Conflict between Buddhism and Confucianism

In the handouts for Lesson 6 (p 10), it states than in 340 CE, Yu Bing issued edicts on behalf of the emperor.
These were to assert the supremacy of Confucianism and the inappropriateness of Buddhism.

Of interest to me is the statement that "there can be only one (principle of government); if one makes it two, disorder will be the result."

This particular rejection of Buddhism rings a bit hollow for a number of reason, not the least of which is the fact that Taoism also provided its own political guidance and principles in addition to those of Confucianism.

See Chapter 57 of the Laozi for one example:

Use the expected to govern the country,
Use surprise to wage war,
Use non action to win the world.


The more prohibitions and rules
The poorer people become.
The sharper the people's weapons
The more they riot.
The more skilled their techniques,
The more grotesque their works.
The more elaborate the laws,
The more they commit crimes.

Therefore the Sage says:
Wo wu wei
I do nothing
And people transform themselves.
I enjoy serenity
And people govern themselves.
I cultivate emptiness
And people become prosperous.
I have no desires
And people simplify themselves.

See also Chapter 58:

If government is muted and muffled
People are cool and refreshed.
If government intrudes and investigates
People are worn down and hopeless.

- Translation by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo

We do see in Book XIII of the Analects of Confucious (Waley) one of several points of agreement with the Laozi, that, "If the ruler himself is upright, all will go well even though he does not give orders."

Yet in Book II, we see a statement that seems to both agree and conflict with elements of the above:

"The Master said, Govern the people by regulations and chastisements, and they will flee from you, and lose all self respect.
Govern them by moral force, keep order among them by ritual, and they will keep their self-respect and come to you of their own accord."
Here we see the avoidance of prohibitions and rules referenced in the Laozi; the mention of ritual in the Analects (a central theme) is completely absent from the Laozi.

Furthermore, in Book XIV of the Analects, we have the statement that, "So long as the ruler loves ritual, the people will be easy to handle."

Again we have a mention of ritual found nowhere in the Laozi.

Notwithstanding the fact that we now know that both the Laozi and the Analects are not the product of a single author (so neither of these is truly representative of "one principle" but an amalgamation of sometimes conflicting principles) , the simple fact that both were simultaneously in use throughout various eras and Dynasties would seem to throw cold water on the notion that using two principles - or at least referring to them in formulating the principles of government - would lead to disorder.