Third Battle of Seoul

The Third Battle of Seoul was a battle of the Korean War, which took place from December 31, 1950, to January 7, 1951, around the South Korean capital of Seoul. It is also known as the Chinese New Year's Offensive, the January–Fourth Retreat (Korean: 1•4 후퇴) or the Third Phase Campaign Western Sector (Chinese: 第三次战役西线; pinyin: Dì Sān Cì Zhàn Yì Xī Xiàn).

In the aftermath of the major Chinese People's Volunteer Army (PVA) victory at the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River, the United Nations Command (UN) started to contemplate the possibility of evacuation from the Korean Peninsula. Chinese Communist Party chairman Mao Zedong ordered the Chinese People's Volunteer Army to cross the 38th Parallel in an effort to pressure the UN forces to withdraw from South Korea.

On December 31, 1950, the Chinese 13th Army attacked the Republic of Korea Army (ROK)'s 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th Infantry Divisions along the 38th Parallel, breaching UN defenses at the Imjin River, Hantan River, Gapyeong and Chuncheon in the process. To prevent the PVA forces from overwhelming the defenders, the US Eighth Army now under the command of Lieutenant General Matthew B. Ridgway evacuated Seoul on January 3, 1951.

Although PVA forces captured Seoul by the end of the battle, the Chinese invasion of South Korea galvanized the UN support for South Korea, while the idea of evacuation was soon abandoned by the UN Command. At the same time, the PVA were exhausted after months of nonstop fighting since the start of the Chinese intervention, thereby allowing the UN forces to regain the initiative in Korea.

## Background

With China entering the Korean War in late 1950, the conflict had entered a new phase. To prevent North Korea from falling under UN control after the UN offensive into North Korea, the PVA entered North Korea and launched their Second Phase Offensive against the UN forces near the Sino-Korean border on 25 November. The resulting battles at the Ch'ongch'on River Valley and the Chosin Reservoir forced the UN forces to retreat from North Korea during December 1950, with PVA and North Korean Korean People's Army (KPA) forces recapturing much of North Korea. On the Korean western front, after the US Eighth Army suffered a disastrous defeat at the Ch'ongch'on River, it retreated back to the Imjin River while setting up defensive positions around the South Korean capital of Seoul. Although the Eighth Army was ordered to hold Seoul for as long as possible, UN commander General Douglas MacArthur planned a series of withdrawals to the Pusan Perimeter if UN forces were about to be overwhelmed. General Walton Walker, commander of the Eighth Army, was killed in a traffic accident on December 23, and Lieutenant General Matthew B. Ridgway assumed command of the Eighth Army on December 26, 1950. At the UN, a ceasefire along the 38th Parallel was proposed to China on December 11, 1950, in order to avoid any further escalation of hostility between the US and China.

Although the PVA had been weakened from their earlier battles, with nearly 40 percent of its forces rendered combat ineffective, its unexpected victories over the UN forces had convinced the Chinese leadership of the invincibility of the PVA. Immediately after the PVA 13th Army's victory over the Eighth Army at the Ch'ongch'on River, Chinese Communist Party chairman Mao Zedong started to contemplate another offensive against the UN forces on the urging of North Korean Premier Kim Il Sung. After learning of MacArthur's plans and the UN ceasefire, Mao also believed that the UN evacuation of the Korean Peninsula was imminent. Although the over-stretched Chinese logistics prevented the PVA from launching a full-scale invasion against South Korea, Mao still ordered the PVA 13th Army to launch an intrusion, dubbed the "Third Phase Campaign", to hasten the UN withdrawal and to demonstrate China's desire for a total victory in Korea. On December 23, 1950, China's Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai formally rejected the UN ceasefire while demanding all UN forces to be withdrawn from the Korean Peninsula.

## Prelude

### Locations, terrain, and weather

Seoul is the capital city of South Korea. Korea as a whole is roughly bisected into northern and southern halves by the Han River. Seoul is located 35 mi (56 km) south of the 38th Parallel. The battle was fought over the UN defenses at the 38th Parallel, which stretches horizontally from the Imjin River mouth on the Korean west coast to the town of Chuncheon in central Korea. Route 33 runs south across the 38th Parallel at the Hantan River, passes through Uijeongbu and eventually arrives at Seoul, and it is an ancient invasion route towards Seoul. Another road ran across the Imjin River, and it connects Seoul and Kaesong through the towns of Munsan and Koyang. Finally, a road runs through Chuncheon and it connects to Seoul from the northeast. The harsh Korean winter, with temperatures as low as −20 °C (−4 °F), had frozen the Imjin and the Hantan River over most of the river crossings, eliminating a major obstacle for the attacking Chinese forces.

### Forces and strategies

By December 22, 1950, the US Eighth Army's front had stabilized along the 38th Parallel. Just days before his death, Walker placed US I Corps, US IX Corps, and ROK III Corps of the Eighth Army along the 38th Parallel to defend Seoul. US I and IX Corps were to defend the Imjin and Hantan River respectively, while ROK III Corps were to guard the areas around Chuncheon. The boundary between US I and IX Corps was marked by Route 33, and was defended by the ROK 1st Infantry Division on the west side and the ROK 6th Infantry Division on the east side.

Because the ROK forces had suffered nearly 45,000 casualties at the end of 1950, most of their units were composed of raw recruits with little combat training. After inspecting the front just days before the battle, General J. Lawton Collins, the US Army Chief of Staff, concluded that most of the ROK formations were only fit for outpost duties. At the same time, the Eighth Army was also suffering from low morale due to its earlier defeats, and most of its soldiers were anticipating an evacuation from Korea. The Eighth Army's lack of will to fight and to maintain contact with Chinese forces resulted in a lack of information on PVA troop movements and intentions. After inspecting the front on December 27, Ridgway ordered US I and IX Corps to organize a new defensive line around Koyang to Uijeongbu, called the Bridgehead Line, to cover the Han River crossings in case the UN forces were forced to evacuate Seoul.

The PVA, however, were also suffering from logistics problems and exhaustion after their earlier victories. Arguing against the Third Phase Campaign on December 7, PVA Commander Peng Dehuai telegraphed to Mao that the PVA would need at least three months to replace its casualties, while most of its troops were in critical need of resupply, rest and reorganization. The Chinese logistics system, which was based on the concept of People's War with the native population supplying the army, also ran into difficulties due to the indifferent and sometimes hostile, Korean population near the 38th Parallel. The PVA were now suffering from hunger and the lack of winter clothing.

Responding to Peng's concern over the troops' conditions, Mao limited the scope of the Third Phase Campaign to pin down the ROK forces along the 38th Parallel while inflicting as much damage as possible. Upon noticing that the US units were not interspersed between the ROK formations, therefore unable to support them, Mao ordered the PVA 13th Army to destroy the ROK 1st Infantry Division, the ROK 6th Infantry Division and ROK III Corps. Following Mao's instruction, Peng placed the PVA 38th, 39th, 40th and 50th Corps of the 13th Army in front of the ROK 1st and 6th Infantry Divisions, while the 42nd and the 66th Corps of the 13th Army were moved into ROK III Corps' sector. The start date of the offensive was set to 31 December in order to take advantage of the night assault under a full moon and the anticipated low alertness of the UN soldiers during the holiday. For the same reasons Ridgway had predicted that 31 December would be the likely time for the new Chinese offensive. Believing that the destruction of the ROK forces at the 38th Parallel would render the UN forces incapable of counterattacks in the future, Mao promised to pull all Chinese troops off the front line for rest and refit by the end of the campaign.

## Battle

On the evening of December 31, 1950, the PVA 13th Army launched a massive attack against the ROK forces along the 38th Parallel. Along the Imjin River and the Hantan River, the PVA 38th, 39th, 40th and 50th Corps decimated the ROK 1st Division while routing the ROK 6th Division. At the Chuncheon sector, the PVA 42nd and the 66th Corps forced ROK III Corps into full retreat. With the defenses at the 38th Parallel completely collapsed by January 1, 1951, Ridgway ordered the evacuation of Seoul on January 3.

### Actions at the Imjin River and the Hantan River

By December 15, 1950, the ROK 1st Infantry Division had retreated back to the town of Choksong on the southern bank of the Imjin River, its original defensive position at the start of the Korean War. On the right flank of the ROK 1st Infantry Division, the ROK 6th Infantry Division was located at the north of Dongducheon along the southern bank of the Hantan River. The ROK 1st Infantry Division planned to defend the Imjin River by placing its 11th and 12th Regiments at the west and the east side of Choksong respectively, while the ROK 6th Infantry Division defended the Route 33 at the Hantan River by placing its 7th and 19th Regiments on each side of the road. Both the ROK 15th Regiment, 1st Infantry Division and the ROK 2nd Regiment, 6th Infantry Division were placed in the rear as reserves. The South Koreans had also constructed numerous bunkers, barbed wire obstacles and minefields on both banks of the river in order to strengthen defenses and to maintain troop morale.

Faced with the South Korean defense, the Chinese had prepared for well over a month for the offensive. In the weeks before the operational orders for the Third Phase Campaign were issued by PVA High Command, the advance elements of the PVA 39th Corps had been conducting detailed reconnaissance on the ROK defenses. The ROK positions were then thoroughly analyzed by PVA commanders, engineers and artillery officers. PVA "thrust" companies, which were composed of specially trained assault and engineer teams, were also organized to lead the attack across the Imjin and Hantan River. During the preparation, the PVA artillery units had suffered heavy losses under UN air attacks, but PVA Deputy Commander Han Xianchu still managed to bring up 100 artillery pieces against the ROK fortifications. On December 22, the PVA High Command issued the operational orders that signaled the start of the Third Phase Campaign. The PVA 39th and 50th Corps were tasked with the destruction of the ROK 1st Infantry Division, while the 38th and the 40th Corps were tasked with the destruction of the ROK 6th Infantry Division.

Acting on Ridgway's prediction, the ROK Army Headquarters ordered all units to full alert at dusk on December 31, but many of its soldiers were either drunk from the New Year celebration or had abandoned their posts in order to escape the cold. The PVA artillery units began to shell the ROK defenses at 16:30 on December 31. The first blow fell on the ROK 12th Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, due to the unit's positioning as both the boundary between the ROK 1st and 6th Infantry Divisions and the boundary between US I and IX Corps. Because the river banks on ROK 12th Regiment's flanks were composed of high cliffs difficult for the attackers to scale, most of the regiment's strength were used to defend its center. Upon noticing this development, the PVA 39th Corps decided to use ROK 12th Regiment's flanks as the main points of attack in order to achieve maximum surprise. Following a feint attack on the ROK 12th Regiment's center, the PVA 116th and 117th Divisions of the 38th Corps struck both flanks of the ROK 12th Regiment. The ROK 12th Regiment was caught off guard and offered little resistance, and within hours the regiment was cut to pieces with a battery of the US 9th Field Artillery Battalion seized by the Chinese. Under the cover of the fleeing ROK soldiers, the attacking PVA forces then penetrated the ROK 15th Regiment's defense without firing a shot. Desperate to contain the PVA breakthrough, Brigadier General Paik Sun Yup of the ROK 1st Infantry Division used the division's rear service personnel to form an assault battalion, but they were unable to stop the PVA advance. With only the ROK 11th Regiment remaining intact by the morning of January 1, the ROK 1st Infantry Division was forced to withdraw on January 2.

The PVA attacks against the ROK 6th Infantry Division, however, did not go as commanders had planned. The original plan called for the PVA 38th and the 40th Corps to attack the ROK 19th Regiment, 6th Infantry Division's right flank, but the bulk of the PVA forces mistakenly attacked the US 19th Infantry Regiment, 24th Infantry Division, which was stationed to the east of the ROK 19th Regiment. The poor intelligence had also made the PVA charge through several minefields, resulting in heavy casualties. In spite of the losses, the PVA pushed the US 19th Infantry Regiment back, exposing the right flank of the ROK 6th Infantry Division in the process. With the ROK 1st Infantry Division out of action and the US 24th Infantry Division's defenses penetrated, the PVA forces on both flanks of the ROK 6th Infantry Division then advanced southward in an attempt to encircle the division. By midnight of the New Year's Eve, the ROK 6th Infantry Division was forced into full retreat. Although the PVA managed to intercept some elements of the ROK 6th Infantry Division, most of the ROK escaped the trap by infiltrating the PVA lines using the mountain trails. As Ridgway tried to inspect the front on the morning of January 1, he was greeted by the fleeing and weaponless remnants of the ROK 6th Infantry Division a few miles north of Seoul. Despite Ridgway's efforts to stop the retreat, the division continued to flee south. It was not until the personal intervention of South Korean President Syngman Rhee that the division finally stopped its retreat. By the night of January 1, the UN defenses at the Imjin River and the Hantan River had completely collapsed with the PVA advancing 9 mi (14 km) into UN territory. The Chinese stopped their advance on January 2.

### Actions at Gapyeong and Chuncheon

At the beginning of the battle ROK III Corps was located to the east of the US 24th Infantry Division of US IX Corps, defending the 38th Parallel to the north of Gapyeong (Kapyong) and Chuncheon. Composed of four divisions, ROK III Corps placed its 2nd Infantry Division on the Corps' left flank at the hills north of Gapyeong, while the 5th Infantry Division defended the Corps' center at Chuncheon. The cold winter created great difficulties for the ROK defenders, with the heavy snow hindering construction and icy roads limiting food and ammunition supplies. North Korean guerrillas were also active in the region, and had caused serious disruption in the rear of ROK III Corps.

The Chinese operational order for the Third Phase Campaign called for the 42nd and the 66th Corps to protect the PVA left flank by eliminating the ROK 2nd and 5th Infantry Divisions, while cutting the road between Chuncheon and Seoul. Following instructions, the two PVA Corps quickly struck after midnight on New Year's Eve. The PVA 124th Division first penetrated the flanks of the ROK 2nd Infantry Division, then blocked the division's retreat route. The trapped ROK 17th and 32nd Regiments, 2nd Infantry Division were forced to retreat in disarray. With the PVA 66th Corps pressuring the ROK 5th Infantry Division's front, the PVA 124th Division then advanced eastward in the rear and blocked the ROK 5th Infantry Division's retreat route as well. The maneuver soon left the ROK 36th Regiment, 5th Infantry Division surrounded by PVA and they had to escape by infiltrating the PVA lines using mountain trails. By January 1, ROK III Corps had lost contact with the 2nd and 5th Infantry Divisions, while the rest of the III Corps were retreating to the town of Wonju. On January 5, the PVA 42nd and 66th Corps were relieved by the KPA II and V Corps, and the KPA launched a separate offensive towards Wonju.

### Evacuation of Seoul

In the aftermath of the PVA attacks on along the 38th Parallel, Ridgway worried that the Chinese would exploit the breakthrough at Chuncheon to circle the entire Eighth Army. He also lacked confidence in the UN troops' ability to hold against the Chinese offensive. On the morning of January 3, after conferring with Major General Frank W. Milburn and Major General John B. Coulter, commanders of the US I and IX Corps, respectively, Ridgway ordered the evacuation of Seoul. With the collapse of the UN defenses at the 38th Parallel, the retreat had already started on January 1. At 09:00 on January 1, Milburn ordered US I Corps to retreat to the Bridgehead Line. Following his orders, the US 25th Infantry Division of I Corps took up position to the west of Koyang, while the British 29th Independent Infantry Brigade of I Corps had dug in to the east. To the east of I Corps, Coulter also ordered the withdrawal of US IX Corps at 14:00 with the Anglo-Australian 27th British Commonwealth Brigade covering the rear. Some PVA forces managed to trap the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3 RAR) of the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade at Uijeongbu during their attacks against the ROK 6th Infantry Division, but the battalion escaped the trap with four wounded. By midnight on January 1, the US 24th Infantry Division of the IX Corps reached the Bridgehead Line south of Uijeongbu, and the 27th Commonwealth Brigade was moved into the IX Corps rear as reserves.

The PVA forces lacked the ability to lay siege to Seoul, so the evacuation order caught Peng by surprise. On the morning of January 3, Peng ordered the PVA 13th Army to pursue the retreating UN forces by attacking towards Seoul. The US 24th, 25th Infantry Division and the British 29th Infantry Brigade soon bore the brunt of the PVA attacks. In US IX Corps' sector, PVA 38th Corps attacked the US 24th Infantry Division as the American were trying to withdraw. In the fierce fighting that followed, the US 19th Infantry Regiment on the division's left flank was involved in numerous hand-to-hand struggles with the PVA around Uijeongbu. The PVA overran Companies E and G of US 19th Infantry Regiment during their attacks, but US artillery and air strikes soon inflicted 700 casualties in return. Faced with the heavy PVA pressure, the 27th Commonwealth Brigade was again called in to cover the retreat of US IX Corps. After the US 24th Division evacuated Seoul on the night of January 3, the 27th Commonwealth Brigade started to cross the Han River on the morning of January 4, and by 07:40 the entire US IX Corps had left Seoul.

On the left flank of the US 24th Infantry Division, the British 29th Infantry Brigade of US I Corps was involved in the hardest fighting of the entire battle. In the 29th Infantry Brigade's first action of the Korean War, the brigade was ordered to defend the areas east of Koyang on the Bridgehead Line. The 1st Battalion, Royal Ulster Rifles (1RUR) covered the brigade's left flank, while the 1st Battalion, Royal Northumberland Fusiliers (1RNF) was stationed on the brigade's right flank. The 1st Battalion, Gloucestershire Regiment and the 1st Battalion, 21st Royal Thai Regiment covered the brigade's rear with artillery support. At 04:00 on January 3, 1RUR first made contact with the 149th Division of the PVA 50th Corps. The PVA surprised and overran the Companies B and D of 1RUR, but a counterattack by Major C. A. H. B. Blake of 1RUR restored the battalion's position by the morning. While 1RUR was under attack, the PVA forces also infiltrated 1RNF's positions by exploiting the unguarded valleys between hilltops occupied by the British. The entire 1RNF soon came under sniper fire and the PVA made repeated attempts to capture Y Company of 1RNF. To restore 1RNF's position, Brigadier Thomas Brodie of the 29th Infantry Brigade sent W Company of 1RNF with four Churchill tanks as reinforcement. The reinforcement was met with machine gun and mortar fire, but the PVA resistance immediately crumbled under the Churchill tanks' devastating assaults. The surviving PVA troops fled under the bombardment from 4.2-inch mortars and 25 pounder field guns. In the aftermath of fighting, the 29th Infantry Brigade suffered at least 16 dead, 45 wounded and 3 missing, while 200 PVA dead were found within 1RNF's position.

While the British 29th Infantry Brigade and the PVA 149th Division fought at the east of Koyang, the US 25th Infantry Division of US I Corps started to withdraw on the left flank of 29th Infantry Brigade. The evacuation plan called for a coordinated withdrawal between the US 25th Infantry Division and the British 29th Infantry Brigade in order to prevent the PVA from infiltrating the UN rear areas, but the heavy fighting soon made the coordination between American and British units impossible. After the US 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division formed the rearguard of US I Corps, the 25th Infantry Division and the 29th Infantry Brigade were ordered to evacuate at 15:00 on January 3. The 25th Infantry Division retreated with little difficulties, but the withdrawal of the 29th Infantry Brigade did not start until after dark at 21:30. With the road completely open between the US rearguards and the British units, the PVA 446th Regiment, 149th Division infiltrated UN rear areas and set up an ambush against 1RUR and the Cooper Force of the 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars. 1RUR and the Cooper Force were then quickly overrun by Chinese soldiers, most of whom were completely unarmed. The PVA had also attacked the Cromwell tanks of the Cooper Force with bundle grenades and Bangalore torpedoes, setting several on fire. In the desperate hand on hand fighting that followed, although 100 soldiers from 1RUR managed to escape the trap under the command of Major J.K.H. Shaw, Major Blake of 1RUR and Captain D. Astley-Cooper of the Cooper Force were killed in action, while another 208 British soldiers were missing in action, most of whom were captured by the PVA. The US 27th Infantry Regiment tried to rescue the trapped British troops, but Brodie stopped the rescue in order to prevent more unnecessary losses.

When the British 29th Infantry Brigade left Seoul at 08:00 on January 4, the US 27th Infantry Regiment became the last UN tactical unit that remained in the city. After fighting several more holding engagements at the outskirts of Seoul, the 27th Infantry Regiment crossed the Han River at 14:00 on January 4.

Ridgway warned his forces around noon on the 4th to expect orders to withdraw to Line D, all Corps abreast. I and IX Corps in the meantime were to pull back at 20:00 to intermediate positions 6–8 miles (9.7–12.9 km) south of the Han and hold until Air Force and Army supplies stocked at Suwon, 10 miles (16 km) farther south, had been removed. Ridgway expected the supplies to be cleared within 24 to 36 hours. Ridgway intended that the starting hour of the intermediate move provide time for the 3rd Logistical Command to finish evacuating Inchon, ASCOM City and Kimpo airfield. On 3 January Ridgway had notified Col. John G. Hill, commander of the 3rd Logistical Command, to cease port operations at Inchon at noon the next day. The deadline seemed reasonable since the gradual reductions of stocks at the port and airfield areas since early December already had brought items on hand to modest quantities. But unforeseen delays in getting some reserve stocks released from Eighth Army staff officers, too few tankers, too little suitable shipping for such items as long lengths of railroad track, and an overestimate of the ammunition that would be issued to line troops had prevented Colonel Hill from removing all stocks by the designated hour. After receiving Ridgway's noontime orders, General Milburn, in whose sector the port and airfield lay, instructed Hill to execute his demolition plans as soon as he had removed all troops other than demolition crews. While back shipment at Inchon did continue through the favorable afternoon tide on the 4th, Hill's main attention was diverted to rendering the airfield and port facilities useless to PVA/KPA forces. All port units scheduled to travel south by road had gone by the time Hill received Milburn's instructions, and the last Fifth Air Force unit except for Army aviation engineers had flown from Kimpo to a new base in Japan. Through the afternoon these engineers burned the airfield buildings and the drums of aviation gasoline and napalm remaining at Kimpo while Eighth Army engineers from the 82nd Engineer Petroleum Distribution Company destroyed the four- and six-inch pipelines between Inchon and Kimpo and the booster pumps and storage tanks at the airfield. Members of the 50th Engineer Port Construction Company began demolishing the Inchon port at 18:00. All main facilities except one pier and a causeway to the island of Wolmi-do, were destroyed. Prime targets were the lock gates of the tidal basin, which by compensating the Yellow Sea's wide tidal range had largely given Inchon the capacity of a principal port. The demolitions at Wolmi-do as well as the city itself were completed by 03:00 on the 5th. Colonel Hill and his remaining troops left by water for Pusan within the hour. Supplies destroyed at Kimpo, ASCOM City and Inchon included some 1.6 million gallons of petroleum products, 9,300 tons of engineer materiel, and 12 rail cars loaded with ammunition. While time and tide may have made the destruction of this materiel unavoidable, the extensive damage to port facilities could not be fully justified. Denying the enemy the use of a port was theoretically sound; on the other hand, the UN Command's absolute control of Korean waters made Inchon's destruction purposeless.

On the afternoon of January 4, the KPA I Corps, the PVA 38th Corps and the PVA 50th Corps entered Seoul, but they were only greeted by an empty city in flames. Most of the civilians had either fled south through the frozen Han River or evacuated to the nearby countryside. The South Korean government in Seoul, which was reduced to essential personnel before the battle, also left the city with little difficulties. A KPA platoon reached the Seoul City Hall at about 13:00 and raised the North Korean flag. On January 5, Peng ordered the PVA 50th Corps and the KPA I Corps to seize Gimpo and Incheon while instructing all other units to rest on the northern bank of the Han River. By January 7, Peng halted the Third Phase Campaign due to troop exhaustion and to prevent a repeat of the Incheon landing.

### Eighth Army withdrawal to Line D

I and IX Corps left the lower bank of the Han while Hill's engineers were still blowing Inchon, so Hill had been obliged to put out his own security above the port. These outposts were not engaged. Neither were Milburn's forces as they moved to positions centered on Route 1 at the town of Anyang, nor were Coulter's as they extended the intermediate line northeastward to the junction of the Han and Pukhan rivers. Late on the 4th, while I and IX Corps were withdrawing to positions above Suwon, Ridgway ordered the withdrawal to Line D to begin at noon on the 5th, by which time he now expected the supplies at Suwon to have been removed. All five Corps were to withdraw abreast, meeting in the process Ridgway's basic requirement of maximum delay and maximum punishment of the enemy. Ridgway specifically instructed Milburn and Coulter to include tanks in their covering forces and to counterattack the PVA who followed the withdrawal. Ridgway learned during the morning of the 5th that the supplies at Suwon and at the airfield south of town could not be cleared by noon. Creating the delay was not only the sheer bulk of the materiel but also about 100,000 desperate refugees from the Seoul area who crowded the Suwon railroad yards and blocked the trains. At mid-morning Ridgway radioed Milburn to stand fast until the remaining Suwon stocks had been shipped out and he notified Coulter to leave forces to protect the east flank of I Corps' forward position. Milburn received Ridgway's instructions in time to hold the bulk of the 25th Division and the ROK 1st Division at the Anyang position and Coulter ordered the ROK 6th Division to protect Milburn's east flank. But Coulter did not dispatch his instructions until an hour after the ROK 6th had started for Line D, and General Chang did not receive them until midafternoon. It took Chang another half-hour to get his division stopped. By that time his forces were almost due east of Suwon, where, with Coulter's agreement, Chang deployed them along Route 17.

During the night of the 5th a PVA regiment crossed the Han and assembled east of Yongdungp'o. Patrols from the regiment moved south through the hills east of Route 1 and reconnoitered the ROK 1st Division front before midnight but somehow missed finding the vulnerable east flank earlier left open by IX Corps. By daylight on the 6th the patrol contact in the center of General Paik's front developed into a general engagement between a PVA battalion and the ROK 3rd Battalion, 11th Regiment, but the PVA attempt to dislodge the ROK eased by noon and ended altogether at 14:00. By then supplies had been cleared from Suwon and Milburn and Coulter could continue south toward Line D. The two Corps completed their withdrawals on the 7th. Since the 15th Infantry and 3rd Battalion, 65th Infantry, of the 3rd Division in the meantime had arrived from Kyongju and been attached to I Corps, Milburn was able to keep a substantial reserve and still organize a fairly solid 20 miles (32 km) Line D front from the west coast eastward through Pyongtaek and Ansong. The British 29th Brigade and the Thai battalion stood at the far left astride Route 1 just below P’yongt’aek. The 3rd Division held a sector across the hills between Routes 1 and 17, which General Soule manned with the 15th Infantry. Lending depth to this central position, the 3rd Battalion, 65th Infantry, and the 35th Infantry of the 25th Division were assembled not far behind it. Above Ansong, the ROK 1st Division lay across Route 17. The remainder of the 25th Division and the Turkish Brigade went into Corps' reserve at Cheonan, 13 miles (21 km) south of Pyongtaek. Along a slightly longer front tipping to the northeast and reaching beyond Changhowon-ni to the Han River, Coulter deployed the ROK 6th Division, British 27th Brigade, and 24th Division, west to east. Hard against the right Corps' boundary 20 miles (32 km) behind the front, the bulk of the 1st Cavalry Division was in Corps' reserve at Ch’ungju on Route 13, now IX Corps’ main supply route. To protect the route from attacks by guerrillas known to be located in the Tanyang area 20 miles (32 km) further east, the 5th Cavalry Regiment had begun to patrol the road from Ch’ungju south through a mountain pass at Mun’gyong.

The way Milburn and Coulter had moved to Line D exasperated General Ridgway. "Reports so far reaching me," he told the two Corps commanders on the 7th, "indicate your forces withdrew to ‘D’ line without evidence of having inflicted any substantial losses on enemy and without material delay. In fact, some major units are reported as having broken contact. I desire prompt confirming reports and if substantially correct, the reasons for non-compliance with my basic directives." The reports reaching Ridgway were true. Except for the clashes between the PVA and the ROK 1st Division east of Anyang on the 6th, I Corps had withdrawn from the south bank of the Han without contact and IX Corps had not engaged enemy forces since leaving the Bridgehead Line. Attempting once more to get the quality of leadership he considered essential, Ridgway pointed out to Milburn and Coulter that their opponents had only two alternatives: to make a time-consuming, coordinated follow-up, or to conduct a rapid, uncoordinated pursuit. If the PVA chose the first, Eighth Army could at least achieve maximum delay even though there might be few opportunities for strong counterattacks. If they elected the second, Eighth Army would have unlimited opportunities not only to delay but to inflict severe losses on them. In either case, Ridgway again made clear, Milburn and Coulter were to exploit every opportunity to carry out the basic concept of operations that he had repeatedly explained to them. The immediate response was a flurry of patrolling to regain contact. According to the I Corps intelligence officer, the 39th and 50th Armies were now advancing south of Seoul, and their vanguards had reached the Suwon area. An ROK 1st Division patrol moving north over Route 17 during the afternoon of the 7th supported this assessment when it briefly engaged a small PVA group in Kumnyangjang-ni, 11 miles (18 km) east of Suwon. Further west, patrols from the 15th Infantry and the British 29th Brigade moved north as far as Osan, 8 miles (13 km) short of Suwon, without making contact. In the IX Corps' sector, the 24th Division at the far right sent patrols into Icheon and Yeoju, both on an east–west line with Suwon. Both towns were empty. Shallower searches to the north by the British 27th Brigade in the center of the Corps' sector also failed to reestablish contact. General Ridgway considered the attempts by patrols to regain contact at least to be moves in the right direction. What he wanted and planned to see next in the west was more vigorous patrolling by gradually enlarged forces. This patrolling would be the main mission of the larger efforts to acquire better combat intelligence, which in his judgment had been sadly neglected and which was a prime requisite for the still larger offensive action that he intended would follow. His attention meanwhile was drawn to the east, where the withdrawal to Line D was still in progress and where KPA forces, as expected, had opened an attack to seize Wonju.

## Aftermath

Although UN casualties were moderate, the Third Battle of Seoul was a significant success for the Chinese military, and the UN forces' morale sunk to its lowest point during the war. Ridgway was also extremely displeased with the performance of Eighth Army and took immediate steps to restore the morale and fighting spirit of the UN forces. With Ridgway leading the Eighth Army, MacArthur started to regain confidence in UN forces' ability to hold Korea, and the UN evacuation plan was abandoned on January 17.

Meanwhile, at the UN, although the US and other UN members were initially divided on how to respond to Chinese intervention, the Chinese rejection of the UN ceasefire soon rallied the UN members towards the US, and a UN resolution that condemned China as an aggressor was passed on February 1. In the opinion of historian Bevin Alexander, the Chinese rejection of a UN ceasefire had damaged the international prestige it had obtained from its earlier military successes, and this later made it difficult for China to either join the UN or to oppose US support for Taiwan. The Korean War, which ultimately ended at the 38th Parallel, would drag on for another two bloody years due to the determination of Communist China and the North Korean leadership to establish communism on the entire Korean Peninsula.

Despite its victory, the PVA had become exhausted after nonstop fighting. PVA Deputy Commander Han Xianchu later reported to Peng that, although combat casualties had been light with only 8,500 battle casualties, poor logistics and the exhaustion had cost the "backbone" of the Chinese forces during the Third Phase Campaign. US Far East Air Forces' "Interdiction Campaign No.4 ", which was launched on December 15, 1950, against PVA/KPA supply lines, also made the PVA unable to sustain any further offensives southward. Believing that the UN forces were thoroughly demoralized and unable to counterattack, Mao finally permitted the PVA to rest for at least two to three months, while Peng and other Chinese commanders were planning for a decisive battle in the spring of 1951. To the surprise of Chinese commanders, Ridgway and the Eighth Army soon counterattacked the PVA with Operation Thunderbolt on January 25, 1951.

## See also

- First Battle of Seoul
- Second Battle of Seoul
- Second Phase Offensive
- UN retreat from North Korea
- Operation Ripper

1950–1951 Battle in the Korean War

Battles and operations of the Korean War in 1950

Battles and operations of the Korean War in 1951

Battles of the Korean War involving North Korea

Battles of the Korean War involving South Korea

Battles of the Korean War involving Thailand


Filial piety in Buddhism

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. In Buddhist scriptures, narratives are given of 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 have provided epigraphical and textual evidence to show that early Buddhist laypeople, monks and nuns often displayed strong devotion to their parents, concluding 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, as criticism of Buddhism increased, Buddhist monastics and lay authors responded by writing about and translating Buddhist doctrines and narratives that supported filiality, 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 (c.300–380) 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 began to realize that they had to stress Buddhism's own particular ideas about filial piety in order to 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 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 more 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 often committed in raising her 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 some 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 a number of Asian cultures. In China, Buddhism continued to uphold a role in state rituals and mourning rites for ancestors, up until late imperial times (13th–20th century). Also, 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. Furthermore, in Theravādin countries in South and Southeast Asia, generosity, devotion and transfer of merit to parents are still widely practiced among the population.

## In Buddhist texts

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.

### Repaying the debt of gratitude

In the Nikāyas, two qualities are often named in pair: kataññuta and katavedita. Whereas the first word refers to acknowledgement of the indebtedness towards others, the second quality is interpreted as repaying such debt. Buddhist texts often encourage children from the age of discretion to take care of their parents, remember their gratitude to them, honor them and do everything they can to repay their gratitude to them. The care and attention the parents have given the child is seen to deserve full acknowledgment from the child. In a discourse called the Sigalaka Sutta, several ways are mentioned in which a child can repay its parents: "I will perform duties incumbent on them, I will keep up the lineage and tradition (Pali: kula vaṃsa) of my family, I will make myself worthy of my heritage." The deity Sakka is reported to have had seven rules of conduct according to which he lived his life, the first of which being "As long as I live, may I maintain my parents". This rule is also cited in the commentary to the Dhammapada, indicating the impact of filiality during that period.

However, in the early discourse called Kataññu Sutta, the Buddha describes through several metaphors the difficulty in repaying the gratitude of one's parents through material means only. The discourses say that even if children were to carry their parents on their backs their entire lives, or let them be kings and queens of the country, they would still not have repaid the large debt to their parents. Eventually, he concludes that it is only possible to repay one's gratitude by teaching them Buddhism through spiritual qualities, such as faith in Buddhism, morality, generosity and wisdom. Though this discourse was translated and cited in many Buddhist traditions and schools, it came to be more emphasized with the arising of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India in the 1st century CE.

In a third early discourse called Sabrahmā Sutta, parents are described as worthy of respect and gifts, because they have created their children, and were the ones who educated their children in their formative years. Furthermore, parents have provided the basic requirements for the child to survive. Children who attempt to pay back their debt to their parents by providing for them, are considered "superior people" [th] (Pali: sappurisa) expected to go to a heavenly rebirth in their afterlife, whereas people who are negligent in this, are called "outcasts" (Pali: vasala). Buddhist studies scholar Guang Xing believes a comparison is drawn here between the devotion to Brahma, and the devotion toward one's parents, of which the latter is considered better, because they are considered the real creators. Parents are also compared to "Worthy Ones" and Buddhas, which is similar to the filial devotion expressed in the Hindu Taittirı̄ya Upaniśad.

In a fourth discourse Mahāyañña ('great sacrifice') in the Aṅguttara Nikāya, the Buddha compares reverence toward one's parents, family and religious leaders to fire worship, and concludes that those people are much more useful and meaningful to tend to than the fire. The parents are mentioned here as first and foremost.

Buddhist studies scholar Reiko Ohnuma does point out, however, that Buddhist texts describe the ideal monk as a person who detaches himself from his parents, which is seen as a hindrance to his spiritual progress. He is to develop even-mindedness, feeling the same for his loved ones and foes. On a similar note, the texts say a monk should see all women as his mother, not only his biological mother. This is considered a helpful method to practice the celibate life.

### Other early discourses

Some early Buddhist texts describe the children's devotion toward their parents as a good deed that will reap religious merit, lead to praise by the wise, and finally, a rebirth in heaven. It is described as a fundamental good deed, and is in some Āgama texts compared to making offerings to a Buddha-to-be (Sanskrit: bodhisattva). By contrast, killing one's parents is considered one of the most gravest deeds to do, leading to an immediate destiny to hell. According to Buddhist texts, people who had done so were not allowed to become members of the monastic community, and if they already were but were found out later to have killed a parent, they were expelled. This sentiment is echoed in the later Milindapañhā, which states that a person who committed matricide or patricide cannot attain to insight in Buddhist teachings.

Apart from merit, in many Āgama texts, filial piety is said to lead to an orderly and harmonious society. In Pāli texts, the belief that children are indebted to their parents is a form of right view, part of the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path.

### In canonical and post-canonical narratives

A well-known story that expresses filial piety is the Buddha's journey to the second Buddhist heaven to teach his mother, who died when giving birth to him. It is found in both the Pāli commentaries Aṭṭhasālinī and the commentary to the Dhammapada, as well as the Ekottara and Saṃyukta Āgamas. On a similar note, the Pāli tradition relates how the Buddha teaches his father Suddhodana on several occasions, eventually helping his father to attain enlightenment. Further, the Mahāyāna tradition has it that the Buddha organizes a funeral ceremony for his father out of piety. The Buddha is not only depicted as showing filial piety to his natural parents, but also his foster mother Mahāpajāpatī. Ohnuma has argued that a major reason for the Buddha to allow his foster mother to become a full-fledged Buddhist nun, and thereby starting the order of nuns, was gratitude toward her.

In stories of the previous lives of the Buddha, there are several examples that illustrate filial piety. In one life found in several Buddhist collections, the Buddha-to-be is Śyāma, a filial son who takes care of his blind parents in their old age. This story was very popular in Buddhist India, as derived from epigraphical evidence from the first centuries CE, and can be found in both the Pāli and Chinese Buddhist scriptures. In the Pāli version of the story, it is prefaced by the life of a man who is ordained as a monk. After having been a monk for 17 years, he discovers his parents are abused by their servants and are starving. He then feels he needs to choose between the monastic vocation and taking care of his destitute parents as a lay person, since he assumes he cannot do so as a monk. The Buddha is able to prevent him from disrobing, however, and teaches him he can take care of his parents while still in monk's robes. The monk then decides to share gifts of food and cloth with them regularly, for which he is criticized by his fellow monks. His fellow monks consider this inappropriate for a Buddhist monk and report this to the Buddha. The Buddha, however, speaks high praise of the monk's filial piety, and he relates a discourse called the Mātuposaka Sutta, as well his own previous life as Śyāma. In this previous life, the Buddha-to-be was taking care of his blind parents, but was accidentally shot by a king hunting. Whilst his last thoughts went out to his parents who would no longer have any one to take care of them, a deity intervened and Śyāma came back to life. In some versions of the story, it is the mother who makes an "act of truth" referring to the virtue of her son, and by doing so magically revives him.

There is also a story of the elder Maudgalyayāna, one of the main disciples of the Buddha, who is described saving his mother from hell by sharing his religious merits. In this story, Maudgalyayāna sees through meditative vision that his mother who has just died is reborn in hell. Shocked by this, he tries to use his meditative psychic powers to help his mother, but to no avail. Then the Buddha advises him to do meritorious acts toward the monastic community on behalf of his mother, which does help.

### In Mahāyāna texts

Early Buddhist texts, such as the Māta Sutta of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, mention that every living being has once been one's relative in a previous life in the cycle of birth and rebirth. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, therefore, helping to liberate other living beings from suffering came to be seen as a form of filial piety, since it was believed that all beings could have once been one's parents. This doctrine has affected Buddhist practice as well. For example, in some forms of Tibetan meditation, practitioners are instructed to develop loving-kindness to all living beings by remembering that all could have been their mother in previous lifetimes. Just as in Pāli texts, Mahāyāna texts compare particularistic love negatively to universal love, which is seen as superior.

## History

### Early Buddhist history

In the early days of Western Buddhist scholarship, a number of scholars, among which Indologist I.B. Horner (1896–1981) and linguist Jean Przyluski (1885–1944), emphasized the role of filial piety in Indian Buddhism. However, in later years, scholars such as Hajime Nakamura, Michihata Ryōshū, Miyakawa Hasayuki and Kenneth Ch'en developed the perspective that filial piety was unique for the period in which Buddhism was introduced in China, and had not been part of Indian Buddhism before that. But in a more recent development, starting with Buddhist studies scholars such as John Strong and Gregory Schopen, it has been shown that filial piety was part of Buddhist teaching since early times, though Strong did regard it as a compromise to Brahmanical ethics. In early Buddhism, filial piety was an important part of Buddhist ethics, though not as fundamental to ethics as it was in Confucianism.

At the time when Buddhism developed in India, there was criticism that Buddhist otherworldly ideals did not fit in with expectations of filial piety. Devotion to the mother was seen as a fundamental virtue, and early Buddhists had to reconcile Buddhist doctrine and practice with Indian social institutions. Schopen found much epigraphic evidence and some textual evidence showing that early Buddhist laypeople, monks and nuns often displayed strong devotion to their deceased parents, concluding filial piety was already an important part of the devotional life of early Buddhists. Contrary to the general scholarly view, devotional practices like dedicating the merit of a building to one's parents were common among Buddhist monastics, even more so than among laypeople. There is also textual evidence to suggest that the ties monastics had with their parents were not absolutely severed as ideally prescribed. For example, in some texts of monastic discipline there are anecdotes that suggest monastics regularly kept contact with their parents, expressed concern for them, and even borrowed money to support them. Also, in many Jātaka stories monks are mentioned that take care of their parents, sometimes financially. Lastly, John Strong and Kenneth Ch'en have argued that the doctrine of the transfer of merit, so much emphasized in the filial story of Mulian Saves His Mother, originated in Indian Buddhism, within the context of ancestor worship and offerings to hungry ghosts. Scholar of religion Stephen F. Teiser has stated, however, that there is no evidence of an Indian predecessor to the Chinese Ghost Festival with its emphasis on salvation of ancestors.

Although many similarities can be found between the contexts in which Indian and Chinese Buddhism arose, it was only in China that Buddhism would, in Strong's words, "systematically and self-consciously" develop its response to the question of filial piety.

### Introduction of Buddhism in China

Buddhism stressed individual salvation, which went against the Confucian tenets, that mostly focused on family life and society. Buddhism advocated monasticism and celibacy, and emphasized the suffering inherent in family life, which was unacceptable in the Confucian world view. Confucianism considered it a child's duty to continue the parental line. Moreover, celibacy did not exist in China before the arrival of Buddhism. Therefore, in early medieval China (c. 100–600), Buddhism was heavily criticized for what Confucianists perceived as a disregard for Confucian virtues and role ethics among family members. In addition, Buddhist monks were without descendants, and therefore did not create the offspring necessary to continue the ancestor worship in next generations. Furthermore, Buddhist monks shaved their heads, which was perceived as a lack of filial piety, because Confucianism saw the human body as a "living monument of filial piety" and considered tonsure a form of mutilation.

Another problem was that early Chinese Buddhist monks did not formally pay homage to the emperor, which was seen as going against social propriety and was connected with the idea that Buddhism did not adhere to filial piety. This already became a problem in the Eastern Jin Dynasty (266–420). Furthermore, during the Wei (386–550) and Jin Dynasties, many Chinese women became ordained as nuns and left their families behind, which was very disturbing for Buddhism's critics.

Nevertheless, many Chinese Buddhists still adhered strongly to Confucian values, and attempted to reconcile the two value systems. In the process of introducing and integrating Buddhism in China, historian Kenneth Ch'en distinguished three stages. In the first stage, Buddhism actively advocated filial piety as a Confucian virtue. In the second stage, Buddhists referred to their own tradition to make an argument that filial piety had always been part of it. In the last stage, they argued that Buddhist ethics were more universal and therefore more superior than Confucian kinship-oriented filial piety. Over time, the debate between critics and Buddhists became more refined as more Buddhist texts were translated and Buddhism became better known in China.

#### Apologetics and adaptation (3rd–5th century)

When Buddhism was introduced to China, it was redefined to support filial piety. Many elements of Buddhist teaching were once secondary in Indian Buddhism, but now gained new importance and a new function in a process of apologetics.

For example, the Mouzi Lihuolun (牟子理惑論) presented arguments why Buddhist practices did not go against Confucius, but were actually praised by him. The Mouzi does this by referring to the Confucian and Daoist classics, as well as historical precedents. In one passage, the text compares the life of a Buddhist monk with a pious son who saves his father from drowning:

> "A long time ago, the Ch'i people crossed a large river in a boat and it happened that their father fell into the water. His sons rolled up their sleeves, seized his head, and turned him upside down, forcing the water out of his mouth, thus bringing their father back to life. Now, to seize one's father's head and turn him upside down is certainly not very filial. Yet they could have done nothing better to save their father's life. If they had folded their hands and practiced the norm of filial sons, their father's life would have been lost in the waters."

The behavior of a Buddhist monk is similar. While on the surface the Buddhist seems to reject and abandon his parents, the pious Buddhist is actually aiding his parents as well as himself on the path towards enlightenment. In this regard, the Mouzi cites Confucius saying that judgments should be made appropriately, weighing circumstances. In a way, Buddhists claimed therefore that a Buddhist monk benefited his parents, and in superior ways than Confucianism, because their renunciation was the "height of self-giving".

The Mouzi Lihuolun also attempted to counter charges that not having children was a violation of good ethics. It was pointed out that Confucius himself had praised a number of ascetic sages who had not had children or family, but because of their wisdom and sacrifice were still perceived as ethical by Confucius. The argument that Buddhist filial piety concerns itself with the parent's soul is the most important one. Later, Sun Chuo (c.300–380), made an even stronger argument, by stating that Buddhists monks (far from working solely for their own benefit) were working to ensure the salvation of all people and making their family proud by doing so. Any change in the son's status would reflect on the parent, therefore the spiritual achievements of the monk were at the same time a form of filial piety toward his parents. In that sense, Sun Chuo claimed that Buddhism teaches what amounts to a perfect form of filial piety, which he further amplified by referring to the Buddha's conversion of his father. Sun Chuo also responded to criticism with regard to the story of Sudāna (Sanskrit: Viśvantara), a previous life of the Buddha, in which a prince becomes an ascetic and gives away his father's possessions, his own wife and children as a practice of generosity. Sun Chuo's opponent critic described Sudāna as an "inhuman creature", but Sun Chuo argued that Sudāna had realized the highest form of filial piety, because in his final lifetime as Gautama Buddha he would eventually help his family to attain enlightenment. Sun Chuo concluded: "If this is not filial piety and humanity, then what is piety and humanity?"

Responding to criticism from emperor Huan Xuan (369–404), Huiyuan (334–416) argued that Buddhist monks did not have to pay homage to the emperor in "a manifested way", but just in heart and mind. Buddhist monks did in fact support imperial rule, he continued, but do so by teaching virtue to the people and in that way "all the six relationships, father and son, older and younger brother, husband and wife, will be benefited". He further stated that in order to become a monk, a devotee had to ask permission from his parents and emperor first—ordination as a monk was therefore not against filial piety, he argued. This argument was supported by certain rules in the Indian Buddhist monastic discipline, but the intention behind these rules was redefined to show that Buddhism was congruent with traditions of piety and loyalty. In his arguments Huiyuan was supported by some government officials and prominent lay people. His writings effectively stopped the debate with regard to monks not prostrating for the emperor, but the more general issue of the Buddhist monastic order being exempt from certain duties and obligations still remained.

During the Northern and Southern dynasties (420–577), Buddhism developed much in China, and conflicts arose with Daoists and Confucianists. A Daoist wrote a polemic called the Sanpo Lun attacking Buddhism for destroying the nation and the family. He argued that monks did not do anything productive, and resources were wasted on building Buddhist monasteries. He also criticized the shaving of hair as "destructive to the person". Again, Buddhist writers responded in defense. Sengshun replied that Buddhist supported imperial rule by promoting virtuous behavior, referring to the Shanshengzi Jing (Chinese: 善生子經, i.e. the Chinese translation of the Sigalaka Sutta) to show that Buddhists observed social norms. In addition, Liu Xie argued that Buddhist monks and lay people did practice filial piety, but monks did so by sharing merit with their departed relatives. Responding to the criticism that monks shave their hair, Liu Xie stated they abandoned minor filial acts in order to perform greater ones.

The adaptation of Buddhism to fit in with Confucian expectations of filial piety did not only take place on an academic level. Even on the grassroots level, in folk religion, Buddhism was adapted to fit in with Confucian values, as evidenced in the 5th-century text Tiwei Boli Jing.

#### Reinvention (6th–13th century)

In the process of integrating Buddhism in Chinese culture, Buddhists soon realized that refutation of criticism by Confucianists was not sufficient to hold their own. Chinese Buddhism had to stress its own ideas about filial piety. To more directly point out the Buddhist's filial nature, passages and parables about filial piety in Northwest Indian and Central Asian Buddhism became very prominent in Chinese Buddhism. The story of Śyāma (Chinese: 晱子; pinyin: Shanzi or Yamuku) was an example of this. The story was often mentioned in the Chinese canon of Buddhist texts, was included in a number of different anthologies such as the Liudu Jijing and even the Confucian tradition of twenty-four stories of filial piety (1260–1368). A similar story of Sujāti (Chinese: 須闍提; pinyin: Xusheti) relates that she cut off her own flesh to feed her parents, to keep them alive. During the T'ang dynasty (618–907), the story gained much popularity and it was eventually transformed into a Confucian classic tale as well. Furthermore, it was a way for Chinese Buddhists to make a statement that Buddhist filial piety was superior to Confucian filial piety. Sujāti and other Buddhist stories of self-sacrifice spread a belief that a filial child should even be willing to sacrifice its own body.

As for the story of Maudgalyayāna, this was incorporated in the Ullambana Sūtra, and led to the establishment of the Ghost Festival in China in the 6th century. The festival was held in the seventh moon of the Chinese calendar, and commemorated Maudgalyayāna (pinyin: Mulian) saving his mother. The festival became very popular throughout Chinese society, even to the point of imperial families and government officers becoming involved. The story also became very popular: though already part of the Indian Buddhist tradition, East Asian Buddhism raised it from a peripheral role to a central one. Buddhists attempted to show that filial children could still take care of their parents in the afterlife, a concept which they believed Confucianists overlooked. Some Buddhist authors like Ch'i-sung proclaimed that Buddhists not only practiced filial piety, but also did so at a more deeper level than Confucianists, because they took care of their parents in both this life and the next. The Sutra on a Filial Son stated in this regard that the best way to repay one's parents' kindness was by helping them to develop faith in Buddhism, not just by taking care of them materially. On a similar note, the monk Zongmi (780-841) argued that the main motivation for Prince Siddhārtha leaving his parents and becoming a monk was so he could teach them later on and thereby repay his debt of gratitude to them. Zongmi described the Ghost Festival as the highest expression of filial piety, in which Buddhist and Confucian doctrine could meet.

Apart from religious texts, the first generations of Buddhists in China responded to criticism from Confucianists by emphasizing the lay life more and the monastic life less in their teachings, and for those who did become ordained as monastics, they decided to erect monasteries in populated areas, instead of retreating to the remote wilderness. This also helped to contribute to the social expectations of Chinese Confucian culture. By the end of the 6th century, Buddhist monks were paying homage to the Chinese emperor through rituals and services, which also helped to stop the argument whether monks should prostrate themselves. Nevertheless, in 662 emperor Gaozong issued decrees obliging monks to prostrate before their parents and the emperor. Dao Xuan and Fa Lin, standing in the tradition of Huiyuan, argued that monks paid respects internally, and that such internal respect was more important than outward expression. There was so much opposition that Gaozong had to adjust the decree and eventually fully rescind it.

Later, in the middle of the T'ang Dynasty, Han Yu attempted to criticize Buddhism for lack of filial piety in a memorandum, but his protests were suppressed by emperor Xian Zong and not much responded to. Han Yu was nearly executed and banished. His popularity later rose, however. During the 10th-century neo-Confucianist revival, Han Yu's writings were rediscovered and he became a saintly figure. Already in the 9th century, Emperor Wu Zong took Han Yu's arguments to heart and began a campaign to extinguish Buddhism (841–845), citing as one of the justifications that Buddhists would "abandon their rulers and parents for the company of teachers". Monastics were defrocked and monasteries were destroyed at a large scale. Although Wu Zong's successor Emperor Xuan Zong (810–859) attempted to recover the damage done, since that time Chinese Buddhism has never completely recovered to its former status. It did continue to uphold a role in state rituals and mourning rites for ancestors, up until late imperial times (13th–20th century). Monasteries were given names like "Monastery for Honoring Loyalty [to the State]" and "Monastery for the Glorification of Filial Piety".

Neo-Confucianism upheld the principle of "gradational love" (pinyin: ren-yi), which argued that good people should develop filial piety for their parents and neighbors first, and only in a later stage develop love for humankind. Although this idea was influenced by Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine, the principle was eventually used as a criticism against Buddhism, which was seen to disregard filial piety in favor of universal kindness.

##### New elements

During this period, in response to attacks from Confucianists and Daoists, works written in defense of filial piety in Buddhism reflected a higher level of maturity. For example, in response to Daoist criticism that Buddhism teaches abandonment of one's parents, Fa Lin responded by referring to the Buddhist idea that all living beings might have been our parents, but also our enemies. A wise man therefore practices impartiality and seeks enlightenment. This is the Buddhist way to benefit one's parents and all living beings. The Zen master Qisong (1007 – 1072) criticized Han Yu's writings for not conforming to Confucian doctrine. Also, during this time some Buddhist writers started to argue that the five moral precepts in Buddhism were an expression of filial piety. Although the promotion of the five precepts by Buddhist monks had previously been referred to as a way to support imperial rule and therefore a form of filial piety, Buddhist writers now took this further. In particular, Qisong in his work the Xiaolun equated each of the precepts with a Confucian virtue (known as "five constants"), but argued that Buddhist ethics were superior to Confucian ethics, because of the virtue of compassion for all living beings. This is a higher form of filial piety, he argued, because one presumes that all living beings have once been our parents and tries to repay the debt of gratitude to them. Qisong summarized his argument by stating that "[f]ilial piety is venerated in all religious teachings, but it is especially true in Buddhism". On a similar note, the Fanwang Jing (Chinese: 梵網經) contained a phrase stating that "filial piety is called precepts", which inspired writings by Buddhist scholars on the subject and made the Fanwang Jing very popular.

Furthermore, in order for Confucianists to accept Buddhism more easily, new elements were introduced in the Buddhist doctrine. During the Han dynasty (202 BCE–9 CE), Chinese Buddhist leaders introduced the teaching of the four debts that a person should repay: the moral debt to one's parents, to all living beings, to one's ruler and to the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Perhaps inspired by Brahmanical teachings, Chinese Buddhists hoped that edifying people about the four debts would help for Buddhism to become more accepted in China. However, the teaching of the four debts only gained much popularity during the 8th century, when the Mahāyāna Discourse on the Concentration of Mind Ground was translated in Chinese (pinyin: Dacheng Ben Shengxin Di Guan Jing) by Prajñā.

In the 2nd century CE, another text was composed based on the Kataññnu Sutta (Sanskrit: Katajña Sūtra), called the Fumuen Nanbao Jing, the Discourse on the Difficulties in Repaying Parents' Debts. The text emphasized the compassion parents have towards their children. It later became highly popular in East Asian countries, as it was cited in at least ten Chinese translations of Indian texts. Based on this text, the more popular Fumu Enzhong Jing was composed (Chinese: 父母恩重經, title has similar meaning). In the T'ang Dynasty, the Fumu was depicted in illustrations found in the Dunhuang caves dating back to the T'ang (618–907) and Song dynasties (960–1279). Popular preaching and lectures, mural and cave paintings and stone carvings indicate that it once was very popular among the common people.

#### The role of women

When Buddhism developed in China, not only filial piety itself was redefined, but also the role of women in Chinese culture: in texts such as the Yuyenü Jing women, especially daughters-in-law, were described as pious children, a description that had hardly been used for women. This changed all genres of writing from the early medieval period onward. Buddhist doctrine helped fulfill the need for changing post-Han society to deal with daughters-in-law perceived as unruly, by providing a role for her as a filial daughter where indigenous tradition was silent or ambiguous. In edifying stories about virtuous daughters-in-law, women were given a pivotal role in creating harmony in the family, which was unprecedented. However, although daughters' expression of filial piety was basically the same as that of sons, daughters expressed it in more extreme forms, including infanticide or suicide. Often their role only became important in the absence of any sons.

On a similar note, in 517, the monk Shi Baochang wrote a number of hagiographies of virtuous nuns. In these stories, a new ideal Chinese woman was constructed, who was both filial yet also practiced Buddhist virtues. In Baochang's stories, he depicted women that excelled at both Confucian and Buddhist virtue and practices, by either combining such practices, practicing them at different periods in life (e.g. being a filial daughter and later choosing the nun's life), or by transforming Confucian practices in Buddhist practices. Though the ideal of self-sacrifice agreed with Confucian values, such sacrifice was redefined fitting with Buddhist values. Through these writings, Chinese Buddhists attempted to connect the family with the monastery in a mutually supportive relationship. Inscriptions show that female donors of Buddhist monasteries often dedicated their generosity to their parents, effectively helping to establish a new ideal of female filial piety. Also, the legend of Miaoshan became quite popular, which related how the bodhisattva Guanyin is born as a princess and refuses to marry following her father's wishes. She eventually manages to find salvation for herself and her father, when she heals her father from his illness by sacrificing some of her body parts to be used for medicine. This story is still used by Buddhist women in Singapore to justify their resistance to marriage. Another story that connects filial piety with the bodhisattva figure is that of Dizang's previous lives, both as filial daughters.

Buddhist writings on filial piety influenced Confucianism and Chinese culture at large. In India, where Buddhism originated, women had different social roles than in China, and devotion of the child to the mother was an important virtue. The debt of a child to its mother was seen as more important than the debt to its father, and hurting one's mother was considered more severe than hurting one's father. Although a child was seen to be indebted to both parents, "[t]he obligation to the father is a call of duty, whereas the obligation to the mother is a pull of love". In T'ang dynasty China, a number of apocryphal texts were written that spoke of the Buddha's respect for his parents, and the parent–child relationship. The most important of these, the Sūtra of Filial Piety, was written early in the T'ang dynasty. This discourse has the Buddha make the argument that parents bestow kindness to their children in many ways, and put great efforts into ensuring the well-being of their child. The discourse continues by describing how difficult it is to repay one's parents' kindness, but concludes that this can be done, in a Buddhist way. The Fumu Enzhong Jing contained a similar message.

The Sūtra of Filial Piety was not only a way for Chinese Buddhists to adapt to Confucian ideals, it added its own Buddhist contribution to the concept of filial piety. It added the role of women and poor people in practicing filial piety, and regarded filial piety as a quality to be practiced toward all living beings in this and the next life. Therefore, the sūtra served not only as an adaptation to Confucian values, but also served Buddhist ideals of edification. In their teachings about filial piety, Chinese Buddhists emphasized the great suffering a mother goes through when giving birth and raising a child. They described how difficult it is to repay one's parents, and how many sins the mother often would commit in raising her children. They even went so far that she might even go to hell as a result of the sins she committed. The mother became the primary source of well-being and indebtedness for the son, which was in contrast with pre-Buddhist perspectives. This emphasis on the son's obligation to the mother was a new addition to the Chinese concept of filial piety, as the bond between mother and son became the primary relationship. According to scholar Nomura Shin'ichi, the ideal of the son repaying the gratitude to his mother played an important part in uniting two contrasting ideas in East Asian culture at the time, that is, the concept of feminine impurity on the one hand and the ideal of pure motherhood on the other hand. The son was taught to deal with this indebtedness to his mother by making donations to the local monastery. The monastery would then perform recitation of texts and dedicate the merit to the mother, which would help her. In other words, to be a good son, one also had to be a good Buddhist. Religious studies scholar Alan Cole has attempted to describe the role of women in Chinese Buddhism using a Freudian framework. Cole states that Chinese Buddhist texts depicted women as examples of virtue and sacrifice, but also as lustful and greedy people. However, Cole's monograph about the family in Chinese Buddhism has received mixed reviews and his conclusions are disputed.

Chinese Buddhists urged people to stop killing animals for ancestor worship, because this would create only bad karma; rather, people were encouraged to practice devotion and make merit, especially making donations to the Buddhist clergy and in that way to help their mothers from a bad rebirth in hell. The traditional ancestral sacrifices were therefore discouraged by Chinese Buddhists.

### Development in other parts of Asia

The Discourse on the Difficulty in Paying the Debt to Parents was introduced and translated in Korea in the Koryo period, in the 17th century. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Confucian value of filial piety toward parents and emperor became strongly associated with Buddhism. Important in this process was the spread of edifying vernacular songs, in which filial children were encouraged to chant invocations of the Buddha Amitabha for their parents' rebirth in a Pure Land. Further, the songs, meant for Buddhists, urged people to respectfully serve social relationships including parents, in agreement with Confucian social ethics. In an 18th-century shaman song informed by Buddhist principles, a princess called Pari kongju is abandoned by her parents because they want a male heir. She is later saved by the Buddha and raised by others. Despite being abandoned, she later finds medicine for her ill royal parents and cures them out of filial piety.

During the Edo period in Japan (1603–1868), large quantities of biographies of filial people were written, as Japanese authors were inspired by Ming dynasty Chinese texts and started writing extensively about filial piety. Some of these works were written by Japanese Buddhist monks, writing about filial Buddhist lay people or monks. Others were written by Chinese Buddhist monks that had moved to Japan as part of initiatives to revitalize Buddhism for Chinese residents in Japan. Bankei Yōtaku (1622–1693) emphasized filial piety in his teachings, considering it part of Buddhahood. In the 18th-century, filial piety was reinterpreted by Japanese writers such as Fórì and Tōrei Enji. Just like in Song Dynasty China, filial piety was not seen as just a virtue to be practiced towards parents, relatives and ancestors, but to all living beings. Since all living beings were seen to have been one's parents from previous lives, the filial role of the individual was more broadly construed, and blood lines were interpreted in a more spiritual sense rather than only blood relations. With this, Tōrei meant to emphasize the role of religion and its lineage. Therefore, in Japan, Buddhists regarded the position of Buddhism on filial piety as either the same as in Confucianism, or as broader and deeper than in Confucianism.

In South and Southeast Asia, the example of the Buddha maintaining a loving relationship with his family, as depicted in a wide range of narratives, had a profound effect in countries where Theravāda Buddhism took hold. In devotional texts, parents were mentioned in the same list with the Triple Gem as object of devotion. Vernacular narratives warned of the dangers of treating one's parents with disrespect and encouraged the listeners a life-long respect for mothers and mother-like figures. Buddhist rituals marking the period of adulthood of a young male emphasized gratitude and honor to the mother. A common metaphor found in popular Sinhalese verse and religious prose dating from medieval times is that of the Buddha as a caring, loving mother. In another example, vernacular post-canonical Pāli texts in several Theravādin countries mention a previous life of the Buddha in which he first conceived the idea of becoming a Buddha (Sanskrit: manopraṇidhānaya). The story depicts the Buddha-to-be as a filial and grateful son, which the text says is a habit of Buddhas-to-be in general. The mother is part of the reason the Buddha-to-be aspires to become a Buddha in a future life.

## Practice in the present day

The Discourse on the Difficulty in Paying the Debt to Parents is still popular in East Asia and is often referred to in preaching by monks. The story of the monk Mulian saving his beloved mother is still depicted in Chinese opera to this day, which is especially popular in the countryside. Throughout Asia, the Ghost Festival is still celebrated, though its importance is most felt in countries which have been influenced by both Buddhism and Confucianism.

Filial piety is still an important part of moral education in Buddhist countries. It is an important value in a number of Asian cultures, some of which are based on Buddhism, such as Thailand. In the context of care-giving in Thailand, the parents of a child are compared to an enlightened Buddhist monk from the perspective of the family. The children of a parent are seen to have a relationship of bunkhun with the parents, which is a value that informs their filial piety, and gives it a sense of "respect, honor, fidelity, devotion, dutifulness, and sacrifice". Furthermore, there is a custom among Theravādin Buddhists in Asia for male children to temporarily become ordained as a Buddhist monks in order to dedicate the religious merit to their parents. Having passed this rite is regarded by the Thai as a sign of maturity and as an expression of filial piety. in Thailand, women cannot receive full ordination, however, and therefore practice their filial role mostly economically. Even Thai women who emigrate abroad tend to still send money to their aging parents. The custom of sending money to one's parents is common among rural Thai, who often work in big cities to earn money. During the Thai New Year festival, gratitude is widely and publicly expressed as elderly parents are honored by gifts. Among Sri Lankans, commemoration of one's deceased parents is an important part of daily routine of many people. This may be done by a simple daily act of lighting incense. There still is a common expression among Sri Lankans that "the mother is the Buddha of the home".

Among some Buddhists, there is a custom of prostrating to parents. In a 2015 study among British teens who self-identify as Buddhist, 78% of heritage (ethnic) Buddhists indicated they prostrated to their parents, and 13% of convert Buddhist teens.

Aspect of Buddhist ethics, story-telling traditions, apologetics and history