Pre-Confucian history The origins of filial piety in East Asia lie in ancestor worship, and can already be found in the pre-Confucian period.
Epigraphical findings such as oracle bones contain references to filial piety. Texts such as the
Classic of Changes () may contain early references to the parallel conception of the filial son and the loyal minister.
Early Confucianism , annotated by Kuan (1286–1324) |alt=Pages with Chinese characters and illustrations In the
Tang dynasty (6th–10th century), not performing filial piety was declared illegal, and even earlier, during the
Han dynasty (2nd century BCE–3rd century CE), this was punished by beheading. Behavior regarded as unfilial such as mistreating or abandoning one's parents or grandparents, or refusing to complete the mourning period for them, was punished by exile and beating, or worse. From the Han dynasty onward, the practice of mourning rites came to be seen as the cornerstone of filial piety and was strictly practiced and enforced. This was a period of unrest, and the state promoted the practice of long-term mourning to reestablish its authority. Filial piety toward one's parents was expected to lead to loyalty to the ruler, expressed in the Han proverb "The Emperor rules all-under-heaven with filial piety". Government officials were expected to take leave for a mourning period of two years after their parents died. Local officials were expected to encourage filial piety to one's parents—and by extension, to the state—by behaving as an example of such piety. The king himself would express filial piety in an exemplary way, through the ritual of "serving the elderly" (). Nearly all Han emperors had the word in their
temple name. The promotion of filial piety in this manner, as part of the idea of , was a less confrontational way to create order in society than resorting to law. Filial piety was a keystone of Han morality. During the early Confucian period, the principles of filial piety were brought back by Japanese and Korean students to their respective homelands, where they became central to the education system. In Japan, rulers gave awards to people deemed to practice exemplary filial conduct. During the Mongolian rule in the
Yuan dynasty (13th–14th century), the practice of filial piety was perceived to deteriorate. In the
Ming dynasty (14th–17th century), emperors and
literati attempted to revive the customs of filial piety. Though in that process, filial piety was reinterpreted, as rules and rituals were modified. Even on the grassroots level a revival was seen, as
vigilante societies started to promote Confucian values. Members of this vigilance movement composed the book
The Twenty-four Cases of Filial Piety.
Introduction of Buddhism ,
Dazu, China.|alt=Buddha image gesturing, and surrounded by reliefs depicting stories Filial piety has been an important aspect of
Buddhist ethics since
early Buddhism, and was essential in the apologetics and texts of
Chinese Buddhism. In the
Early Buddhist Texts such as the
Nikāyas and
Āgamas, filial piety is prescribed and practiced in three ways: to repay the gratitude toward one's parents; as a good karma or
merit; and as a way to contribute to and sustain the social order.
Buddhist scriptures portray the
Buddha and his
disciples practicing filial piety toward their parents, based on the qualities of gratitude and reciprocity. Initially, scholars of Buddhism like Kenneth Ch'en saw Buddhist teachings on filial piety as a distinct feature of Chinese Buddhism. Later scholarship, led by people such as
John Strong and
Gregory Schopen, has come to believe that filial piety was part of Buddhist doctrine since early times. Strong and Schopen provided
epigraphical and textual evidence to show that early Buddhist laypeople, monks, and nuns often displayed strong devotion to their parents, and concluded that filial piety was already an important part of the
devotional life of early Buddhists. When Buddhism was introduced in China, it had no organized celibacy.
Confucianism emphasized filial piety to parents and loyalty to the emperor, and Buddhist monastic life was seen to go against its tenets. In the 3rd–5th century CE, as criticism of Buddhism increased, Buddhist monastics and lay authors responded by writing about and translating Buddhist doctrines and narratives that supported filial piety, comparing them to Confucianism and thereby defending Buddhism and its value in society. The
Mouzi Lihuolun referred to
Confucian and Daoist classics, as well as historical precedents to respond to critics of Buddhism. The
Mouzi stated that while on the surface the Buddhist monk seems to reject and abandon his parents, he is actually aiding his parents as well as himself on the path towards enlightenment.
Sun Chuo () further argued that monks were working to ensure the salvation of all people and making their family proud by doing so, and
Liu Xie stated that Buddhists practiced filial piety by
sharing merit with their departed relatives. Buddhist monks were also criticized for not expressing their respect to the Chinese emperor by
prostrating and other devotion, which in Confucianism was associated with the virtue of filial piety.
Huiyuan (334–416) responded that although monks did not express such piety, they did pay homage in heart and mind; moreover, their teaching of morality and virtue to the public helped support imperial rule. From the 6th century onward, Chinese Buddhists realized they had to stress Buddhism's own particular ideas about filial piety in order for Buddhism to survive.
Śyāma, Sujāti, and other Buddhist stories of self-sacrifice spread a belief that a filial child should even be willing to sacrifice its own body. The
Ullambana Sūtra introduced the idea of
transfer of merit through the story of
Mulian Saves His Mother and led to the establishment of the
Ghost Festival. By this Buddhists attempted to show that filial piety also meant taking care of one's parents in the next life, not just this life. Furthermore, authors in China—and Tibet, and to some extent Japan—wrote that in Buddhism, all
living beings have once been one's parents, and that practicing
compassion to all living beings as though they were one's parents is the superior form of filial piety. Another aspect emphasized was the great suffering a mother goes through when giving birth and raising a child. Chinese Buddhists described how difficult it is to repay the goodness of one's mother, and how many
sins mothers committed in raising their children. The mother became the primary source of well-being and indebtedness for the son, which was in contrast with pre-Buddhist perspectives emphasizing the father. Nevertheless, although critics of Buddhism did not have much impact during this time, this changed in the period leading up to the
Neo-Confucianist revival, when Emperor
Wu Zong (841–845) started the
Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution, citing lack of filial piety as one of his reasons for attacking Buddhist institutions. Filial piety is still an important value in some Asian Buddhist cultures. In China, Buddhism continued to uphold a role in state rituals and mourning rites for ancestors until late imperial times (13th–20th century).
Sūtras and narratives about filial piety are still widely used. The Ghost Festival is still popular in many Asian countries, especially those countries which are influenced by both Buddhism and Confucianism.
Late imperial period .
Okumura Masanobu, early 1730s.|alt=Woodblock print with color, showing an old man and a young women gazing at the sky During the 17th century, some missionaries tried to prevent Chinese people from worshiping their ancestors. This was regarded as an assault on Chinese culture. During the
Qing dynasty, however, filial piety was redefined by the
Kangxi Emperor, who felt it more important that his officials were loyal to him than that they were filial sons. Civil servants were often not allowed to go on extended leave to perform mourning rituals for their parents. The parallel conception of society therefore disappeared from Chinese society.
Patriarchalism and its enactment in law grew more strict in late imperial China. The duties of the obedient child were much more precisely and rigidly prescribed, to the extent that legal scholar
Hsu Dau-lin argued about this period that it "engendered a highly authoritarian spirit which was entirely alien to Confucius himself". The late imperial Chinese held patriarchalism high as an organizing principle of society, as laws and punishments gradually became more strict and severe. During the same time, in Japan, a classic work about filial practices was compiled, called
Biographies of Japanese Filial Children ().
19th–20th century During the rise of progressivism and communism in China in the early 20th century, Confucian values and family-centered living were discouraged by the state and intellectuals. During the
New Culture Movement of 1911, Chinese intellectuals and foreign missionaries attacked the principle of filial piety, the latter considering it an obstruction of progress. In Japan, filial piety was not regarded as an obstacle to modernization, though scholars disagree about why this was so. Francis Hsu believed that "the human networks through which it found concrete expressions" were different in Japan, and there never was a movement against filial piety as there was in China. The late imperial trend of increased patriarchalism made it difficult for the Chinese to build strong patrimonial groups that went beyond kin. Though filial piety was practiced much in both China and Japan, the Chinese way was more limited to close kin than in Japan. When industrialization increased, filial piety was therefore criticized more in China than in Japan, because China felt it limited the way the country could meet the challenges from the West. For this reason, China developed a more critical stance towards filial piety and other aspects of Confucianism than other East Asian countries, including not only Japan, but also Taiwan. In the 1950s,
Mao Zedong's socialist measures led to the dissolution of family businesses and more dependence on the state; Taiwan's socialism did not go as far in state control. Ethnographic evidence from the 19th and early 20th century shows that Chinese people still very much cared for their elders, who very often lived with one or more married sons. == Developments in modern society ==