Family cohesion and thefilial requirement to produce heirs were bedrock
values in Chinese society from very early times and were best articulated
under the rubric of Confucian thought.
More problematic still was the itinerant practice of many monks, wan-
dering from place to place and monastery to monastery, sometimes beg-
ging for alms along the way. Like most sedentary agricultural cultures,
Chinese society was based upon people living infixed locations among
familiar neighbors. The government’s bureaucratic control apparatus rein-
forced the importance of home place, registering the population in family
units in specific locations. Even government officials, who were prohibited
from serving in their home districts, retained their associations with their
family’s home as they traveled about. Buddhist monks therefore stood
outside of mainstream Chinese society in a very fundamental, and disturb-
ing, way. Traveling could also be extremely dangerous as one left the direct
supervision of government or close-knit community. The roads and unin-
habited areas between communities were the realm of bandits.
Cut off from family and hometown, with no productive economic activ-
ity, monks developed an association with banditry and the thuggish and
violent society of the road. Many people, it seemed, might shave their heads,
don monastic robes, and claim to be monks if for no other reason than to
avoid government control. The government responded to this by requiring
monks to obtain official ordination certificates. This practice brought in
revenue to the government and allowed some measure of control over the
monastic ranks. Sometimes a Chinese government might even impose tests
on prospective monks, to ensure that they were actual religious professio-
nals rather than mere tax dodgers. These tests were never more than occa-
sionally successful, and in any case the majority of men and women claiming
to be Buddhist monks or nuns greatly exceeded the number of ordination
certificates.
While there was always some question about the extent of religious
training, not to say devotion, of someone claiming to be a monk, there also
seemed to be a fairly consistent skepticism about monastic commitments
to celibacy and vegetarianism. When combined with the tinge of banditry
that the monastic tonsure and dress retained, it often seems that lecherous
monks were a commonplace. It is difficult to separate the criminal behavior
of the bandit, who might be dressed as a monk, from the hypocritical
conduct of a given religious professional.
This association is clearly demonstrated in a story from the ninth-century
Youyang Zazu, compiled by Duan Chengshi. Duan relates an anecdote
from the early eighth century concerning an imperial prince, the Prince of
106 The Sui and Tang Dynasties