Why China should not be Buddhist

[donbg]

We have seen the Tinto Talk about religion that China, and most of East Asia, is currently covered in a Mahayana Buddhist religion. The devs confirmed in the thread itself this is indeed their design decision and is not a placeholder. I hope to illustrate why this “Mahayana” label, regardless of how religion will work and how Mahayana Buddhism will function in-game, is a mistake and is inaccurate.

To avoid making a long and unnecessary text, I have tried to be somewhat to the point, but the downside of this is losing some nuance. I would urge people and the devs to look into the sources I have provided regarding Chinese religion rather than just reading my text.

Firstly, for clarity. Understanding “religion” in imperial China is always an issue because it is a category moulded in an Abrahamic perspective on orthodoxy, doctrine and exclusivity which was not that relevant in the region at this time. Three belief systems were often talked about by the Chinese- Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism (the Three Teachings 三教), but religion must not only be thought in terms of them or something different- both Confucianism and Daoism were born from a Chinese spirituality that was inseparable from them, and the folk religion intertwined all three to an extent it cannot either be called Buddhist, Daoist or Confucian but also is all the three at the same time. Similarly, the institutional religion of China did not truly exist separately from either of these religions but calling the imperial dynasty as adhering to one or the other religion alone is incorrect as well. At most, we can say that neo-Confucianism was a dominant belief system in the Ming dynasty, but even then that may not be entirely accurate.

The average individual, or even the average emperor, usually cannot be called a “Confucian” or a “Buddhist” or a “Daoist” exclusively.
For example, Emperor Taizu of Ming had the origins of his rise in association with Buddhists, but he was seen as a “Confucian revivalist” and yet he was more sympathetic and aligned with Daoism. He had strong Daoist convictions and had a special interest in reaffirming correct Chinese indigenous religious practices.

Anyway, I have made some points regarding why Mahayana is a bad label.

• Confucianism is not just a state ideology

There is a lot of opposition to labelling Confucianism as a religion. I will not argue here that Confucianism should be a religion (though ultimately whether it is religious or not will depend upon one’s definition of religion itself but I digress). However, disregarding Confucianism as only a state ideology is a crude and incorrect way of viewing it. Its relevance is not only governmental but societal and individual. It has a clear view of individual and societal transformation, an inherent cosmology and a teleological goal. It is not necessarily compatible with any other Chinese ‘religions’ but also not necessarily incompatible, with different philosophers and individuals having different views on this. Neo-Confucianism was also the dominant attitude among the Ming elite, and among the Qing elite. Neo-Confucianism’s formulation during the Tang dynasty, drove large numbers of the governing elite away from Buddhism and Daoism. Any depiction of religion in China that relegates Buddhism into a role present only in the state is a bad move for a historical simulation.

• Daoism is not a minor clerical movement or a philosophy

Daoism is at heart a fully-fledged religious framework. Though still varied and having undergone a period of decline during the Yuan dynasty, it is an extremely important worldview in both Chinese politics and society. Daoism actually had revolutionary origins as a faith of the lower strata, and its practice outside of liturgy and the clergy is not given the credit it should. It was Daoist-Buddhist-Manichaen syncretism that informed the millenarian beliefs of many Buddhist societies during the Yuan dynasty. Daoism also deeply influenced and transformed Buddhism itself. Moreover, during the Ming dynasty, Daoism retained a rather central position and was very influential in governance and prevalent in politics, especially in the early Ming dynasty. Arguably it is certain Daoist terms and conceptions that underlie ‘Chinese spirituality’ - When it arrived in China, Buddhism was originally translated and interpreted with Daoist terms, and Daoism informed some aspects of neo-Confucianism. Any depiction of religion in China that reduces the role and importance of Daoism, is going to be a flawed and bad depiction of religion.

• Confucianism and Daoism are born out of a Chinese spirituality, a pre-existing ‘Chinese religious framework’

Both Confucianism and Daoism did not arise out of thin air, and that is very evident when looking at the huge breadth of ideas, concepts and views they share. They were born out of an existing Chinese spirituality with certain ideas and worldviews- a spirituality that existed both as a folk religion but also as a series of institutional and elite practices and beliefs. They influenced, and were influenced by this religion, and in a way are inseparable from it. When talking about Chinese folk religion, ultimately we also discuss in a way Daoism and Confucianism. Important to note- Confucianism, Chinese spirituality and Daoism all were influenced by Buddhism but existed prior to it and in some ways independently of it. As such, religion in China at no point was born or related exclusively to Buddhism.

• China never became “Buddhist-ified”. Buddhism was Sinicised.

In looking at Buddhism and its history in China, we see that though extremely important and influential, Buddhism did not displace existing religious practices, worldviews and beliefs like it may have done in other parts of the world. It influenced them, and added to Chinese spirituality but did not create a break from it. Instead, Buddhism was Sinicised, and the schools of Buddhism that became influential and dominant in China were made incredibly “Chinese” in their practice and beliefs. Chan Buddhism, at times the dominant Buddhist tradition in China, borrowed extensively from Daoism- developing a Daoist distrust of scriptures and ideas of the Daoist ‘moment’, and Pure Land Buddhism, usually the second most dominant tradition, also had a strong Sinic perspective to it. China transformed Buddhism into schools that were ingrained into their worldview and perspective, they did not have their worldview transformed or destroyed by a foreign religion. And even then both Chan and Pure Land Buddhism, and other trends of Buddhism in China were not absolutely dominant and did not necessarily inform the religious practices of every Chinese individual- peasant or intellectual or emperor.

• Chinese Buddhism was at this point different from the ‘esoteric’ Mahayana branches in India and Tibet

One of the things as well that I take particular issue with is that China currently shares a ‘Mahayana’ Buddhism with Tibet and India. Taking aside my issues with making China Buddhist to start with, in no way is that an accurate assessment of Chinese Buddhism. Chinese Buddhism, whose dominant trends were Chan and Pure Land Buddhism, had grown completely different from what was practised in Tibet and India, and this is apparent in the contrast of the two in China. There was a constant dispute for patronage and support from the government between Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism, and there was both adoption of one over the other and hostility. Tibetan Buddhism was sponsored by the Yuan and the Qing dynasties, and it had moments of popularity among some members of the Chinese urban populace, as opposed to local Chinese Buddhism, with Tibetan style marriages being something of a trendy thing to do, but not a dominant practice. However, in other instances, Tibetan Buddhism was seen as foreign and barbaric. Yuan’s prioritisation of Tibetan Buddhism over local Chan Buddhism was a forceful measure at times. Buddhism had been Sinicised in China, it was not a foreign religion like Tibetan Buddhism, whose lamas were brought over from Tibet.

• Folk religion was not Buddhist

I’ve mentioned that folk religion was in many ways inseparable from the two traditions of Confucianism and Daoism. From the Song dynasty onwards, we see Buddhism added to the mix and strongly informing folk religious practices and attitudes. However, at no point did this folk religion become primarily and exclusively ‘Mahayana’. The Buddhist afterlife was given particular relevance and became the predominant view of the afterlife but there was still a local Sinic belief system, a Confucian worldview, especially in terms of rites done towards ancestors (who were worshipped/venerated in the same way that gods were), and gods, ghosts and immortals were all presented in a Daoist celestial hierarchy. This folk religion was a culmination of ‘Chinese religion’, that was interwoven into the dominant belief systems but not orthodoxical. In many ways, the Chinese imperial religion was an extension of this folk religion.

• Conclusion: China should not be labeled as Buddhist

I’ve tried here to make a couple of points as to why naming everything “Mahayana” is, as such, incredibly inaccurate. It incorrectly labels Chinese religion, incorrectly labels Chinese imperial dynasties, incorrectly labels Chinese popular religion and also links Chinese religious practices and Chinese Buddhism with the Mahayana Buddhism that still exists in India, despite the vast differences. It completely ignores the importance of Daoism, and likely relegates Confucianism incorrectly to simply a state ideology. It also disregards the nature of Chinese spirituality and Chinese religion. It is ahistorical. I also don’t know how religions will work in PC or Buddhism, but I believe properly representing Chinese religion would be much more interesting as well from a gameplay perspective.

SUGGESTION:
My suggestion for how to portray it in the game is to actually portray it how it was reflected in broad society at the time- there was little way and form of actually distinguishing between who was Daoist, Confucian and Chinese Buddhist among the masses as the popular religion intermixed these too heavily to properly create denominations that can be assigned. The people were not truly Buddhist or Confucian or Daoist but at the same time were all three at once. The institutional imperial religion provided patronage to all forms of Sinic belief systems, and all of this is ultimately part of a “Chinese spirituality”.

Rather than separate, instead, Chinese Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism are all currents and views inside a singular “East Asian / Sinic” religion. As such, a single “East Asian” religion should cover most of China save for the areas that are Manichaen or that had a strong presence of non-Chinese Buddhism like Tibet and the Mongols. The Mahayana Buddhism of India should be a completely different religion as well. Please change China and East Asia to having an “East Asia / Sinic” religion.

I believe this suggestion is also relevant in Vietnam and Korea, where (unlike is stereotypically assumed) Buddhism was not a universal religion embraced by all but had a complex relationship with society, especially the elites and the government under the Joseon and Nguyen dynasty. Neo-Confucians in those countries may seek to curtail the power of the clergy or the Buddhist trends in this “East Asian religion”.

The question of what to name this “East Asian” religion then arises. I have listed here some possible names for this “East Asian” religion but am open to suggestions. There is no perfect choice, but it is preferable to having everything be ahistorically Mahayana:

• “San jiao” (‘Three Teachings’) 三教 is a term historically used earlier than the Ming dynasty to refer to Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism and their harmonious coexistence and role in forming Chinese spirituality. The disadvantage of this term is that it mostly focuses on the three as organised religion, excluding their syncretism and popular religion from the mix, but it could work.
• “Taoic” or “Taoism” is often used as a term for Chinese religious trends and popular religion by some historians like John Keay who I have provided as a source. When used in this way, the term does not refer to organised liturgical Taoism with its basis on Lao Zi but rather reinterpets the term as roughly meaning the practices and beliefs within a Chinese religious framework that has certain concepts and ideas (e.g. like the Dao). The issue with this term is its confusion with the organised clerical liturgical Taoism that most people identify with the name, and it also indirectly omits non-Chan Buddhism so I am not too keen on it now.
• “Shendao” 神道 is a term historically used to talk about native Chinese religion during the Han dynasty and that was also used by Ming emperor Taizu to refer to Chinese religious traditions. Shendao was borrowed by the Japanese to provide the name “Shinto” for their own religion.
• “Sinic”, “Sinic Polytheism”, “Chinese Polytheism”, “East Asian Spirituality”, “Chinese Spirituality”, “Chinese Cosmology” are all straightforward but awkward terms to use.
• The Chinese word zōngjiào 宗教 (‘religion’) or zhōnghuájiào 中華教 (‘Chinese religion’) are both possibilities.
• “Chinese Universism” is a term used by Jan Jakob Maria de Groot to refer to the Chinese metaphysical worldview that underlies everything mentioned here.
• Open to further suggestions on names.

So to recapitulate my suggestion:

• China should be dominated by an “East Asian” religion that encompasses Confucianism, Daoism, Chinese Buddhism, Chinese popular religion and the imperial institutional religion.
• Tibetan Buddhism and Indian Mahayanas should be separate from Chinese religion, and the Chinese dynasty’s stance on Tibetan Buddhism will vary depending on dynasty and laws/policies. Tibetan Buddhism might also probably need to be separated from Indian Mahayana Buddhism. Both of them had Vajrayana practices but I believe diverged on practice and various points, but I do not know enough about the topic to comment further.

Sources, which I recommend reading:

Maybe the most important book here. Excellent insight into Chinese religion, provides very good arguments for Chinese religion being always interpreted as a single unit like I did here rather than separate things: https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Religion-Contextual-Xinzhong-Yao/dp/1847064760

Good for Chinese religious history. Provides a history of the Chinese religion: https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Writings/Chinese Religions - Overview.htm

Ming politics with Daoists: https://academic.oup.com/book/1664

Talks about Emperor Taizu and his relationship to Daoism https://www.persee.fr/doc/asie_0766-1177_2016_num_25_1_1472

General history of China: https://books.google.com.br/books/about/China.html?id=RONg45TJsqQC&redir_esc=y

Talks about the Joseon Dynasty and its complex relationship with Buddhism: https://accesson.kr/rks/assets/pdf/7717/journal-14-1-35.pdf

Interesting article, arguing why Confucianism is a religion. A bit unrelated to the point I’m raising: https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Writings/Confucianism_as_Religious_Tradition.pdf

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/tibetan-buddhists-in-the-making-of-modern-china/9780231134460 A book showing the relationship of Tibetan Buddhism and the Chinese, largely cementing the claims I've made that Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism are very different (the influence of Tibetan Buddhism post-Yuan was very small)

 

[alexkowal123]

Other threads have advocated for an all encompassing “Chinese religion”. An issue with “East Asian religion” is that folk religions/beliefs vary in each region. Could you have denominations within “East Asian religion” for the different regional groupings of folk beliefs? And very high tolerance between them?

 

[donbg]

Other threads have advocated for an all encompassing “Chinese religion”. An issue with “East Asian religion” is that folk religions/beliefs vary in each region. Could you have denominations within “East Asian religion” for the different regional groupings of folk beliefs? And very high tolerance between them?

Any sort of denomination split between Pops is going to be inaccurate, as I've argued here. The most you can do is represent different clergy or have religious mechanics but that's gameplay, up to the devs.

 

[Universalis_]

I agree with the point that China shouldn't be Buddhist. The problem of labeling its spiritual perspectives and what given unit (of pop) or area (as in location) follows comes from adopting an Abrahamic worldview and applying it at large. As such, you have this binary stance of orthodoxy vs heterodoxy, which was important in certain regions but not enough to depict certain areas such as China.
It was mentioned that they are portraying Confucianism differently, but we have yet to see.

 

[MrEko]

This and I have similar concerns about the status of religion in Japan. Having Japan as Shinto and China/Korea/Nam as Mahayana feels wrong.

On another note, the religion TT mentioned "dharmic" and "eastern" being separate religious groups and that is a big step backwards from ck3. Like seriously the way Eu4 excludes Buddhism from the dharmic group is just absurd. Maybe I'm missing something here but it just doesn't make sense to me.

I really hope there is a TT on eastern religions soon as it seems to be the #1 area of universal criticism of the game right now and I think it's only fair for the developers to have a proper chance to present the current state of the game before we give more detailed feedback.

 

[perceval350]

Great OP ! I never knew much about east asian religion and it's just crazy to see how much it looks like Ancient mediterrenean world religions.

I really love the idea for states who didn't adopt a totalizing and "excluding" religion (excluding meaning here a religion that has as a core principle that you can't be this religion and another one) like those from the christian or muslim groups to not really have a state religion but more of a "religious/cultural framework", as you said, that can be influenced by other religions (even totalizing religions), and I think this really shouldn't be limited to east Asia but should be a generalized mechanic for many other regions (with for example Kongo having this same idea of a framework with which christian beliefs were interpreted, even though there, the situation was more like : the state has adopted a "purer" form of christianism and is a bit seperated from the syncretism that exists in many parts of the kingdom).
However, with the pop system, I don't really know how you'd portray how certain pops adhere more or less to these influences as pops can only have one religion. You're idea of having a "East asian" religion seems better than just mahayana but I'm genuinly curious to know how would you portray religious tensions whithin China when almost everybody is of the same religion ?

 

[donbg]

Great OP ! I never knew much about east asian religion and it's just crazy to see how much it looks like Ancient mediterrenean world religions.

I really love the idea for states who didn't adopt a totalizing and "excluding" religion (excluding meaning here a religion that has as a core principle that you can't be this religion and another one) like those from the christian or muslim groups to not really have a state religion but more of a "religious/cultural framework", as you said, that can be influenced by other religions (even totalizing religions), and I think this really shouldn't be limited to east Asia but should be a generalized mechanic for many other regions (with for example Kongo having this same idea of a framework with which christian beliefs were interpreted, even though there, the situation was more like : the state has adopted a "purer" form of christianism and is a bit seperated from the syncretism that exists in many parts of the kingdom).
However, with the pop system, I don't really know how you'd portray how certain pops adhere more or less to these influences as pops can only have one religion. You're idea of having a "East asian" religion seems better than just mahayana but I'm genuinly curious to know how would you portray religious tensions whithin China when almost everybody is of the same religion ?

I still believe this "Chinese religion" should be a "state religion" that functions like anything else. I don't think this relationship applies to the Kongo necessarily as there you have the contrast of Christianity versus animism despite syncretism in the populace, whereas in China it is less that you have various different religions syncretising and the government endorsing a pure version of it and more the case that "Chinese religion" can't be cleanly cut between these trends among the populace, and ultimately they are all 'Sinic', sharing similar concepts, and being part of a greater predominant worldview tied to those concepts.

The entire reason for this "Chinese religion" is because it'd lead to very incorrect depictions if we tried to divide Pops. Overall, the number of people that could genuinely be said to adhere more or less to a certain perspective or another are small and it is a complex issue. The majority of Pops should only have one East Asian religion because they adhered specifically to that form of religious worldview, rather than being exclusively a Buddhist or a Confucian.

As for religious conflict, it is a topic that even cleaner denominations wouldn't help. You could group, for example, a number of lay societies as 'Buddhists' but many Buddhist societies were persecuted against while other Buddhists were given patronage. Technically the White Lotus Society had its own brand of Buddhism that was very different to others but portraying every single society as its own denomination would be impossible, and also not all members of the White Lotus Society could be even said to exclusively adhere to that brand of Buddhism (going back to the point last paragraph of no division possible). I raise the example of Emperor Taizu of Ming- the founder of the Ming dynasty. He was raised in a Buddhist monastery and given a Buddhist education, and was associated with the Red Turbans, a military-political group that had strong ties to the White Lotus Society's religion. However, Taizu can't really be called a Buddhist at all, and when he gained power sponsored Daoism. However, he most definitely can be said to following a Chinese worldview and in no way can be called a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu- contrasting Chinese religion with these foreign ones despite the existence of Hui Muslims in China.

I don't know enough about religion in PC or how it is going to work to talk about what mechanics to have in the game to represent the things you asked, so I didn't bring it up on the post a lot. I would argue that Project Caesar could have religious mechanics that allow a Chinese emperor to sponsor different clergy and prioritise one over the other, giving different modifiers and bonuses on that basis, and changing the relationship of the clergy estate with the government.

 

[GDQuirm]

Chinese belief systems are not unique in being syncretic; syncretism was the standard in most of the world prior to the explosion of Christianity and Islam. Chinese beief systems are unique in the degree to which the state acknowledged and tolerated their syncretism. Representing Chinese beliefs as one single 'belief system' is also highly innacurate, because Chinese governments throughout history have frequently picked out one or another set of beliefs within China for promotion or suppression.

Confucianism was banned and its texts burned through the Qin dynasty. Buddhism was the state religion at the start date of EUV, with Buddhist affairs being state-controlled and dictated to Buddhists and the public, with broad tolerance for Confucianism and Daoism, and brutal suppression of Islam. Confucianism was then promoted to the exclusion of other systems in the Qing dynasty, with all government bodies relating to Buddhism being dismantled or syncretized. Daoism under the Qing dynasty was excluded from this syncretization, and Daoist features of the Ming government were removed.

Buddhism in China during the Yuan dynasty may not have been identical to Buddhism in Tibet or Buddism in Thailand, but it was, nonetheless, very much still Buddhism, and very much integrated with the state. Buddhists within China enjoyed favourable status- so long as they conformed to the state model of Buddhism: Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhist monks held high office in the state, and the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs was the effective central body directing all Buddhist temples in China, including those that previously were not 'Tibetan' Buddhist.

One option, which would also account for syncretization of beliefs in Africa, in Central Asia, and among other non-Abrahamic faiths surviving in Europe, might be to simply allow pops to have multiple religions, unless those religions are 'exclusionary'. Thereby, Tibetan Buddhism, Daoism, and Chinese folk beliefs can be represented as three distinct 'religions' that can be held by pops. The Yuan state at 1337 still has Buddhism as its state religion. Have Confucianism exist as a 'religion' that a sinocized state can have as its 'state religion', but which pops themselves rarely hold, except wealthy elite pops. The general tolerance of Chinese states towards most beliefs within China can be represented by simply having Confucianism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Daoism hold high levels of tolerance towards eachother. Muslim and Christian pops in China will not have other religions (this happened on very small scales, but in general the vast bulk of these communities tended to be fairly self-contained, so this shouldn't be a huge problem in terms of accurate representation.)

Ideally, the Chinese state's uniquely strong central control over religious affairs should allow China to selectively persecute some religions, like historically. A new dynasty following the Yuan should be able to just say 'Nah, I don't like the Daoists now'. This accounts for historical periods of suppression of Daoists, such as under the Qing. It shoud also allow for selective elevation of some religions, such as the deliberate state syncretization of Daoism and Buddhism under Ming Neo-Confucianism.

TL;DR:
- Let pops have multiple religions if those religious have the 'syncretic' feature.
- Give the Chinese state the ability to suppress/promote specific religions, even if they aren't the 'state' religion.

 

[viola]

China and Korea absolutely shouldn't be Buddhist and that religious setup has to change because it's depicting something that was simply never true, and especially for Korea this is true because Buddhism faced harsh persecution by the local Confucian government, as it was pointed out by another user in another thread.

This leads to how to solve this problem, and in my opinion the solution is simply to reinstate Confucianism as a religion back from EU4, and have it be the dominant religion in China and Korea (I think Vietnam as well) to represent both the continued relevance of Confucian thought and morals, and also their syncretism with other Chinese religions and folk religions. Confucianism is, technically speaking, not a religion, but functionally speaking it was the state ideology of many East Asian states, it was a system of morals, it had a caste of people who served the state and represented that set of ideas, and apparently it even went so far as to have Confucian shrines in Japan where their ideas were taught. Functionally speaking, as far as games like EU4 and Project Caesar are concerned, Confucianism acts like a religion and thus can be represented as a religion in the game. Eliminating it entirely from the religious system and have it represented as "something else" is a mistake likely born from the surface-level criticism that Confucianism isn't a religion technically speaking, but that's really besides the point of what a religion is by the rules of games like these. And in any case, having Confucianism as a religion is still definitely more accurate than Buddhism being dominant in China and Korea, seemingly with no opposition, when it never was.

Just add Confucianism back in and let's go back to have a religious map of East Asia that's still relatively accurate to reality without having to run into several headaches trying to figure out how to get around the intertwined web of syncretic beliefs the area had.

 

[donbg]

Chinese belief systems are not unique in being syncretic; syncretism was the standard in most of the world prior to the explosion of Christianity and Islam. Chinese beief systems are unique in the degree to which the state acknowledged and tolerated their syncretism. Representing Chinese beliefs as one single 'belief system' is also highly innacurate, because Chinese governments throughout history have frequently picked out one or another set of beliefs within China for promotion or suppression.

Confucianism was banned and its texts burned through the Qin dynasty. Buddhism was the state religion at the start date of EUV, with Buddhist affairs being state-controlled and dictated to Buddhists and the public, with broad tolerance for Confucianism and Daoism, and brutal suppression of Islam. Confucianism was then promoted to the exclusion of other systems in the Qing dynasty, with all government bodies relating to Buddhism being dismantled or syncretized. Daoism under the Qing dynasty was excluded from this syncretization, and Daoist features of the Ming government were removed.

Buddhism in China during the Yuan dynasty may not have been identical to Buddhism in Tibet or Buddism in Thailand, but it was, nonetheless, very much still Buddhism, and very much integrated with the state. Buddhists within China enjoyed favourable status- so long as they conformed to the state model of Buddhism: Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhist monks held high office in the state, and the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs was the effective central body directing all Buddhist temples in China, including those that previously were not 'Tibetan' Buddhist.

One option, which would also account for syncretization of beliefs in Africa, in Central Asia, and among other non-Abrahamic faiths surviving in Europe, might be to simply allow pops to have multiple religions, unless those religions are 'exclusionary'. Thereby, Tibetan Buddhism, Daoism, and Chinese folk beliefs can be represented as three distinct 'religions' that can be held by pops. The Yuan state at 1337 still has Buddhism as its state religion. Have Confucianism exist as a 'religion' that a sinocized state can have as its 'state religion', but which pops themselves rarely hold, except wealthy elite pops. The general tolerance of Chinese states towards most beliefs within China can be represented by simply having Confucianism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Daoism hold high levels of tolerance towards eachother. Muslim and Christian pops in China will not have other religions (this happened on very small scales, but in general the vast bulk of these communities tended to be fairly self-contained, so this shouldn't be a huge problem in terms of accurate representation.)

Ideally, the Chinese state's uniquely strong central control over religious affairs should allow China to selectively persecute some religions, like historically. A new dynasty following the Yuan should be able to just say 'Nah, I don't like the Daoists now'. This accounts for historical periods of suppression of Daoists, such as under the Qing. It shoud also allow for selective elevation of some religions, such as the deliberate state syncretization of Daoism and Buddhism under Ming Neo-Confucianism.

TL;DR:
- Let pops have multiple religions if those religious have the 'syncretic' feature.
- Give the Chinese state the ability to suppress/promote specific religions, even if they aren't the 'state' religion.

I recommend you read the sources I have provided and please re-read what I've said as you've made points which I made myself. Also if you could provide extra sources, I also like to read new things about China.

The argument here isn't one about syncretism. It also isn't about Buddhism, Daoism or Confucianism being syncretised. It is that the Chinese religion, on the level of the popular practice and belief has these currents being practically inseparable from each other. I argue that rather than draw arbitrary and incorrect lines trying to label people between religions, what should be simulated is the Sinic general worldview. In the same liking that in other areas of the world (e.g. pre-Christian Rome), we talk about Greco-Roman religion rather than specifically try to group every individual into a mystery cult or a Neoplatonic school. China is not necessarily unique in the sense of its religion, and I've not argued it is unique.

You are mentioning examples that either are slightly incorrect or don't really have much to do with my point, including talking about the patronage of Tibetan Buddhists, which I myself raised and have labelled as a religion that really was not part of the Sinic worldview but was a foreign import, much in the same manner that the Yuan dynasty also instituted a caste administration that favoured originally foreign Mongols consistently.

The Qin dynasty fell around 200 BC. It doesn't really reflect at all the nature or state of religion in China during the timespan of the game, given Chinese beliefs, like any other religion, evolve through time. Better examples of the point that you are trying to raise are Buddhism being repressed during Emperor Wuzong's rule in the 800s and the latest series of acts where Kubilai Khan ordered that the Daoist canon be burned and Daoist priests returned to lay life or converted to Buddhism. Neither of these cases, or the Joseon dynasty's supposed attempts at repressing Buddhism (which I've also provided a source for) are really pertinent here. These are primarily attacks and suppressions of an organised clergy and a current of thought that are trying to destroy it and weaken it. They are not institutionalised campaigns like the Inquisition trying to ensure that a population follows the correct orthodox religion, because that wouldn't make sense in the region. Ultimately, all these religions fall within a greater Sinic worldview which shapes a shared worldview for most of the population. It is impossible and artificial to claim that most people in China were either Buddhists or Daoists or Confucians or none of those- and this is true even in members of some of the most organised lay secret societies.

Your idea to represent Confucianism and Daoism with Pops is ultimately inaccurate and just leads to arbitrary lines being drawn everywhere. The elite and the population cannot be reliably labelled and distinguished in religion because it did not truly reflect how most individuals perceived their beliefs at the time.

As I've mentioned in my post, the Yuan dynasty provided patronage for Tibetan lamas but they were not alone in doing so. The late Ming and the Qing dynasty also provided patronage to Tibetan lamas. However, the Yuan were unique in the extent to which they imposed Tibetan Buddhism, as I've mentioned, and there was a lot of tension between Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism, because Tibetan Buddhism is a foreign religion that was not part of the Sinic religion- and this was one of the main points in my argument about how Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism should not be the same religion. Rather, that it is more reflective to have Chinese Buddhism as part of a greater Chinese religion that contrasts with Tibetan Buddhism.

You talk about the Qing dynasty excluding all other religions and endorsing only Confucianism, however, that is just not properly reflective of the reality at the time. Yes, there was a rationalistic neo-Confucian tendency in governance and among the intelligentsia, but that wasn't the whole picture. Many Qing Emperors were privately Buddhists and even took part in Manchu shamanism, while the supposedly "neo-Confucian" intelligentsia while preaching ideas of neo-Confucianism, many were still themselves tied to other religions. By the seventeenth century, the scholar-official class as a whole remained involved in a variety of private religious practices beyond their official ritual responsibilities. These included not only the study of Daoism and Buddhism but the use of spirit-writing séances and prayers to Wenchang, the god of scholars and literature, for help in passing examinations. This even led to the formation of 'Confucian' cults that would be very unfamiliar to past Confucian predecessors. Daoism stopped receiving court support but still kept around the populace, even in parts of the upper strata. Ultimately, in terms of the state's relationship with actual popular religion, there was limited change. In terms of Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism, the Chinese dynasties only ever acted against the clergy and organised societies, weakening them or strengthening them as they wished- because there was no real way of targetting general people as they all shared a highly variable similar Chinese worldview that gave birth to and intermixed these trends- even among the elite.

Indeed, the Chinese state should have the ability to repress and suppress different religions. It also should be able either to suppress or promote or patronise different clergy within the Chinese religion, and to change their relationship to clergy. However, there was never any attempt by any dynasty (with the exception of the much later Heavenly Kingdom in the 19th century, which constitutes a religious innovation in China) to get rid of the base popular Chinese religion or to erase Chinese Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism from the region. Getting an example from outside of China, even campaigns as extreme as those in Joseon Dynasty against Buddhism helped in crushing monasteries and monastic tradition but did not actually attempt to kick out Buddhism from society, with even Joseon emperors being privately Buddhists themselves.

There is no way to split up Confucianism, Daoism and Chinese Buddhism through Pops. Any attempt is going to be artificial, inaccurate and ahistorical- not because of a lack of sources but because this divide did not exist. There were different clergy and different currents of thought that we may call religions, as well as different government policies against clergy and organised societies, but ultimately in practice, the greater part of the Chinese populace was committed to a very variable, highly diverging religion. The popular religion and the ways individuals practiced religion was not just the syncretic combination of different religions but a religion which shaped Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism, gave them their concepts and views and in turn was shaped by them- an inseparable relation.

 

[Shayrin2]

Amazing job !

Incredibly lucky as well as I am currently finishing my read of John Keay.
I couldn't agree more, and I have a very similar concern when it comes to Japan.

Hopefully the devs will take this in consideration.

 

[perceval350]

Just add Confucianism back in and let's go back to have a religious map of East Asia that's still relatively accurate to reality without having to run into several headaches trying to figure out how to get around the intertwined web of syncretic beliefs the area had.

While I agree that solutions to this problem are hard to find, I feel like a solution absolutely needs to be implementend as the one state=one religion and one pop=one religions system doesn't apply to at least half of the countries portrayed in PC. I know that this problem comes from the fact that PC's mechanics have been built through a european lense (which is kinda expected for a european studio that makes games mainly for westerners, the game has to have a base on which to be built), but it would be kind of a large overlook if they were to not portray at all the religious/cultural system of the majority of the societies that populate the game

 

[Shayrin2]

While I agree that solutions to this problem are hard to find, I feel like a solution absolutely needs to be implementend as the one state=one religion and one pop=one religions system doesn't apply to at least half of the countries portrayed in PC. I know that this problem comes from the fact that PC's mechanics have been built through a european lense (which is kinda expected for a european studio that makes games mainly for westerners, the game has to have a base on which to be built), but it would be kind of a large overlook if they were to not portray at all the religious/cultural system of the majority of the societies that populate the game

Well, especially considering that its fairly easy to just add a new religion with a description that encompasses the Chinese (and other) beliefs.

Maybe add a small mechanic for "favors" of different aspects, or just a button like "choosing a deity" in eu4 to get some bonus based on which "school" your ruler would adhere to.

Nothing can be perfect, but there needs to be a change on this one. Genuinely, having China be Mahayana would be like having France be Orthodox.

 

[GDQuirm]

> It is that the Chinese religion, on the level of the popular practice and belief has these currents being practically inseparable from each other

The state itself drew lines separating these faiths. It is on the level of the people, who in practice syncretize their beliefs, that a unified image can be drawn. But in the history of the state, those lines were drawn by every dynasty in the history of the region. It is a question of where those lines are drawn.

> I myself raised and have labelled as a religion that really was not part of the Sinic worldview but was a foreign import

China is not unique in the practice of localizing religions. This is what occurred when the Greeks arrived in Afghanistan; when the Romans arrived in Greece; when the Greeks arrived in Egypt; when the Nords arrived in Russia; when Buddhism arrived in China; and further, when Confucianism, and when Buddhism, arrived in Japan.

> Your idea to represent Confucianism and Daoism with Pops is ultimately inaccurate and just leads to arbitrary lines being drawn everywhere.

I think rather than disagreeing about the actual nature of what occured, we may not be agreeing over what syncretization is. It is the process of religions being localized, the process of beliefs being harmonized, the process of cultural views and beliefs that at one point were different, becoming difficult to disentangle. A pop that is both Buddhist and Daoist is a way to represent the reality that over the long history of China, many governments in its history have- whether you may wish to draw those lines or not- drawn lines between those related beliefs, and chosen to impose sanctions, restrictions, or state elevations of some aspects of belief over others.

> These are primarily attacks and suppressions of an organised clergy and a current of thought that are trying to destroy it and weaken it. They are not institutionalised campaigns like the Inquisition trying to ensure that a population follows the correct orthodox religion

Suppression of some beliefs and ways of practice and not others by the state is something that is, quite frankly, more important to represent than whether or not those sets of beliefs are commonly held by the same people. The distinction of whether not not this falls under a Christian model of 'correcting' heresies is less important than the reality that beliefs were being suppressed. It does a disservice to the history of religion and practice in China to simply represent these beliefs which the state did not treat the same, as being the same.

This is why I suggested allowing the government to suppress or elevate beliefs, independent of whether those beliefs are the 'state religion'. It's not necessary to represent the Chinese state sending missionaries to enforce a code of state orthodoxy (although the Ming dynasty did, in fact, do something very similar to this in its enforcement of neo-confucianism at the level of temples). It would, however, be a good idea to represent the state cherry-picking beliefs they prefer, and elevating or suppressing them, as happened in history under nearly every dynasty in the history of China.

> even campaigns as extreme as those in Joseon Dynasty against Buddhism helped in crushing monasteries and monastic tradition but did not actually attempt to kick out Buddhism from society

Indeed, rather than remove beliefs, governments in China have historically preferred to officiate beliefs. Rather than 'remove' Daoism, the Ming dynasty sought to adjust Daoism to better conform to a more state-sanction set of neo-confuscist views. This was the common practice by many dynasties. Representing this would be highly difficult, and I agree that it would be nice to have represented. Other states with centralized state control over religion, such as Rome, or pre-Islam Egypt, frequently went through similar processes, adjusting state policy on different aspects of the beliefs of the various groups and practices within the Roman empire. Unfortunately, by the timespan of EU5, China and its sinocized neighbours are only states left that still had this level of state influence over the religions within their borders, and that makes it very hard to represent, since it's a method of organizing religion that's only possible insofar as there are little to no extranational authorities that dictate religious policy.

Imagine, for instance, if in medieval France the government picked some aspects of Catholicism, like Monasticism, and decided to aggressively suppress it. If France was the only Catholic nation, then we would describe this as a 'change in Catholic practice'. But because Catholicism is beyond just France, it would result in the Catholic Church declaring the French government to be heretics. Whether this results in an actual religious schism, or a temporary conflict, would have to be decided by history, and it would also be greatly complicated by the question of to what degree priests within France chose to actually do as the state said, or chose to remain loyal to the Holy See.

China doesn't have that concern. When a dynasty says, 'Alright, these practices are now a part of Confucianism, and these are not', then that's simply what Confucianism is now. How much the state tolerates deviations from that among regional parts of China depends largely on the dynasty in question, many of which were fairly lax, and some of which were very strict. I cannot think of a good way to represent the reality of the 'official' set of Chinese beliefs being shifted with different governments, particularly since, just like in Rome or Egypt, the government is in turn being shifted by changes in the views of the public over time as well.

I also do not know how to represent the ability of the state to change the views and practices of targeted groups within it either. In EU4, this is the premise behind Confucianism being represented with a 'Harmonisation' mechanic- representing the Ming dynasty's policy of deliberately syncretizing Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism into neo-confucianism. I don't like this mechanic, because it implies that if China somehow conquered Southeast Asia, then the Buddhists there would be fine with it, wheras the reality was that Buddhism in China was not the same as Buddhism in Southeast Asia, and Southeast Asian Buddhism would likely not be tolerated in the Ming Dynasty.

Valid concerns.

> These included not only the study of Daoism and Buddhism but the use of spirit-writing séances and prayers to Wenchang

This is syncretism. This is the adoption of practices from different sets of beliefs and ways, by others who otherwise would have a distinct set of beliefs. Not all within China practiced Daoism, and venerated the Buddha, and prayed to their ancestors, and held séances. Different groups and people held different sets of these beliefs, and the tolerance of these beliefs changed with the governments.

> an inseparable relation

You may think this of the people, but the governments sure didn't. And again, I would say that it's extremely important to represent the reality of state policy over the period.

 

[nyetflix2]

Very interesting. Does anybody know if Hui Muslims or the old populations of Nestorian Christians and Manichaeans in China were also syncretic?

 

[Linbot#6018]

China and Korea absolutely shouldn't be Buddhist and that religious setup has to change because it's depicting something that was simply never true, and especially for Korea this is true because Buddhism faced harsh persecution by the local Confucian government, as it was pointed out by another user in another thread.

This leads to how to solve this problem, and in my opinion the solution is simply to reinstate Confucianism as a religion back from EU4, and have it be the dominant religion in China and Korea (I think Vietnam as well) to represent both the continued relevance of Confucian thought and morals, and also their syncretism with other Chinese religions and folk religions. Confucianism is, technically speaking, not a religion, but functionally speaking it was the state ideology of many East Asian states, it was a system of morals, it had a caste of people who served the state and represented that set of ideas, and apparently it even went so far as to have Confucian shrines in Japan where their ideas were taught. Functionally speaking, as far as games like EU4 and Project Caesar are concerned, Confucianism acts like a religion and thus can be represented as a religion in the game. Eliminating it entirely from the religious system and have it represented as "something else" is a mistake likely born from the surface-level criticism that Confucianism isn't a religion technically speaking, but that's really besides the point of what a religion is by the rules of games like these. And in any case, having Confucianism as a religion is still definitely more accurate than Buddhism being dominant in China and Korea, seemingly with no opposition, when it never was.

Just add Confucianism back in and let's go back to have a religious map of East Asia that's still relatively accurate to reality without having to run into several headaches trying to figure out how to get around the intertwined web of syncretic beliefs the area had.

I genuinely don't understand why there are people who are so against having the Chinese religion be called "Confucian". This terminology has issues, but there is genuinely no other good option. The Chinese religion shouldn't be Mahayana and out of all the other things it could be called, Confucianism is by far the least bad.

I feel like people are prioritising historical accuracy over gameplay here, they want the religious mapmode to precisely reflect the exact religious practises of every pop in the world. Which is just utterly not necessary. We only need to care about religion insofar as it interacts with the challenges of governing.

 

[Erbeilas]

While I agree that solutions to this problem are hard to find, I feel like a solution absolutely needs to be implementend as the one state=one religion and one pop=one religions system doesn't apply to at least half of the countries portrayed in PC. I know that this problem comes from the fact that PC's mechanics have been built through a european lense (which is kinda expected for a european studio that makes games mainly for westerners, the game has to have a base on which to be built), but it would be kind of a large overlook if they were to not portray at all the religious/cultural system of the majority of the societies that populate the game

Yes. China is a massively important country. It's entirely justified to have entire, bespoke mechanics for China alone.

 

[Erbeilas]

I genuinely don't understand why there are people who are so against having the Chinese religion be called "Confucian". This terminology has issues, but there is genuinely no other good option. The Chinese religion shouldn't be Mahayana and out of all the other things it could be called, Confucianism is by far the least bad.

I feel like people are prioritising historical accuracy over gameplay here, they want the religious mapmode to precisely reflect the exact religious practises of every pop in the world. Which is just utterly not necessary. We only need to care about religion insofar as it interacts with the challenges of governing.

Good point. There's plenty of discussion to be had around what gameplay experience religion should give to the player, and not just the issues of its historiography.

 

[guinea prince]

"That's not a religion, it's a philosophy/ideology" was a weird argument that I thought died out in the 90s. As if having a thing be state-backed makes it any less applicable as a religion for the purposes of the game's simulation, as if religions don't serve a state-imposed ideological and structural function in the whole rest of the world.

 

[freeloquats]

Shenism (神教) is a the common academic term (at least in English) for the syncretic mix of beliefs which comprised Chinese popular religion. Nobody in China calls or ever called it that though. It's not a terribly accurate term for what you're asking for, but if you need one name for everything it's arguably better than labelling it all Confucian.