Buddhism, Daoism and Religious Communities in Tang China: Institutions and Imperial Policy

From 618 to 907, Buddhism and Daoism had established institutions across the Tang empire and attracted support from emperors, officials, aristocrats, and other donors. Tang rule was formally interrupted by the Wu Zhou dynasty from 690 to 705, and the empire’s reach beyond its central regions shifted over time. Those political changes affected the movement of clergy and texts, the resources available to religious institutions, and the state’s ability to oversee them. Alongside Buddhist and Daoist communities, the period also saw Christian, Zoroastrian, Manichaean, and Muslim presence, especially in cities connected to long-distance trade.

Religion and government were closely connected, but neither Buddhism nor Daoism had a single, uniform relationship with the court. Emperors could sponsor monasteries and religious rites while also limiting clerical numbers, scrutinizing institutional wealth, or ordering closures. The suppression of Buddhism under Emperor Wuzong in 845 was the most far-reaching Tang example of such intervention.

On this page5 sections

Buddhist institutions and court patronage

Buddhism had grown into a major institutional presence by the Tang period. Monasteries housed monks and nuns, preserved and studied texts, and sometimes offered lodging, education, and other services. Many also held land or other property and drew income from donations and economic activity. Their resources could support religious work and assistance to the wider community, but they also made monasteries important economic institutions in the eyes of officials.

Imperial and aristocratic patronage helped sustain Buddhist establishments. Tang rulers supported monasteries and religious projects, though their policies varied. Empress Wu, who ruled as emperor during the Wu Zhou interruption, used Buddhist ideas in support of her political authority. A text circulated during her rule linked her sovereignty with the expected appearance of Maitreya, a future Buddha. Such use of Buddhist teaching connected court politics with religious authority, without making all Buddhist institutions depend on the same kind of patronage.

Buddhist texts reached Tang communities through study, translation, copying, and, increasingly, printing. The monk Xuanzang returned from a journey to India with Sanskrit texts and worked with court support on their translation in Chang’an. Translations made teachings available to Chinese readers and gave scholars and monastic communities material for study and interpretation. Woodblock printing added another means of circulation: a printed copy of the Diamond Sutra dated 868 survives as evidence of Buddhist texts produced by this method in the Tang period.

Buddhist communities developed different emphases in teaching and practice. Chan stressed cultivation leading to awakening, including meditation and instruction between teachers and disciples. Pure Land devotion centred on Amitabha Buddha and the hope of rebirth in his western paradise, where progress toward enlightenment would be easier. Huayan, the Flower Garland tradition, developed interpretation of the scripture bearing that name. Monasteries could accommodate more than one kind of practice.

Daoism and imperial interests

Daoism, a Chinese religious and philosophical tradition, also received official attention. Tang rulers claimed descent from Laozi, traditionally regarded as the author of the Dao De Jing. This claim gave Daoism a particular association with the ruling house, although imperial support for it coexisted with patronage of Buddhism.

Under Emperor Xuanzong, the court invited Buddhist and Daoist clerics and gave Daoist learning an institutional place by establishing training for candidates taking Daoist examinations. Religious specialists could also be called upon for purposes of state concern. In 726, Xuanzong summoned the Indian monk Vajrabodhi to perform rites intended to end a drought. In 742, the emperor took part in a rite led by the Buddhist monk Amoghavajra, which sought protection and victory for Tang forces. These examples show that court patronage could involve both Daoist and Buddhist institutions, and that Buddhist rites could serve imperial aims.

Support did not remove state oversight. In 713, Xuanzong ordered the liquidation of an Inexhaustible Treasury at a prominent Buddhist monastery in Chang’an. The institution had received money, silk, and valuables from donors, including anonymous penitents. The emperor criticized its financial practices and redistributed its wealth among Buddhist and Daoist monasteries and for repairs to local religious buildings and bridges. The episode illustrates how donations might accumulate in religious institutions and how the court could redirect those resources.

Sanjiejiao and a Buddhist charitable treasury

Sanjiejiao, or the Three Stages teaching, was a Buddhist movement founded by the monk Xinxing (540–594). Its teaching held that people lived in a spiritually difficult age in which no single Buddhist teaching could be assumed to suit everyone. It therefore emphasized a broadly applicable approach and respect for the Buddha-nature believed to be present in all beings. Its adherents included both monastics and laypeople, and its institutions could operate within larger monasteries.

A distinctive institution was the Inexhaustible Treasury, which collected donations for religious and charitable use. Accounts of the movement describe a scheme dividing the funds into thirds: one portion for religious buildings and monastic upkeep, one for the poor, and one for the needs of lay members and others. Participants’ giving thus supported both the movement’s institutions and people beyond them. The treasury was not simply a store of wealth; it was a way of organizing donations for several kinds of use.

Sanjiejiao’s teachings and institutions drew criticism from other Buddhists and restrictions from the state. Its donors, clergy and lay followers nevertheless established a practical means of collecting and distributing resources. Arguments about the treasury concerned both its wealth and the religious claims that justified giving to it.

Regulation, wealth, and the suppression of 845

Tang rulers regulated the Buddhist establishment well before the suppression of 845. Government concern included the number and status of clergy, the property held by monasteries, and the economic consequences of exemptions from taxes or labor obligations. Critics, including Confucian officials, argued that monastic life drew people away from family duties and productive work. Such arguments were political and moral criticisms, not neutral accounts of every monk, nun, or monastery.

Pressure on the central government grew after the An Lushan rebellion of 755–763, which weakened its authority and disrupted its control of parts of the empire. Military costs added to the strain. In the 840s, Emperor Wuzong’s government pursued measures against Buddhism that combined financial and social aims with the emperor’s strong commitment to Daoism and opposition to religions it regarded as foreign. The campaign developed from efforts to regulate clergy and institutions into a much broader attack.

In 842, initial measures targeted monks and nuns deemed ineligible for religious status and required some to return to lay life. The campaign expanded in 844 and reached its height in 845, when monasteries and shrines were ordered closed or destroyed, property was confiscated, and many monks and nuns were forced to leave religious life. Government figures associated with the measures listed 4,600 monasteries, more than 40,000 smaller religious establishments or retreats, and 260,500 monks and nuns. The figures come from official reports of the campaign and express its claimed scale.

The suppression transferred land and other property to the state and brought many former monks and nuns back under ordinary tax obligations. Wuzong died in 846, and his successor granted an amnesty that ended the campaign and allowed Buddhist institutions to reopen. The reversal did not simply restore the earlier situation: the closures and confiscations had disrupted religious communities and diminished the resources available to them.

Other religious communities and changing connections

Christian, Zoroastrian, and Manichaean communities were also present in Tang China. A stone inscription erected in 781 records the Church of the East community, sometimes called Nestorian in older accounts, and its history in China. Zoroastrian worship was associated with Sogdian communities in Tang cities, while Manichaeism had connections with Uyghur political and religious networks. These communities depended in part on travel and contact across the empire’s changing frontiers.

Wuzong’s measures extended beyond Buddhism. His government targeted Manichaean and Zoroastrian institutions and ordered Christian clergy to return to lay life. Muslim presence is documented chiefly through Arab merchants who lived and traded in Tang cities and ports. Arab trading communities remained part of the empire’s maritime connections.

For the wider setting, see Tang China: History, Government and Society.