Below is a rough translation of a text revealed by the Third Sage Mother in 1905 entitled, “The Third Sage Mother’s Ode for Admonishing Woman Against Entering Pagodas and Burning Incense”
The message of this text is that if a woman wants to find good husband, she must cultivate herself. How should she cultivate herself? By being filial and taking care of her parents. If she does this, then she will be able to find a good husband. If she doesn’t do this, but instead visits pagodas and prays for good luck in finding a suitable husband, then the consequences will potentially be dire.
What I find particularly interesting about this text is that it doesn’t really separate “Confucian” and “Buddhist” ideas. Instead, it sees filial piety as an element of good Buddhism. Praying, on the other hand, is not a good Buddhist practice. Hence, what this text really shows is the way in which what we today refer to as “Confucian” values were really the only values in a place like premodern Vietnam. There was no “Buddhist” alternative to the “Confucian” idea of filial piety. Instead, the only proper human relations (nhân luân) were those which had their origins in Confucian teachings.
Here is a rough translation of the text:
Young girls should live in an upright manner.
In their actions they should focus on cultivating themselves.
One should just think of being filial and caring for one’s parents.
This is earnestly [cultivating] the Buddha in one’s home.
One should not use beauty to flirt with others,
But should manifest the way of proper human relations without err.
This is seeking the Buddha in one’s heart.
What need is there to pray sonorously?
What need is there to enter a pagoda and burn incense?
If you are fortunate then misfortune will not reach you.
As for those vernal sentiments of love,
Be careful that your good fate does not turn to ashes.
Your mother and father will worry all the more.
Who knows but when [your parents] inquire about a future son-in-law,
Your value will have been lost.
I urge young girls in this world to take heed,
And to cultivate themselves night and day.
Gái niên thiếu ở cho đoan chính
Ăn ở thời tu tỉnh lấy thân ta
Một niềm hiếu dưỡng mẹ cha
Ấy là hoạt Phật tại gia ân cần
Không nên thị sắc trêu nhân
Phải nên rõ đạo nhân luân chớ nhầm
Ấy là cầu Phật tại tâm
Lọ là khấn bái rầm rầm tỏ tường
Lọ là nhập tự thiêu hương
Phúc thì chẳng thấy tội vương đến mình
Những cảnh ấy xuân tình lắm lắm
Khéo kẻo mà duyên thắm hóa duyên tro
Mẹ cha ngày một thêm lo
Biết đâu quê quán hỏi dò tăm hơi
Rồi ra mất giá con người
Dám khuyên thiếu nữ trên đời cho hay
Phải nên tu tỉnh đêm ngày
This Post Has 2 Comments
giang but often brings to my mind something relates to folk belief or Daoism. Why is all we can see something of Confucianism and Buddhism? I still don’t get the way to know how people at certain times in the past would define which was Confucianism or Daoism or Buddhism.
People use categories which are too strict and artificial when they think about these things. “Confucian” scholars were not supposed to engage in the “Daoist” act of contacting spirits, but at times they did it. They were also supposed to think that theri ideas were superior to those of “Buddhists,” but they used the Buddhist idea of karmic retribution (nhan qua or cam ung). At times you can see people making distinctions between themselves and others, and at times you can see the boundaries blurred or completely gone.
In some of the prefaces to morality books you can see that the people who promoted them tried to distinguish themselves from Buddhists. They said that the Buddhists first think first of the good thing that will happen to them if they do something good, and then they do something good. Or alternately, the first think of the bad thing which will happen to them if they do something bad, and then they won’t do it. Confucians (Nho) on the other hand, do what is good and avoid doing what is bad not because of the consequences, but because it is the right thing to do. And because they are this way, good things will definitely happen to them when they do good. . .
This logic is kind of funny, but a clear distinction was being made. However, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, when Vietnamese started to contact spirits directly, no one made this argument anymore (that I have found). I think it was because society was in more of a crisis at that time, and rather than draw distinctions between people, the people who were engaging in spirit writing simply felt that everyone must change and return to the proper moral standard of the past. That standard was based on what we would today call Confucian ideas – filial piety, respect for elders, etc. – but they were shared by everyone. What was the alternative to filial piety? Was there some way which Vietnamese taught their children to act which was something other than to be filial?
So people at times made distinctions, and at other times they did not. Meanwhile there were core values which were shared by all.