It is possible that the Buddhism of the Yuan dynasty was tainted with Saktism from which the Lama monasteries of Peking (in contrast to all other Buddhist sects in China) are not wholly free.  The last Emperor, Shun-ti, is said to have witnessed indecent plays and dances in the company of Lamas and created a scandal which contributed to the downfall of the dynasty.[683] In its last years we hear of some opposition to Buddhism and of a reaction in favour of Confucianism, in consequence of the growing numbers and pretensions of the Lamas.

Whole provinces were under their control and Chinese historians dwell bitterly on their lawlessness.  It was a common abuse for wealthy persons to induce a Lama to let their property be registered in his name and thus avoid all payment of taxes on the ground that priests were exempt from taxation by law.[684]

The Mongols were driven out by the native Chinese dynasty known as Ming, which reigned from 1368 to 1644.  It is not easy to point out any salient features in religious activity or thought during this period, but since the Ming claimed to restore Chinese civilization interrupted by a foreign invasion, it was natural that they should encourage Confucianism as interpreted by Chu-Hsi.  Yet Buddhism, especially Lamaism, acquired a new political importance.  Both for the Mings and for the earlier Manchu Emperors the Mongols were a serious and perpetual danger, and it was not until the eighteenth century that the Chinese Court ceased to be preoccupied by the fear that the tribes might unite and again overrun the Empire.  But the Tibetan and Mongolian hierarchy had an extraordinary power over these wild horsemen and the Government of Peking won and used their goodwill by skilful diplomacy, the favours shown being generally commensurate to the gravity of the situation.  Thus when the Grand Lama visited Peking in 1652 he was treated as an independent prince:  in 1908 he was made to kneel.

Few Ming Emperors showed much personal interest in religion and most of them were obviously guided by political considerations.  They wished on the one hand to conciliate the Church and on the other to prevent the clergy from becoming too numerous or influential.  Hence very different pictures may be drawn according as we dwell on the favourable or restrictive edicts which were published from time to time.  Thus T’ai-Tsu, the founder of the dynasty, is described by one authority as always sympathetic to Buddhists and by another as a crowned persecutor.[685] He had been a bonze himself in his youth but left the cloister for the adventurous career which conducted him to the throne.  It is probable that he had an affectionate recollection of the Church which once sheltered him, but also a knowledge of its weaknesses and this knowledge moved him to publish restrictive edicts as to the numbers and qualifications of monks.  On the other hand he attended sermons, received monks in audience and appointed them as tutors to his sons.  He revised the hierarchy and gave appropriate titles to its various grades.  He also published a decree ordering that all monks should study three sutras (Lankavatara, Prajnaparamita and Vajracchedika), and that three brief commentaries on these works should be compiled (see Nanjio’s Catalogue, 1613-15).