and bodies. Such a lack of compassion, he argued, was inhuman. Furthermore, Yu Chunxi mentioned in his essay that Yunqi Zhuhong also did not approve of Catholic teachings. “Master Yunqi once said: If all of you gentlemen believe and accept it, I will write a ‘Treatise Refuting Heterodoxy’” (Yu Chunxi, “Tianzhu shiyi shasheng bian”, p. 1340). This is precisely the content of Yunqi Zhuhong’s reply to Yu Chunxi mentioned above.

In the debate of the 36th year of the Wanli era (1608), Yunqi Zhuhong did not directly respond to Catholicism. However, in his letter to Yu Chunxi, he left himself an out, mentioning that if the influence of Catholicism was not restrained and more people were deluded, he would rise up and debate it. I believe that Zhuhong’s concern here was not that Buddhist believers would convert to Catholicism, but rather that many Confucian scholar-officials who were originally neutral or already dissatisfied with Buddhism would embrace Catholicism. However, the situation unexpectedly developed in this direction. The influence of Catholicism in the Hangzhou region grew stronger, leading Zhuhong, after seven years of silence, to write Tianshuo in the 43rd year of the Wanli era (1615) to directly respond to Catholicism. So, what happened in the Hangzhou region between 1608 and 1615 that made Zhuhong feel such a deep sense of crisis that he needed to write a response to what he had once called “the songs of fishermen and shepherds, the buzzing of mosquitoes and the croaking of frogs”? I will provide a brief overview here. First and most importantly, in the 39th year of the Wanli era (1611), Li Zhizao invited Lazarus Cattaneo 郭居靜, Nicolas Trigault 金尼閣, and Zhong Mingren 鐘鳴仁 (baptismal name Sebastião Fernandes) to establish a mission in Hangzhou. “They celebrated the first Mass on May 8th, the feast of St. Michael, and St. Michael became the patron of the mission”.28 After that, the missionary work in Hangzhou flourished, and many missionaries came to Hangzhou one after another to carry out their activities (Xia 1994). At the same time, many Confucian scholar-officials, as well as believers who had previously supported Buddhism, began to convert to Catholicism. For example, Yang Tingyun 楊廷筠, who came from a family of Buddhist believers, had heard about the Catholic teachings spread by Ricci in his early years but had not understood them. It was not until he met Lazarus Cattaneo and Nicolas Trigault in Hangzhou that the two priests explained the grace of God and the rules of Catholicism to him, making him gradually understand that all things in heaven and earth belong to the one and only Lord of Heaven. “Grateful for the ultimate grace of creation and fortunate to have been awakened from the path of delusion, his former thoughts of practicing vegetarianism and worshipping the Buddha were completely transformed” (Aleni and Ding, “Yang qiyuan xiansheng chaoxing shiji”). Furthermore, some private residences began to be used as small chapels. A private residence of Li Zhizao, which was originally a place where his wife worshipped Buddhist statues, was cleared of the statues, which he “threw them all into the garden and put them to the torch, placing an image of the Savior in the shrine and instructing his family to worship it as the true God” (Bartoli 1663, vol. 3, p. 36). Academies for teaching Catholic doctrine and Western scientific knowledge were established, and Catholic cemeteries for holding memorial services also appeared.29

With the widespread dissemination of Catholicism in the Hangzhou region, Yunqi Zhuhong perhaps felt the real threat from Catholicism more and more clearly, especially since many Confucian scholar-officials held a favorable view of it. Thus, after seven years of silence, in the year of his death, the 43rd year of the Wanli era (1615), Zhuhong completed the writing of the three essays of Tianshuo and Tianshuo yu, which included content defending the practice of abstaining from killing and releasing life. The style and intent of these essays were very different from his earlier, simple expositions of Buddhist doctrine. They were not teachings and admonitions for Buddhist believers, but can be seen as his response to the entire Catholic faith system, as well as a reminder and exhortation to Confucian scholar-officials.

In the first essay of Tianshuo, Zhuhong focuses on the theory of the “Lord of Heaven”. He begins by stating that he is participating in the debate because the other party is changing customs and traditions, and destroying and slandering the Buddhadharma. He then proposes that although these foreigners who believe in Catholicism worship the Lord of Heaven, they do not actually know the true doctrine of Heaven. “Verifying this against the scriptures, the one they call the Lord of Heaven is the king of Trāyastriṃśa Heaven, the lord of the thirty-three heavens within one four-continent world... What they know is but one among ten thousand billion lords of heaven” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Zhuchuang sanbi: Tianshuo”, p. 71c). Thus, Zhuhong believed that the true identity of the Lord of Heaven worshipped by the other party was merely one of the six heavens in the desire realm of the Buddhist faith system; it was only because they had not read the Buddhist scriptures that such fallacies arose. Zhuhong’s understanding of “Lord of Heaven” (天主 Tiānzhǔ) originated from a line in the Amitābha Sūtra: “...together with all such great Bodhisattvas, and with Śakra Devānām Indra, and the innumerable devas of all the heavens”. In his commentary, Zhuhong wrote: “Saints and ordinary beings alike hear this sūtra, so do not say that the Pure Land is unattainable for ordinary beings. ‘Śakra Devānām Indra’ is the full name for Shìjiā Típó Yīntí 釋迦提婆因提. Shìjiā means ‘capable’; Típó Yīntí means ‘Lord of Heaven’”.30 Thus, Zhuhong did not understand the concept in the Catholic context of “the one who first created and now presides over and sustains all things”, but rather saw this Lord of Heaven as one among billions of celestial lords.

In the second essay of Tianshuo, Zhuhong reaffirms the original meaning of abstaining from killing as stated in the Sutra of Brahma’s Net. The foreigners argued that if all living beings were one’s parents from past lives, then by this logic, people should not only be forbidden to kill and eat them but also to marry, hire servants, or even ride mules and horses. Zhuhong believed this kind of reasoning twisted the meaning of the words. “Throughout countless kalpas, we have been reborn again and again, and in each life, we must have had parents. How can we know that they are not our parents from a past life? This is to say that we fear they might be our parents; it is not to say that they definitely are our parents” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Zhuchuang sanbi: Tianshuo”, p. 72a). It is a reminder that they are “perhaps” our parents, not “certainly”. Zhuhong then used Confucian rites to support Buddhist principles, such as the prohibition of marriage between people of the same surname and the need for divination if the surname of a concubine is unknown. The Li ji 禮記 [Book of Rites] states, “He should serve one twice as old as himself as he serves his father”, but in reality, when a young man becomes an official, his servants are not all children. Therefore, if Confucian rites can be flexible and adapt to circumstances, why not Buddhism? “Marriage between men and women, as well as the use of carriages, horses, and servants, are all common practices in human society; they are not comparable to the cruel poison of killing living beings” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Zhuchuang sanbi: Tianshuo”, p. 72a). Therefore, Buddhism forbids killing but does not prohibit marriage or employing others. The two are completely different in nature, yet the other party used this to make specious arguments in a futile attempt to subvert the truth. Next, Zhuhong criticized the Catholic view of the soul. If the soul is eternal but does not reincarnate, then why did Yu the Great 夏禹 and King Tang of Shang 商湯 not manifest their spirits to admonish Jie of Xia 夏桀 and Zhou of Shang 商紂? Why did the wise rulers of the pre-Qin, Han, Tang, and Song dynasties not manifest their spirits to punish the treacherous ministers of each era?. It is precisely because reincarnation is real that the classics record incidents like Yang Ai 羊哀 transforming into a tiger and Deng Ai 鄧艾 becoming an ox. Thus, from the standpoints of both Buddhism and Confucianism, Zhuhong refuted the Catholic doubts about reincarnation. Here, one can see that at the time, both Buddhism and Catholicism drew upon Confucian resources to validate their own positions.

In the third essay of On Heaven, Zhuhong exclusively quotes Confucian classics to refute Catholic doctrine. He first cites the Shang shu 尚書 [Book of Documents] and the Shi jing 詩經 [Book of Odes]—“in reverent accordance with their observation of the wide heavens”, “revere and honour the way of Heaven”, “Toiled to serve Heaven on high”31—then cites Confucius’s words on “understood Heaven’s Mandate”, “modeling oneself upon Heaven”, and “wealth and honor are determined by Heaven”32 and then Mencius’s words on “delighting in Heaven”, “understand Heaven”, and “serving Heaven”,33 to express that the doctrines concerning “Heaven” were already perfect in Confucianism. The sage kings established their teachings by following the Way, and the sages acted in accordance with Heaven’s will. Why was there any need for Catholicism to establish a new theory? In both the first and third essays of Tianshuo, it is evident that Zhuhong started from his own cognitive framework to understand the Catholic concepts of “Lord of Heaven” and “Heaven”, comparing them with Buddhist and Confucian ideas and concluding that Catholicism offered nothing new.

Tianshuo yu is Zhuhong’s response to some questions raised by readers regarding the three essays of Tianshuo. Someone asked that if divination revealed that a creature one was about to kill was not the reincarnation of one’s parents, could one then kill it? There was also concern that the prohibition of killing would lead to the neglect of sacrificial rites. Zhuhong replied, “Killing is the greatest transgression and evil throughout history; it must not be done. Why doubt and wait for divination?” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Zhuchuang sanbi: Tianshuo yu”, p. 73a) As for the concern that sacrificial rites would be neglected due to the prohibition of killing, Zhuhong pointed out that there was a saying, “killing an ox is not as good as the simple but reverent sacrifice”. Although sacrificial rites should not be abolished, customs such as corporal punishment and burial of the living with the dead had been abolished in history, and these were all expressions of benevolent governance. In addition, I have noted that besides Tianshuo, Zhuhong wrote some short essays on abstaining from killing and releasing life in his later years, and his line of reasoning may have been influenced by Tianzhu shiyi. For example, Matteo Ricci emphasized that the Lord of Heaven created all things for human use, and as long as humans used them with moderation, it was reasonable. Ricci also adapted the saying from Mencius, “If overly fine nets are not used in the ponds, so that sufficient fish and turtles are left to reproduce, they will be inexhaustible. If people bring their axes into the mountain forests only in the proper season, the wood will be inexhaustible”, to show that Catholicism and Confucianism shared the same position on this issue. In his essay Jiesha 戒殺 [Abstaining from Killing], Zhuhong also acknowledged that “heaven and earth produce things for people to eat, such as various grains, fruits, vegetables, and delicacies from land and water” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Zhuchuang erbi: Jiesha”, p. 29b). However, Zhuhong believed that the abundance of vegetables and fruits was already sufficient to feed humanity. Why should one then kill and eat animals that, like us, have blood, were born of mothers, and can feel pain? This is undoubtedly a cruel and vicious act. In his essay Fuxishi wanggu 伏羲氏網罟 [The Fishing Nets of Fuxi], Zhuhong argued that Fuxi did not invent fishing nets to enable people to kill. “He created nets to make animals fear and avoid them, teaching people to avoid harm from them, not teaching people to eat their flesh” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Zhuchuang sanbi: Fuxishi wanggu”, p. 57b). In his essay Shasheng feiren suowei 殺生非人所為 [Killing is Not a Human Act], Zhuhong specifically pointed out that it is extremely wicked for humans to use various methods such as fishing hooks, arrows, and nets to harm animals. Wild beasts attack each other out of ignorance, and “the harm of a tiger does not reach the birds in the sky, and the harm of a pike does not reach the animals on land, but humans—above in the heavens, below in the depths, and in between on the plains, and in the forests, fields, and wilds—use hooks, arrows, and nets, a hundred schemes to take them all without remainder. Thus, the harm caused by humans is greater than that of other creatures” (Yunqi Zhuhong, “Zhuchuang sanbi: Shasheng feiren suowei”, p. 57b).

In summary, it can be seen that when Yunqi Zhuhong wrote Jieshu fayin, Jiesha wen, and Fangsheng wen in his early years, he started from a Buddhist standpoint; within the Buddhist environment, he was an active reformer. However, when he faced a newly arrived foreign religion, he did not immediately show an aggressive attitude. His confidence in Buddhism led him to initially maintain a moderate, calm, and even slightly conservative stance. However, as the influence of Catholicism expanded, he realized that he needed to change his argumentative strategy to face the new environment. Thus, his Tianshuo extensively quoted Confucian classic texts, and his logic was more often derived from the Confucian cultural tradition. For example, he declared that the rites of revering Heaven had existed in Confucianism since ancient times, so why should one abandon one’s own tradition to follow another? In advocating for Buddhist compassion, even when he recognized the difference between the human-centric “benevolence” of Confucianism and Buddhist compassion, he still chose a path of reconciliation and inclusivity. He “strove to establish a re-evaluated system that would allow people to re-align themselves with a broader system of values than the traditional family-centric social framework of meaning” (Yü [1981] 2020, p. 94). The late Ming was an era of syncretism among the three teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. Buddhism had always been striving for the recognition of Confucianism, the mainstream ideology. Confucian scholar-officials were, to some extent, the external protectors of Buddhism. If this group were to be attracted to Catholicism, the situation for Buddhism would become quite precarious. Faced with the sudden intrusion of Catholicism and the fact that it was favored by some Confucian scholar-officials, Zhuhong naturally felt a sense of crisis, which is perhaps why he felt compelled to respond to Catholicism in the year of his death. He attempted, through Tianshuo, to win the attention of the Confucian intellectuals who occupied the middle ground, reminding them not to be deluded by Catholic teachings.

5. Concluding Remarks

As a central figure in the late Ming Buddhist revival movement, Yunqi Zhuhong’s systematically constructed theory and practice of abstaining from killing and releasing life had a profound and lasting impact on the history of Chinese Buddhism. He skillfully reconciled the tensions between Buddhist precepts and Confucian ethics, forming a tradition of Buddhist life-protection that has endured for centuries. The arrival of Jesuit missionaries in the late Ming dynasty led to a profound doctrinal dialogue and confrontation with Buddhism. As revealed in this article, the two faiths had fundamental differences in core doctrines such as cosmology, the nature of the soul, and soteriology. Early missionaries like Matteo Ricci equated Buddhist emptiness (śūnyatā) with nothingness, while monks like Zhuhong equated the Lord of Heaven with a deva king in the desire realm. Such misinterpretations, based on their respective religious traditions, often led the early religious dialogues between late Ming Buddhism and Catholicism into a stalemate where each side was talking past the other. This not only reflects the complexity of the Sino-Western religious encounter but also demonstrates the possibilities and limits of cross-cultural religious understanding.

In the second year after Yunqi Zhuhong’s death, the 44th year of the Wanli era (1616), an anti-Catholic incident occurred in the Nanjing region, known in history as the “Nanjing Incident”. This movement lasted for six years and was the first major setback for Jesuit missionaries in China. Yunqi Zhuhong had once said to his disciple Yu Chunxi, “If all of you gentlemen believe and accept it, I will write a ‘Treatise Refuting Heterodoxy’”. Although Zhuhong himself did not complete this work, his successors did. In the 12th year of the Chongzhen era (1639), the Shengchao poxie ji 聖朝破邪集 [Collection of Essays Refuting Heterodoxy from the Holy Dynasty], compiled by Xu Changzhi 徐昌治, was published. It consisted of eight volumes with 59 articles, with volumes seven and eight focusing on the debates of Buddhist monks against Catholicism. The first article in volume seven is Zhuhong’s Tianshuo. As the understanding between Catholicism and Buddhism deepened, both sides gradually broke through conceptual barriers and established more substantive exchanges. For example, the Chan master Miyun Yuanwu 密雲圓悟 no longer equated the Lord of Heaven with a deva king in the desire realm but more profoundly proposed that “to seek an external so-called absolute Lord of Heaven is, on the contrary, to abandon the universality within one’s own mind. This is a denial of the possibility for a person to become a Buddha, a form of self-abandonment” (Ryo Nishimura 2010, p. 41). The publication of the Shengchao poxie ji can be seen both as a record of the debates and conflicts between 17th-century Buddhism and Catholicism and as a revelation that “the true basis of religious dialogue lies not in the superficial convergence of concepts, but in the recognition that all traditions unfold different language games around the same ‘ultimate reality.’ The Buddhist-Christian confrontation of the late Ming, precisely because of its intense logic of question and answer, unexpectedly prompted a deep restructuring of the Chinese intellectual concept of the ‘original nature of the mind’” (Huang 2025, p. 115). Different religions may be distinct from one another, but they are not completely isolated. Interreligious and intercultural dialogue can be seen as an extension of internal dialogue. “To engage in religious dialogue in a pluralistic world, each religion must possess a spirit of self-criticism, so that it can humbly listen to the truths of other religions, thereby bringing about self-reflection.” (Yuan 2013, p. 55).