Buddhism 9004174516, 9789004174511

Table of contents :
Contents
Translator’s Note
List of Table and Figures
Introduction
Buddhist Schools in China
Chapter 1 Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan
Chapter 2 The Fourth Patriarch Daoxin’s Chan Thought
Chapter 3 Patriarch Lineage of Chinese Chan School and the Indian Transmission of Dharma-Treasure
Chapter 4 On Hu Shih’s Study of Chan History
Chapter 5 A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School
Chapter 6 A Preliminary Study on the Buddhist Thought of Huisi, the Tiantai School Pioneer: Questions regarding Early Tiantai Thought
Buddhist Classics
Chapter 7 Questions about the Śūraṅgama Sūtra
Buddhist Images
Chapter 8 A General Introduction to the Cliff Statues of Mount Kongwang
Chapter 9 The Drawing of Yama and Scripture-Carving of the Early Tang Dynasty: Case Study of the Rubbings of “Qi Shiyuan’s Inscriptions for the Xian Mausoleum”
Buddist Exchanges between China and Other Countries
Chapter 10 Buddhist Interaction between China and Korean Peninsula during the Sui and Tang Dynasties: A Survey of Korean Monk Visitors in China
Chapter 11 The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology on the Idea of the Geographical Center in Pre-Modern China
Chapter 12 Cultural Confluence during the Development of Buddhism: A Case Study of the Liushi liwen 劉師禮文 (The Writ of Master Liu’s Ritual)
Chapter 13 The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute during the Xianqing and Longshuo Eras of the Tang Dynasty
Appendix
Chapter 14 Buddhist Studies in Mainland China after the Year 1978
Index

Citation preview

Buddhism

Religious Studies in Contemporary China Collection International Advisor Chun-fang Yü, Columbia University

VOLUME 5

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/rscc

Buddhism Edited by

Lou Yulie Translated by

Pei-Ying Lin

LEIDEN | BOSTON

This book is the result of a co-publication agreement between The Ethnic Publishing House and Koninklijke Brill NV. These chapters were translated into English from the original《当代中国宗教研 究精选丛书：佛教卷》(Dangdai zhongguo zongjiao yanjiu jingxuan congshu: fojiao juan) with financial support from China Book International.

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. isbn 978-90-04-17451-1 (hardback) isbn 978-90-47-42797-1 (e-book) Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents Translator’s Note vii List of Table and Figures ix Introduction 1 Chun-fang Yü

Buddhist Schools in China 1 Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan 9 Fang Litian 2 The Fourth Patriarch Daoxin’s Chan Thought 37 Song Lidao 3 Patriarch Lineage of Chinese Chan School and the Indian Transmission of Dharma-Treasure 52 Wang Bangwei 4 On Hu Shih’s Study of Chan History 68 Lou Yulie 5 A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School 87 Xu Wenming 6 A Preliminary Study on the Buddhist Thought of Huisi, the Tiantai School Pioneer: Questions regarding Early Tiantai Thought 106 Zhang Fenglei

Buddhist Classics 7 Questions about the Śūraṅgama Sūtra 125 Li Fuhua

vi

contents

Buddhist Images 8

A General Introduction to the Cliff Statues of Mount Kongwang 145 Wen Yucheng

9

The Drawing of Yama and Scripture-Carving of the Early Tang Dynasty: Case Study of the Rubbings of “Qi Shiyuan’s Inscriptions for the Xian Mausoleum” 180 Zhang Zong

Buddhist Exchanges between China and Other Countries 10

Buddhist Interaction between China and Korean Peninsula during the Sui and Tang Dynasties: A Survey of Korean Monk Visitors in China 207 Huang Xinchuan

11

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology on the Idea of the Geographical Center in Pre-Modern China 255 Lü Jianfu

12

Cultural Confluence during the Development of Buddhism: A Case Study of the Liushi liwen 288 Fang Guangchang

13

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute during the Xianqing and Longshuo Eras of the Tang Dynasty 305 Pan Guiming

Appendix 14

Buddhist Studies in Mainland China after the Year 1978 329 Huang Xianian

Index 375

Translator’s Note

Romanization of Names

In this book, there are Chinese, Japanese and Korean names of people and scripture titles. The romanization is based on the original languages, i.e., Korean monks and texts written by Koreans are transliterated according to the Korean pronunciation, likewise for Japanese and Chinese names. In this way, the readers will be able to easily identify the ethnic origins of the authors, even though primary sources from medieval China, Japan and Korea all used classical Chinese. For Chinese names, this book follows China’s domestic tradition that surnames are written before the given names. Most English works, while referring to pre-modern Chinese figures, follow this rule, e.g., the poet Su Dongpo rather than Dongpo Su. In this book, this rule is adopted for contemporary Chinese scholars’ names so as to maintain the consistency throughout. Likewise, contemporary and pre-modern Japanese and Korean authors are rendered in this way. Regarding romanization rule, this translation adopts the Hanyu pinyin system for Chinese terms, the Hepburn system for Japanese and the McCuneReischauer for Korean.

Citation of Sources

For some lengthy quotations of Chinese primary sources, the texts are translated and the Chinese original may be moved from the main text to the footnotes, which has increased the number of footnotes. However, this is the only way in which the format of the original Chinese article has been altered. The translation does not alter the order of the original Chinese paragraphs. In order to be as loyal to the original work as possible, hardly any modifications were done in terms of organization or contents. Occasionally a few notes are added to facilitate the readers’ understanding. It must be also noted that all the first person (“I”) in the main text refers to the Chinese authors, not the translator. In some cases, the bibliographical information in the Chinese articles is incomplete and the translator has tried her best to identify the literature in order to provide sufficient information for the readers. However, regarding the missing authors’ names and the lack of page numbers of several periodicals

viii

translator ’ s note

and of the Taishō Tripitaka, it is beyond the translator’s capacity to supply with the details. The only abbreviation in this book is “T” which refers to Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經 (Taishō Tripitaka), 100 volumes, Tokyo: The Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai, 1924 (reprint in 1962). All the other texts are provided with their full titles.

List of Table and Figures Table 8.1

Views on the Statues of Mount Kongwang 146

Figures 8.1 Full Illustration of the Mount Kongwang Cliff Statues (Painted by Tang Chi 湯池 et al., Originally published on Wenwu No. 7, 1981.) 167 Mount Kongwang Cliff Statue: Laozi (X1) 168 8.2 8.3 Bronze mirror of “Laozi entered the barbarian regions as a Buddha.” (The fifth year of Yongyuan, Eastern Han.) 169 Mount Kongwang Cliff Statue: Confucius (X66) 170 8.4 Paintung of Laozi with Confucius 171 8.5 Eastern Han jade cup unearthed from the tomb of Liu Hong 171 8.6 Mount Kongwang Cliff Statue: Standing Buddha (X2) 172 8.7 Comparison of standing Buddha figures 172 8.8 Comparison of seating Buddha figures 173 8.9 8.10 Mount Kongwang: Barbarian donors 173 8.11 Paintings in the three long oval shrines (Originally published in Haizhou shike 海州石刻.) 174 Mount Kongwang Cliff Statue: Yuezhi People (X3) 174 8.12 Images of the kings on the gold coins of the Kushana Empire 175 8.13 8.14 Comparison of Vīra figures 175 Clay statue found in Taxila, Gandhara 176 8.15 Rubbing 1 198 9.1 Rubbing 2 199 9.2 Rubbing 3 199 9.3 Location of the three rubbings 200 9.4 The Incense Burner and the Engraved Image of Two Bodhisattvas 200 9.5 9.6 Stele Commemorating Emperor Taiwu and Empress Mu’s Offering of Stone Statues 201 9.7 Painting of “King Yama’s Judgment” 202

Introduction Chun-fang Yü This volume contains the English translation of fourteen articles selected from Religious Studies in Contemporary China Collection: Buddhism (Dangdai Zhongguo zongjiao yanjiu jingxuan: Fojiao juan), edited by Lou Yulie. It is one of six volumes (the others being Popular Religion and Shamanism, Daoism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism and Religious Studies) which Chinese version was published by Minzu Press. The publication of these translated articles by Brill results from an agreement between Minzu Press and Brill. Its aim is to make Chinese scholars’ research on religion available in English. All the articles in this volume were originally published during the last two decades and thus represent trends of recent scholarship on Buddhist studies in China. The chapter by Huang Xianian offers a comprehensive survey of contemporary Buddhist studies in China, which in his view started only after the year 1978 when reform and religious freedom were publicly proclaimed by the third plenary session of the 11th CPC Central Committee. Since most scholars in the field were trained in history and philosophy, their research reflected this specialization. There were works on the history of Chinese Buddhism in different dynasties and philosophies of various Buddhist schools. The editing, collating, and punctuating of some important Buddhist texts such as the Linji lu (Record of Linji) and the Chanyuan qinggue (Pure rules of the Chan School) demonstrated the traditional interests in philology and textual studies. After surveying the notable contributions by scholars of his generation, Huang concludes that the study of Chan takes the lead, while studies of Pure Land, Vinaya and Esoteric Buddhism have received less attention. One example of the current popularity of Chan in China is the establishment of the “Living Chan” (Shenghuo Chan) by the monk Jinghui in the 1990s. In fact, a notable phenomenon in recent decades is the active promotion of Buddhist studies by the monastic communities, which have already sponsored over one hundred academic conferences. Of the other thirteen chapters, four are on Chan, two on Tiantai, two on the influence of Indian Buddhism on Chinese culture, two on Buddhist art, one each on the Sūrangama sutra, debates between Buddhists and Daoists and the relationship between Chinese and Korean Buddhism,. The first chapter by Fang Litian discusses the difference between the Tathāgata Chan (Rulai Chan) and Patriarchal Chan (Zushi Chan). While the former refers to the tradition from Bodhidharma to Huineng, the latter ©

5 | 

/

2

Yü

refers to that from Huineng to the five branches after him. Fang states that it was Yangshan Huiji (841–890) who first distinguished the two and stated that Tathāgata Chan was lower than the Patriarchal Chan on the basis of the respective status of enlightenment. This is because the former relies on speech and endorses gradual enlightenment whereas the latter departs from language and stresses sudden enlightenment. Fang has high praise for Patriarchal Chan and regards it as a true marriage between Mahāyāna Buddhist thought and Chinese culture. Patriarchal Chan is a logical development of the Chan School, as well as a result of traditional Chinese culture. The Chinese Chan School absorbed the idea of true mind and true nature from Indian Buddhism, and further equated these with self-mind and self-nature. . . . hence Patriarchal Chan deviated from the tradition of scriptures in favor of an approach to ­meditation, which refuted words and language. Confucianism held the view that human beings possess innate goodwill, and promoted mind cultivation; Daoism also relied on human nature, to which human beings should return. These two schools of thought value instinctual thinking, self-growth in real life, and self-fulfillment. Out of this general background, Chinese Chan masters integrated the traditional thinking of China and India in their creation of Patriarchal Chan (p. 33). It is interesting that Fang identifies Patriarchal Chan only with those traditions which put a high premium on the use of huatou (the critical part of a gong’an or koan) which is typically associated with the Linji school. For although the Caotong school equally stressed the importance of patriarchal succession and also used huatou, Fang claims that the Patriarchal Chan ceased to exist when the practice of “silent illumination (mozhao)” associated with the Caodong opposed that of “gazing huatou (kanhua)” emphasized by the Linji (p. 33). The chapter by Wang Bangwei deals with the related issue about the Chan patriarchal lineage, which in his view imitated the Indian tradition of dharmatreasure transmission ( fu fazang). In early Buddhism, there was no such tradition, for the Buddha told his disciples to “follow sutras, follow vinayas, follow Dharma, but do not follow people” (p. 65). But as Buddhism in India evolved into different schools, different patriarchal lineages were constructed and the transmission accounts also varied at different times. The Indian patriarchs listed in the Chan school are those found in the Sarvāstivāda school. From the first two centuries to the seventh and eighth centuries of the Common Era, the Sarvāstivādin was the most widespread and influential Buddhist school in northeast India and Central Asia. Chinese monks thus accepted this version of

Introduction

3

patriarchal transmission (p. 66). Two more chapters are also on Chan. Lou Yulie reviews Hu Shi’s contribution to the study of Chan history and Song Lidao discusses the Chan thought of Daoxin, the fourth patriarch. After Chan, Chinese scholars are also interested in the history and thought of Tiantai. The chapter by Xu Wenming suggests that there was a close relationship between Bodhidharma and early Tiantai masters. Huisi was the first who began to stress the Lotus sutra because Jingjian, who was probably his master, was a devotee of the sutra. The latter was reputed to have recited the Lotus 13,000 times and this moved Bodhisattva Puxian to appear. The rise of Tiantai, according to Xu, was thus due to its absorption of the philosophies and meditation teachings of various schools and not limited to a single source. Zhang Fenglei’s chapter is also about early Tiantai. He discusses the differences between Huisi and Zhiyi. Although Huisi influenced Zhiyi in the latter’s emphasis on the Lotus sutra, Huisi understood the Lotus through the perspective of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā sutra and thus stressed śūnyatā (emptiness), whereas Zhiyi put equal emphasis on the threefold truths of the empty, the provisional and the middle way. Zhiyi therefore went beyond Huisi (p. 119). There is another difference between the two: whereas Huisi thought that wisdom arose from meditation, Zhiyi emphasized the two equally and referred to them as “two wheels of a wagon, two wings of a bird” and regarded the two as in fact one (p. 112). Li Fuhua’s chapter is on the Sūrangama sutra, which is one of the most popular and influential Chinese Buddhist scriptures and whose authenticity has been a subject of debate for over a thousand years. The author discusses the dating, attribution of authorship and translator, as well as its reception throughout history. While he provides extensive arguments from both sides, he agrees with the traditional view, which does not regard it as a “spurious sutra (wei jing)” or apocryphal sutra. For him, it is its impact on Chinese Buddhism and not whether it is a translated sutra, thus a genuine sutra or not, which is of foremost importance. The chapter by Fang Guangchang also deals with the question about what is a genuine versus what is an apocryphal sutra. Traditionally, the arbiters were the compilers of catalogues of Buddhist sculptures. The criteria they used were two: first, the scripture must come from India, and second, the name of the foreign monk who was the translator must be identified. In recent decades, scholars in Japan and the West have challenged the use of such criteria and instead stressed the value of studying the scriptures that did not fall into this category. They call such scriptures indigenous instead of apocryphal sutras. Fang’s chapter conforms to this trend. His study is on a Dunhuang scroll containing a prayer text penned by a master Liu whom Fang thinks is the famous

4

Yü

Liu Sahe. The text was circulated in the fifth century. While it shares elements similar to Buddhist texts of repentance, it also shows distinctive Chinese religious beliefs such as the worship of directions, which is absent in the Buddhist tradition. So how do we classify it? He cites The Four Heavenly Kings spoken by the Buddha (Fo shuo Si Tianwang jing) as an example of sutras composed in China, transmitted to India via Central Asia and then translated back into Chinese (p. 294). Whether such texts were regarded as translated sutras or not depended on the compilers of catalogues. Fang uses another example to question what is an apocryphal sutra. A scripture with the title Fo wei Xinwang Pusa shuo touto jing was composed in China but because it became lost, it was not listed in any scriptural catalogue. However, it was translated from Chinese into Sogdian because there is an incomplete Sogdian version found in Dunhuang. He then asks this hypothetic question: Suppose this Sogdian scripture were brought back to China and translated back into Chinese, is it a genuine sutra? (p. 299). Monks travelled frequently from China to India as well as from India to China by way of Central Asia. It is therefore reasonable that much mutual influence between these cultures took place. The chapter by Lü Jianfu is on the influence of Buddhist cosmology on the indigenous Chinese geographical concepts. There was already a rich body of myths about the nature and constitution of the world before Buddhism was introduced to China. The Chinese believed that Mt Kunlun was the center of the earth and that China was the center of the world. But according to Buddhist texts, our world is located in Jambudvīpa, the southern continent and its center is Mt Anavatapta. Therefore, it is Mt Anavatapta which is the center of the earth. Furthermore, India was the center of the world because the Buddha was born there. Although these new ideas posed challenges to the traditional Chinese beliefs, the Buddhist cosmology and geography became integrated with the Chinese ones. Thus Mt Kunlun became identified with Mt Anavatapta. This was accepted not only by Chinese Buddhists but even the neo-Confucian philosopher Zhu Xi (1130–1200) also stated it as a matter of fact (p. 275). By regarding India as the center of the civilized world, Chinese Buddhists recognized that they lived in a border land. The yearning for the center motivated many Chinese monk-pilgrims journeyed to India. Lü suggests that the exposure to this new knowledge promoted the dawning of cultural pluralism in China (p. 286). Huang Xinchuan’s long chapter provides valuable information about the Korean monks who went to China during the sixth and ninth century. Although Buddhism was introduced from China to Koguryo in 372, it was during the three hundred eighty years of the united kingdom of Silla that active communication between Chinese and Korean monks took place. Huang’s research shows

Introduction

5

that one hundred and seventeen Korean monks (not sixty-six according to a Korean scholar) went to China in the period of 585–906. In a ten page chart, he lists their names, the year they went to China, their activities while there and their writings. He also describes Korean Buddhist schools which developed their own characteristics, although influenced by Chinese Buddhism. In this way, he refutes the conventional view that Korean Buddhism is an “extension” or “transplantation” of Chinese Buddhism (p. 252). Huang also explains why Son (Ch.Chan) became the dominate school. This is because during the eighth to tenth centuries, Silla promoted the study of Confucianism which made “scholastic Buddhism” difficult to compete and thus provided space for Son and the cults of Amitābha and Avalokiteśvara(p. 246). Two art historians contributed to the volume. Wen Yucheng’s chapter discusses images carved on the cliffs of Mt Kongwang in northern Jiangsu, a site that has not received extensive study. Numbering over one hundred, this is the largest number of the intermingled Daoist and Buddhist images found in the early period. Scholars generally agree that this was originally a site for the worship of both Daoist and Buddhist deities. Despite the widely divergent scholarly opinions concerning its dating which ranges from the second half of the first century to the seventh century, Wen suggests that they were created in 220–250 CE. He calls the style “immortals and Buddha mode (xian Fo moshi)”. While the consensus of Western art historians refers to the images of the Buddha and monks created in the Latter Han (25–220 CE) as “proto-­Buddhist”, Wen regards them as proper Buddhist. He specifies the non-­ Buddhist images as Laozi, Confucius and King Father of the East, but in several sites in Sichuan, scholars always call the figure found together with the Buddha the Queen Mother of the West. Nor do they find Confucius present in this kind of groupings. There are other issues in this chapter that I find puzzling. Wen first states that the Buddha image at Mt Kongwang is similar to that depicted on the coins of Kanishka, he then makes two suppositions: that the artistic style was Gandhāran, and that this style was introduced by the Yuezhi people or the Kushans who gradually migrated to this region during the third century from Pakistan via Loyang (p. 164). However, since Wen admits that both the dating of the Mt Kongwang images as well as that of King Kanishka are matters of debates and far from settled, using one disputed date to substantiate another equally disputed date as he does is circular. Wen states, “There are various speculations about the reign of King Kanishka (between 78 and 212 CE). Since the statues of Mt. Kongwang are estimated to be from between 220–250 CE, we may infer that Kanishka lived between late second and early third centuries, because if he lived in the first century, it is impossible that the Chinese imitated the Kanishka style so late” (p. 166). Wen also notes that all the donor

6

Yü

figures on the carvings at Mt Kongwang have barbarian features and this is another piece of evidence that the Kushans were living there. Finally, because no bodhisattva image is found, the Buddhism represented here is Hīnayāna and not Mahāyāna. One may of course also question the logic behind these hypotheses. By taking some controversial positions and staking out a clear but contested point of view on issues of dating, style and subject matter, this chapter veers from the scholarly mainstream. Zhang Zong’s chapter is about a stele inscription from a tomb honoring Emperor Gaozu and Empress Mu erected by the Mausoleum Guard Qi Shiyuan in 636. In addition to the drawings of two bodhisattvas and an incense burner as well as the transcriptions of the “Universal Gateway” chapter of the Lotus sutra and the Diamond sutra, the inscription offers a rare example of an early painting of King Yama’s judgment together with the text of the “Underworld Code (ming lü)”. The inclusion of the latter was intended to safeguard the tomb from unlawful disturbances. The last chapter by Pan Gueiming provides a detailed discussion of a series of debates between the Buddhists and Daoists during the eras of Xianqing (656–661) and Longshuo (661–663) under Emperor Gaozong. The Buddhists challenged the Daoists to come up with a logical explanation about the relationship between Nature (Ziran) and Dao, and Original Reality (Benji) and Dao. The felicity in logic demonstrated by the Buddhists stimulated the Daoists to resort to Mādhyamika dialect in formulating their responses. Pan suggests that such active philosophical debates led to the formation of the Daoist Twofold Mystery School (Chongxuan). When we look at these chapters, although they represent only a small portion of the scholarly output in the past two decades, we will notice some common interests shared by the Chinese scholars of Buddhist studies and their counterparts in the west. In addition to the general enthusiasm about Chan, Buddhist scholars on both sides of the Pacific are paying attention, among o­ thers, to the relationship between Buddhism and Daoism, the question of indigenous scriptures, the social and ritualistic dimension of Buddhism revealed in artistic creations and the interaction and mutual influences between Chinese and the larger Buddhist world. It is for this reason that it would be mutually beneficial if Buddhist scholars who write in Chinese and those who write in English get to know each others’ work better. We hope this volume will facilitate such a beginning.

Buddhist Schools in China

∵

CHAPTER 1

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan Fang Litian 方立天 In the history of Chinese Chan, the process from the proposition that Tathāgata Chan is Highest Vehicle Chan (zuishangsheng chan 最上乘禪), up to the rise of Patriarchal Chan, intensely reflects a division and remodeling within Huineng’s branch of Chan, which is tremendously meaningful from a cultural viewpoint. Chinese Chan masters in the earlier periods did not possess a unified definition of Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan—instead, they wrote with rather ambiguous meanings and loose definitions. Therefore, regarding the meaning of the various titles and definitions, and the difference in the techniques between Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan, as well as the time periods and chronology of events of the two, people of later times devised disparate explanations, from the points of view of their own understanding and systematization. Therefore, the difficulty of obtaining consistent definitions is a major stumbling block for those who seek to delve into the history of Chan Buddhism. Striving toward the goal of a full comprehension of the relevant terminology used by the earlier Chan masters, as well as the vocabulary’s original connotations, this research attempts to analyze the abovementioned problems, and provide solutions to them which will refresh our understanding of Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan. 1

What is So-Called Tathāgata Chan?

Among the currently available Buddhist scriptures, the earliest one which mentions the term Tathāgata Chan is the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (Lengqie jing 楞伽經, or, in its full title, Lengqie abaduoluobao jing 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經) translated by Guṇabhadra (394–468), during the Liu Song dynasty. In the second fascicle of this sutra, it is written that there are four types of Chan practice, namely “Chan as practiced by foolish men” (yüfu suoxing chan 愚夫所 行禪), “Chan practice for observing the characteristics [of phenomena]” (guancha yi chan 觀察義禪), “Chan practice for attaching to suchness” (panyuan ru chan攀緣如禪), and “Tathāgata Chan” (rulai chan 如來禪).1 1  T 16: 492a.

©

5 | 

/

10

Fang

Additionally, these four types are also collectively known as “Chan as practiced by ordinary men” ( fanfu suoxing chan凡夫所行禪), “Chan practice for observing the truth of appearances” (guancha xiangyi chan 觀察相義禪), “Chan practice for attaching to the suchness of truth” (panyuan rushi chan 攀緣如 實禪), and “Chan practice of tathāgata purity” (rulai qingjing chan 如來清 淨禪).2 According to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, the first type of Chan practice serves ṡrāvakas, pratyeka-buddhas and non-Buddhists, who realize that there is no self in the human being and perceive the phenomena of suffering, impermanence and the contamination of human beings, and thus attain the realm of “samadhi of non-contemplation” and “samadhi of non-termination.” The “Chan practice for observing the truth” refers to those who have already understood the truth of “non-self in humans” and observed that of “non-self in dharma.” However, if a person is attached to all the abovementioned Chan practices, and understands these two doctrines regarding “non-self,” these are still empty and scattered thoughts. Only when a person realizes that the two types of “nonself” are merely empty and nebulous concepts, not letting them arise, does he arrive at the “Tathāgatagarbha mind,” which corresponds to the idea of “Chan practice for being attached to suchness.” “Tathāgata Chan” means attaining the Tathāgata stage and achieving “self-awakened holy omniscience” (zijue shengzhi 自覺聖智), and three joyful abodes, things which are unimaginable to sentient beings.3 Here “holy omniscience” refers to the wisdom of the sages and of the buddhas; the “self-awakened holy omniscience” is self-enlightened Tathāgata wisdom. This means that Tathāgata Chan is for those who have achieved Buddhahood, attained the stage of Tathāgata, benefited from the joy of dharma, and demonstrated inconceivable abilities, so as to save sentient beings from suffering. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra claims that there are four types or levels of Chan. This scripture unifies the doctrines of emptiness, such as “non-self in humans” and “non-self in Dharma” with “Tathāgatagarbha mind,” and then makes Tathāgata Chan the highest level of “seizing and contemplation,” which must possess “self-awakened holy omniscience.” On the other hand, it takes the “Chan practice for attaching to the suchness of truth” as a stairway—it points directly to the core and origin of the real practices of Buddhists, which is “Tathāgatagarbha pure mind,” which inspires alternative 2  T 16: 492a. Compare the translation by Bodhiruci (6th c. CE), these four are rendered as “Chan as practiced by stupid, ignorant and ordinary masses” ( yüchi fanda suoxing chan 愚癡凡大 所行禪), “Chan practice for observing the truth” (guancha yi chan 觀察義禪), “Chan practice for recollecting suchness” (nian zhenru chan 念真如禪), and “Chan practice of buddhas and tathāgatas” (zhufo rulai chan 諸佛如來禪), T 16: 533. 3  T 16: 492a.

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

11

Chan practice for returning to the pure mind. This is the origin of the philosophy of Chan Buddhism in China.4 In all the available texts from Bodhidharma (fl. 443), through Huike (487– 593), Sengcan (?–606), Daoxin (580–651) and Hongren (601–674), and up to Huineng (638–713), there is no mention of Tathāgata Chan. The earliest person to mention Tathāgata Chan is Huineng’s disciple, Shenhui (684–760). He said: To depart from both existence and non-existence, and to extinguish the Middle Way, such is “non-thought.” Non-thought is one-thought, which is “omniscience” (yiqie zhi 一切智). “All-inclusive omniscience” is the profound prajñāpāramitā, which is Tathāgata Chan. Hence the sacred text writes, “The Buddha says: good man, through what means do you view the Tathāgata? Vimalakīrti answers: Insofar as I view the true character of myself, as such I view the Buddha. When I observe the Tathāgata, the following moment does not come, and the previous moment does not go. The present is non-abiding (wuzhu 無住). Because of non-abiding, it is Tathāgata Chan. Tathāgata Chan is the first principle of emptiness (diyiyi kong 第一義空).”5 Shenhui regards the wisdom of prajñā as Tathāgata Chan. This is similar to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, which defines Tathāgata Chan as comprising the “selfawakened holy omniscience.” However, the wisdom proposed by Shenhui refers to the prajñā of the Middle Way, which incorporates the concepts of existence and non-existence, and is not identical to the wisdom of Tathāgata based on “self-awakened holy omniscience,” unless one views the definitions of them loosely. Shenhui further mentions non-thought and non-abiding in Tathāgata Chan, in a context which is in accordance with Huineng’s doctrines of “non-thought is the principle” and “non-abiding is the core,” which affirms Huineng’s Chan approach as Tathāgata Chan. The Lidai fabao ji 歷代法寶記 (Record of the Dharma-Jewel through the Generations) says, Monk Shenhui of the Heze Monastery in the Eastern Capital performs platform service once every month to preach for the public. He refutes

4  Lü Cheng 呂澂 (1972), Zhongguo foxue yuanliu luejiang 中國佛學源流略講, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, p. 96. 5  Heze Shenhui chanshi yülu 荷澤神會禪師語錄, in Zhongguo fojiao sixiang ziliao xuanbian 中國佛教思想資料選編 2, Vol. 4, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983, p. 96.

12

Fang

“purified Chan” and validates Tathāgata Chan. He attests knowledge and speech as [the threefold learning of] precepts, meditation and wisdom, so he does not refute speech. He says, “The time of preaching is itself the precepts; the time of preaching is itself meditation; the time of preaching is itself wisdom. To preach on the method of non-thought is to see the essence immediately.”6 “Purified Chan” is one of the nine approaches of Mahāyāna Chan and also the Chan stage which is attained by those who have achieved a higher status than that of bodhisattva after a long period of practice. The quotation above adopts the doctrine of sudden enlightenment to praise Shenhui, for he negates Shenxiu’s (606–706) “Purified Chan” and asserts Tathāgata Chan. This proves the fact that Shenhui’s Tathāgata Chan verifies perception and speech. Speech represents precepts, meditation and wisdom. It also emphasizes that knowledge and speech are equivalent. Zongmi (780–841) is the first Buddhist scholar to systematically review the history of Chan Buddhism. He made in-depth comments on the contents, categories, and levels of Chan practices, as well as on the lineages, doctrinal bases, degrees of difficulty, and merits and gains of various schools. He classifies five types of Chan approaches, and places Tathāgata Chan at the highest level. He writes in the first fascicle of his Chan yuan zhuquanji duxu 禪源諸詮 集都序 (Comprehensive Preface to the Collection on the Origins of Chan, below referred to as “Chan Preface”): There are either easy or difficult types of Chan approaches, located differently in the hierarchy. Those who have various intentions, being inclined to higher levels and disliking lower levels in their practice, represent “non-Buddhist Chan.” Those who have correct faith in causation represent “ordinary people’s Chan.” Those who practice with a realization of the emptiness of self represent “Hīnayāna Chan.” Those who practice with a realization of the truth of the emptiness of self and dharma represent “Mahāyāna Chan.” [The four types mentioned above all stand for the distinction of four kinds of emptiness]. If one is suddenly enlightened, the mind is originally pure. Without original passions, wisdom without outflows is there from the beginning, and this mind is Buddha. Ultimately there is no differentiation. Those who practice in accordance with this understanding represent the “highest vehicle Chan,” which is also known as Tathāgata Purified Chan, One Practice Samādhi, and 6  T 51: 185b.

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

13

Tathāgata Samādhi. It is the essence of all types of Samādhi. If one cultivates and practices according to it, hundreds of thousands of samādhi can be attained naturally and gradually. What has been transmitted directly and indirectly under the school of Bodhidharma belongs to this type of Chan Buddhism.7 In his writings, Zongmi segregated Chan Buddhism into five major categories: The first one was “non-Buddhist Chan,” which divided the realms of experience into upper and lower types. Practitioners of this type reject the sphere of lower experience and, instead, aspire to transcendent upper sphere—in other words, it rejects this world, attempting to expel the sufferings of reality. It places mind contemplation in the upper sphere, which eventually leads to a split in the one mind. The second category of “ordinary people’s Chan” has no such contrasting pluralism as the aforementioned “longing for the upper and loathing the lower” in the “non-Buddhist Chan”—this type of Chan instead places faith in the doctrine of causation and retribution, and makes mind-contemplation dwell in good actions for the sake of good karma. Because mind-contemplation dwells in good deeds at first, expecting rewards afterwards, the mind, according to this faith, has already distinguished between the first (cause) and the following experiences (effect). For this reason, it still has the difficult shortcoming in regards to the cessation of the mind. The third category of “Hīnayāna Chan” knows that the self is empty, and, therefore, good karma must come without wishing for good actions. Yet this concept does not comprehend that all dharmas are empty, and that the mind-contemplation dwells in Dharma; hence, it is still unbalanced. The fourth category of “Mahāyāna Chan” knows that the self is empty, and so are the dharmas; it enables the viewing of emptiness in any experiences and the integration of mind and the experience (of emptiness). It is, however, not the highest level of Chan Buddhism. This accolade belongs to the fifth, called Tathāgata Chan, which is widely regarded as the highest vehicle of Chan, especially by Zongmi. He defines the features of this type of Chan Buddhism as follows—it acknowledges the inherent purity of the mind of every human being (which embodies Buddha-nature), without passions from the beginning, so the mind has no inherent difference from that of the Buddha in its origin. On this basis, through Chan practices, when sentient beings are suddenly enlightened to the purity of self-mind, and allow the initially pure mind to reveal itself, sentient beings become buddhas. This idea emphasizes the origins of Tathāgata Chan, known as the pure original mind (qingjing benxin 清淨本心), and its practice method, namely, sudden 7  T 48: 399b.

14

Fang

enlightenment. To uphold Tathāgata Chan as such, one can grasp the origins of practice, and, meanwhile, achieve enlightenment quickly at once. This is the reason why, compared to the other four Chan methods mentioned above, Tathāgata Chan is the highest Chan method. Additionally, Zongmi points out explicitly that Tathāgata Chan is the Chan method which has been transmitted generation to generation since Bodhidharma. In the “Chart of the Transmission of Masters of the Mind-sphere Chan Gate in China” (Zonghua chuan xindi chanmen shizi chengxitu 中華傳心地禪門 師資承襲圖, henceforth referred to as “Chan Chart”), Zongmi divides the Chan School into the Oxhead (Farong’s strand of thought), the Northern School (Shenxiu’s strand of thought) and the Southern School (Huineng’s strand of thought); under the Southern School are the Heze School (Shenhui’s strand of thought) and the Hongzhou School (Mazu Daoyi’s strand of thought). In this text, he classifies three Chan schools divided into a hierarchy—from the lower to higher, they are: a) school of training the mind and stopping illusions (xiuxin xiwang zong 修心息妄宗): the Northern School; b) school of extinguishing and non-attachment (minmie wuji zong 泯滅無寄宗): the Ox-head School; c) school of the direct demonstration of the nature of the mind (zhixian xin­ xing zong 直顯心性宗): the Heze and the Hongzhou Schools. Even though both the Heza and the Hongzhou Schools are at the highest rank in Zongmi’s list, he emphasizes that Heze is higher than Hongzhou. The predominant reason for this is that he regards the former as a direct transmission from Huineng, whereas the latter is a “side derivation” in the Dharma transmission. He writes: Those within the Heze School all received Caoxi’s Dharma and no other teachings. Only at the time when Hongzhou was differentiated as a side derivation, did they begin to be designated as branch names.8 Thus, in the eyes of the followers of the Heze School, Mazu Daoyi’s branch did not derive directly from Huineng, but was a “side derivation.” In other words, only the Heze School is the authority; the true representative of the Southern School. Zongmi’s second reason was, from the aspect of theory versus practice of Buddhism, he agreed that the Hongzhou School admitted that “true mind” (zhenxin 真心) or “true nature” (zhenxing 真性) was the source of enlightenment of all sentient beings. This is the reason why it was also classified as the “school of direct demonstration of the nature of the mind.” However, he wrote,

8  “Chan Chart,” in Zhonghua fojiao sixiang ziliao xuanbian, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 460, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983.

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

15

What the Hongzhou School means is that, arising of mind and ideas, moving of fingers and eyes, and any other actions all serve for nothing but Buddha-nature. Greed, anger, stupidity, good and bad intentions, and pleasant rewards and hurtful retributions, all are Buddha-nature as a whole. For whichever behaviors occur, whether in morning or evening, all are truthful.9 To the above passage, Zongmi commented, There are two functions of the substance of true mind (zhenxin benti 真心本體): a) essential functions of self-nature (zixing benyong自性本 用), and b) functions in accord with karmic conditions (suiyuan yingyong 隨緣應用). . . . Currently, Hongzhou instructs Huineng’s speeches, which only consists of the application to different situations but lacks essential functions of self-nature. Moreover, exoteric teachings include that of anumāņa and that of pratyaksa. Hongzhou says that the substance of mind cannot be conveyed, but Huineng’s discourse has proven Buddhanature; such is anumāņa. Heze directly says that the substance of mind can think, and thinking is mind. One constrains thinking so as to disclose the mind; such is pratyaksa. Hongzhou lacks this.10 As Zongmi understood, Hongzhou regarded all actions, practices and even phenomena as equal to the Buddha-nature. This is what is meant by “functions in accord with karmic conditions” and “anumāņa,” which perceives activities through the external support of Buddha-nature. It does not comprise “essential functions of self-nature” and “pratyaksa,” or the direct demonstration of Buddha-nature. Put another way, this shortage obstructs one’s understanding and experience of the substance of true mind. In fact, this shortage could even lead to wrongly replacing substance with phenomena, and lead to the mistaken idea that there is no substance at all, only phenomena, which would then lead to a wrong way of practice. This criticism from Zongmi, of course, provoked fierce reactions of the Hongzhou School. Up until the eleventh century, the Hongzhou School remained like fire on the grass, spreading all over the mainland—they claimed themselves to be the central lineage and accused the Heze School of being a “side derivation.” The followers of Hongzhou proposed Patriarchal Chan in order to downplay the significance of Tathāgata Chan in the historical background of the internal conflict in the Chan School. 9   Ibid., p. 465. 10  Ibid., p. 470.

16

Fang

Zongmi’s contemporary, Huangbo Xiyun 黃檗希運 (?–850), who received recognition from Mazu’s disciple Huaihai, has comments on Tathāgata Chan. He said, Those who are learning the true way must dismiss heterogeneous learning and all karmas, and recognize non-seeking and non-attachment. Hearing the subtle Dharma is akin to a gentle wind breezing through the ears—let it pass immediately, and do not chase after it. As such, one enters steeply into Tathāgata Chan, and is prevented from raising any Chan thoughts. Following this principle, patriarchs transmit only one mind, and use no other methods. By pointing at the mind as a Buddha, and instantly passing through the surface of equally wonderful enlightenment, one is sure to achieve non-retrogression at the second thought. Such a man can then enter our school gate.11 On the doctrinal basis of mind as Buddha, Xiyun emphasized the importance of dismissing heterogeneous learning and all karma, of non-seeking, nonattachment, and of entering Tathāgata Chan instantly. He fully recognized Tathāgata Chan, and his explanation is consistent with Shenhui and Zongmi’s understanding. Yangshan Huiji 仰山慧寂 (841–890) is one of the founders of the Guiyang 溈仰 branch, which was derived from the Hongzhou School. He was the first person to propose the name “Patriarchal Chan,” distinguishing it from Tathāgata Chan. He contrasted both these types, and stated that Tathāgata Chan is lower than Patriarchal Chan as to their status of enlightenment. Accordingly, he made new explanations about the contents of Tathāgata Chan. Huiji’s bio­graphy says, Master (Yangshan Huiji) asked Xiangyan: “How is your practice these days, my junior fellow?” [Xiang]Yan replied: “A nobody cannot explain about it.” Here is a verse: “Poverty of last year was not really poverty, but this year it is. Last year there was no place to drill an awl, but this year there is not even an awl.” The master said: “You attained Tathāgata Chan only, not Patriarchal Chan yet.”12

11  Huangbo Xiyun chanshi wanling lu 黃檗希運斷際禪師宛陵錄, in Guzunsu yülu 古尊宿 語錄, Vol. 1, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1994, p. 46. 12  Yuanzhou Yangshan Huiji Chanshi 袁州仰山慧寂禪師, in Jingde chuandeng lu 景德傳 燈錄 (Record of Lamp Transmission in the Jingde Era), Vol. 11, T 51: 293.

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

17

In view of the contents of this conversation between Yangshan Huiji and Xiangyan 香嚴 (?–898), the latter’s comment on poverty involves a temporal aspect from last year to this year, which changed from “no land” to “no awl” — this process of change is in accord with “gradual enlightenment.” Given such an explanation, one can reasonably conclude that Master Yangshan was referring to Tathāgata Chan as gradual enlightenment, and Patriarchal Chan as sudden enlightenment. He not only distinguished Tathāgata Chan from Patriarchal Chan, but also recognized the latter as higher than the former—this is the earliest instance of this in Chinese history of Chan Buddhism. Following the times of Master Yangshan, the differentiation between Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan was gradually accepted by all branches of the Chan School, and some Chan masters made even further differentiations between these two. For example, Master Fayan 法演 (?–1104), of the Yangqi branch of the Linji Sect in the Northern Song dynasty, placed much emphasis on the differences. For instance, he often asked his disciples, “Can you still talk about Tathāgata Chan? . . . Can you still talk about Patriarchal Chan?”13 Thus, Yangshan Huiji’s method in differentiating Tathāgata Chan from Patriarchal Chan became a question for meditation (gong’an 公案) in the Chan School. For instance, Shishuang Chuyuan 石霜楚圓 (986–1039), of the Linji Sect, once gave a speech regarding the question raised by Yangshan: “All of you, have you known anything?” Someone who does not show his face said: “In one hit, he forgot all that he knew, not relying on any practice.” All approaches to enlightenment are the same in achievement, and they all speak of the highest capacity. Through which approach was Xiangyang enlightened? It is clear that he has attained Tathāgata Chan only, and not yet Patriarchal Chan.14 The sentence “In one hit he forgot all that he knew” also appears in a question for meditation commonly known as “Xiangyan hitting the bamboo” in the Chan repertoire. There is also a tale telling of a time that Xiangyan received instruction from his master Guishan Lingyou 溈山靈祐 (771–853); one day, Lingyou told Xiangyan, “I won’t ask what you have leant from daily training, but just tell me what your original face was before your birth.” Xiangyan replied with quite a few sentences, but none of them conformed to the truth, i.e., none of his replies satisfied Lingyou. Xiangyan then searched through all 13  Fayan chanshi yülu 法演禪師語錄, T 47: 656c. 14  Shishuang Chuyuan Chanshi, in Wudeng huiyuan, Fascicle 11, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984, p. 703.

18

Fang

the words he collected from various places, but still nothing was suitable for reply. Therefore, he burnt all his books, and left in tears. On another day, while he was cutting grass on a mountain, he took up bricks to hit bamboo to make some sound; suddenly, he was enlightened. After returning home and taking a bath, he then burnt incense and worshipped Guishan from a distance. The verse says, “The master has enormous compassion; his grace is more than my parents. Had he explained everything to me a long time ago, how could anything happen today?”15 Shishuang Chuyuan commented that Xiangyan’s enlightenment was “In one hit, he forgot all that he knew,” which meant that, although he was enlightened, there were still language and perception barriers involved—therefore, it was only Tathāgata Chan, not Patriarchal Chan. What is worth especially noting is the recognition and definition of Tathāgata Chan in Qisong’s edition of the Platform Sutra from the Northern Song and Zongbao’s edition from the Yuan Dynasty. Here it is recorded that, in the Shenlong era of Tang Emperor Zhong, upon Shenxiu and others’ recommendations, the emperor commended his attendant Xue Jian 薛簡, and invited him to go southward to invite Huineng to the capital. When the two of them met, they had a conversation: Xue Jian said, “All of the meditation masters in the capital say: ‘those who want to enlighten must practice meditation. No one has been enlightened without meditation. I am wondering what you would comment on that, O Venerable One!’ The master replied: ‘the truth is realized by the mind, not by sitting there! As the sutra writes, discussing about either the sitting or the lying of the Tathāgata is an evil deed. Why is that? There is no origin of coming, no destination of going, no birth and no death: such is the Chan practice of Tathāgata purity. All dharmas are empty; such is the meditation of Tathāgata purity. After all, there is no trace at all, let alone sitting meditation!”16 However, this conversation reflects the opinion of the editors, who made additions to the Platform Sutra sometime after the Song dynasty. They argued against the insistence on meditation by Shenxiu’s followers, and set it in opposition to the enlightenment of the mind. These editors, in accordance with 15  Dengzhou Xiangyansi Zhixian chanshi 鄧州香嚴寺智閑禪師, in Jingde chuandeng lu, Vol. 11, T 51: 284a. 16  The Platform Sutra, the ninth chapter “Protecting the Dharma,” in Zhongguo Fojiao Sixiang Ziliao Xuanbian 中國佛教思想資料選編, No. 2, Vol. 4, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983, p. 61.

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

19

prajñā thought, emphasized the principle of non-coming, non-going, no birth and no death, as the Chan practice of Tathāgata purity. In accordance with this, the principle that all dharmas are empty is referred to as the Chan practice of Tathāgata purity. To them, Huineng’s method is Tathāgata Chan, and the insistence on meditation is evil. This reflects some Chan masters’ admiration of Tathāgata Chan, and approval of Shenhui and Zongmi’s views of Tathāgata Chan. The phrases “there is no origin of coming, no destination of going, no birth and no death: such is the Chan practice of Tathāgata purity” are not recorded in Fahai’s and Huixi’s editions of the Dunhuang manuscript of the Platform Sutra—however, some contemporary scholars have used this as evidence to state that Shenhui regarded his meditation method as the Highest Vehicle Chan, but this many claim that this statement is not valid. Reading through all the sutras and Chan masters’ comments about Tathāgata Chan, to summarize, there are six main narratives: a) the meditation of buddhas, as set out in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra; b) prajñāpāramitā, non-abiding and the first principle of emptiness: Shenhui promoted Tathāgata Chan, emphasizing the prajñāpāramitā. Shenhui’s Tathāgata Chan values the establishment of perceptions and speeches; c) sudden enlightenment of the pure original mind: Zongmi regarded this as Tathāgata Chan, as did Xiyun; d) Gradual enlightenment of emptiness as Tathāgata Chan, which was first proposed by Huiji: Huiji also placed Tathāgata Chan beneath Patriarchal Chan, which led to a significant changes in the meaning of Tathāgata Chan; e) Tathāgata Chan as establishing speech and perception: Chuyuan’s viewpoint matches the original meaning of Shenhui and Zongmi, but simultaneously downplays it; f) The doctrine of “no origin of coming, no destination of going, no birth and no death” as Tathāgata Chan: it is stated in Qisong’s and Zongbao’s editions of the Platform Sutra, which is in accord with Shenhui’s ideas of Tathāgata Chan. All the above clearly illustrate that Tathāgata Chan has multiple meanings, which are complicated and changes continuously. In conclusion, within the Chan School, Tathāgata Chan was first defined as prajñā, and sudden enlightenment of the pure original mind. After the proposal of Patriarchal Chan, Tathāgata Chan was then defined as gradual enlightenment which relied on speech, and therefore it came to be regarded as inferior. 2

What is So-Called Patriarchal Chan?

Important sources regarding Patriarchal Chan in the Chan repertoire include Yangshan Huiji’s comment on Xiangyan Zhixian (as previously discussed) and another conversation between these two masters:

20

Fang

There is again a verse: “I have the capacity to look into ‘it’ at a glance. Those who cannot achieve this may not be called a novice.” Yangshan then reported to Guishan, “I am truly glad that my junior fellow [Zhi]Xian has attained Patriarchal Chan.”17 “Capacity” ( ji 機) is an ability of the mind when one does meditation, and “It” ( yi 伊) refers to Buddhism. The words by Xiangyan mean that his mind can sense Buddhism with instinct, or, to put it another way, this instinct responds to situations and interactions with people. It is like a no-mind Buddhist believer (wuxin daoren 無心道人), who does not possess perception, but does not abandon his or her sense of seeing and hearing either; those who are incapable of this Chan method are like novices who have yet to received full ordination. These words gained Yangshan’s approval, and were regarded as worthy to obtain a real transmission of Patriarchal Chan. Indeed, the sentence “I have the capacity to look into it at a glance” in the passage is a very definition of Patriarchal Chan. Obviously, Yangshan Huiji defined Patriarchal Chan by the characteristics of non-discrimination and sudden enlightenment. Shishuang Chuyuan expanded on Yangshan’s view of Patriarchal Chan, and pushed further to elaborate its strength. He proclaimed, Some might ask, what is the strength of Patriarchal Chan? If one seeks it in speech, it would mislead later followers—it would only deserve being beaten with a stick, and would disappoint previous sages. Although ten thousand dharmas are tranquil by nature, people tend to stir them up.18 “Mislead” here, of course, means to deceive—Shishuang Chuyuan considered that Tathāgata Chan’s “taking Buddhism in speech” was misleading, and even deceived people, which disappointed previous sages. All dharmas are non-busy by nature, nevertheless, stupid people trouble themselves with their oceans of unnecessary words—or, to be more precise, the strength of Patriarchal Chan lies in its separation from language. It relies on experiencing an understanding of the mind so that the present is suchness. The phrase “ten thousand dharmas are tranquil but people tend to stir them up” supports the doctrine that everything is just as straight as its manifestation. This is the doctrinal foundation of Patriarchal Chan. 17  Xiangyan Zhixian Chanshi, in Wudeng huiyuan, Fascicle 9, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984, p. 537. 18  Shishuang Chuyuan Chanshi, in Wudeng huiyuan, Fascicle 11, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984, p. 703.

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

21

In future years and decades, Patriarchal Chan masters went even further, by stating that meditation practitioners need to pass the gate of the patriarchs. They emphasized the gate of penetrating puzzles, created by the patriarchs, and the gate of understanding the Chan method of the patriarchs. The “Gateless Gate” (Wumen guan 無門關) writes, Meditation practitioners must pass through the gate of patriarchs, digging into subtle enlightenment and stopping the path of the mind. Without passing through the gate of patriarchs, and stopping the path of the mind, whatever one does is just like a wild spirit attached to grass and trees. Hence it is said, “what is the gate of patriarchs? Just so is the word ‘none’ (wu 無); one gate of our sect.”19 Here it says that the key point of the gate of patriarchs lies in the word wu: no relativity in characteristics, nor in differences, nor in situations. To pass the gate of the patriarchs is to pass the gate of “none”—it is to depart from language and perception, to stop all activities of thinking, “digging into the mind and stopping the path.” It transcends all distinction and differentiation—only in this way can one attain enlightenment and enter the state of Patriarchal Chan. In order to emphasize the prominent origin and long history of Patriarchal Chan, the Chan School also proposed the question for meditation known as “holding a flower and smiling,” the statement of “twenty-eight patriarchs from the western heaven,” and the puzzle of “the meaning of the patriarch coming from the west.” The question for meditation, “holding a flower and smiling” is: Once upon a time, the Buddha was at the gathering on Vulture’s Peak, and held a flower to demonstrate [Dharma] to the public. At that time, all the assembly was silent, but only Kasyapa began to smile. The Buddha said, “I have the treasury of the true eye of Dharma, the wonderful mind of nirvana, true characteristics of non-characteristics, subtle practice methods. No language is established, and it is transmitted outside any teachings. Now I transmit it to Kasyapa.” This is a story which was spread long after the Song dynasty. The phrases “the treasury of the true eye of Dharma, the wonderful mind of nirvana” here refer to the Buddha’s method of innate evidence; it cannot be conveyed through language, because it is a deeply subtle method of being transmitted from mind to 19  Wumen guan, T 48: 292.

22

Fang

mind. The story “holding a flower and smiling” has been admired by Patriarchal Chan followers as the original type of transmission from mind to mind, and as the model of transmitting the essence of Buddhism. Chinese Chan masters hence refigured the founder of Buddhism, Śākyamuni, as establishing the teaching of “not relying on words and a transmission outside the teachings.” In fact, this teaching, as a key point of Chinese Chan Buddhism, differs radically from the methods taught by Śākyamuni. Responding to the question for meditation of “holding a flower and smiling,” Chinese Chan masters also proposed the statement “twenty-eight patriarchs from the western heaven.” This statement claims that there are twenty-eight patriarchs who received transmission, one after another, in India. Kasyapa, who received the seal of mind from the Buddha at Vulture’s Peak, is regarded as the first patriarch, Ananda as the second, and this goes all the way down to the twenty-eighth patriarch, Bodhidharma.20 Bodhidharma is the twentyeighth patriarch of the western heaven, and also the first patriarch of China. Subsequent patriarchs include Huike, Sengcan, Daoxin, Hongren and Huieng; altogether, they are known as “six patriarchs of the eastern land.” Since the Song Dynasty, the Chan School, by arranging transmission via the line of patriarchs, claims that Patriarchal Chan had been transmitted generation after generation without disruption in the Dharma line since the Buddha. It invents a foundation for a long history of Patriarchal Chan, but this fabrication in the ­arrangement only increased the mysteriousness of the formation of Patriarchal Chan. Since Bodhidharma is the first patriarch to come from India to China, the esoteric teachings which he brought from India are the true message and true spirit—for instance, what does “the meaning of the patriarch coming from the east” really mean? This question became a crucial question to testify and prove the enlightenment of Chan masters, and is a question for meditation. Patriarchal Chan argues that an essential message of Chan is that everyone possesses the mind for becoming Buddha, but one’s own mind needs to be proven by the individual, and this cannot be expressed by language or interpretation. Therefore, the question asking “the meaning of the patriarch coming from the west,” asked by Chan masters, expects answers which appear to be irrelevant, so as to demonstrate that “the meaning” can be understood by mind only, rather than through logical or linguistic interpretation. This concept, as a result, inspires the questioner into self-reflection. Before Yangshan placed Patriarchal Chan in a position contrary to Tathāgata Chan, Mazu Daoyi’s disciple, Master Zhichang 智常, of Guizongsi at Mt. Lu, 20  Qisong’s 契嵩 Chuanfa zhengzong ji 傳法正宗記, T 51: 716–744.

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

23

had already mentioned “single flavor” (yiwei 一味) Chan as being opposed to “five flavors” (wuwei 五味) Chan. The former is an important step leading to the emergence of Patriarchal Chan. A record writes, Master [Zhichang] spoke out because a junior master was utterly foolish. The master asked: “Where did you go?” [The foolish one] replied: “I went to various places to learn five flavors Chan.” The master asked: “I have single flavor Chan right here. Why don’t you learn it from me?” [The foolish one] asked: “What is the single flavor Chan of yours, Master?” The master immediately shouted and beat the foolish one, who thought himself suddenly enlightened and hence boasted: “Ah, I know, I know!” The master hastily commanded, “Say it, say it!” When the foolish one was about to say something, the master beat him again. The foolish one then just ran away.21 The “five flavors Chan” here is identical to the five types of Chan that Zongmi listed in the first fascicle of his “Chan Preface.” Master Zhichang disparaged it as impure Chan, mixed with impurities while, on the other hand, advocating the “single flavor Chan” as the highest vehicle, and the most pure type of Chan. As recounted in the tale above, Master Zhichang did not allow the junior master to talk, and beat him when he attempted to talk—this implies that Chan cannot be spoken of, and this unspeakable feature is essential to Patriarchal Chan. All these masters’ discourse regarding the meanings of Tathāgata Chan can be summarized as below—a) Sudden enlightenment: whoever promotes gradual enlightenment cannot be characterized as Patriarchal Chan; b) A separate transmission outside the teachings, and not relying on words: those who advocate scriptures, perception and interpretations do not belong to Patriarchal Chan; c) Passing the gate of the patriarchs and ceasing all activities of the mind: those Chan practitioners who fail to cease the path of the mind cannot be said to belong to Patriarchal Chan; d) Transmission from mind to mind through the authentic lineage: those who are not under the lineage of Huineng and the branch of the six Chinese patriarchs are not counted as Patriarchal Chan. All of these meanings of Patriarchal Chan are intertwined, and yet are simultaneously independent. Those who promote gradual enlightenment cannot be defined as Patriarchal Chan, and yet this does not mean that whoever

21  Lushan Guizong Zhichang Chanshi 廬山歸宗智常禪師, in Liandeng Huiyao 聯燈會要, Vol. 4, collected in Xu zangjing 1.2.2. No. 9, Vol. 3, p. 250.

24

Fang

promoted sudden enlightenment is necessarily characterized as Patriarchal Chan—only those who promote the doctrine of sudden enlightenment as well as that of “a separate transmission outside the teachings and not relying on words” can be regarded as Patriarchal Chan. The statement “a separate transmission outside the teachings and not relying on words” is the most important and essential definition of Patriarchal Chan; it is the main criterion which differentiates Patriarchal Chan from others. 3

The Differences between Patriarchal Chan and Tathāgata Chan

Patriarchal Chan and Tathāgata Chan are related, but different, types of Chan Buddhism—the former was formed on the basis of the latter, but developed over against the latter. Having said this, what are the core differences between the two? According to the narratives on Patriarchal Chan, and taking its meditation styles into account, there are four primary differences between them: (A) Understanding the school through teachings, versus a separate method of transmission outside the teachings: The principle is different—Tathāgata Chan masters relied on studying Buddhism and Chan teachings through scriptures, specifically, they venerated the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Prajñāpāramitā Sutra and the Diamond Sutra. They used the teachings in the scriptures to illuminate one’s own mind, and only after one’s faith is established completely did they stop relying on preaching. They also stated “not separated from words” and did value perception. For example, Huineng “became greatly enlightened upon receiving a lecture,” meaning that enlightenment happened after hearing some explanations of scriptures. Huineng also valued preaching the Dharma, and his disciples even collected his speeches in the compilation the Platform Sutra. In contrast to this, Patriarchal Chan identified itself as being “outside the teachings,” with the slogan of “a separate transmission outside the teachings,” so as to distinguish itself from other sects who were “within the teachings” and therefore relied on scriptures. It also differs in the doctrine of “understanding the school through teachings,” a trait of the existent Chan School. In the fourteenth entry in Foguo Yuanwu’s (1063–1135) “Blue Cliff Record” (Foguo Yuanwu chanshi biyan lu 佛果圓悟禪師碧岩錄), it says: The Chan practitioner, in order to know the meaning of Buddha-nature, should observe the times and circumstances. This is called “a separate transmission outside the teachings; single transmission of the seal of

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

25

mind; directly pointing at the human mind; seeing one’s own nature, through this, Buddhahood is achieved.”22 In the eyes of Patriarchal Chan masters, the ghee of the ghee of Buddhism, and the esoteric teaching of Chan Buddhism, cannot be matched by any scriptures, and neither can it be conveyed through speech; it can be expressed only through the direct experience of transmission from mind to mind. This transcendence of language truly distinguishes real Chan Buddhism, and its higher status. Patriarchal Chan takes the Chan method conveyed by words and speech as a system within the teachings, while transmission from mind to mind is beyond any teachings—a separate transmission outside the teachings. The seemingly bizarre actions of Patriarchal Chan, such as disruptive and illogical language, hand postures, questions for meditation, and shouting and holding a stick, or even rebuking the Buddha, are meant to demonstrate the unspeakable side of Chan Buddhism, which is meant to only be transmitted from mind to mind. (B) True mind with substantial function and self-mind with illustrative function: these are the differences in the origin of Chan Buddhism. The origin of Chan Buddhism refers to the true mind, true nature and Buddha-nature that is possessed by all beings, and it forms the highest subjectivity, as well as the basis for becoming a Buddha. Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan both agree that all beings possess Buddha-nature; however, they part company on their views of the substance and function of Buddha-nature, and the functions of true mind and Buddha-nature. Tathāgata Chan emphasizes the differentiation between the substance and function of true mind—it holds that the function of true mind is a function which relies on the substance of true mind; therefore, it presumes a transcendent deconstruction. Through this deconstruction, the transcendent true mind is discovered, and the substance of true mind is illustrated. Patriarchal Chan, however, has a different approach—it holds selfmind and self-nature, are regarded as the true mind, and that Buddha-nature is possessed by every being. It fully recognizes the meaning and function of self-mind and self-nature; it regards whether silence or speech, good or bad karmic acts, or even greed, anger and illusion as the function and demonstration of Buddha-nature. Patriarchal Chan emphasizes true mind as the selfmind of Buddha, and spontaneous enlightenment of self-nature, while, on the 22  T 48: 154c.

26

Fang

other hand, it dismisses the transcendent true mind, as well as efforts toward deconstruction. (C) Gradual practice with sudden enlightenment, versus non-practice with sudden enlightenment: this is a difference in the method. From Bodhidharma onwards, Tathāgata Chan does not reject sudden enlightenment, but instead claims that gradual practice eventually leads to sudden enlightenment—for this reason, it promotes gradual practices such as meditation and mind watching. On the contrary, Patriarchal Chan does not suggest gradual practice, but advocates non-practice. This non-practice is following nature, corresponding to the circumstances, not practicing while practicing, and practicing with no practice. A record says, Officer Wang visited Linji Yixuan. They stood in front of the monks’ hall. Wang asked, “Do monks in this hall study any sutras?” The master replied, “They are not studying any sutras.” Wang asked, “Do they still practice meditation?” The master replied, “They do not do meditation either.” Wang asked, “Neither sutras nor meditation, what do they do after all?” The master replied, “They are taught to become buddhas and patriarchs.”23 On the basis of the ideas of “self-mind with illustrative function” and “the ordinary mind is the way,” the story above pushes forward to claim that “to be nonbusy is to be a noble person,” and to assert the principle of not studying sutras and not to practice meditation—instead, Chan should be experienced in daily life activities. This is the Chan practice for ordinary people, which conveys the idea that life is Chan, and that non-practice is practice. (D) Personality ideal and artistic level: this is a deviation in attainment. Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan both adopt different methods to make the individual’s life meaningful, and have entered the spheres of religion, ethics, philosophy and aesthetics accordingly. Both Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan pursue the state of becoming a buddha, however, Tathāgata Chan puts more emphasis on upholding religious morals, the dismissal of desires, the modification of conceptions, and the upgrading of personality. In contrast, Patriarchal Chan fulfills the ultimate goal in real life, and holds that real life is the manifestation of Buddha-nature. Hence joy, aesthetics, and content would emerge out of real life, and sensual instinct would produce a special 23  Gu Zunsu yülu, Fascicle 4, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1994, p. 74.

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

27

joyful experience. It inspires the mind deeply, and brings one to a splendid state of consciousness. The above is a summary of Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan characteristics, according to the relevant texts. In the history of Chan, because Patriarchal Chan was not defined clearly, the differentiation between Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan has puzzled many Chan masters. There is an appendix in Tanzhou Guishan Lingyou Chanshi yülu 潭州溈山靈祐禪師語錄 (The Collection of Speeches of Chan Master Guishan Lingyou of Tanzhou) following Yangshan Huiji’s judgment of Xiangyan Huizu, which runs: Xuanjue said, “Tell me please, can you distinguish Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan?” Changqing Ling replied, “I have just finished sitting meditation.” Yunju Xi replied, “Contemplating this story, it must be that Tathāgata Chan is shallower and Patriarchal Chan is deeper. Why didn’t Xiangyan ask more about Patriarchal Chan? If he has raised this question, what more could have been discussed?”24 Here the words of Xuanjue 玄覺 (665–713), Changqing Huiling 長慶慧棱 (854–932) of the Five Dynasties, and Yunju Qingxi 雲居清錫 (d.u.) of the Song dynasty, are combined together. These words indicate that, because of the difficulty in distinguishing Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan, there was, in fact, a trend to eliminate the boundary between them. Up to the end of Ming Dynasty, Hanyue Fazang 漢月法藏 (1573–1635) of the Linji School, still expressed his concern over the difference between Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan, and explained that there was a clear-cut boundary: Patriarchal Chan is beyond the ten directions of the Dharma sphere, and does not engage in the numeration of Tathāgata; therefore, it is regarded as out of the framework. Tathāgata Chan arises within the ten types of Dharma sphere, and falls at the tip of the tenth Dharma sphere, which is still within the framework. In order to know the distinction between out of, and within, the framework, one must be able to distinguish the views from the ten Dharma spheres towards each event and object; the ultimate level of this kind is Tathāgata Chan. Patriarchal Chan is a state surpassing the utmost Buddha level.25

24  T 47: 580b. 25  Erfengzang Heshang yülu 二峰藏和尚語錄, Fascicle 6, Chanzong quanshu 禪宗全書, Vol. 52, Taipei: Wenshu wenhua youxian gongsi, p. 621.

28

Fang

Master Fazang set the ten Dharma spheres as the framework, and regarded Patriarchal Chan as the ultimate Buddha level, surpassing the ten Dharma spheres, while the goal of Tathāgata Chan is Tathāgata Buddha, which is within the ten Dharma spheres. The difference between Patriarchal Chan and Tathāgata Buddha is, therefore, being within or outside the framework. Fazang regarded Patriarchal Chan as higher than the Chan practice for becoming a buddha. However, this reasoning inevitably led to conflicts in his theory—for instance, from a Buddhist perspective, Buddha is the enlightened one; the highest of the ten Dharma spheres; the ultimate level. However, according to the “outside framework” status, the one that “surpasses the utmost Buddha level,” must consequently be higher than the Buddha, which is impossible from a Buddhist view point. Normally, when the Chan School says “transcending the Buddha,” it means “transcending the authority of Buddha and ­patriarchs” and disclosing everyone’s innate Buddha-nature; it does not refer to a status or attainment that surpasses that of the buddhas. “Outside the framework” transcends the Buddha’s status, and so is, in fact, beyond the Buddhist domain. Furthermore, Fazang claims that, in order to maintain the distinction between out of and within the framework, it is necessary to distinguish perceptions towards each concrete event and object according to the ten Dharma spheres—from this point, Fazang’s view is not consistent with the traditional anti-perception view of Patriarchal Chan. Although Fazang’s distinction between Patriarchal Chan and Tathāgata Chan is simple and clear, it does not fit into the mainstream, traditional narratives in regards to the differences between the two. A more contemporary Master, Master Taixu 太虛 (1889–1947), in his “The Characteristics of Chinese Buddhism in Chan Buddhism” (Zhongguo foxu tezhi zai Chan 中國佛學特質在禪),26 divides Chan Buddhism into three phases of practice method, for the time span from Bodhidharma to the Five Houses. 1) From Bodhidharma to Huineng: Chan of Enlightened mind and becoming a Buddha (wu xing cheng fo chan 悟心成佛禪). 2) From Huineng to the Five Houses: Chan of transcending Buddhas and patriarchs (chao fozhu chan 超佛祖師禪). 3) The Five Houses: Chan of surpassing patriarchs and dividing lamps (yue zhu fen deng chan 越祖分燈禪). In terms of these names, “Chan of Enlightened mind and becoming a Buddha” equates to Tathāgata Chan, and the latter two can be considered as Patriarchal Chan. Patriarchal Chan must be “transcending Buddhas,” and “surpassing patriarchs and dividing lamps” is the “dividing lamps” of the history of Patriarchal Chan; these are still within the track of Patriarchal Chan as a whole. Due to this, it is fair to integrate Taixu’s 26  As collected in Chanxue Lunwenji 禪學論文集, Xiandai Fojiao Xueshu Congkan 現代佛 教學術從刊, Vol. 2, Taipei: Dasheng wenhua chubanshe, 1976, pp. 1–111.

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

29

classification into the two categories of Patriarchal Chan and Tathāgata Chan; this might be simpler and clearer. However, from a historian’s point of view, Taixu’s classification of three phrases from Bodhidharma to the Five Houses clearly illustrates the meaningful development of Chan Buddhism itself. 4) The Historical Boundary between Patriarchal Chan and Tathāgata Chan. In the doctrinal history of Chan Buddhism, Zongmi claimed that Tathāgata Chan is the highest vehicle Chan of Chan Buddhism, and that Tathāgata Chan runs from Bodhidharma down to the Hongzhou School. Yangshan Huiji proposed the idea of Patriarchal Chan, and, in fact, he classified Shenxiu’s thought of gradual enlightenment as Tathāgata Chan. After the Buddhist persecution in the fifth year of Tang Emperor Wuzong (845 CE), some Chan masters clearly defined “a separate transmission outside the teachings and not relying on words” as the main characteristics of Patriarchal Chan so as to differentiate Patriarchal Chan and Tathāgata Chan. The Patriarchal Chan masters also claimed that there were twenty-eight patriarchs of the western heaven, and six of the eastern land. Therefore, earlier Chan masters counted the Patriarchal Chan lineage from Bodhidharma, continuing to Huineng and the Five Houses, and Seven Sects, otherwise known as Huineng and Hongzhou’s strand of thought. However, some early modern Chan masters classified the strand from Bodhidharma to Huineng as Tathāgata Chan, in accordance with the doctrine of the pure mind of Tathāgatagarbha. Contemporary scholars have also debated over the historical boundary between these two types of Chan. Apart from some scholars who believe that they are so similar that any differentiation is unnecessary, major opinions include: a) All Chan traditions before Bodhidharma, whether Hinayana or Mahāyāna Chan, are Tathāgata Chan. The founder of Chan Buddhism, Bodhidharma, transmitted Chan Buddhism claiming “directly pointing at the original mind” and “seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved” which is not Patriarchal Chan, but Tathāgata Chan; b) The tradition before Huineng belongs to Tathāgata Chan. In contrast, Huineng and Mazu’s strand of thought established the tradition of sudden enlightenment, claiming that by “directly pointing at the original mind; seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved.” This is not Patriarchal Chan; c) The Chan tradition before the Hongzhou Sect, and the Shitou Sect is Tathāgata Chan. However, these two sects are the beginning of Patriarchal Chan, because of the fact that they proposed the doctrine of “a separate transmission outside teachings; not relying on words; directly pointing at the human mind; seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved.” Additionally, some scholars even argue that only the Five Houses are real Patriarchal Chan. Others also discuss them in a

30

Fang

broad and narrow sense.27 In a broad sense, Tathāgata Chan includes Indian meditation and its spread in China, up until the time of Huineng’s Southern School. In a narrow sense, Tathāgata Chan refers to that of Shenxiu and Zongmi. In other words, Patriarchal Chan, in a broad sense, refers to Huineng’s strand of thought, while in a narrow sense, it is limited to Huineng himself and those masters who preserved his style of Chan teachings (namely Heze Shenhui and Dazhu Huihai 大珠慧海 (d.u.)). The diverse opinions above reflect different criteria for distinguishing the two types of Chan, as well as different perceptions of them; however, the most important debating point from all the above is in regards to the position of Huineng’s teachings. Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 argues in his article “Rulaizang yü zushi chan” 如來藏與祖 師禪 (Tathāgatagarbha and Patriarchal Chan) that Huineng incorporated the Prajñā Sutra and Śūnyatā into the mind, and transformed it into the practice of “sudden enlightenment Patriarchal Chan” which means “directly pointing at the original mind” and by “seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved,” whereas Shenhui represents Tathāgata Chan with the backup of the doctrine of the pure mind of Tathāgatagarbha.28 However, another scholar, Tang Junyi 唐君毅, has expressed his doubts over Mou Zongsan’s statement.29 As can clearly be seen, drawing a line between Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan is a complicated matter. If we take the transformation from Tathāgata Chan to Patriarchal Chan as a historical process, there is no absolute boundary between them. On the other hand, there are definitely differences between their approaches, methods, and styles. Therefore, it is appropriate to draw the line on the basis of the narratives and practices of the Chan masters mentioned above. The difference lies in whether the emphasis is placed on Buddha-nature and a state of meditation as being performed in daily activities, and, in particular, on the principle of “a separate transmission outside teachings; not relying on words; directly pointing at the human mind; seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved.” In general, Patriarchal Chan is in conformity with the above principle, whereas Tathāgata Chan is not. It should be noted that, since Bodhidharma, the Chan School has proposed the principle of by “seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved.” In the Luebian Dasheng Rudao Sixing 略辨大乘入道四行 (Summary of Four Practices in Entering the Great Vehicle), Bodhidharma pointed out that 27  Dong Qun 董群, Zushi Chan 祖師禪 (Patriarchal Chan), Zhejiang: Zhejiang renmin chubanshe, 1997, pp. 6–17. 28  Collected in Chanzong Sixiang yü Lishi 禪宗思想與歷史 (Chan Philosophy and History), Xiandai Fojiao Xueshu Congkan, Vol. 52, Taipei: Dasheng wenhua chubanshe, 1978, p. 96. 29  Zhi Zhang Mantao de xin 致張曼濤的信 (Letter to Zhang Mantao), ibid., pp. 111–112.

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

31

every being possesses pure mind and true nature, but that these are unfortunately covered by one’s own passions in real life and cannot be easily seen or recognized. He therefore taught people to get rid of delusional passions completely, and to return to the true mind and nature. Bodhidharma proposed the principle of by “seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved” but not yet that of “directly pointing at the human mind.” Huineng advocated that through “the enlightened practice by themselves; one knows self-mind; one sees self-nature” and that “since ten thousand dharmas are all within oneself, why not follow self-mind and immediately demonstrate suchness and self mind?”30 This statement of sudden enlightenment, and immediate demonstration, is comprised of the thoughts of “directly pointing at the human mind; seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved” which is a sudden teaching. Meanwhile, although Huineng asserted the “Dharma transmission from mind to mind,” he frequently placed much emphasis on the fact that he became enlightened upon hearing the lecture on the Diamond Sutra, through seeing his true nature; this tale is taught to inspire his followers.31 This implies that Huineng did not negate scriptures, and this aspect is different from the later slogan of “a separate transmission outside the teachings; not relying on words.” However, his idea that “one knows self-mind; one sees self-nature” can be understood in conformity with the slogan above. According to this logic, becoming a Buddha does not depend on any textual authority, and need not practice any literal deconstruction. On this basis, the Five Houses formulated the meditational approach of “a separate transmission outside teachings; not relying on words; directly pointing at the human mind; seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved,” and, by this point, Patriarchal Chan had matured. According to abovementioned criteria, and the transformation process from Tathāgata Chan to Patriarchal Chan, we can divide the evolution from Bodhidharma to the Five Houses—Guiyang 溈仰, Linji 臨濟, Caodong 曹洞, Yunmen 雲門, Fayan 法眼—into three stages as follows; a) from Bodhidharma to Hongren: Tathāgata Chan; b) from Huineng to the formation of the Five Houses: a transitional stage; c) the Five Houses: Patriarchal Chan. Why is the period from Huineng up to the formation of the Five Houses a transitional stage? This is because the historical background in this period is complicated and difficult to categorize into either Tathāgata Chan or Patriarchal Chan. For instance, Huineng’s thought is basically “pure nature and sudden enlightenment” or “true mind and self-enlightenment.” For ­meditational 30  Dunhuang manuscript Platform Sutra, in Zhongguo Fojiao Sixiang Ziliao Xuanbian 中國 佛教思想資料選編, No. 2, Vol. 4, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983, p. 9; IS. 31  Ibid., pp. 5, 8, and 16.

32

Fang

practice, he emphasized “understanding the school through teachings” and did not refute studying sutras, chanting Buddha names and meditation, which is similar to Tathāgata Chan. He also claims that “one knows self-mind; one sees self-nature; sudden enlightenment” as well as “equating meditation and wisdom.” He expanded the range of meditation, and tended to integrate meditation into wisdom, which is similar to Patriarchal Chan. There are four or five generations between Huineng and the Five Houses, which arose from an evolutionary process through the schism of Patriarchal Chan. As Huangbo Xiyun explicitly wrote, “Patriarchs directly pointed out that the original mind and substance of all sentient beings is inherently buddha’s, without relying on practices.” The patriarch came from the west and transmitted nothing but Buddhamind. He directly pointed at your mind which is inherently buddha.32 Comparatively speaking, Huineng’s thought has more of Tathāgata Chan than later masters. His successors, such as Mazu Daoyi, Baizhang Huaihai and Huangbo Xiyun, are more approving of Tathāgata Chan. Therefore, it is not appropriate to classify Huineng as Patriarchal Chan and his follower Shenhui as Tathāgata Chan. In fact, Shenhui was successful in bringing people’s attention to Huineng’s straightforward sudden teachings. Both of them should be regarded as figures in the transitional stage, in that they have features of both Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan. As the history of Chan Buddism manifests, the emergence of the Guiyang Sect indicates the beginning of Patriarchal Chan. From then on, Patriarchal Chan masters prominently waved their flag of “directly pointing at the human mind; seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved.” They did not uphold precepts, chanting, calling buddhas’ names, not even meditation. They advocated obedience to self-nature, adopted bizarre expressions, and beat and shout with sticks, and even disrespected their patriarchs and scorned buddhas. During the periods of late Tang, the Five Dynasties and the Northern Song, Patriarchal Chan had become a trend, the mainstream of the Chan School, and had a fundamental influence on the Chan tradition. A scholar of the Ming dynasty made the following comment on the Chan practice of two famous Song poets, Su Dongpo 蘇東坡 (1037–1101), and Huang Tingjian 黃庭堅 (1045–1105):

32  Huangbo Xiyun Duanji Chanshi Wanling lu 黃檗希運斷際禪師宛陵錄, Gu Zunsu yülu, Vol. 1, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1994, pp. 40–41.

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

33

Both Huang and Su were inclined towards Chan Buddhism. Some say that Zizhan 子瞻 followed Minister (dafu 大夫) Chan while Luzhi 魯直 followed Patriarchal Chan. This is to admire Huang and downplay Su.33 Zizhan and Luzhi are Su and Huang’s pseudonyms. Su leaned toward the combination of meditation and chanting Buddha’s name, whereas Huang received instruction from Huanglong Zuxin 黃龍祖心 (1025–1100) of the Linji Sect. Judging from the comment above, Ming literati regarded Patriarchal Chan as higher than Minister Chan, and Huang as superior to Su. The Five Houses all hold that daily activities are not to be separated from Chan life, and that one should not restrict oneself to words and sentences; however, they do have a variety of approaches in practice. For example, towards the end of the Five Dynasties, Qingliang Wenyi 清涼文益 (885–958), who was the founder of the influential Fayan Sect, advocated studying Buddhist scriptures seriously. He mastered the Huayanjing (Avatamsaka Sutra) and preached Chan Buddhism with the former’s doctrine of “the harmony between phenomena and principle.” He did not teach Chan Buddhism lightly, nor did he heavily rely on words—this was an antidote to the corruption of Patriarchal Chan and their monastic units. Later, during the last years of the Song dynasty, the Silent Illumination Chan (mozhao chan 默照禪) which was derived from the Caodong Sect, promoted the approach of silent illumination through sitting meditation. When this sect became a strong force against the Kanhua Chan 看話禪 derived from the Linji Sect, the dominance of Patriarchal Chan came to an end. 5) The Intellectual Background of the Emergence of Patriarchal Chan and its Cultural Value. Patriarchal Chan is the only school which advocated “a separate transmission outside the teachings,” as well as the most prominent stereotype. The emergence of Patriarchal Chan displayed a profound intellectual depth and an important cultural value. Patriarchal Chan is a logical development of the Chan School, as well as a result of traditional Chinese culture. The Chinese Chan School absorbed the idea of true mind and true nature from Indian Buddhism, and further equated these with self-mind and self-nature. They claimed that every thought and action, whether good or bad karma, is a manifestation of Buddha-nature; they emphasized the function of self-mind and self-nature and the importance of returning to them—hence Patriarchal Chan deviated from the tradition 33  Yuan Zhong deng lu 袁衷等錄, Tingwei zalu 庭幃雜錄, Zhengshi guifan 鄭氏規範, in Congshu jicheng chubian 叢書集成初編 No. 0975, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, Vol. 2, 1985.

34

Fang

of scriptures in favor of an approach to meditation, which refuted words and language. Confucianism held the view that human beings possess innate goodwill, and promoted mind cultivation; Daoism also relied on human nature, to which human beings should return. These two schools of thought value instinctual thinking, self-growth in real life, and self-fulfillment. Out of this general background, Chinese Chan masters integrated the traditional thinking of China and India in their creation of Patriarchal Chan—Patriarchal Chan represents blended Chinese ethnic elements into a Buddhist framework, and expresses clear objective thinking with a pragmatic tendency, which is radically different to Indian Buddhism. Liberal critiques and independent doctrinal classification are also an important part of the intellectual background of Patriarchal Chan. Buddhism has an open and creative base where different systems can debate with each other, while creating new doctrines. For instance, the initial proposal of Patriarchal Chan was a result of the criticism by Huineng’s followers against Shenxiu’s teaching of gradual enlightenment, and this was enhanced by Hongzhou’s criticism against Shenhui and Zongmi’s reliance on perception. Patriarchal Chan could not have emerged without these debates. Independent doctrinal classification is a remarkable advantage of Chinese Buddhism. Zongmi classified Chan Buddhism into five types, which was then called “five flavors Chan” by the Hongzhou Sect as a mixed and inferior Chan, in contrast to the pure “single flavor Chan.” In fact, the latter equates to Patriarchal Chan. Therefore, Patriarchal Chan is, in a sense, a product of doctrinal classification. As the historical evolution of Patriarchal Chan out of critiques and independent doctrinal classification demonstrates, Chan masters possess a critical spirit of antidogma, anti-tradition and anti-authority. Moreover, they pursue quickness and singleness against slowness and impurity, which matches the persistence of ordinary labors in the context of hardships; with these qualities, it answered the demand of the populace. This aspect of the spread and formation of Chan Buddhism is meaningful for us to understand the mentality and religious attitude of Chinese people. The elevation of the social status of Chan masters and ancestor worship in society were important factors in the expansion of Patriarchal Chan—the Chan School dwelt on lineage and transmission between masters and disciples. Without a master’s approval, a Chan master could not be trusted. The Chan School was a linear transmission from Bodhidharma to Hongren. After Huineng discontinued the system of robe transmission, the approval needed to come from other methods which were decided by the masters, so as to judge whether a disciple had received the true Dharma. When a disciple received the

Tathāgata Chan and Patriarchal Chan

35

recognition of his master, he was assured of receiving the lineage. This recognition system increased the authoritative role of patriarchs in transmission, and fortified the cult of the patriarchs. Patriarchs, as representatives of Buddhism and the Chan School, were equal to buddhas. It is natural that patriarchs were then regarded as equal to buddhas, and that they could transmit to and from buddhas. Ancestor worship had been deeply rooted in Chinese society, and this, in turn, helped shaped patriarch veneration in the Chan School—Chan monasteries contained patriarchal halls and displayed patriarchal images for veneration. Furthermore, there were memorial ceremonies for the patriarchs, which were held on their death dates. The high status of patriarchs, the spread of the patriarch cult, and the custom of ancestor veneration, all shaped the profile and spread of Patriarchal Chan. Their views that the patriarchs were equal to, or even higher than, buddhas, demonstrated a strong subjective consciousness of Chinese ethnicity in Chan Buddhism, as well as reflecting a fundamental religious custom. (Originally published in Zhongguo Shehui Kexue 中國社會科學, 2000, No. 5). Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Erfengzang heshang yülu 二峰藏和尚語錄, Chanzong quanshu 禪宗全書, Taipei: Wenshu wenhua youxian gongsi, 1988. Fayan Chanshi yülu 法演禪師語錄, T 47. Gu zunsu yülu 古尊宿語錄, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1994. Heze Shenhui chanshi yülu 荷澤神會禪師語錄, Zhongguo fojiao sixiang ziliao xuan­ bian 2 中國佛教思想資料選編, Vol. 2, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983. Jingde chuandeng lu 景德傳燈錄, T 51. Liandeng huiyao 聯燈會要, Xu zangjing 3. Liuzu tanjing (Dunhuang Manuscript Platform Sutra), Zhongguo fojiao sixiang ziliao xuanbian 中國佛教思想資料選編, No. 2, Vol. 4, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983. Tingwei zalu 庭幃雜錄, Congshu jicheng chubian 叢書集成初編, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985. Wudeng huiyuan 五燈會元, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984. Wumen guan 無門關, T 48. Yuan Zhong deng lu 袁衷等錄, Congshu jicheng chubian 叢書集成初編, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985. Zhengshi guifan 鄭氏規範, Congshu jicheng chubian 叢書集成初編, Beijing: Zhong­ hua shuju, 1985.

36

Fang

Secondary Sources

Dong Qun 董群 (1997), Zushi Chan 祖師禪, Zhejiang: Zhejiang renmin chubanshe. Lü Cheng 呂澂 (1972), Zhongguo foxue yuanliu luejiang 中國佛學源流略講, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. Zhang Mantao 張曼濤 (1978) ed., Chanzong sixiang yu lishi 禪宗思想與歷史, Xiandai fojiao xueshu congkan 現代佛教學術叢刊, Vol. 52, Taiwan: Dasheng wenhua chubanshe. ———. (1976) ed., Chanxue Lunwenji 禪學論文集, Xiandai fojiao xueshu Congkan 現代佛教學術叢刊, Vol. 2, Taipei: Dasheng wenhua chubanshe, 1976.

CHAPTER 2

The Fourth Patriarch Daoxin’s Chan Thought Song Lidao 宋立道 1

Daoxin’s Chan Thought in Relation to Earlier Lanka Masters

In discussing Master Daoxin 道信 (580–651), this essay seeks to reevaluate and recognize the importance of Lanka masters in earlier stages of the development of Chan Buddhism. Its conclusion assesses the significance of those Chan masters labeled “South India One Vehicle School” (Nan Tianzhu yisheng zong 南天竺一乘宗) as the foundation of early Chan Buddhism. If we accept this Southern School as the mainstream of Chinese Chan Buddhism, then it follows that its establishment must have begun after the time of Heze Shenhui 荷澤神會 (668–760). This Dharma line came to be largely accepted after Shenhui’s numerous speeches and sojourns across China during his later years. During the mid-eighth century, Shenhui was called upon by the Court, as the An Lushan 安祿山 Rebellion provided him an opportunity to serve in the Court: this is an example of a Buddhist master’s contribution to the Court during times of turmoil or difficulty—due to his endeavors at these times, the Southern School flourished in China. The Southern Chan possesses a different style to styles earlier Chan Buddhism, which was mainly based on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra—when studying the teachings of those Chan masters before Daoxin’s time, we may find clues of early Chan Buddhism. Nevertheless, it requires further elaboration, regarding consistency from earlier to later times, to truly recognize the establishment of a tradition. The Chan masters, from Bodhidharma to Hongren 弘忍 (602–675), regarded the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as the essential principle of the school. This scripture itself is predominant as the doctrine of Tathāgatagarbha of pure selfnature. On this basis, this sūtra proposes that it is an illusion to explain phenomena without words, and, meanwhile, urges practitioners to train their self-mind. Their self-mind is the mind of buddhas in their original state, the Buddha-mind. The Sūtra says, “Among the approaches of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the mind of buddhas is the first one” (Dasheng zhu dumen, zhufo xin diyi 大乘諸度門, 諸佛心第一). Following this line, the South India One Vehicle School is the “Buddha-mind School.” However, how do ordinary people demonstrate, or discover, their innate pure mind? The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra mentions Tathāgata Chan, which guides practitioners to enter the Tathāgata domain, ©

5 | 

/

38

Song

performing self-awakened holy omniscience and three pleasant dwellings. The so-called “three pleasant dwellings” refers to achieving three types of enlightened state: that of emptiness, formless and non-wish. In this sūtra, Tathāgata Chan is the most advocated and encouraged. Below it, there are three other types—“Chan as practiced by foolish men,” “Chan practice for observing characteristics [of phenomena]” and “Chan practice for attaching to suchness.” These three types of meditation are meant to be antidotes to self-attachment, Dharma-attachment and, when these are overcome, further resolving the attachment to self-emptiness and Dharma-emptiness. These three types did not gain their names through any difference in meditation approaches; rather, they reflect practitioners’ goals of meditation—hence, the object aiming to be corrected decides the name of the meditation. For this reason, it is likely that Chan masters since Bodhidharma shared similar ideas of the contents of Chan method in their minds. In other words, regarding the technical aspects of Chan teachings, a minimum of explanation was needed, because everyone was already aware of teaching aims and methods. This meditation method had been transmitted between masters and disciples from India to China. The methods taught were more or less similar in both countries: either the eyes observe the nose, or the nose observes the mind. Regarding the Indian schools, if there were any debates amongst them, most were limited to a theoretical level. Hence, the difference between Indian and Chinese teachinsg only existed in perceptions of meditation method, as well as how to spell them out in Buddhist theories. In particular, Bodhidharma’s Chan teachings are tightly connected with the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. We can divide meditational practice into two steps. First is the meditational skill of “calming” (zhi 止), which fixes the mind in one place so as to, in effect, tranquilize the mind. Second is the contemplation and observation of oneself in a composed state, which is usually called the technique of “discernment” (guan 觀). The difference in the Chan teachings of Mahāyāna and Hinayāna does not lie in the techniques, but on the object of contemplation. Of course, later Chan Buddhism, especially that of the Southern School, focused on one’s transformation of worldview; true view; the philosophical standing point. This was, however, no longer the traditional teaching from India. Hinayana teachings of meditation emphasize “calming and discernment for returning to purity” (zhiguan huanjing 止觀還淨). It adopts a mental approach to physical objects to achieve “returning to purity,” by comprehending impermanence and non-self. According to their objects, this meditation divides into methods of: a) observation of impurity, i.e., observing the decaying and destruction of a corpse; b) observation of compassion, i.e., loving all sentient beings and erasing hatred; c) observation of causal relations, i.e., understanding the principle of

The Fourth Patriarch Daoxin ’ s Chan Thought

39

impermanence. Additionally, some may take a Buddha image as the object of observation and contemplation. The practice of chanting buddhas’ names has been in practice for practitioners who need not ponder the meaning of existence. Those Laṅkā masters of earlier periods uphold asceticism in Indian tradition, and regarded severe physical torment as effective in the purging of sins. They emphasize that meditation must be supported by strict observance of precepts. In this aspect, asceticism is not only the realization of religious ideal, but also the presumed condition for meditation practice. Bodhidharma, Daoxin, and Hongren’s East Mountain School, had begun to value the technical aspect of meditation and, meanwhile, to emphasize the doctrines of meditation as written in scriptures. This trend continued until Hongren’s disciples, Shenxiu 神秀 and Puji 普寂. However, from Huineng 慧能 onwards, it is obvious that the techniques of meditation became less and less important—and, as a result, there was a tendency to define meditational practice within the framework of transformation at the level of psychology and consciousness. Moreover, because of an overemphasis on “self-mind as Buddha” and “noncontemplation, non-thinking” at later times, the Chan School could even disregard one’s psychology and understanding, and solely rely on the subjectivity of consciousness (whose authenticity is most difficult to testify), as claiming to have reached enlightenment, and therefore becoming Buddha. Along this line, Daoxin’s Chan approach is consistent with the simplicity transmitted from Bodhidharma. He inherited the spirit of the Laṅkā masters, including Bodhidharma, the core of the Eastern Mountain School. In fact, Bodhidharma had predicted that the severe spirit of the Laṅkā tradition would vanish as soon as Chan Buddhism became popular, and Chan masters thus began to be more interested in doctrines. According to Huike’s 慧可 biography in the Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 (“Biographies of Eminent Monks”), while handing the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to Huike, Bodhidharma said, “To my observation of China, only relying in this Sūtra that benevolent people can follow and then help others with it.” Fifty years later,1 Huike also lamented that, “This Sūtra has become merely a name after four generations—what will it be in the future?” Huike is known to be a scholarly Chan master—his biography describes him as “reading widely of non-Buddhist subjects, and fully mastering in Buddhist collections.” He was greatly familiar with both Chinese culture and Buddhist traditions. He did not have any intentions of composing lofty literature; 1  Huike was forty when he met Bodhidharma, and died about ninety. He died in 577, the first year of the Chengguang era of the Northern Qi, according to Hu Shih’s research. Contradicting this, however, according to “Biographies of the Precious Forest” (Baolin zhuan 寶林傳), he died in 593, the 13th year of the Kaihuang era of the Sui Dynasty, when he was 107 years old.

40

Song

instead, he insisted on the practice of asceticism, and the tradition represented by the Laṅkā masters. As the biography describes, once his arms were cut off by the rebels and almost died. Yet, without any hatred, he cauterized his broken arm, wrapped it with cloth, begged for food as usual, and never talked about that episode; and, by so doing, he realized the act to respond to the malevolence taught by Bodhidharma. His lament precisely highlights a rapid change in the Laṅkā masters’ ascetic practice in Chinese soil. Furthermore, the third patriarch, Sengcan 僧璨, also followed the path of the Laṅkā masters, who promoted practice and denigrated preaching of sūtras. According to the Lengqie shiziji 楞伽師資記 (“Chronicle of Materials of the Laṅkā masters”), Sengcan, a hermit on an empty mountain, meditated all the time, never wrote any words, and did not transmit any method to others. Daoxin was the only disciple who served him for twelve years. As a medium of language and transmitter of lamps, he succeeded in every aspect. Sengcan gave Daoxin recognition of the enlightened Buddha-nature. He said to Daoxin: ‘As the Lotus Sūtra says, there is only one truth, not two or three.’ Hence we know that the right path leads to the destiny; it reaches what language cannot reach. The Dharma is empty, seeing through that which cannot be heard. In other words, words and language are simply useless. This illustrates that the Laṅkā masters strongly believed that purity and enlightenment were the fruit of actual practice, not simply the pursuit of doctrines. Therefore, it is certain that Daoxin’s Chan approach inherited the tradition of Bodhidharma. 2

Daoxin’s Chan Teachings

Daoxin’s common surname is Sima 司馬. The Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 (“Further Biographies of Eminent Monks”), unable to explicate Daoxin’s secular origin, records that he was ordained when he was seven. Even though his master failed to uphold precepts despite Daoxin’s remonstrance and pleading, he preserved his observance to precept himself. At the age of thirteen, he went to Mt. Yuangong, Shuzhou (present day Qian Prefecture in Anhui Province) to visit Sengcan.2 Ten years later, his mentor traveled to Luofu and did not allow him to follow, as it had been clear that he would promote Buddhism, and 2  The Xu gaoseng zhuan does not mention Sengcan; Lidai fabao ji 歷代法寶記 (“Record of Dharma-Jewel Through the Generations”) mentions Sengcan.

The Fourth Patriarch Daoxin ’ s Chan Thought

41

greatly benefit others in the future. Possibly during the same time, he acquired support from the government, and received official ordination at the Jizhou Monastery. He then continued his journey to Nanyue (Mt. Heng), when local Buddhists invited him to stay in the Dalin Monastery of Mt. Lu. A decade later, at the invitation of local followers, he crossed the river to Huangmei Monastery, where a monastery was constructed while he maintained his practice in the mountain. He discovered a suitable position between two mountains, and decided to dwell in that location, and, over three decades, followers came far from different provinces to visit him. It is said that when Daoxin first met Sengcan, he spoke to his master, “Please teach me the method to liberation.” Sengcan asked, “Who is obstructing you?” “No one,” replied Daoxin. Sengcan then asked, “Then why do you seek liberation?” Daoxin immediately enlightened.3 This kind of question and answer is repeated in many places in Chan literature. It is very likely that this story was added later, but it is beyond doubt that Daoxin’s strand of thought is consistent with Sengcan’s. Regarding Sengcan’s viewpoints, we may begin from traditional explanations to find them. According to the Jingde chuandeng lu, Sengcan wrote the Xinxin ming 信心銘 (“Inscription on the Mind of Faith”) (which is regarded as a forgery by modern scholars, as it is not mentioned in Jingjue’s 淨覺 Lengqie shizi ji). On the contrary, Jingjue described Sengcan as not producing any written notes or transmitting any method. Jingjue was a disciple of Xuanze 玄賾, who was Hongren’s disciple; hence Jingjue died around 740 CE, three generations from Daoxin. In his Lengqie shizi ji, there is a description of Puji, who died in 739 CE. Currently, we may speculate that the two texts reflect Sengcan’s thought: the Xinxin ming and an epitaph for him, the Shuzhou Shangu si Jueji ta Sui gu Zhijing chanshi beiming 舒州山谷寺覺寂塔隋故智 鏡禪師碑銘 written by Dugu Ji 獨孤及, the regional governor of Shuzhou in Tang Dynasty. Japanese scholars agreed the former as a much later work composed in the late eight century. Sengcan died in the second year of the Daye Era of the Sui Dynasty (606 CE). These two texts were compiled almost two hundred years after his death, but are consistent in terms of his ways of thought. The epitaph says: “Briefly speaking, his teachings may be a silent reflection and wonderful function to govern all other doctrines. It flows in circles of life and extinction, observing four directions, up and down. One does not see dharmas, body, or mind, to the degree that his mind is detached from phenomenon. His body equates to the empty realm, and the dharmas are simply like dreams. There is neither attainment nor testament; such is enlightenment.” The 3  See Sengcan’s biography in the Jingde chuandeng lu 景德傳燈錄 (“Jingde Era Record of the Transmission of the Lamp”).

42

Song

Xinxin ming says, “There are no difficulties on the path; it is only obstructed by the act of choosing . . . If the mind does not differentiate, all dharmas are the same.” It goes on to say, “there is no need to seek for the truth, one just needs to cease his judgment,” and “touching on the delusions, understanding the truth— through this the origin of enlightenment is realized.” In brief, the former text claims to observe the world by wisdom, and to discover that all dharmas are nothing but our perceptions. When the mind is detached from phenomena, in a state of neither attainment nor testament, this is enlightenment. The latter text is philosophically innovative: without any subjective judgment and differentiation, one sees all dharmas as all the same; this is the state of a sage. Therefore, any perceptions, or differentiation of them, are not necessary, or even harmful. The only thing one needs to do is to maintain the holy origin of the mind, so as to break delusions and understand the truth. These are in accordance with Bodhidharma’s Erru sixing lun 二入四行論 (“Treatise on Two Entries and Four Practices”). According to Bodhidharma, the phrase “entry of principle” means “no self and no others, all sages are equal . . . There is no distinction and silently there is no name”; it refers to the same statement as above.4 However, we should not forget that, judging from the appearance of theories for meditation, meditation masters had begun to turn to the “entry of principle” since Bodhidharma at an early stage of Laṅkā masters. Regarding the “entry of practice,” no explanation can be found, not even a simple one. On one hand, perhaps the Laṅkā masters focused on meditation and did not like making explanations; on the other hand, it is likely that the Chinese had deeprooted interests in philosophical discussions. The tendency of enjoying discussions and exploring abstract theories was reflected not only in the Xuanxue 玄學 of the Wei and Jin Dynasties, but also in sectarian activities of Buddhism. Here lies a hidden inclination to replace religious practice with theories—in the scholastic invention of theories, metaphorical thinking surpassed religious practice, and, hence, there was a tendency to separate theory and practice. In regards to Daoxin, his Chan thought is explicitly written in the Rudao anxin yao fangbian famen 入道安心要方便法門 (“Expedient Dharma Gate of Entering the Way and Calming the Mind”),5 in which it says,

4  This is Huike, the second patriarch. Although he does not leave much written records, in his conversation with a lay Buddhist, he said “ignorance and wisdom are not different; one should known that all dharmas are as such.” According to Daoxuan’s Xu gaoseng zhuan, Huike’s interaction with lay Buddhists were during the first few years of Tianbao Era of Northern Qi, 550–559 CE. 5  This passage is preserved only in Jingjue’s Lengqie shizi ji.

The Fourth Patriarch Daoxin ’ s Chan Thought

43

The Rudao anxin yao fangbian famen is taught for those of mature capacity with sufficient karmas. It is based on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, which states that mind is the first among all buddhas. Moreover, according to the Wenshu shuo borejing 文殊說般若經 (“Mañjuśrī’s Lecture on the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra”), one-practice samādhi means: while reciting buddhas’ names, mind is buddha; while delusory, mind is ordinary people. In the Wenshu shuo borejing, Mañjuśrī asked the Buddha what one-practice samādhi is. The Buddha replied, all dharma realms are the same. Being connected to dharma realms, it is called one-practice samādhi. The karma of Dharma realm does not attach nor destroy anything; it is unthinkable that there is no obstruct nor characteristics. Male and female followers who wish to attain one-practice samādhi should stay in a peaceful place, discard any disturbing thoughts, not to take on any phenomena, concentrate ones mind in the buddhas, chant their names, and sit upright in a spot. If one can hold continuous thoughts in a Buddha without disruption, he will see the buddhas of past, present and future in his thoughts. 1) First of all, we must distinguish Daoxin’s audience from that of his Chan teachings. For whom were these doctrines served? Those of mature capacity with sufficient karmas. Even though every being has a potential to be enlightened, only those who have sufficient qualifications will attain it first. Daoxin held that a master’s responsibility is to discover these karmas and conditions. He said, “Each [disciple] has different origin, and masters should well distinguish them.” There is no doubt that mature capacity and sufficient karmas must be intertwined. 2) Regarding the theoretical base, it is well known that Daoxin’s words “mind is the first among all buddhas” refer to the Tathāgata pure-nature based on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. The following mention of one-practice samādhi has two meanings—in terms of its theoretical origin, it points to wisdom and contemplation on all dhamas based on the Prajñā sūtras, which hold that all dharmas have no characteristics, and, in terms of a concrete meditation method, it refers to the recitation of buddhas’ names, which has been one method of meditation—it transcends contemplation in recitation of Buddhas’ names. Pure Tathāgatagarbha is the mind possessed by all buddhas, and is universal in all beings—therefore, it is the foundation of all sentient beings’ enlightenment. Buddha-mind is the nature in buddhas, so it is Buddha-nature. In all sentient beings, this is called Tathāgatagarbha; the pure, original mind. To the Laṅkā masters, sentient beings’ minds are originally pure, but are temporarily covered by dust—being enlightened means they shake off the dust. Following

44

Song

this line of thought, meditation is the method to shake off the dust and return to the purified state. 3) Daoxin’s teachings can be summarized in a few sentences from his Rudao anxin yao fangbian famen: “mind is Buddha,” “hold oneness, not to move around,” “meditating on mind contemplation.” Also, it can be explained through five skillful means for meditation: The method for Buddhist learning must be supported by understanding and practice, which together require understanding the origin of the mind and its all functions. When the perceptions became clear without confusion, achievement is not far. A single understating is followed by a thousand, but a single confusion leads to ten thousand. A tiny lapse can lead to a huge mistake; this is not a false statement . . . it should be emphasized that Buddha is mind, and there is no Buddha outside the mind. In all brevity, there are five methods: 1) to know the substance of the mind. The substance is pure, not different to the Buddha. 2) to know the function of the mind. The function leads to the dharma jewel, which arises from constant serenity. All confusions originate from here. 3) to be sober at all times. Awakened mind is at the presence, and awakened dharmas have no characteristics. 4) to frequently observe the emptiness of the body—the interior and outside world share same truth. There was never any obstruct for entering the dharma realm. 5) to stay at one point and do not move about. Staying calm in active and static circumstances helps practitioners to see Buddha-nature and enter the gate of meditation. It should be noted here that Daoxin explicitly expressed that this practice is knowing the original substance and the function of the mind, which is knowing that “mind is Buddha.” There have been numerous analyses regarding the mechanism of the mind in the process of learning the Way, but here we should be reminded that the ‘mind’, in Daoxin’s terms, comprises multiple meanings, which penetrate many aspects of Chan Buddhism, and constitute a variety of thoughts and ideas of early Chan. For instance, firstly, when it is related to the ontology of the Consciousness-Only School, the mind refers to a constantly true mind with connotations of Buddha-nature and Tathāgatagarbha. On the other hand, when it is related to the Prajñā doctrines, it links to the empty and silent mind, which is related to the Chinese Prajñā School’s skepticism and denialism. This is in accordance with the silent quality in the statement of “since the outset, there is no birth nor extinction, no equality nor non-duality.” Hence, the mind has a double-meaning of metaphor and reality. We cannot claim that Daoxin was self-conscious of his theoretical

The Fourth Patriarch Daoxin ’ s Chan Thought

45

system because the Laṅkā masters were not concerned about theories as such; rather, they concentrated on asceticism. In general, they maintained Bodhidharma’s teaching of two entries of principle and practice, but the entry of principle was secondary to that of practice. This is not to mention that the key point that the entry of principle was staring at the wall, which was also, in itself, a practice; a form of meditation. Its purpose was to discard the falseness and return to the truth and to achieve the state of “not following other teachings, in accordance with nature.” Hence, it is still an expression of attitudes, and a realization of understanding. The term “mind” also has other implications: it is not only ontological, but physical; it is attached to the present, observing and upholding. According to Daoxin, the mind arises from constant serenity, sober at all times, constantly observing emptiness of the body, and holding onto oneness and not to stray from the path, staying calm in active and static circumstances. It is also the mind which is connected to dharma realms, concentrating ones mind in the buddhas. This manner of mind is to be experienced. For this reason, his teachings of calming the mind (anxin 安心) and holding the mind (chixin 持心) were taught together with the methods of contemplation and psychology. The above terms and definitions constitute the core doctrines of the Northern School, which emphasized on frequently wiping the mind. Among the seven meditation schools categorized by Zongmi 宗密,6 the following ones, at the very least, are relevant to Daoxin’s experienced mind: 1)

The Northern School represented by Shenxiu and Puji. They insisted that men’s minds are covered by dust, and it can return to brightness through removing this substance. In brief, this strand of thought advocated “Entering meditation through the fixation of the mind; focusing the mind in order to observe purity; instantaneous reflection of the outer world inward; controlling the mind to prove the world within” (ningxin ruding 凝心入定, zhuxin kanjing 住心看淨, qixin waizhao 起心外照, shexin neizheng 攝心內證). 2) The Jingzhoug Monastery in Chengdu, from Hongren, Zhishen 智侁, Chuji 處寂, to Wuxiang 無相. Based on the principle of “non-memory, non-thought, not forgetting,” their approach is termed “ceasing thoughts, sitting meditation.” 3) Similar to the Jingzhou Monastery, the Baotang Monastery runs from Hingren, Lao’an 老安 to Wuzhu 無住. Its principle is “non-memory, 6  Chanyuan zhu quanji duxu 禪源源諸詮集都序 (Comprehensive Preface to the Collection on the Origins of Chan) T 48. Yuanjue dashu chao 圓覺大疏抄 (Great Commentary to the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment), Xu zangjing 1–14, No. 3.

46

Song

non-thought, non-illusion.” The non-illusion emphasizes a denial attitude. It supports the statement that “raising the mind leads to illusion; not raising leads to truth.” It is therefore rather different to the Jingzhoug Monastery in terms of practice. 4) Mazu Daoyi 馬祖道一 said that “connecting to various things is the Way; following ones mind is cultivation.” Buddha never detached from his mind, hence it is not necessary to force the mind to practice goodness and dismiss badness. In other words, there is no need to practice anything in particular. Here is again his saying, “Non-cutting, non-practice, behave freely and being carefree: such is enlightenment. No dharmas to confine oneself with, and no Buddhas to become into.” Along this line, following ones mind means stopping action. 5) The Ox-head School is affiliated to the Three Treatise School. This school leans on the doctrines of Prajñā School, and claims “no dharmas to confine; no dharmas to be done,” and gives the reason that “the mind sphere is inherently empty; it does not become silent at this moment. One knows that there was not a thing since the outset and the mind cannot be attached to anywhere. As such, illusions are avoided, and it is called enlightenment.” 6) The Nanshan Buddha Chanting School is, by nature, an affinity of the teaching of one-practice samādhi. 7) The Southern School inherited the sudden enlightenment theory proposed by Shenhui. Its slogan “non-thought is the principle” stresses that having no illusion is the major method of practice. This school proposes a positive spiritual intuition. Enlightenment, according to them, leads to a special conception: the single word zhi 知 (i.e., to understand) is the gate to all wonderfulness. The mind, therefore, transcends experiential levels. If read carefully, all the branches above share similarities with Daoxin in practice of the mind—in this sense, we can conclude that Daoxin and Hongren’s East Mountain School is the foundation of the Chan tradition of teaching and practice. For example, Daoxin discussed the practice of the mind from two aspects—firstly, the mind is inherently pure, therefore one can practice without any form. To the question of, how does one attain characteristics of enlightenment, and how does the mind become bright and clear? Daoxin answers, Do not chant buddha’s names, catch the mind, watch the mind, calculate the mind; think, observe the act, or sit back. Simply follow [the mind],

The Fourth Patriarch Daoxin ’ s Chan Thought

47

but do not let it go nor let it abide anywhere. There is nothing but purity. Ultimately the mind becomes bright and clear. If looking carefully, the mind would become bright and clear like a mirror. A year after this, the mind becomes more bright and clear. After three to five years still, the mind becomes much more bright and clear. Some may understand and enlighten because of others’ preaching, but some do not need any explanations about the Sūtras . . . no beings are to be enlightened; their minds are inherently pure. On the other hand, he holds instructions that “remember to recite and not to forget; remember to uphold and not to forget.” In the case of repentance and karma-removal, one must sit properly to contemplate true phenomena, as such is called the first repentance. This should be accompanied by discarding the mind of three poisons. When the mind of changing the buddhas’ names continues without a moment of break, it will suddenly enter a clear and silent state, where no thought is attached to anything. This is totally consistent with his method of watching the mind and holding the oneness. In addition to this, he quoted the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra to explain: “The non-mindfulness is mindfulness, which equates to chanting buddhas’ names. At which stage this can be called non-mindfulness? Mindfulness of Buddha-mind. There is no Buddha outside the mind, and there is no mind outside the Buddha. Chanting buddhas’ names is mindfulness, and mind after mind is the mind of Buddha. What does this mean? Knowledge has no characteristics, and so neither does a buddha. Buddha has no characteristics. Knowing this principle is calming ones mind. If one often remembers Buddha, his attachments do not arise, and then there is no characteristic, and everything is equal.” His non-mindfulness and non-remembering is the state of onepractice samādhi. This is the expedient method of calming the mind. Daoxin’s five skillful means for meditation can be concluded: 1) to know the substance of the mind; 2) to know the function of the mind; 3) to be sober at all times; 4) to always observe the emptiness of the body; 5) to hold onto oneness and to not stray from the path. This approach starts from, and ends at, the mind—therefore, the analysis of the substance and function of the mind must rely on the language of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. As for Daoxin, he would surely agree that Śūnyatā has double meaning. He agrees with the pure substance of the mind, and non-duality of Buddha-nature; meanwhile, he approves of the function of the mind, which demonstrates constantly awakening and formless awakening. On the other hand, looking from the aspect of Tathāgatagarbha, which is inherently pure, the mind must attain the state of ten thousand confusions, and tranquility of the inner and outer world. In brief,

48

Song

without pure Tathāgatagarbha, enlightenment will not have a foundation; only with a method for calming, cultivating, and observing the mind, which is based on “hold onto oneness and not to stray from the path,” it is then possible to understand the ultimate emptiness which unites the active and the silent, the inner and outer world. In terms of the function versus the substance of the mind—on one hand, ten thousand dharmas are nothing but consciousness; on the other hand, the substance of the mind is one. Talking from the viewpoint of function, granted that an illusory mind raises ten thousand dharmas, there must be a method of governing the mind to return to the origin. Looking from the perspective of substance, true characteristics have no characteristics, which are silent and immovable. A quotation from the Diamond Sūtra (by Daoxin), “In converting countless sentient beings, [one understands that], after all, no sentient needs to be converted” is consistent with the passage “In observing the phenomenon, [one understands that] there is no phenomenon. No phenomenon means emptiness, and emptiness is non-characteristics. Non-characteristic is non-doing. This conception is the gate to enlightenment.” Those learners who were enlightened followed this path. Daoxin recognized skillful means for present physical practice, and so he encouraged meditation. In the biography of Daoxin in the Chuan fabao ji 傳法 寶記 (“Record of Transmission of Dharma-Jewel” ), it says that he always persuaded his followers: “Do your best for meditation, which is the basis of practice. Do so in three to five years, and eat little to stop the hunger. This is called retreat meditation. Do not study scriptures, and do not talk to people. If you can do it, it helps you in the long term.” These sentences prove his affiliation with Bodhidharma’s strand of thought, and affirm his emphasis on asceticism and meditation in the Northern Chan tradition. In fact, this tendency had been strong among Daoxin’s disciples—for example, Xuanshuang’s 玄爽 biography, in the Xu gaoseng zhuan recounts that “he visited Daoxin in Qizhou to open his path. Upon his awakening moment, he returned to his home town. From then on, he maintained pure concentration, sat constantly, never lay down, and consolidated his thoughts to the present moment”—this represents a persistent attitude towards meditation. Another example is Faxian 法顯 of Siceng Monastery in Jingzhou, who visited Shuangfeng only to get clarification of meditation.7 He was constantly ill, but never intended to find a cure, so as to compensate his karmic retribution. He needed very little food and clothing. He was soft and gentle in person, and yet very keen to enhance his Buddhist understanding. The act of enduring hunger, coldness, and illness, and even 7  Also from the Xu gaoseng zhuan.

The Fourth Patriarch Daoxin ’ s Chan Thought

49

regarding it as a compensation for past karma, is exactly the “act to respond to the malevolence,” as demonstrated by previous patriarchs. 3

Evaluation of Daoxin’s Significance in the History of Chan Buddhism

A) Daoxin introduced the Wenshu shuo borejing to complement the Laṅkāva­ tāra Sūtra in Bodhidharma’s strand of thought. This introduction enabled later Chan masters to generate more destructive and powerful weapons in their theories. The elevation of the Diamond Sūtra in the Southern Chan tradition has a root in Daoxin’s thought—using Prajñāpāramitā thought to explain the true characteristics of Tathāgathagarbha made it possible to integrate theories concerning meditation from both sides of emptiness and existence. In accordance with the presumption of innate good nature (equivalent to the statement that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature) which was prevalent in China, this is a rather rational path to emancipation. In its course of departing from Indian asceticism, Daoxin’s teaching developed into a path to emancipation which exhibit both strengths and weaknesses. On the positive side, rationality lies in its doctrinal tendencies, such as the terms “theoretical understanding” (shuotong 說通), “teaching and speech” ( jiaoshuo 教說), and “understanding the core though teachings” ( jiejiao wuzong 藉教悟宗). Daoxin ilustrated the Mahāyāna doctrine that all sentient beings can attain Buddha-hood. On the other hand, speaking from the negative side, he downplayed the importance of real practice in the path to emancipation, as emphasized by earlier meditation masters. This led to a redefinition of “principal understanding” (zongtong 宗通). For example, ever since the emergence of the Southern Chan School, it seems that reciting buddha’s names and Pure Land practice were no longer important, let alone sitting mediation. Consequently, Huineng’s one-practice samādhi became a completely different practice: “maintain the upright mind in every act of daily life” and “do not attach to any dharmas; this is one-practice samādhi.” Of course, during the period in question, Daoxin did not have any intention to downplay the importance of meditation—what he did was integrate two strands of thought in the Mahāyāna tradition, and thus created the Rudao anxin yao fangbian famen. B) The combination of farming labor and meditation in practice began from Daoxin, and it had an enormous impact on the monastic life of the Chan School. Baizhang’s 百丈 regulations have a famous saying that “a day without labor is a day without food,” ( yiri buzuo, yiri bushi 一日不作, 一日不食), which is in accordance with Daoxin’s advice for labor—eating less and sit-

50

Song

ting constantly. Earlier Laṅkā masters and Indian meditation tradition valued asceticism, which insisted begging for food and rejected settling in one place, and this had been embraced by Bodhidharma’s disciples. For instance, Master Na 那, Huike’s disciple, and his disciple Huiman 慧滿 relentlessly upheld asceticism, as the Xu gaoseng zhuan describes: Master Na possessed only one item of clothes, one bowl, one seat, and one meal. Same as Huiman, who had one item of clothes and one bowl, but two nettles. In winter, he begged for food, and stayed in different houses, keeping the most basic living. He never stayed in the same place twice, and, while in temples, he chopped wood, made his own shoes, and went begging most days. Those earlier Laṅkā masters even refused to stay in any place for two nights, and they would not build any temples or conduct any farming. However, in cases like these, without any communities or monasteries, how could a sect ever develop? From this aspect, Daoxin established a practical foundation for developing the Chan School—his biography appropriately evaluates him, saying that he opened up the Chan gate again, and spread it within the border. The Chan School thus took a monumental step forward after Daoxin. C) Most Chan histories claim that the Eastern Mountain School began from Hongren, but the institution probably took shape from Daoxin’s influence in reality. Hongren’s Zui shangsheng lun 最上乘論 (“Treatise on the Highest Vehicle”) recognizes the spontaneous perfect pure mind. It proposes to preserve the original mind, and reach the other shore, and further claims that even though Dharma-nature is empty, it is necessary to comprehend and preserve the original true mind. These thoughts find their root in Daoxin’s ideas, and are linked with Huineng’s teachings at later times. Since their inception, the Laṅkā masters relied solely on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, so as to concentrate only on wisdom, instead of any speeches. Bodhidharma spread this guidance all over China, and took “forget about speeches and thought; nonattainment is the correct view” as the principle. Later, when Huike devised his principles, literati of the Wei belittled him.8 It is beyond doubt, therefore, that Daoxin played a role in the change in direction during his time. Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Chuan fabao ji 傳法寶記 (“Record of Transmission of Dharma-Jewel”), Du Fei 杜朏, Beijing: Zhongguo shudian, 2008. 8  See Fachong’s 法沖 biography in the Xu gaoseng zhuan, Fascicle 35.

The Fourth Patriarch Daoxin ’ s Chan Thought

51

Erru sixing lun 二入四行論 (“Treatise on Two Entries and Four Practices”), Puti Damo 菩提達摩 (Bodhidharma), Dunhuang Manuscripts. Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 (“Biographies of Eminent Monks”), Huijiao 慧皎, T 50. Jingde chuandeng lu 景德傳燈錄 (“Jingde Era Record of the Transmission of the Lamp”), T 51. Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Chinese: Lengqie jing 楞伽經, T 16. Lengqie shiziji 楞伽師資記 (“Chronicle of Materials of the Laṅkā masters”), Jingjue 淨覺, T 85. Lidai fabao ji 歷代法寶記 (“Record of Dharma-Jewel Through the Generations”), T 51. Rudao anxin yao fangbian famen 入道安心要方便法門 (“Expedient Dharma Gate of Entering the Way and Calming the Mind”), Daoxin 道信, Dunhuang Manuscripts. Shuzhou Shangu si Jueji ta Sui gu Zhijing chanshi beiming 舒州山谷寺覺寂塔隋故智 鏡禪師碑銘, Dugu Ji 獨孤及, Quan Tang wen 全唐文, Fascicle 390. Wenshu shuo borejing 文殊說般若經 (“Mañjuśrī’s Lecture on the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra”), T 8. Xinxin ming 信心銘 (“Inscription on the Mind of Faith”), Sengcan 僧璨, T 48. Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 (“Further Biographies of Eminent Monks”), Daoxuan 道宣, T 50. Zui shangsheng lun 最上乘論 (“Treatise on the Highest Vehicle”), Hongren 弘忍, T 48.

CHAPTER 3

Patriarch Lineage of Chinese Chan School and the Indian Transmission of Dharma-Treasure Wang Bangwei 王邦維 1 According to the Dunhuang version of Platform Sutra, there were twenty-eight Indian patriarchs after Siddhartha Gautama, (not counting the Seven Past Buddhas): Mahākāśyapa (Dajiaye 大迦葉) Ānanda (Anan 阿難) Mādhyatika (Motiandi 末田地) Śāṇavāsin (Shangnahexiu 商那和修) Upagupta (Youpojuduo 優婆毱多) Dhītika (Tiduojia 提多迦) Buddhanandi (Fotuonanti 佛陀難提) Buddhamitra (Fotuomiduo 佛陀蜜多) Pārśva (Xiebiqiu 脅比丘) Puṇyayaśas (Funashe 富那奢) Aśvaghoṣa (Maming 馬鳴) Kapimala (Piluo zhangzhe 毗羅長者) Nāgājuna (Longshu 龍樹) Kāṇadeva (Jianatipo 迦那提婆) Rāhulabhadra (Luoholuo 羅睺羅) Saṃghanandi (Sengqienati 僧伽那提) Saṃghayathata (Sengqieyeshe 僧迦耶舍) Kumāralāta (Jiumoluotuo 鳩摩羅馱) Śayata (Sheyeduo 闍耶多) Vasubandhu (Poxiupanduo 婆修盤多) Manorata (Monaluo 摩拏羅) Haklenayaśa (Helena 鶴勒那) Siṃhabodhi (Shizi biqiu 師子比丘) Śāṇavāsin (Shenaposi 舍那婆斯)

©

5 | 

/

5

Patriarch Lineage of Chinese Chan School

53

Upagupta (Youpojue 優婆堀) Siṃhala (Sengqieluo 僧伽羅) Vasumitra (Xupomiduo 須婆蜜多) Bodhidharma (Putidamo)1 Those lineages in Chinese Chan literature following the Platform Sutra hardly differ in this basic account, and hence will not be listed in detail here. 2 Earlier researches have highlighted the part of the Indian patriarchs in the Chan lineage listed above. In fact, much was copied from the Damuoduoluo chanjing 達摩多羅禪經 and Fufazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳. The version of the lineage in Damuoduoluo chanjing was considerably simpler. Aside from Siddhartha Gautama, it included: Mahākāśyapa Ānanda Mādhyatika Śāṇavāsin (Shenaposi) Upagupta (Youpojue) Vasumitra (Poxumi 婆須蜜) Siṃhala (Sengqieluocha 僧伽羅叉) Dharmatrāta (Damoduoluo 達摩多羅) The lineage above was followed by the statement that “up to the respectable Puṇyamitra (Buruomiduoluo 不若蜜多羅), all those upheld the Dharma consecutively transmitted the lamp of wisdom.”2 The translator of Damuo­ duoluo chanjing was the Indian monk Buddhabhadra (Fotuobatuoluo 佛陀跋 陀羅) who came to China during the Eastern Jin Dynasty. In the preface to the Damuoduoluo chanjing, Huiyuan 慧遠 of the Eastern Jin explained that after Puṇyamitra there came Buddhasena (Fodaxian 佛大先). Huiyuan claimed that, “the current translation was written by Bodhidharma and Buddhasena.” Bodhidharma, Buddhasena, and Buddhabhadra were Sarvāstivādin monks. 1  The edition I use here is Yang Zenwen 楊曾文 (1993), Dunhuang xinben Tanjing 敦煌新本 壇經, Shanghai guji chubanshe, p. 66. 2  Fascicle 1, T 15: 301c. Here, “those who upheld the Dharma” refers to “dharmadhara” in Sanskrit.

54

Wang

Therefore, in terms of the content of the texts, the Damuoduoluo chanjing basically can be judged as a scripture of the Indian Sarvāstivādin. Compared with the lineage in the Platform Sutra, the Damuoduoluo chanjing must be one of the sources for the Platform Sutra, but not the whole. In fact, the first five patriarchs after Siddhartha Gautama were common accounts in Mahāyāna literature before the schism occurred. Similar accounts can often be found in other Mahāyāna literature. The Fufazang yinyuan zhuan lists twenty-four patriarchs: Mahākāśyapa (Mokejiaye 摩訶迦葉) Ānanda Mādhyatika (Motianti 摩田提) Śāṇavāsin Upagupta Dhītika Miśaka (Mizheqie 彌遮伽) Buddhanandi Buddhamitra Pārśva Puṇyayaśas Aśvaghoṣa Kapimala (Biluo 比羅) Nāgājuna Kāṇadeva Rāhulabhadra Saṃghanandi Saṃghayathata Kumāralāta Śayata Vasubandhu (Poxiupantuo 婆修盤陀) Manorata Haklenayaśa Siṃhabodhi3 From the beginning of his Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止觀, the Tiantai 天臺 Zhiyi 智顗 of the Sui Dynasty, completely and faithfully borrowed this lineage to be the foundation of the Tiantai orthodoxy known as “recorded by the golden 3  T 50: 297a–322a.

Patriarch Lineage of Chinese Chan School

55

mouth.”4 Chan Buddhism emerged after Tiantai, and Chan lineages appeared much later. Therefore, modern scholars have noted that the Indian part of the lineage in the Platform Sutra, and other Chan literature, followed the Tiantai account, resting on the lineage in the Fufazang yinyuan zhuan, with only minor additions or omissions. The alteration process is not complicated at all. If carefully ­comparing the order of the Indian patriarchs in the Platform Sutra with that in the Damuo­ duoluo chanjing and in the Fufazang yinyuan zhua, we can find that, regarding the twenty-eight patriarchs in the Platform Sutra, twenty-four of them were copied from the Fufazang yinyuan zhuan. However, among these twentyfour patriarchs, Miśaka, the one after Dhītika, was deleted (it is not clear why Miśaka was the only deleted name.) For the remaining twenty-three patriarchs, the Platform Sutra slightly changed the transliteration of the fifth to the eighth patriarchs in the Damuoduoluo chanjing, namely Śāṇavāsin, Upagupta, Vasumitra, Siṃhala, and Dharmatrāta. This means: Xupomiduo (Vasumitra) became Poxumi; Sengqieluocha (Siṃhala) became Sengqieluo; Dharmatrāta became Bodhidharma. These five were added after the twentythree patriarchs, and thereby a new lineage of twenty-eight patriarchs was established. However, although this new lineage appeared as simple and concise, it contained a problem—Shenaposi (Sāṇavāsin) was, in fact, Shangnahexiu, and Youpojue (Upagupta) was, in fact, Youbojuduo. These two important patriarchs actually appeared twice in different places with various transliterations, but the author of Platform Sutra did not recognize it; this tells us that this lineage was relatively rough in an earlier stage of its formation. Later, the author of the Baolin zhuan 寶林傳, Zhiju 智矩 discovered this problem and attempted to rectify it. To do this, Zhiju first replaced Śāṇavāsin (Shenaposi) with Vāsi-Asita (Poshesiduo 婆舍斯多), and then removed Mādhyatika, Upagupta, and Siṃhala. He also followed the Fufazang yinyuan zhuan to restore Miśaka. Additionally, he followed the order of Damuoduoluo chanjing to place Vasumitra as an earlier figure right after Miśaka. Finally, he added Puṇyamitra of the Damuoduoluo chanjing and put after him Prajñādhāra (Banruoduoluo 般若多羅). The final patriarch was Bodhidharma. In this way, the problem seemed to be solved, and the total number of patriarchs remained twenty-eight. After Zhiju, most Chan histories, such as Daoyuan’s 道元 Jingde chuandenglu 景德傳燈錄, followed this version of lineage. As for the Lidai fabao ji 歷代法寶記, because it was written before the Baolin zhuan, its lineage was similar to that in the Dunhuang version of Platform Sutra, and it explicitly stated that it followed the Fufazang yinyuan zhuan. However, the Lidai fabao 4  Vol. 1//T 46: 1a–b.

56

Wang

ji, at the very end of its lineage, mixed Bodhidharma with Dharmatrāta, and combined it as Bodhi-Dharmatrāta (Putidamoduoluo 菩提達摩多羅). This intention to blend these two patriarchs into Bodhi-Dharmatrāta is rather unthinkable in our eyes.5 Nevertheless, despite these variations, similar to the Tiantai School, the lineage of Indian patriarchs in the Fufazang yinyuan zhuan has been the main source for the Chan orthodoxy. Whether the Fufazang yinyuan zhuan was translated directly from the Indian text or edited by translators from all kinds of texts has long been an issue for dispute. It is likely that some parts were translated, while the rest was edited. In any case, it is unlikely that its lineage was fabricated by its editors or translators randomly; rather, it would probably have followed some sources. I will discuss this question later. 3 Among the Chinese Buddhist translations, “the Biography of King Aśoka” (Ayu wang zhuan 阿育王傳), translated by An Faqin 安法欽, was earlier than the occurrence of the Fufazang yinyuan zhuan, and it addressed a lineage as: Mahākāśyapa Ānanda Śāṇavāsin Upagupta Dhītika6 Nevertheless, in the chapter “Fodizi wuren chuanshou fazing yinyuan pin” 佛弟子五人傳授法藏因緣品, fascicle 7 of Ayu wang jing 阿育王經, which was said to be translated from the same text by Saṃhavarman 僧伽婆羅 in the Liang Dynasty, the account of the lineage is slightly different, adding Madhyatika into the middle of the lineage. The list is: Mahākāśyapa Ānanda Mādhyatika 5  T 15: 180a–b. Many scholars have discussed the relationship between the Indian patriarchs in Chan lineage and the Fufazang yinyuan zhuan, and maintained similar opinions. 6  Fascicle 6. T 50: 126b.

Patriarch Lineage of Chinese Chan School

57

Śāṇavāsi Upagupta (Xizhengke 郗征柯)7 Shenaposi (Śānavāsin) is Shangnahexiu. This list was almost identical to that of Damuoduoluo chanjing. Both end the lineage at King Aśoka. The Ayu wang zhuang and Ayu wang jin, in fact, belonged to the Buddhist literature of avadāna stories. The same manner of literature, such as Divyāvadāna, had a similar account.8 The Ayu wang zhuang, Ayu wang jin, and Divyāvadāna were usually considered as the Sarvāstivādin literature. Nonetheless, the Shelifo wenjing 舍利弗問經, translated anonymously in the Eastern Jin Dynasty, belonged to the Mahāsāṃghika School. It has the same account for the first five patriarchs: Mahākāśyapa Ānanda Mādhyatika Śāṇavāsin Upagupta9 The Xianyu jing 賢愚經 (Skt. Damamūka-nidāna-sūtra), edited and translated by Huijue 慧覺 of the Northern Wei Dynasty, was translated around the same time as the Fufazang yinyuan zhuan. Its thirteenth fascicle “Chapter of Upagupta” mentioned that Ānanda transmitted to Śāṇavāsin (耶貰革奇 Yieshijiu), who then transmitted to Upagupta.10 The twenty-fifth fascicle of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, translated in Liu Song, mentioned that the Buddha predicted that Upagupta “will be engaged in Buddhist affairs.”11 The second fascicle of the Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 (Skt. Puṇya-vibhaṅga), which was attached to an anonymous translation in the Eastern Han, mentioned Ānanda’s disciples Mādhyatika and Mahendra (Moshenti 摩呻提).12 The fortieth fascicle of Genben shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye zashi 根本說一切 有部毘奈耶雜事 (Skt. Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya Vinayakṣudrakavast), translated by Yijing 義淨 in the Tang, however, recorded a different lineage: 7  T 50: 162b. 8  Divyāvadāna, ed. by Cowel and Neil, Cambridge, 1886, pp. 348, 1. 27–364, 1.10. 9  T 24: 900a. 10  T 4: 422b–433c. 11  T 2: 37b. 12  T 25: 37b.

58

Wang

Mahākāśyapa Mahākāśyapa? (Dajianiebo 大迦攝波) Ānanda Śānaka (Shenuojia 奢搦迦) (Rizhong 日中) Upagupta (Wubojiduo 鄔波笈多) Dhitika (Didijia 地底迦) (Heise 黑色) Ajatasatru (Shanjian 善見)13 This account in the Mūlasarvāstivādin differed from the Sarvāstivādin’s account. This type of minor alteration is not unnatural. The ninth fascicle of the Genben shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye yaoshi 根本說一 切有部毘奈耶藥事 (Skt. Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya Bhaiṣajyavastu) did not give such a detailed account, but it also noted that the Buddha predicted that after Ānanda would come Mādhyatika, who would convert Jinmi 近密, and that Jinmi would be “engaged in the Buddhist affairs” and finally transmitted the Dharma to his successor. Jinmi should be Upagupta.14 In addition, the thirty-second fascicle of the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya (Mohe sengqi lü 摩訶僧祇 律), translated by Faxian 法顯 of Eastern Jin and Buddhabhadra, contained a “hearing the Dharma” lineage of twenty-seven patriarchs. Nevertheless, this account was even less credible; hence I will not discuss it here.15 However, a Chinese monk’s private commentary (Siji 私記), appendix to the Mohe sengqi lü, still referred to the same five patriarchs from Mahākāśyapa to Upagupta.16 4 Another version of lineage is from Sengyou’s 僧佑 Sapoduo shizi ji 薩婆多師 資記, collected in the twelfth fascicle of his Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏記集. In the preface, Sengyou claimed that this is the Sarvāstivādin lineage. Sengyou recorded two versions in this text. The first version is Sengyou’s own record, which might be oral description from monks who came to China from India and the Western Regions. There were fifty-three Indian patriarchs: 13  T 24: 411b–c. 14  T 24: 41c. Moreover, see Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. III, part 1, ed. by N. Dutt, Srinagar – Kashmir, 1942, Mūlasarvāstivādavinayavastu, Bhaiṣajyavastu, pp. xvii, 3–7. 15  T 22: 492c–493a. 16  T 22: 548b.

Patriarch Lineage of Chinese Chan School

Mahākāśyapa Ānanda Madhyatika Śāṇavāsin Upagupta Maitreya-datta-putra (Cishizi 慈世子) Katyayana (Jiazhanyan 迦旃延) Vasumitra Krishna (Jilisena 吉栗瑟那) Pārśva Aśvaghoṣa Kumāralāta Kapimala? (Weiluo 韋羅) Ghosa (Jusha 瞿沙) Pūrṇa (Fulouna 富樓那) (Houmaming 後馬鳴) Dharmatrāta Miśaka (Nantipoxiu 難提婆秀) Ghosaka (Banzheshiqi 般遮屍棄) Rāhula Mitrasri (Midilishili 彌帝利屍利) (Damoda 達磨達) Siṃhabodhi (Yintuoluomona 因陀羅摩那) (Juluojilipo 瞿羅忌梨婆) Vasura (Poxiuluo 婆秀羅) Siṃhala Upasanta (Youbotantuo 優波膻馱) (Ponanti 婆難提) (Naqienan 那伽難) Dharma-sresthin (Damoshilidi 達磨屍梨帝; Fasheng 法勝) Nāgājuna Kāṇadeva (Tipo 提婆) Deva Pala (Poluotipo 婆羅提婆) (Polotipo 破樓提婆) Vasuvanma (Poxiubamo 婆修跋摩) (Pilihuiduoluo 毗栗慧多羅) Kapimala (Pilo 毗樓)

59

60

Wang

(Pisheyanduoluo 毗闍延多羅) Maitreya (Modili 摩帝麗) Harivarman (Helibamu 訶梨跋暮) Vasubandhu (Poxiupantou 婆秀盤頭, 青目 Qingmu?) (Damodadi 達磨達帝) (Zhantuoluo 栴陀羅) (Lenaduoluo 勒那多羅) Bandhudatta (Pantodaduo 盤頭達多) Punyamitra(Foruomiduoluo 弗若蜜多羅) (Poluoduoluo 婆羅多羅) Punyatara (Buruoduoluo 不若多羅) Buddhasena (Fotuoxian 佛馱先) Dharmatrāta (Damoduoluo 達磨多羅) The second version was transmitted by Buddhabhadra (Fodabatuoluo 佛大 跋陀羅), who is also known as Fotuobatuoluo. As mentioned, he translated the Damuoduoluo chanjing. Buddhabhadra’s account is mostly identical, but included fifty-four names: Ānanda Madhyatika Śāṇavāsin Upagupta Katyayana Vasumitra Krishna (Jilisena) Pārśva Aśvaghoṣa Ghosaka (Jusha) Pūrṇa Dharmatrāta Miśaka (Nantipoxiu) Ghosaka (Jusha 巨沙) (Banzheshiqi) (Damofudi 達磨浮帝) Rāhula Mitrasri (Shadibeishili 沙帝貝屍利) Dharmaghosaka (Damojusha 達磨巨沙) Siṃhabodhi

Patriarch Lineage of Chinese Chan School

61

Dharmatrāta (Yintuoluomona) (Juluojili 瞿羅忌利) Kumāralāta (Jiumoluoda 鳩摩羅大) Samgharaksa (Zhonghu 眾護) Upasanta (Youbotanda 優波膻大) (Poponanti 婆婆難提) (Naqienanti 那伽難提) Dharma-sresthin (Ponanti) (Polouqiuti 破樓求提) (Poxiubamu 婆修跋慕) Punyamitra? (Biliseweimiduoluo 比栗瑟嵬彌多羅) Kapimala? (Bilo 比樓) (Bisheyanduoluo 比闍延多羅) Maitreya (Modilipiluo 摩帝戾披羅) Harivarman Vasubandhu (Boxiupantou 披(波?)秀盤頭) (Damohedi 達磨呵帝) (Zhantuoluo 旃陀羅) (Lenaduoluo) Bandhudatta (Pantodaluo 盤頭達羅) Punyatara? (Bufoduoluo 不弗多羅) (Fodashizhili 佛大屍致利) Buddhasiddha (Fotuoxida 佛馱悉達) The master provided the proof of heir but no name recorded. (Poluoduoluo) Buddhasena Dharmatrāta (Tanmoduoluo 曇摩多羅) Dharmasiddha (Damoxida 達磨悉大) Rāhula (Yeshe 耶舍) Saṁghabhūti (Sengqiefocheng 僧伽佛澄; 僧伽跋澄?) They were followed by six monks from India or Central Asia, who were regarded as Sarvāstivādin masters: Vimalākṣa (Beimoluohan 卑摩羅叉) Kumārajīva (Jiumoluoshe 鳩摩羅什) Dharmaruci (Tanmoliuzhi 曇摩流支)

62

Wang

Puṇyatāra (Foruoduoluo 弗若多羅) Gunavarman (Qiunabamo 求那跋摩) Buddhabhadra They were followed by twelve Chinese monks.17 If we compare the lists in the Damuoduoluo chanjing and the Fufazang yinyuan zhuan with this one in the Sapoduo bu shizi ji, it is clear that at least nineteen, or more, patriarchs are the same in the three texts. They are: Mahākāśyapa (Dajiaye, Mokejiaye) Ānanda (Anan) Mādhyatika (Motiandi, Motianti ) Śāṇavāsin (Shenaposi, Shangnahexiu) Upagupta (Youbojue 優波堀, Youbojuduo 優波毱多) Vasumitra (Poxumi) Pārśva (Xie 脅, Le 勒 Biqiu 比丘) Aśvaghoṣa (Maming) Kumāralāta (Jiumoluotuo) Miśaka (Mizheqie) Rāhulabhadra (Luohuoluo) Siṃhabodhi (Shizi 師子) Samgharaksa (Sengqieluocha, Zhonghu) Nāgājuna (Longshu) Kanadeva (Tipo, Jianatipo) Vasubandhu (Poxiupantou, Pixiupantou 披秀盤頭, Poxiupantuo) Punyamitra (Foruomiduoluo, Buruomiduoluo) Buddhasena (Fotuoxian, Fodaxian) Dharmatrāta (Damoduoluo) Comparing these patriarchs mentioned above with the twenty-eight or twentynine patriarchs in the Dunhuang version of Platform Sutra, it is evident that the names in the Sapoduo bu shizi ji became slightly different transliterations, with an expanded list of names, in later Chan transmission accounts: 17  T 55: 88c–90b. For Sengyou’s record and related questions, please see my article and its second appendix. (Bang-Wei Wang 王邦維 (1994), “Buddhist Nikāyas through Ancient Chinese Eyes,” in Untersuchungen zur buddhistischen Literatur, hrsg. von H. Bechert, Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 165–203.) It should be noted that the so-called lineage listed by Sengyou and Buddhabhadra were not necessarily in the successive relationship of masters and disciples.

Patriarch Lineage of Chinese Chan School

63

Mahākāśyapa (Dajiaye) Ānanda (Anan) Madhyatika (Motiandi) Śāṇavāsin (Shenaposi, Shangnahexiu) Upagupta (Youbojue, Youbojuduo) Miśaka (Mizheqie, Mizheqie 蜜遮伽) Vasumitra (Poxumi, Xupomiduo) Pārśva (Xiebiqiu) Aśvaghoṣa (Maming) Kapimala (Piluo 毗羅, Weiluo) Nāgājuna (Longshu) Kanadeva(Tipo, Jianatipo) Rāhulabhadra (Luohuoluo) Kumāralāta (Jiumoluotuo, Jiumoluoda, Jiumoluoduo 鳩摩羅多) Vasubandhu (Poxiupanduo, Poxiupantou 婆修盤頭, Pixiupantou) Siṃhabodhi (Shizi) Śāṇavāsin (Shenaposi) Upagupta (Youbojue, Youbojue 憂婆掘) Samgharaksa (Sengqieluo, Sengqieluocha, Zhonghu) Vasumitra (Xupomiduo, Poxumi) Bodhidharma (Putidamo, Putidamoduoluo, Damoduoluo) The Fufazang yinyuan zhuan only concerns the history of early Indian Buddhism. As far as the schism of Indian Buddhist schools is concerned, whether this text was translated from Sanskrit or fabricated in China, it is certain that it has its closest connection to the Sarvāstivādin. Since the basic account of Indian patriarchs in the Chan and the Tiantai Schools were derived from the Fufazang yinyuan zhuan, they were drawn from the Sarvāstivādin patriarchs. 5 The above is totally based on the Mahāyāna Buddhist literature. However, in the Pali Canon, there are two versions of lineage: one was that of Vinaya, and the other of Abhidharma—both of them only recorded up to Aśoka. In what follows, I cite them for comparison. The first kind is a list of Vinayapāmokkha (lüzhu 律主) from the section of “Parivàra” ( fusui 附隨) of the Pali Vinaya. The patriarchs listed were:

64

Wang

Upāli Dāsaka Sonaka Siggva Moggaliputtatissa Mahinda (Mahendra)18 The Chinese translation of Samantapāsādikā (Shanjian lü piposha 善見律毗 婆沙) belongs to the system of Theravāda Buddhism. A passage in the first fascicle is in accordance with the Vinaya version just mentioned. The Chinese transliteration is as follows: Youboli 優波離 (Upāli) Daxiangju 大象拘 (Dāsaka) Sunaju 蘇那拘 (Sonaka) Xiqiefou 悉伽符 (Siggva) Muqianlianzidixu 目揵連子帝須 (Moggaliputtatissa) Moshentuo 摩哂陀 (Mahinda)19 The second kind is a list of abhidhammācariya (lun shi 論師) from Buddhaghosa’s 佛音, a famous fifth century Sri Lankan Buddhist scholar, Atthasālinī: Sāriputta Bhaddaji Sobhita Piyajāli Piyapāla Piyadassin Kosiyaputta Siggava Sandehe Moggaliputta Visudatta Dhammiya 18  Vinaya pitaka, ed. by H. Oldenberg, Vol. V, PTS, 1883, pp. 2–3; See also Dīpavamsa, ed. by H. Oldenberg, PTS, 1879, IV, 27–46, V, 89–96; Mahāvamsa, ed. by W. Geiger, PTS, 1908, V, 95–153. 19  T 24: 677b.

Patriarch Lineage of Chinese Chan School

65

Dāsaka Sonaka Revata (All of the above were Indian patriarchs) Mahinda Ittiya Uttiya Bhaddanāma Sambala (The above ones were Sri Lankan patriarchs)20 Mahinda was originally an Indian, bringing Buddhism to Sri Lanka. He bridged his predecessors and followers; his status in Sri Lanka is similar to the first Chan patriarch, Bodhidharma, in China. Between these two kinds of transmission, the first one must be earlier than the second one.21 In the Pali canon, there is no direct mention of the transmission of “dharma-treasure.” It seems the Theravāda system mixes the transmission of Vinaya with that of Dharma, which was probably due to the Theravāda tendency to emphasize vinayas. 6 In fact, in the history of Indian Buddhism, there was originally no statement regarding the “transmission of dharma-treasure.” Those earlier Buddhist sutras, preserved in a more primitive manner, had no mention that the Buddha entrusted dharma-treasure to any specific disciple before dying. For example, the third fascicle of the Chang ahan jing 長阿含經, the Youxing jing 遊行經, stated that the Buddha’s four great teachings addressed in his last breath are: “Follow sutras, follow vinayas, follow Dharma, but do not follow people.”22 This is in accordance with the Dīgha Nikāya.23 Moreover, as noted in the thirty-seventh fascicle of Genben shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye zashi, the section about Buddha’s entering nirvana: 20  Atthasālinī, ed. by E. Müller, PTS, 1897, p. 32. 21  Among these twenty patriarchs, Siggava, Moggaliputta, Dàsaka, Sonaka, and Mahinda were vinayapāmokkha as well. 22  The Chinese original: 依經，依律，依法，而不依人. T 1: 17b–18a. The first fascicle of the Foban nihuan jing 佛般泥洹經 is the same as the first fascicle of the Ban nihuan jing 般泥洹經. T1: 167a–b, 182c–183a. 23  Mahāparinibbānasuttanta, 2.25, Dīgha Nikāya, ed. by Rhys Davids and Carpenter, Vol. 2, PTS, 1903, pp. 100, 154.

66

Wang

At that time, Buddha told Ānanda: As such, you shall understand, that there are true and false teachings. From now own, you shall follow the teachings of sutras, not of persons.24 Therefore, after Buddha’s nirvana, even though the group of his disciples led by Mahākāśyapa had transmitted Buddhism down, there was no single ‘legitimate’ successor; subsequently, Buddhism split into different groups, holding different views; this is known as the Buddhist schism. With the wider spread of Buddhism, and the greater disunion among schools, many sects gradually devised either complete or incomplete, true or false, accounts of the “transmission of dharma-treasure” in order to prove their legitimacy, and, hence to elevate their status. Sarvāstivādin is perhaps the most representative one; a great amount of proof can be found in relevant textual evidence. 7 From the above comparisons, we can draw the conclusion that most part of the lineage of Indian patriarchs in Chinese Chan transmission was associated to the Sarvāstivādin. This is not unreasonable, as from the first two centuries to the seventh and eighth, the Sarvāstivādin had been the most widespread and influential Buddhist school in Northeast India and Central Asia. Its lineage, whether historical or legendary, (or a mixture of both), being widely circulated in China, was eventually accepted by Chinese monks. Finally, in summary, as far as the formality is concerned, lineage system of the Chan School—or broadly speaking, most Buddhist schools from the SuiTang Dynasties onwards—can be regarded as an imitation and development of Indian tradition, since the contents of the Indian patriarchs were mostly copied from the accounts of Indian Sarvāstivādin. The lineage system, it would appear, gradually took its shape within Buddhist sects after the Buddha died and the schism began. The patriarchal lineage differed from sect to sect, and, within each sect, the transmitting system varied in time. This situation in India resembled early Chan history. (Originally published in Xueren 學人, (1996), Vol. 10. Nanjing: Jiangsu Yiwen Chubanshe, pp. 351–365. This version has been slightly modified.)

24  The Chinese original: 爾時世尊告阿難曰：如是應知，教有真偽。始從今日，當 依經教，不依於人。T 24: 389b.

Patriarch Lineage of Chinese Chan School

67

Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title



Secondary Sources

Atthasālinī, ed. by E. Müller, London: Pali Text Society, 1897. Ayu wang zhuan 阿育王傳, trans. by An Faqin 安法欽, T 50. Chang ahan jing 長阿含經, T 1. Damuoduoluo chanjing 達摩多羅禪經, T 15. Dīpavamsa, ed. by H. Oldenberg, London: Pali Text Society, 1879. Divyāvadāna, ed. by Cowel and Neil, Cambridge, 1886. Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論, T 25. Genben shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye yaoshi 根本說一切有部毘奈耶藥事 (Skt. Mūlasar­ vāstivāda-vinaya Bhaiṣajyavastu), T 24. Genben shuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye zashi 根本說一切有部毘奈耶雜事 (Skt. Mūlasar­ vāstivāda-vinaya Vinayakṣudrakavast), trans. by Yijing 義淨, T 24. Mahāparinibbānasuttanta, 2.25, Dīgha Nikāya, ed. by Rhys Davids and Carpenter, Vol. 2, London: Pali Text Society, 1903. Mahāvamsa, ed. by Wilhelm Geiger, London: Pali Text Society, 1908. Mohe sengqi lü 摩訶僧祇律 (Skt. Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya), trans. by Faxian 法顯, T 22. Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止觀, Zhiyi 智顗, T 46. Mūlasarvāstivādavinayavastu, Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. iii, ed. by N. Dutt, Srinagar 1942. Shanjian lü piposha 善見律毗婆沙 (Skt. Samantapāsādikā), T 24. Shelifo wenjing 舍利弗問經, T 24. Vinaya pitaka, ed. by H. Oldenberg, London: Pali Text Society, 1883. Xianyü jing 賢愚經 (Skt. Damamūka-nidāna-sūtra), trans. by Huijue 慧覺, T 4. Za ahan jing 雜阿含經, (Skt. Saṃyutta Nikāya), T 2.

Wang Bangwei 王邦維 (1994), “Buddhist Nikāyas through Ancient Chinese Eyes,” in Untersuchungen zur buddhistischen Literatur, hrsg. von H. Bechert, Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 165–203. Yang Zengwen 楊曾文 (1993), Dunhuang xinben tanjing 敦煌新本壇經, Shanghai guji chubanshe.

CHAPTER 4

On Hu Shih’s Study of Chan History Lou Yulie 樓宇烈 1 Hu’s study on Chan history was a section of his study on the history of Chinese philosophy. He considered Buddhism—predominantly Chan Buddhism—was an integral chapter in the history of Chinese philosophy. For instance, he wrote, in the introduction of the Zhongguo zhexueshi dagang 中國哲學史大綱: In the second period of the middle ages, Indian philosophy was the most prosperous philosophy in China—a period of hundreds of years, from the Eastern Jin Dynasty to the Northern Song Dynasty. Indian scriptures were introduced into China in succession. Indian cosmology, philosophy, epistemology, logics, and religious philosophy were spectacularly distinct from the philosophy of ancient China—at that time, eminent Chinese thinkers, such as Zhiyi 智顗, Xuanzang 玄奘, Zongmi 宗密, and Quiji 窺基, explored and unraveled Indian philosophy with undivided attention (other Chinese thinkers such as Wang Tong 王通, Han Yu 韓愈 and Li Ao 李翱 were characters below those in the former category, because their theories were superficial and shallow, and lacked incisive and original perspectives on the new Indian material). Due to the freshness of the perspectives offered by, Indian philosophy, it became the main intellectual body during this period. He also wrote: Indian philosophy has become part of Chinese thought, ever since the Tang Dynasty. . . . Indian philosophy has arrived in China, and the two are merging, in fact, it could be said, digesting together—the new materials integrate with inherent Chinese thought (i.e., contemporary Chinese philosophy). . . . Truth be told, the philosophy in the Song and Ming Dynasties, whether those influenced by the tradition of Cheng Yi 程頤, Cheng Hao 程顥, or Zhu Xi 朱熹, or another tradition of Lu Xiangshan 陸象山 or Wang Yangming 王陽明, were actually affected by Indian philosophy, in spite of their denial of relationships with Chan in appearance. ©

5 | 

/

On Hu Shih ’ s Study of Chan History

69

At the same time, Hu paid attention to the reasons as to why Buddhism spread and flourished in China, and, consequently, Buddhist influences on social practices, rituals, and ethics. For example, he wrote on this subject in his reflections on Mu Xiu’s 穆修 Essay Collections from the Song Dynasty, 6 July 1921. He particularly admired a piece named Caizhou Kaiwusi fotaji 蔡州開無寺佛 塔記, valuing its contents, which discussed the spread of Buddhism, and its social influence. He referred to many specific sections of this article, and scribed the following comment: The main theme of this article is that “Buddhism provides people with guidance based on their dislikes and desires. Buddhism spread across China because it could inspire mundane people to persistently follow the order.” This point is quite fair. He said, “had Yu, Tang, King Wen of Zhou, King Wu of Zhou, Duke of Zhou, and Confucius attempted to deal with the theories concerning life and death, good and bad fortune, their followers would have had had no problems following the theories of the six sages. However, since they did not deal with these themes, and Buddhism was the only one that did, how could people not follow Buddhism to pursue the meanings of these ideas?” These concepts are what Han Yü neglected to mention. He also wrote, “with the introduction of Buddhism, many people behaved well, without needing to treat each other with manners or justice—instead, Buddhism was ideal for guiding people into goodness. Alas, with powerless manners and justice, our people all believed in Buddhism, and therefore led to the prosperity of Buddhism at that time.” This is a fair evaluation. He goes on to say, “in fact, building pagodas or temples was the last thing necessary to worship Buddhism. However, nothing else could equal these gorgeous and eminent pagodas or temples, which are so admirable. As a result, there must be Buddhist pagodas or temples located in remote places, and at the origins of rivers, for people to look up to.” Such a statement is also incisive.1 Here we do not judge whether Mu’s or Hu’s comments on Buddhism are correct or otherwise, but Hu’s interests in Buddhist history is beyond doubt. As a result, Hu commenced studying the history of Buddhist Chan after he completed the Zhongguo zhexueshi dagang (the first volume, 1918). 1  Hu Shih, Hu Shih de riji 胡適的日記, (The Diary of Hu Shih), the first volume (Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1985), p. 128.

70

Lou

The first period of Hu’s study on Chan history was from the early 1920s to 1935. His first article about Chan Buddhism was published in January 1925, entitled Cong yiben li yanjiu Fojiao de chanfa 從譯本裡研究佛教的禪法. However, we know that he discussed Buddhism in lectures on Chinese philosophy history during September and October 1921 in his diary.2 He also taught Fojiao lueshi 佛教略史 and Chan Buddhism in June 1922.3 He also wrote the following in his diary, 2nd March 1922: I plan to re-edit the Zhonggu zhexue shi 中古哲學史, and divide it into two parts and six chapters: Part I: The Han, Wei, and Jin Dynasties Chapter 1: The Establishment of Daoism Chapter 2: The Establishment of New Confucianism Chapter 3: The Development of Naturalism Part II: The Six Dynasties and the Tang Dynasty (Period of Indianization) Chapter 1: The Period of Importation Chapter 2: The Period of Division Chapter 3: The Period of Revolution4 In addition, we also see that Hu had studied a number of Buddhist scriptures and Chan scriptures in-depth around this time, judging from his handwritten

2  Hu Shih de riji: “28.9.1921 (W) lecture, . . . The history of Chinese philosophy on the first period of Buddhism,” p. 230; “29.9.1921 (Th) lecture, The history of Chinese philosophy on the first and the second period of Buddhism,” p. 231; “5.10.1921(W) lecture, . . . The history of Chinese philosophy on the second period of Buddhism,” p. 235; “6.10.1921(Th) The history of Chinese philosophy on the third period of Buddhism, the end,” p. 266 (Zhonghua shuju, 1985). 3  Hu Shih de riji: “2.6.1922(F) morning, lecture, General history of Buddhism,” p. 366; “9.6. 1922(F) seven o’clock, lecture, . . . The history of the middle ages on the Hinayana schools,” p. 375; “17.6.1922(Sat) lecture, On the Mahayana recession,” p. 382; “23.6.1922 (F) lecture, . . . The history of the middle ages on the Chan, end,” p. 384 (Zhonghua shuju 1985). 4  His manuscript, Zhonggu sixiang xiaoshi 中古思想小史 (used in the lectures at the Beijing University from 1931 to 1932), was written according to this outline. There were five lectures on Buddhism, including the eighth lecture: Buddhism (Introduction of the origin and its historical survey), the ninth lecture: the period of introduction of Buddhism, the tenth lecture: the evolution of Buddhism in China, the eleventh lecture: How did Indian Buddhism turn into the Chinese Chan, and the eleventh lecture: the final period of Chan Buddhism.” (Zhonggu sixiang xiaoshi, printed by Hu Shih Memorial Hall, Taiwan) (Hu Shih, Hu Shih de riji, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985 Edition).

On Hu Shih ’ s Study of Chan History

71

notes in his own books. For example, on the book cover of his own Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra Sūtra,5 he composed two passages as colophon: This is a ridiculous novel! How could some people venerate it as a classic. Isn’t it strange? Shih, 12.9.1920. The colophon I wrote four years ago was wrong—this book has only endured the years because of its literary style. It lasts long with great effects due to its simple arguments. The glamour of the Lotus Sūtra and the Vimalakīrti Sūtra cannot be ignored. Shih, 14th January 1929. Also, he wrote two paragraphs of colophon on the cover of Damo chanjing 達摩禪經: This is an apocrypha. Shih, 13th March 1918. This is not an apocrypha. My previous note was too arbitrary. This was previously the Xiuxing fangbian lun 修行方便論, but its name is changed into the Damo chan jing in present use, which leads to misunderstanding. Shih, 3rd March 1914. From these colophons, we can observe that Hu’s understanding of Buddhist scriptures changed substantially after his continuous research. Likewise, at the ending of the article Cong yiben li yanjiu Fojiao de chanfa, Hu Shih quoted a story of a cat catching a mouse, which was originally told by Huitang Zuxin 晦堂祖心 to Caotang Chuyuan 草堂處元 in the Zongmen wuku 宗門武庫, which was edited by Daoqian 道謙 in the Song Dynasty. He compared this story with another tale, one of a bowl-holding minister, written in the Xiuxing daodi jing 修行道地經. Both stories concerned the effects of concentration with no distraction. Hu handwrote a concise note regarding this story in the Zongmen wuku, “this is methodology.” In the same book, he wrote again, in two places, “this is methodology.”—it is evident thus that Hu Shih put significant emphasis on Chan methodology. A famous monk, Fayan 法演, of the Wuzu Temple, in the Song Dynasty, told an intriguing story about a thief who taught his son the way to earning his living. Hu Shih quoted the story, and compared it with the story of the bowl-holding minister, in order to distinguish Indian Chan from Chinese Chan, and their respective characteristics.6 5  This chapter quoted the books collected by Hu Shih and these books are now in the library of Beijing University. 6  See the draft of the speech Zhongguo Chanxue de fazhan 中國禪學的發展, in Yanagida Seizan 柳田聖山, ed., Hu Shih chanxue an 胡適禪學案. Taipei: Zhongzheng shuju, 1975.

72

Lou

Furthermore, Hu wrote a colophon at the end of the Da Shuzong xinyao famen 答順宗心要法門, written by Chengguan 澄觀 of the Huayan School in the Tang Dynasty: “This essay has integrated Indian and Chinese Buddhism. At the time of Monk Zongmi, the trend became even more obvious. Shi.” In the summer of 1927, he edited the Caoxi dashi biezhuan 曹溪大師 別傳, originally collected in the Xuzang jing 續藏經, resulting in around twenty notes, both long and short. He wrote a colophon at the end of book— “I finished editing it on 1st August 1927. Doing this relieved me from the heat in such a hot summer.” In 1929, he edited the Platform Sūtra of Zongbao 宗寶 Edition. He wrote a colophon: “this text has 107 pages in 54 sheets. The Platform Sūtra of the Tang Edition was 45 pages less than this one, about 42 percent less. Hu Shih, 18th September 1929.” In January 1930, he applied the results from this work into his article “Tanjing kao zhiyi (Ba Caoxi dashi biezhuan” 壇經考 之一—跋曹溪大師別傳. There are numerous colophons and head notes as such, and therefore I cannot list them one by one. However, we can ascertain that Hu Shih had studied a vast number of Buddhist scriptures in order to write the Chan history.7 At the same time, he had also adopted historical research methods to begin new investigations into the study of Chan history, treating Western philosophy as “the materials for reference” (citation from the preface of Zhongguo zhexue shi dagang). In 1930, in the preface of Shenhui heshang yiji 神會和尚遺集, Hu Shih noted that he attempted to write Zhongguo Chanxue shigao 中國禪學史稿 in 1924, but had to stop at the section regarding Shenhui, due to numerous points that he regarded suspicious and and/or dubious (he also referred to this in his oral autography during his later years). The detail of this manuscript is not available, however, we can infer that the aforementioned Cong yiben li yanjiu Fojiao de chanfa and Putidamo kao 菩提達摩考, both published in 1927, as well as Chanxue gushi kao 禪學古史考 in 1928, were part of Zhongguo Chanxue shigao.

7  Another example is in Hu Shih de riji, 15.6.1922—“I read Farguhar’s Outline of Religious Literature in India, but haven’t finished yet. This book is quite good, especially in the section on The Lotus Sūtra. I did not pay much attention to the contents after the chapter Wubai dizi shouji pin 五百弟子受記 because I thought that they were added in later times. Farguhar pointed out that chapter 21 to chapter 26 were added in the third century. He also pointed out that there were other beliefs could be seen including (1) The belief of Dhāraṇī; (2) The belief of Guanyin; (3) Extreme practices, such as burning fingers or body (Chapter on the King of Medicine, 藥王品). These are what I couldn’t identify.” Zhonghua shuju, pp. 379–380.

On Hu Shih ’ s Study of Chan History

73

In 1926, Hu Shih began to revise his Zhongguo Chanxue shigao, whenever he discovered important information regarding Monk Shenhui (and others) in the Dunhuang dossiers in London and Paris. We know that, in a letter he wrote to Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 in 1928, he wrote, “I did not finish the draft on Chan history and it has to be revised. I intend to revise it this summer when the weather cools down” (Hu Shih wencun 胡適文存, Vol. 3, No. 4). Unfortunately, he never finished this draft on Chan history, however, much of its content can be recovered from the following four documents—the thirteen outlines listed in the book from Tang Yongtong; his English article “Development of the Chan Buddhism in China,” published in 1932; the syllabus of “Zhonggu sixiang xiaoshi,” given during 1931 and 1932; the four speeches delivered at Beijing Normal University on the development of Chan Buddhism in China. Additionally, Hu published Bai Jüyi shidai de Chanzong shixi 白居易時代的 禪宗世系 in 1928, Tanjing kao zhiyi (Ba Caoxi dashi biezhuan) and Heze dashi Shenhui zhuan 荷澤大師神會傳 in 1930, Lengqie shiziji xu 楞伽師資記序 in 1931, Ba Riben Jingdu Juechuan Xingshengsi cang Beisong Huixinben Tangjing yingyinben (Tangjing kao zhi’er), 跋日本京都堀川興聖寺藏北宋惠昕本壇 經影印本—壇經考之二 in 1934, and Lengqie zong kao 楞伽宗考 in 1935, as well as many others. These articles were written to revise his work on Chan history after he received two important new sources of material—the Dunhuang manuscripts, and new historical materials from Japan. After these publications, Hu Shih suspended his study of Chan History for an entire seventeen years—he finally resumed in 1952, and wrote two articles, including Zhuzi lun Chanjia de fangfa 朱子論禪家的方法 and Liuzu Tanjing yuanzuo Tangjing kao 六祖壇經原作檀經考. The second period of his study of Chan history was from 1952 until his death in 1962. During this period, he revised and replenished Shenhui heshang yiji by using newly-found information from the Dunhuang manuscripts, and he also wrote several articles regarding the early Chan history according to various historical literature and inscriptions. As a rough statistic, he wrote more than forty articles concerened with Chan history within a decade (including all longer and shorter ones), among which only a small portion were published in his lifetime, leaving the rest as unpublished manuscripts.8 Hu’s study on Chan history in this period focused on historical material investigation—he continued to complement, deepen, and correct his research findings from the first period. Some of them contained substantial insights and alternate perspectives, but his fundamental 8  These manuscripts were included in the seventh to the tenth volume of Hu Shih shougao 胡適手稿, published by the Hu Shih Memorial Hall (Hu Shi jinian guan, 胡適紀念館) in Taiwan, 1970.

74

Lou

viewpoint remained the same. For example, he gave a speech with the topic “Chanzong shi de yige xin kanfa” 禪宗史的一個新看法 at Cai Yuanpei’s 蔡元 培 eighty-fourth birthday commemoration in 1953, yet its basic viewpoints and contents were barely different with his earlier speech at the Beijing Normal University decades prior (which shows, at the very least, consistency). 2 Hu’s study of Chan history focuses on historical material investigation from the early Chan history, with Shenhui at the center. In fact, it seriously lacked thorough analysis and research, which undermines its academic value. It would appear that many people held the same opinion—in fact, in the mid 1950s, a movement known as “Criticism of Hu Shih’s thinking” was founded. However, at that time, the so-called academic criticisms and evaluations simply took non-scientific approaches in order to negate his works—his achievements and methods in the study of Chan history were simply denied without a systematic analysis, which was unfair and unpractical. Having said that, it could easily be argued that these critics were merely taking advantage of the fact that, Hu Shih’s studies of early Chan history had a tendency to overgeneralize and, thus, occasionally reach arbitrary conclusions—for example, his assertion that the author of The Platform Sūtra was Shenhui. However, Hu Shih was important for a variety of reasons, not least of which being the fact that he was the first person who conducted Chan history study from the position of a non-believer, with a then-contemporary perspective of the history of thought, applying research methods of Chinese historiography.9 Due to this 9  Hu Shih was critical of religions, including Buddhism. He fiercely criticized it in his oral autobiography—“I thought that the dissemination of Buddhism in China from the East Han Dynasty to the Northern Song Dynasty, for a period of almost a millennium, was harmful and profitless for Chinese people. Its damage is profound,” “indeed, it is unfortunate for Chinese cultural development.” He eventually said that “I must admit that I do not have any good impression of Buddhism, whether in its religion or philosophy.” He also said that his study of the Chan history is a kind of “muckraking,” aiming at exposing the garbage from the Chinese culture (see his English oral description, Autobiography of Hu Shih 胡適的 自傳, Tang Degang 唐德剛, ed. ). Also, at a speech in the Beijing Normal University, Hu Shih said that, “Many Buddhist masters had forged the materials of Chan Buddhism, and many of them were unhappy after I exposed their behavior. However, I do not believe in any religion and I only tell the truth from the perspective of a historian and a research attitude.” In 1961, in his letter to Yanagida Seizan, he wrote, “You may be a Buddhist and a Chan Buddhist, but I am simply a “disciple” of Chinese intellectual history. I do not believe in any religion.

On Hu Shih ’ s Study of Chan History

75

­ niqueness, his research findings were highly significant for the clarification of u facts regarding the early Chan history. As an example of this, I would like to discuss details regarding Hu Shih’s works on the early Chan history, and provide my own evaluations of them. A Excavation of New Historical Materials of Chan History For many years, scholars have relied on the “lamp histories” to study the development of Chan history. It is generally accepted that the Fifth Patriarch Hongren 弘忍 secretly transmitted the lineage to the Sixth Patriarch Huineng, and, later, to the branches of masters Nanyue 南嶽 and Qingyuan 青原, which succeeded Huineng’s teachings; this tradition then developed into the Five Houses of Chan (Guiyang 溈仰, Linji 臨濟, Caodong曹洞, Yunmen 雲門 and Fayan 法眼). During the Song Dynasty, Linji divided into two sects named Yangqi 楊歧 and Huanglong 黃龍—these are the so-called Five Houses and Seven Sects transmission of lamp pedigree. During his studies of Chan history, Hu Shih revealed many suspicious accounts about Huineng and Shenhui, and these doubts caused him to stop writing, and instead turn to the textual research on the early Chan historical materials, and his first task was to seek the lost historical materials of Chan from the then-newly discovered Dunhuang manuscripts. In 1926, he found a collection of important early historical materials of Chan from these manuscripts in London and Paris. The most important ones include Shenhui yulu 神會語錄, Shenhui’s Dunwu wusheng banrou song 頓悟無生般 若訟 (also known as Xianzong ji 顯宗記), Putidamo Nanzong ding shifei lun 菩提達摩南宗定是非論, and Jingjue’s 淨覺 Lengqie shiziji 楞伽師資記. In April 1927, Hu Shih stayed briefly in Tokyo on his way back to China, where he met Japanese Buddhologists, including Takakusu Junjiro 高楠順次郎, Tokiwa Daijo 長盤大定, and Yabuki Keiki 矢吹慶輝. By speaking to these academics, he discovered that Yabuki Keiki had copied passages from The Platform Sūtra from the Dunhuang manuscripts—specifically, in 1930, he edited the materials concerning Shenhui that he found in these manuscripts and published it as Shenhui heshang yiji. In addition, later, a new edition of Lengqie shiziji was published by Korean Buddhologist Kim Kuro 金九經 between 1931 and 1932. The discovery and publication of these early Chan texts attracted considerable attention in circles of Japanese scholars of Chinese Chan history, and had significant effects and impacts. Firstly, Hu published a book review of Therefore, some of my views cannot be congruent with yours” (see Yanagida Seizan, ed., Hu Shih Chanxue an). There are similar disagreements and controversies between Hu Shih and Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki 鈴木大拙, a famous Japanese scholar of Chan history.

76

Lou

D.T. Suzuki’s Essays in Zen Buddhism in The Thames, in which he noted that Suzuki failed to take the Dunhuang manuscripts into account. This article inspired Suzuki—he later recalled: “The supplementary of the Thames, Weekly Review, published Hu’s review of the first volume of my Essays in Zen Buddhism which was published in London. I had never heard of the materials from Dunhuang, hence I restrained my understanding of the historical view in the early Chan of Tang Dynasty to those who transmitted Buddhism from abroad. Therefore, I was extremely surprised at that time, because no one else in Britain could have offered such a criticism, and thereby I became determined to look into the Dunhuang manuscripts.”10 Around the same time, Hu Shih also paid close attention to the early materials of Chan preserved in China—for instance, he discovered the importance of the Caoxi dashi biezhuan and wrote the article, “Tanjing kao zhiyi” 壇經考 之一, which clarified the evolution of the Platform Sūtra. Not long after that, in Japan, another Dunhuang version of Shenhui yulu (Mitsuo Ishii’s 石井光 雄 copy), and the Platform Sūtra (Huixin 惠昕 Edition) in Kōshōji, Horikawa, Kyoto, were discovered. Daisetsu Teitaro Suzuki edited the Dunhuang version of Platform Sūtra and Shenhui yülu (Ishii Edition) according to the Hiuxin Edition and Hu Shih edition respectively. He also proofread the Platform Sūtra (Huixin Edition) and this was published in 1935. Later, scholars in China and Japan continuously excavated, re-categorized, and published new materials regarding Chan, and these publications provided ample resources for further research on the early Chan history, and opened up a new stage of historical exploration. Due to this development, in hindsight, we can clearly see that the merit of Hu’s arduous efforts in excavating new materials of Chan history cannot be denied.11

10  Quoted from Yanagida Seizan, Hu Shih boshi yü Zhongguo chuqi Chanzong shi zhi yanjiu 胡適博士與中國初期禪宗史之研究, (Ko Teki hakase to Chūgoku shoki zenshūshi no kenkyū), in Yanagida Seizan, ed., Hu Shih Chanxue an. 11  Hu Shih highly valued the discovery of the historical materials of Chan in his old age. He published Xin jiaoding de Dunhuang xieben Shenhui heshang yizhu liangzhong 新校定的 敦煌寫本神會和尚遺著兩種 in 1958, and Shenhui heshang yülu de disange Dunhuang xieben (Nanyang heshang wenda zazhengyi, Liu Cheng ji) 神會和尚語錄的第三個敦煌 寫本〈南陽和尚問答雜征議〉 ，劉澄集 in 1960. Based on the same group of sources in the aforementioned article, he conducted another thorough investigation so as to identify even more materials concerning early Chan that circulated in Japan. Similar suggestions from him are in “An appeal for a systematic search in Japan for Long-Hidden Tang Dynasty Source-Materials of the Early History of Zen Buddhism.” (1960, Hu Shih Chanxue an).

On Hu Shih ’ s Study of Chan History

77

B Discovery of the History of Monk Shenhui According to traditional lamp histories of Chan, Shenhui was merely an apprentice in Huineng’s old age, and lacked historical significance. Hu Shih wrote the Heze dashi Shenhui zhuan according to the biography of Shenhui recorded by Zongmi’s Yunajue jing dashu chao 圓覺經大疏鈔, Lueshu chao 略疏鈔, Zhonghua chuan xindi Chanmen shizi chengxi tu 中華傳心地禪門 師資承襲圖, as well as the Putidamo Nanzong ding shifei lun from Dunhuang. At the very end of his study on the Heze dashi Shenhui zhuan, Hu Shih wrote the following: “Shenhui, the author of the Platform Sūtra, was the pioneer of Southern School, the destroyer of Northern School, and the founder of new Chan Buddhism. In the history of Chinese Buddhism, no one else could have had such a tremendous achievement and profound impact.” The above paragraph, filled with strong emotions, was overrated and arbitrary, and led to frequent criticisms from scholars of Chan history against Hu Shih. However, we cannot deny his contribution to the early Chan studies, for he strongly noted the significant role of Shenhui in establishing the Southern School, which had previously never been suggested. Hu’s study of Shehui discovered important historical facts, for example: 1. Huineng, while he was alive, was nothing more than a master in southern China; in contrast, Shenxiu, the leader of the Northern School, was “the leading Buddhist monk in the two capitals, and the Imperial Preceptor for three emperors.” Additionally, according to Zongmi, “after the death of Huineng, the Southern School declined in the area of Jingwu 荊吳, while the Northern School, Shenxiu’s community, prospered in the area of Qinluo 秦洛” (Yuanjue jing dashu chao, Fascicle 3). In other words, during the two decades after Huineng’s death, the Northern School that emphasized the approach of gradual enlightenment became far more influential than the Southern School. At that time, Shenxiu’s senior disciple, Puji, even claimed himself the Seventh Patriarch, and esteemed Shenxiu as the Sixth Patriarch. The status of Huineng was not noticeably high in the Chan School, however, the Chan lamp histories which came down the generations appeared to contradict these historical facts. This is extremely significant, since, most academics would agree that these lamp histories are pseudo-histories at best; historical accounts which can easily distort historical facts. 2. Huineng’s approach of sudden enlightenment was gradually accepted by monks and laity, as Shenhui strived in debating with others for numerous times (Putidamo Nanzong ding shifei lun was a record of a famous debate of this kind), and he thereby established the status of Huineng in society. In these debates, Shenhui fiercely attacked the Northern School’s approach of gradual

78

Lou

e­ nlightenment, which was represented by Shenxiu and Puji. He denied the orthodoxy of the Northern School, claiming that it opposed gradual enlightenment. He even claimed that the well-known Master Puji, and his Northern School, was different from the Southern School (which refers to the School transmitted from Bodhidharma). In other words, the Northern School, led by Shenxiu and Puji, violated the Bodhidharma’s original teachings. At the same time, he claimed that the Six Patriarchs of the Southern School (from Bodhidharma to Huineng), advocated the saying “straight and direct, penetrating and seeing through one’s nature, without mentioning gradation” (see Putidamo Nanzong ding shifei lun.)—this meant that only Huineng’s approach of sudden enlightenment was consistent with Bodhidharma’s. Shenhui merely fabricated it to compete for the orthodox. In fact, Shenxiu and Puji’s Northern School inherited Bodhidharma’s approach, while, on the other hand, Huineng and Shenhui reformed the approach. As a result, Shenhui’s fight for orthodoxy offended Shenxiu and Puji’s group, and he was suppressed. Following this, Shenhui financed military provisions by providing Buddhist ordinations, and, for this reason, he was venerated by the Emperor Su of the Tang Dynasty. As a result, it is said “Shenhui promoted the teachings of Huineng’s School, and weakened Shenxiu’s school” (see Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳, section of Benzhuan 本傳). Zongmi wrote in Zhonghua chuan xindi Chanmen shizi chengxi tu that “In the twelfth year of Zhenyuan 貞元 of the Tang Dynasty (796 AD), Emperor De recommended the prince to assemble monks to establish the principles for the Chan School by distinguishing orthodox and derivation. Afterwards, the Emperor conferred an edict to set Shenhui as the Seventh Patriarch (this can be seen in the inscription at the Shenlong Temple). The Emperor also wrote a eulogy for Shenhui, and showed it to the public.” Zongmi was sixteen years old in the 12th year of Zhenyuan Era—therefore, it can be assumed that he must have heard of, or even seen, the inscriptions in the Shenlong Temple. It is thus evident that the Emperor approved of Huineng’s approach of sudden enlightenment, and this has to be attributed to the efforts of Shenhui.12 Of course, there were social and theoretical reasons for the success

12  In 1983, the pagoda inscriptions of Shenhui were unearthed from the ruins of the Tang Bauying Temple, Xishan, Longman, Luoyang. The inscription was authored by Shenhui’s disciple, Huikong 慧空 with Falin’s 法璘 calligraphy. The stele was set up in the first year of Yongtai in the Tang Dynasty (765 AD), seven years after the death of Shenhui. The complete title is Datang dongdu Hezesi mogu diqizu guoshi dade yü Longmen Baoyingsi longfu jianshen taming bingxu 大唐東都荷澤寺歿故第七祖國師大德于龍門寶應寺龍腹 建身塔銘並序. It is clear that Shenhui’s disciples regarded him as the Seventh Patriarch. (See the inscription collected in Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究, 1984, vol. 2.

On Hu Shih ’ s Study of Chan History

79

of the sudden enlightenment approach, such as notions such as “directly pointing at the human mind,” and by “seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved,” was attractive to, and therefore was accepted by, society, and this, in turn, would have a profound influence in history. Although this was not entirely due to Shenhui alone, it is beyond question that Shenhui was the major contributing factor to the establishment of the Southern School in history. 3. It is arbitrary that Hu Shih asserted the author of the Platform Sūtra (hereafter, all references to this sūtra will refer to the Dunhuang version) was Shenhui. His method (“inner proof,” in his own words), is also biased: he adopted consistent passages from the Platform Sūtra and the Shenhui yulu, but simply ignored the differences between them.13 However, we cannot deny the close relationship between Shenhui’s School and the Platform Sūtra. For instance, Shenhui’s thoughts are fundamentally consistent with the Platform Sūtra— the sudden enlightenment approach of the Platform Sūtra was accepted by the populace due to Shenhui’s exerted influence and advocacy. Secondly, according to Wei Chuhou’s 韋處厚 Xingfusi Dayi chanshi beiming 興福寺大義禪師 碑銘, “Shenhui’s disciples were confused, just as mandarin oranges became trifoliate oranges when they are planted across the Huai River. How could they become the orthodox that represented the Platform Sūtra? The superior and the inferior can be discriminated.” (Quan Tang wen 全唐文, Fascicle 715). Hu Shih interpreted this paragraph as: “this is the proof that the Platform Sūtra was written by Shenhui’s disciples (Shenhui zhuan).” This is a complete misreading of Wei Chuhou’s writing by Hu Shih. Nevertheless, it does prove that Shenhui and his heirs were probably the earliest to elevate the Platform Sūtra as a sacred scripture—we could even infer that the title of the Platform Sūtra began to call itself “Sūtra” from around this period of time. (The Platform Sūtra was possibly titled something like “Caoxi dashi . . . Tanyu” 曹溪大師 . . . . . . 壇語 instead, resembling the title “Nanyang heshang dunjiao jietuo Chanmen zhiliaoxing Tanyu” 南陽和尚頓教解脫禪門直了性壇語. However, it was because of the fact that Shenhui’s disciples esteemed this scripture that the Platform Sūtra became a sūtra to the followers. This also proves that Shenhui and his disciples did revise the Platform Sūtra. 4. We have gained a clearer understanding of the evolution of the early Chan—Hu Shih investigated the strands of Chan thought, beginning from Bodhidharma, and he conducted a comparative study of Shenxiu, Puji, Huineng, Shenhui, the Northern School and the Southern School. He noted 13  There are several differences between Shenhui yülu and the Dunhuang version of the Platform Sūtra. For example, Shenhui yülu discusses Buddhahood citing the Nirvana Sūtra 涅槃經, but there is no parallel discussion in the Dunhuang version of the Platform Sūtra.

80

Lou

that their difference represents that between the Indian and Chinese Chan’s.” Huineng and Shenhui of the Southern School reformed Indian Chan into Chinese Chan. At the same time, he noticed that Shenhui tended to integrate Buddhist theories of karma and Daoist naturalism. He also took note of Shenhui’s frequent mentions of quotations such as “not relying on practice,” “do not produce thoughts” implied “non-action of naturalism.” His analyses enlightened us the features of Shenhui’s thought, and the characteristics of the development of the Southern School. C An Investigation of the Evolution of the Platform Sūtra Since the discovery of the Dunhunag version of the Platform Sūtra, people all over the academic world realized the differences between that and the Song, Yuan, and Ming versions (for instance, the word amount doubled in the Song, Yuan, and Ming versions). In the early 1930s, another version of the Platform Sūtra was discovered in Japan (the Kōshōji Edition)—this was edited by Monk Huixin in the late Tang Dynasty, and its content was basically consistent with the Dunhuang version, with very few differences. As a result, the Kōshōji Edition could be used for cross-checking the Dunhuang version in order to clarify the original Platform Sūtra (Hu Shih’s Tanjing kao zhi’er 壇經 考之二 was based on the Kōshōji Edition). It is likely that the earliest major change in the content of Platform Sūtra happened in the edition revised by Qisong 契嵩, also known as Master Fujiao 輔教, in the Northern Song Dynasty. Qisong claimed that he possessed the older version of Platform Sūtra 曹溪 古本, and revised the more widely-circulated version accordingly. Additionally, the Zongbao Edition, of the Yuan Dynasty, added other sections, based on the Qisong Edition; therefore, the key seemed to be to check the original version of Platform Sūtra, as claimed by Qisong. Hu Shih was the first to notice the Caoxi dashi biezhuan, which was long lost in China, but still circulated in Japan. This text already existed when the Japanese monk Saichō 最澄 visited China to learn Buddhism, and brought it to Japan in 805 AD under the title Caoxi dashi zhuan 曹溪大師傳 in one fascicle. It the Faxuan ji 法懸記 of this text, there are sentences of “seventy years after I die,” and “the Master died in the second year of Xiantian, which is equal to a seventy-one years’ gap in the second year of Jianzhong Era of the Tang.” Hence, we know that this text was completed seventy years following Huineng’s death—namely, the second year of Jianzhong (781 AD). Through Hu Shih’s investigation, we are confident that the original version of Platform Sūtra, as claimed by Qisong, must be the Caoxi dashi biezhuan that Saichō brought back to Japan. In fact, all the additions made by Qisong could be seen in the Caoxi dashi biezhuan—thus, in a sense, the Qisong Edition can be seen as a combined version of the Dunhuang

On Hu Shih ’ s Study of Chan History

81

version (or the Huixin Edition) and the Caoxi dashi biezhuan. At this this point, the secrets of the evolution of the Platform Sūtra were finally unfolded, which was a staggeringly meaningful achievement. However, Hu Shih merely investigated the concrete historical facts, leaving aside the content and thought of Caoxi dashi biezhuan—this ignorance led to his conclusion that the Caoxi dashi biezhuan is “a forgery written by a shallow and ignorant monk. This text has no historical value.” “Unfortunately, Qisong was fooled.” (Tanjing kao zhiyi). Such a conclusion needs re-consideration.14 D Investigation of the “Laṅkāvatāra Lineage” This is an investigation regarding the genealogy of the Northern School. Quoting Daoxuan’s 道宣 Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 and Jingjue’s Lengqie shiziji from the Dunhuang manuscripts, Hu Shih argued that “the Laṅkāvatāra lineage is sui generis,” “the Laṅkāvatāra lineage is the so-called Northern School, and Shenxiu and his heirs are the orthodox.” The Southern School that came later was a reformation: even though it affliated itself to Bodhidharma, it did not belong to the Laṅkāvatāra lineage (Hu Shih zhi Jin Jiujing shu 胡適致 金九經書, also see “Tang xieben ‘Lengqie shizi ji’ ” 唐寫本＜楞伽師資記＞, Jiangyuan congshu姜園叢書 edition.). In 1935, he published Lengqie zong kao, which canvassed the transmission of the Laṅkāvatāra lineage. He concluded with four points: 1. The transmission with the robe was fabricated by Shenhui; 2. Both Shenxiu and Huineng were Hongren’s disciples, yet there was no robe transmission, and no distinction between “orthodox” and “side derivation.” The slogan “their lineage is a collateral lineage” was merely a convenient and powerful weapon in competing for the orthodox at that time; 3. Gradual cultivation was the original principle of the Laṅkāvatāra lineage. Sudden enlightenment was not the original teaching of the Laṅkāvatāra lineage, but had its origin from other sources; 4. The orthodox Laṅkāvatāra lineage began from Bodhidharma, and continued to Shenxiu. Although Huineng was Hongren’s disciple, if the Platform Sūtra is reliable, then the disciplines that he taught have departed from the Laṅkāvatāra’s “gradual but not sudden purification” principle—the “sudden enlightenment” approach, advocated by Shenhui, was 14  The Caoxi dashi biezhuan provides very important clues for a holistic understanding of Chan philosophy. The text elaborates the concepts of Nirvana and Buddha-nature, which are the fundamental theoretical underpinning of the Chan statement “by seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved.” However, there is no parallel mention in the Dunhuang version of Platform Sūtra. For more detail, see Lou Yulie, “Dunhuang ben Tanjing, Caoxi dashi biezhuan, yiji chuqi Chanzong sixiang” 敦煌本＜壇經＞、＜曹溪大 師別傳＞、以及初期禪宗思想.

82

Lou

far from the spirit of the Laṅkāvatāra lineage. Finally, Hu concluded: “It is evident that Shenhui boldly replaced the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra with the Diamond Sūtra. The orthodox of the Laṅkāvatāra lineage was thus overthrown, and its core teaching also switched; accordingly, Huineng and Shenhui’s revolution was not that the Southern School overthrew the Northern School, but a Prajñā revolution against the Laṅkāvatāra tradition was born.” Such assertions from Hu Shih are exaggerated and arbitrary, highly akin to his study of Shenhui—indeed, many scholars of Chinese Buddhism disagreed with his judgment that “the Laṅkāvatāra linage existed” or “a Prajñā revolution against the Laṅkāvatāra tradition.” These questions deserve further deliberation, however, putting aside his descriptions and exaggerations (as seen from a literary viewpoint), his investigations were consistent with historiography. It was certainly historically true that, since Bodhidharma, in the Southern and Northern Dynasties, to the Tang Dynasty, a group of Laṅkāvatāra monks learned and disseminated Chan based on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. It is also true that Shenxiu’s approach of gradual practice inherited the tradition of the Laṅkāvatāra monks—his research inspired further studies of theoretical evolution in the early Chan. Therefore, his publication of Lenqie zong kao had a significant influence on the Chan studies in China and Japan. For example, Yanagida Seizan noted in his article Hu Shih boshi yu Zhongguo chuqi Chanzong shi zhi yanjiu 胡適博士與中國初期禪宗史之研究 that “Hu Shih’s arbitrary conclusions concerning the Laṅkāvatāra lineage greatly influenced early Chan studies in China and Japan since 1935 —none of us could escape from his assertions. Ui Hakuju’s 宇井伯壽 Zenshū shi kenkyū 禪宗史研究 (1939), Suzuki Daisetz Teitaro’s Zenshū shisōshi kenkyū daini 禪宗思想史研究 第二 (1951), and Sekiguchi Shindai’s 關口真大 Daruma daishi no kenkyū 達摩 大師之研究 (1957) were all haunted by Hu’s Lengqiezong kao.” (See Yanagida Seizan, ed., Hu Shih Chanxue an.) Additionally, Hu Shih’s Study Contained Meticulous Research and Brilliant Insights, Which Were Essential to Advance the Chan Studies. Here are Two Examples a. In Pei Xiu’s 裴休 inscription for Zongmi (the seventh year of Dachung in the Tang Dynasty, 853 AD), it states: “Huineng passed the Dharma to Shenhui and became the Heze lineage. Shenhui was the Seventh Patriarch. Then he passed it to Huairang 懷讓 and Huairang to Mazu 馬祖. Mazu belonged to the Jiangxi lineage.” As Huairang belonged to the “Nanyue” branch, Hu Shih stated that “this inscription does not mention the sect of “Qingyuan Xingsi.” (Ba Pei Xiu de Tang gu Guifeng Zongmi Dinghui chanshi chuanfa bei, 跋裴休的唐故圭峰定 E

On Hu Shih ’ s Study of Chan History

83

慧禪師傳法碑, see Hu Shih Chanxue an). At the same time, he also discovered Jia Su’s 賈餗 inscription for Lingtan 靈坦 (825 AD), which says: “Shenhui and Huairang inherited Huineng’s lineage, but divided it into two sects”—there is no mention of the sect of Qingyuan Xingsi. As a result, Hu Shih argued that “As the sect of Shitou Xiqian 石頭希遷 rose, the so-called Qingyuan Xingsi was merely a rhetorical tool in the movement of a bandwagon.” (Zhi Liutian Shengshan shu 致柳田聖山書, ibid.). This research finding is crucially important for the study of the two sects, Nanyue and Qingyuan, after Huineng’s time. Hu Shih repeatedly referred to the phenomenon of “bandwagoning” whenever a specific school prevailed, such as when Niutou Farong affiliated himself to the Northern School, and Zongmi and Mazu Daoyi affiliated themselves to the Southern School. He argued that, in fact, Zongmi inherited Shenhui, a disciple of Wuxiang 無相 from the Jingzhong Temple, Chengdu, but he purposely confused this Shenhui with another in the Heze Temple in Luoyang. It requires more historical evidence to verify Hu Shih’s arguments, and yet his historical approach undeniably deserves scholarly attention. b. He conducted valuable research on a passage in Dugu Ji’s 獨孤及 Shuzhou Shangusi Sanzu Jingzhi [Sengcan] chanshi bei 舒州山谷寺三祖鏡智[僧粲] 禪師碑, written in the seventh year of Dali in the Tang Dynasty (772 AD): “Hongren transmitted the Dharma to Huineng and Shenxiu. Huineng retired to Caoxi, and none of his heirs were ever heard of again. Shenxiu passed the Dharma to Puji, who had a myriad of disciples, and sixty-three of his disciples were allowed to enter the Hall. Among them, Hongzheng 弘正 attainted ‘carefree wisdom,’ and attracted many bright disciples.” (Wenyuan yinghua 文苑 英華, Fascicle 864). According to Hu Shih, Shenhui died in the first year of Baoying in the Tang Dynasty (762 AD), which was only fourteen years before the seventh year of Dali.15 Therefore, Hu Shih noted that, in the early Dali Era of Tang, the Northern School, led by Hongzheng, was still powerful, and intended to oppress Huineng’s Southern School (in Zhi Liutian Shengshan shu). Furthermore, based on the paragraphs: “Since the Fourth Patriarch downwards, even though the Orthodox Dharma has a lineage to follow, its branches existed as larger and smaller sects.” In Bai Juyi’s 白居易 Chuan fatang bei 傳法堂碑, and “generation’s succession as lineages; schism as schools (zong)” in Jia Su’s epitaph for Lingtan, Hu Shih indicated that “there is an atmosphere of tolerant, peaceful co-existing among different schools during the Yuanhe 15  According to the pagoda-inscription for Shenhui unearthed in 1983, the date of Shenhui’s death was between the first year of Qianyuan (758 AD) and the seventh year of Dali (772 AD).

84

Lou

Era of Tang” (see ibid.). He also argued how Zongmi modified and distorted Shenhui’s sudden enlightenment approach in the Yunajue jing dashu chao, and went on to emphasize that Zongmi’s standpoint of reconciliation was borne of the intensive conflicts between Buddhist sects—these further insights from Hu Shih stimulated yet further research questions for the scholars of the Chan history. It has been more than half century since Hu Shih’s scholarship, or more than thirty years since the second phase of his study—however, there is not yet any in-depth analysis on either the achievements or shortcomings of his research. His research findings evoked strong responses from Japanese scholars, and are still regarded as important in the present day. Since Yanagida Seizan edited the book Hu Shih Chanxue an, a collection of over thirty pieces of Hu’s articles, speeches, manuscripts, and letters regarding the study of the Chan history, this volume has been an excellent reference point for studying Hu Shih’s research. In his lengthy article “Hu Shih boshi yü Zhongguo chuqi Chanzong shi zhi yanjiu,” Yanagida thoroughly assessed the process of Hu Shih’s Chan study, as well as its influence and implications; he particularly gave his observations of its widespread influence on Japanese scholars of Chinese Chan history. At the end of that article, Yanagida concluded that, “in the present day, scholars of Chinese Chan cannot ignore Hui Shi’s contributions.” This is a fair judgment, for in the field of Early Chan Studies, we cannot ignore the vast importance of Hu Shih’s achievements and we shall move forward on this basis. Chan Buddhism is a towering representative of Chinese Buddhism—it has important influence on Chinese culture and intellectual history. However, scholarships concerning the history of Chan Buddhism are still weak and underdeveloped since the founding of Republican China. It is shameful that we are not able to write a complete monograph of the Chan history in China, but reviews and comments on Hu Shih’s articles may push us to move a major step forward in studying Chan history—and this is my main purpose of writing this review. (Originally published in Beijing Daxue Xuebao 北京大學學報, 1987, Vol. 3) Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Datang dongdu Hezesi mogu diqizu guoshi dade yü Longmen Baoyingsi longfu jianshen taming bingxu 大唐東都荷澤寺歿故第七祖國師大德于龍門寶應寺龍腹建 身塔銘並序, collected in Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究, 1984, Vol. 2.

On Hu Shih ’ s Study of Chan History

85

Lengqie shizi ji 楞伽師資記, Tang manuscripts, Jiangyuan congshu edition 姜園叢書, ed. by Kim Ku-kyŏng 金九經, 1933–1935.



Secondary Sources

Hu Shih 胡適 (1919), Zhongguo zhexueshi dagang 中國哲學史大綱, Vol. 1, Shanghai: Shanghai shangwu yinshuguan. ——— (1927), ed., Caoxi dashi biezhuan曹溪大師別傳. ——— (1928), “Bai Jüyi shidai de Chanzong shixi” 白居易時代的禪宗世系. ——— (1930), “Tanjing kao zhiyi (Ba Caoxi dashi biezhuan)” 壇經考之一—跋曹溪 大師別傳. ——— (1930), Heze dashi Shenhui zhuan 荷澤大師神會傳. ——— (1931), “Lengqie shiziji xu” 楞伽師資記序. ——— (1931–32), Zhonggu sixiang xiaoshi 中古思想小史, manuscript used in the lectures at the Beijing University, printed by Hu Shih Memorial Hall (Hu Shi jinian guan 胡適紀念館), Taiwan. ——— (1934), “Ba Riben Jingdu Juechuan Xingshengsi cang Beisong Huixinben Tangjing yingyinben (Tangjing kao zhi’er),” 跋日本京都堀川興聖寺藏北宋惠昕 本壇經影印本—壇經考之二. ——— (1935), “Lengqie zong kao” 楞伽宗考. ——— (1952), “Zhuzi lun Chanjia de fangfa” 朱子論禪家的方法. ——— (1952), “Liuzu Tanjing yuanzuo Tangjing kao” 六祖壇經原作檀經考. ——— (1958), “Xin jiaoding de Dunhuang xieben Shenhui heshang yizhu liangzhong” 新校定的敦煌寫本神會和尚遺著兩種. ——— (1960), “Shenhui heshang yülu de disange Dunhuang xieben ‘Nanyang heshang wenda zazhengyi,’ 神會和尚語錄的第三個敦煌寫本〈南陽和尚問答雜征議〉, Liu Cheng ji 劉澄集. ——— (1985), Hu Shi de riji 胡適的日記 (The Diary of Hu Shih), the first volume, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. ———, “Hu Shi zhi Jin Jiujing shu” 胡適致金九經書. ———, “Zhi Liutian Shengshan shu” 致柳田聖山書. ——— Hu Shih shougao 胡適手稿, published by the Hu Shih Memorial Hall (Hu Shi jinian guan 胡適紀念館), Taipei: 1970. Lou Yulie 樓宇烈 (1990), “Dunhuang ben tanjing, caoxi dashi biezhuan, yiji chuqi chanzong sixiang” 敦煌本＜壇經＞、＜曹溪大師別傳＞、以及初期禪宗思 想, in Sui Tang fojiao taolunhui lunwenji《隋唐佛教討論會論文集》, Sanqin chubanshe. Sekiguchi Shindai 關口真大 (1957), Daruma daishi no kenkyū 達摩大師之研究, Zhanghuoshe彰國社: Dacheng yinshua 大成印刷. Suzuki Daisetz Teitaro 鈴木大拙 (1951), Zen shisōshi kenkyū daini: daruma kara enō ni itaru 禪思想史研究第二：達摩から慧能に至る, Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten.

86

Lou

Tang Degang 唐德剛, (1992), ed., Autobiography of Hu Shih 胡適的自傳, Beijing: Huawen chubanshe. Ui Hakuju 宇井伯壽 (1939), Zenshū shi kenkyū 禪宗史研究, Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten. Yanagida Seizan 柳田聖山 (1975), “Hu Shih boshi yü Zhongguo chuqi Chanzong shi zhi yanjiu” 胡適博士與中國初期禪宗史之研究 (Ko Teki hakase to Chūgoku shoki zenshūshi no kenkyū), Hu Shih chanxue an 胡適禪學案, Taipei: Zhongzheng shuju.

CHAPTER 5

A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School Xu Wenming 徐文明 The teaching of the Tiantai School has a long history and has been highly influential. Of late, it has begun to receive much academic attention. However, the mechanics of its early transmission remains little understood, and there remains much to be investigated. Zhang’an Guanding 章安灌頂 (561–632) was the first Tiantai monk to set out a clear lineage of the transmission within the School.1 He pointed out in the “Preface to the Great Meditation” (Mohe zhiguan xu 摩訶止觀序): Zhiyi (538–597) was a disciple of Nanyue (Huisi, 515–577). The extent of Nanyue’s moral conduct was beyond imagining. He focused on reciting sūtras for ten years and studied Mahā-vaitulyasūtra (Fangdeng Jing 方等經) for seven years. During his nineties he sat constantly in meditation, and [while meditating] suddenly achieved actualization [and passed away]. He thoroughly understood the teachings of the great and lesser vehicles and could give inspiring teachings. Nanyue was a disciple of the Dhyāna master Huiwen (540–551) who lived during the reign of Emperor Gao of [Southern] Qi (Xiao Daocheng 蕭道成, 427–482). Huiwen’s teaching was unrivalled in the area around the Yellow and Hui Rivers. However, his teaching was not more widely known, despite its all encompassing extent. The concepts of “the functioning of the mind” (yongxin 用心) in Huiwen’s teaching followed “On Explicating the Treatise.” (Shi lun 釋論) This treatise was taught by Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva, who was the thirteenth master recorded in the “Transmission of Buddha’s Teachings” (Fufazang Jing 付法藏經). Zhiyi wrote in his “Treatise on Observing the Mind” (Guanxin lun 觀心論), “[My teaching] follows that of the master Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva.” Thus it is proven that Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva was the first master [who transmitted the teaching of the Tiantai school].2 1  Consulting Li Fuhua, Luelun Guanding 略論灌頂, Dongnan Wenhua 東南文化, Zengkan Tiantaishan Wenhua Zhuanhao 增刊天台山文化專號, 1998, p. 58. 2  T 46: 1b.

©

5 | 

/

88

Xu

Guanding relied upon the “Transmission of Buddha’s Teachings” to establish the lineage of the early transmissions in the Tiantai school. His quotes point to Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva as the first master of the lineage. Thus Tiantai finds a place in the listed transmissions in “Transmission of Buddha’s Teachings.” It was likely that this insertion was intended to add legitimacy to the Tiantai lineage. Nevertheless this claim established the transmissions from Huiwen, Huisi to Zhiyi and was generally accepted within the Tiantai school. The lineage established by Guanding was simple and orderly. The direct transmission of the three generations followed the general mode of transmission. However, this lineage was far too simple and did not conform with historical reality. In order to correct this problem, Zhanran 湛然 (d. 784) proposed another theory of a lineage of nine masters. This proposition was based on “Notations and Judgments on the Mohe zhiguan” (Zhiguan fuxing zhuan hongjue 止觀輔行傳弘決), fascicle one: If we examine the successive methods the nine masters used, the first master Ming often used “the seven skillful means,” and these probably corresponded to “the seven skillful means” of the Lesser Vehicle. This was because no one had established “the seven skillful means of the perfect teaching” before Zhiyi did. The second master Zui often used “the merging of the mind.” When the nature and the mind merge, there will be no obstruction to the dharma. The third master Song often used “the original mind.” There was no coming and going between the past, present and future, and the true nature never moved. The fourth master Jiu often used “the quiet mind.” The fifth master Jian often used “the perceived mind” which could observe “oneness.” The sixth master Hui often used “the treading of the mind.” When inside, outside and in between, the mind is not to be found, the mind vanishes and become pure, the five senses existing only in the mind. The seventh master Wen often used “the enlightened mind” which emphasized samādhi, eradicated samādhi was constantly within samādhi within all the dharmas. The eighth master Si often followed “the pleasant practice of following one’s will.” (Rusui ziyi anlexing 如隨自意安樂行) The ninth master Yi used “sequential contemplation” (Cidi guan 次第觀) such as in “The Sequence of Chan Practice” (Cidi Chanmen 次第禪門). He used “indeterminate meditation” (Buding guan 不定觀) such as in the “Six Marvelous Teachings” (Liu miaomen 六妙門). He used “perfect and sudden contemplation” (Yuandun guan 圓頓觀) such as in “Great Meditation” (Da zhiguan 大止觀). Observing these teachings, though it was said that the teachings were transmitted, the teachings changed. Once Huiwen arrived and

A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School

89

followed the “Great Treatise” (Da lun 大論), we know that he did not continue the previous teachings. Therefore now we listen to the teaching of Huiwen and have heard people saying that his teaching was not widely known, despite its all encompassing extent. Now it is clear that the teaching of master Wen was profound, but his contemporaries failed to appreciate it, like those who walk the earth not appreciating its depth and have the sky above but fail to understand how high it reaches. Zhiyi’s “Treatise on Observing the Mind” proves master Wen’s teaching was different from his predecessors.3 Zhanran’s proposed lineage, was obviously not put together casually and had some historical basis. He might have based his proposition on materials passing down through generations within the Tiantai school. The six masters before Huiwen in the lineage left no other trace in the records and Zhanran provided no further details. Further investigation into these men is necessary. The first master Ming used “the seven skillful means.” According to the Śāriputrâbhidharma (Shelifo apitan lun 舍利弗阿毗曇論), fascicle ten: How do the monks have “the seven skillful means?” For example, the monks understand outward appearances form (rūpa), that form comes together, decays, and extinguishes the dharma, that form has flavor, is an affliction, yet can be transcended. The monks understand sensations (vedanā), that sensations come together, decay, and extinguish the dharma, that sensations have flavor, are an affliction, yet can be transcended. The monks understand perceptions (saṃjñā), that perceptions come together, decay, and extinguish the dharma, that perceptions have flavor, are an affliction, yet can be transcended. The monks understand impulse (saṃskāra), that impulses come together, decay, and extinguish the dharma, that impulses have flavor, are an affliction, yet can be transcended. The monks understand impulse (saṃskāra), that impulses come together, decay, and extinguish the dharma, that impulses have flavor, are an affliction, yet can be transcended. The monks understand consciousness (vijñāna), that consciousness comes together, decays, and extinguishes the dharma, that consciousness has flavor, is an affliction, yet can be transcended. How do the monks understand form? Monks [understand] the Four Great Elements (mahā-bhūta), that the Four Great Elements create the appearance of truth. That is how monks understand form. How do the monks understand that form comes 3  T 46: 149ab.

90

Xu

together? Monks understand that form comes together [by analogy with] their desires coming together. That is how the monks understand form’s coming together. How do the monks understand that form decays? Monks understand that form decays [by analogy with] their desires decaying. That is how the monks understand form’s decay. How do the monks truly understand that form could extinguish the dharma? If the monks truly understand the noble eightfold path—right viewing, correct awakening, correct speech, correct practice, right livelihood, correct effort, correct mind, right concentration—then the monks would truly understand that form could extinguish the dharma. How do the monks know that form has flavor? It is like the perception of form giving rise to pleasure. That is how the monks understand form has flavor. How do the monks understand that form is an affliction? If form is impermanent, [causes] suffering and is subject to change, then form is an affliction. How do the monks know that form yet can be transcended? Just as form has the taint of desire that can be controlled and thus destroyed, this is how monks understand that form can be transcended.4 Three types of contemplating the seven bases of consciousness (impermanence, suffering and non-self) are the crucial practice of Hīnayāna Buddhism. However, these were criticized by Zhiyi, saying, “Developing seven expedients will yield [merely] a partial result. Proving there is residue or no residue is [merely] a partial result. Disclosing the Buddha’s insight is called the perfect cause. Obtaining the ultimate marvelous enlightenment is called the perfect result.”5 Who was this master Ming who practiced the teaching of seven Hīnayāna expedients? According to the biography of Sengchou 僧稠 (480–560) in “Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks” (Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳), fascicle sixteen: After [Sengchou] had been living in the monastery for five years, he went to the Zhanggong mountains in Zhaozhou to visit the Dhyāna master Daoming and received the sixteen extraordinary methods [of contemplation] (shiliu tesheng fa 十六特勝法). He studied the Buddhist teachings hard as he grew older each year. He lived on a small portion of food and kept his mind focused. In his nineties, he ate only one meal per day, consisting of only four sheng of rice. Sitting on a rock, clad only in a thin garment he meditated unaware of whether it was day or night. When the 4  T 28: 597b. 5  Fahua xuanyi, fascicle 9. T 33: 794c.

A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School

91

threads of his garment began to eat into his flesh he rolled up the garment did not take it off. Sometimes when preparing his meal, before it was cooked he entered meditation. Time passed and the food in front of him would all be eaten by animals. Moreover, he often contemplated death. When he met a robber who attempted to intimidate him, he had no fear. He explained the workings of karma to the robber. Sengchou destroyed all the robber’s bows and arrows and the robber received precepts and went away. Once at a quiet place in the Que mountains he felt a spirit coming to disturb him. The spirit held his shoulders, stabbed his waist and breathed onto his neck. Sengchou held his mind with a determination even to die. Hence he was enlightened and fell into a deep meditation and did not wake up for nine days. After he came to from his meditation, his emotions and thoughts were all clear. He thoroughly understood that there was nothing happy in the world. He visited the first master of the Shaolin temple [Batuo 拔陀] and presented what he was enlightened. Batuo said, “East of the Congling Mountains, you are the greatest student of Chan!” And thereupon Batuo transmitted further Buddhist teachings to him.6 Sengchou lived eighty-one years and was a monk for fifty. In his fifth year in the monastery, the fourth year of the Yanchang reign of the Wei dynasty (515), was the year Huisi was born. The Dhyāna master Daoming (d.u.) specialized in “the sixteen extraordinary methods” which was “the breath counting meditation” (ānāpāna) of Hīnayāna Buddhism. This type of meditation was the same as the three types of contemplating the seven bases of consciousness. Daoming seems to have been a disciple of the Dhyāna master Fotuo. (佛陀禪師; Batuo) Therefore, he ordered Sengchou to seek confirmation of his enlightenment from the first master of the Shaolin temple. On the basis of either his experience or because of the Chan teachings transmitted to him, Daoming should perhaps be regarded as the ‘Master Ming’ who started the lineage of the Tiantai school. Tang Yongtong points out, “Master Ming is Daoming. Sengchou followed him and received the sixteen extra­ordinary methods from him.”7 When he was eighteen, Lingyu 靈裕 (518–605), a close contemporary of Huisi, was studying under the two masters, Ming and Bao, at the Yingjue temple in Zhaozhou in the second year of Tianping reign (535). This master Ming should be regarded as the same Dhyāna master Zhaozhou Daoming that Sengchou followed. 6  T 50: 553c. 7  Tang Yongtong (1982), Sui Tang fojiao shigao. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, p. 127.

92

Xu

There remains another question to be resolved. According to “On the Vows” (Shiyuan Wen 誓願文), Huisi “was learning the Great Vehicle in Henan between the ages of twenty and thirty-eight. He was close to all the great Dhyāna masters of the time.” Although he “initially intended to cross the Yellow River to visit all the Dhyāna masters,” he was mistreated by an evil Buddhist monk in Gunzhou. Therefore, “he returned to Xinzhou and did not cross the River again.”Hence, Huisi did not visit Zhaozhou and did not learn under Daoming. However, Daoming might not always have resided in Zhaozhou and possibly traveled to Henan. It was possible that Huisi did not go to learn under Daoming and still received the Chan teachings of Daoming from Huiwen. Based on the Daoming’s status and experience, he was eligible to be the Huiwen’s master. Therefore, whether Huisi received the teaching of Daoming personally or not, there is no question that Daoming could be one of the masters in the lineage. Besides Daoming, Huike (487–593) also had another disciple called “Dhyāna master Ming” 明 (d. u.). This Dhyāna master Ming wrote an “Explication of the Laṅkāvatāra sūtra” (Lengqie jing shu 楞伽經疏) in five fascicles. He had the following lineage of his teachings: “After Dhyāna master Ming, there were master Qiefa (d. u.), master Baoyue (d. u.), master Daoying (d. u.), and the lamp of transmission continued. The transmission still continues today.” Daoxuan (596–667) wrote in the “Biography of Fachong” (Fachong zhuan 法沖傳) that there were only two people who inherited Huike’s teachings. One was master Nalao (d. u.), and the other was Dhyāna master Ming. The lineage of master Nalao continued only to master Hongzhi (d. u.) of the Ximing temple, who then died, and the teachings were lost. However, the lineage of Dhyāna master Ming still prospered. Although Dhyāna master Ming belonged to the lineage of Bodhidharma (d. 535) and specialized in the highest vehicle Chan, he might still have transmitted the teachings of the Hīnayāna. For example, Dhyāna master Duan (d. u.) taught Wolun the teachings of sequential contemplation.8 Therefore Dhyāna master Ming, Huike’s disciple, was also perhaps the master Ming of the Tiantai school. According Huisi’s biography, he was enlightened after he studied Chan teachings. “Afterwards, masters such as Jian and Zui recorded what his enlightenment was and were happy for him and benefited from it. He studied and practiced Chan teachings for a long time. His enlightenment transformed. His reputation was widely known and his virtues were admired by people everywhere. The number of his disciples increased too. His enlightenment

8  Please consult Xu Wenming (2004), Zhongtu qianqi Chan xue sixiang shi. Beijing: Beijing shifan daxue chubanshe. Chapter 5.1.

A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School

93

was real.”9 Hence, master Zui was a teacher of Huisi. Also, according to the biography of Zhiyi, “Huisi also followed the teachings of master Jiu, and Jiu followed master Zui. However, the monastic status of these three masters could not be verified.”10 If this was the case, then Huisi not only received the teachings from master Zui personally, he also studied under Zui’s disciple, master Jiu. Master Zui seemed to be a very senior and well-known master. His disciple was also qualified to teach others. Who was this master Zui? The most well known master with the name “Zui” is Tan Mozui who was also called Tan Wuzui (d. u.). According to the twentythird fascicle in “Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks”: Buddhist monk Tan Wuzui, whose family name was Dong, came from Wuan. He was bright and could understand hidden meanings. His eating and sleeping habits were mysterious. He converted people to Buddhism when he was young, and his name was known both within and without the royal court. He was a good lieutenant for the three treasures, a steadfast defender in the in the age of the Semblance Dharma. He recited the sūtras and treatises and upheld the precepts. He favored Chan meditation. He mind was empty and quiet. At the time there was a request for recommendations of talents to the court, and everyone recommended him. He had mastered Taoist and Confucian studies, and was particularly good at discussing the Way. He was an outstanding person and often had crowds around him. He particularly detested strong worldly feelings. He donated his library. He gave praise and instructed people based on the precepts as the first principle. He helped with people’s action and investigated people’s spiritual capacity. He was widely trusted. He was once lecturing on the precepts in the Chongzun temple in Handan. There were over one thousand students who followed his teachings regularly. The lecture lasted until the thirtieth of the fourth month. It was a day to confer vows and cast lots. The crowd came to receive the ceremony in order. There were sixty people more than were expected. Zui was sitting at the front of the crowds and felt deeply suspicious about this. There were no people coming from outside. He remained suspicious throughout the night. The next day morning, they counted again. Some people saw someone coming from the west of Handan city. He was a different sort of Buddhist. His dress was proper and his walk was leisurely and elegant. There were also people who saw others coming from the east 9   T 50: 563a. 10  T 50: 564b.

94

Xu

of the Gu mountains. Some met them on the way, and they all said, “We are on our way to visit the honored person and listen to the Buddhist monk to lecture on the vinaya.” This type of thing happened several times. The civil official examined the ages and numbers of these people. They were exactly sixty people. Thus it was truly understood that when a sacred mind has mastered the Way, it attracts hidden spirits to come from faraway and hermits from the bamboo forests to reveal themselves. Zui mastered Buddhist studies. He was constantly admired by the people of the times. Later he went to the Rongjue temple in Luoyang by the royal order. The temple was set up by the Wenxian Prince Yi (d. u.). There were many corridors and rooms. The whole temple took the space of three [square] li. Zui was good at spreading the Buddhist teachings. He was particularly good at lecturing on the Niepan Jing 涅槃經 (Nirvāṇa Sūtra) and the Huayan jing 華嚴經 (Avataṃsaka Sūtra). There were a thousand monks in the Rongjue temple. They were diligent in their duties. The Buddhist monk Bodhiruci from India met Zui and treated him great ceremony and named Zui as bodhisattva of the eastern land. Bodhiruci read “Explications of the Great Vehicle” (Dasheng yizhang 大乘義章) written by Zui and snapped his fingers and sang the well written parts every time. He translated them into the Indian language and sent them to people in the Great Xia). Those who read it all paid respect to the East to honour him as a holy man. Zui always thought it was his responsibility to spread the Buddhist teachings. In the first year of the Zhengguang era (520–525) of the Wei dynasty (386–534), the Emperor [Xiao] Ming (Yuanxu, r. 515–528) ascended to the throne and ordered a grand amnesty. He requested both Buddhists and Taoists to present at the court. After the vegetarian feast was finished, Palace Attendant Liu Ten read out the royal order and asked the Buddhist and Taoist monks to discuss their teachings. The knowledge of Zui was excellent and he was shown to be worthy of his reputation. This was recorded in “History of the Wei” (Wei shi 魏史). His works were extremely well known and widely read. Therefore the knowledgeable Confucian scholars and officials in the court all came down the stairs and paid honour to him. People one by one took refuge in Buddhism as a result of his actions. Buddhism flourished thanks to him. The details of his death are not known.11

11  T 50: 624b–625a.

A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School

95

Tan Wuzui was a great master who understood the tripiṭaka. Not only was he respected in Buddhist communities in China, he was also praised by Bodhiruci from the West. He “favored dhyāna” and was also knowledgeable in Dhyāna studies. When lecturing on the vinaya in the Chongzun temple in Handan, he attracted sixty holy monks from the Zhulin temple who came to listen to him. He also mastered the sūtras and treatises and was also knowledgeable about the Niepan and Huayan Sūtras. His greatest contribution was winning the debate with the Taoist Jiang Bin and thus maintaining the status of Buddhism. With Tan Wuzui’s knowledge, position and experience he was of course eligible to be a forerunner of the Tiantai school. The only question is whether he was the Master Zui whom Huisi studied under. However, from what we know of his seniority he appears to be too old and too distinguished. Bodhiruci honored him, and so even aside from his scholastic contributions, his high status could be a reason to think not. If he was senior to Bodhiruci and qualified to be a Buddhist representative in the debates, he must have been of advanced years at this time. Of course, his biography reported that the details of his death remained unknown, so it is not known in which year he died. There is not enough evidence to prove that he did not live after Huisi attained the age of twenty. Master Zui’s student Master Jiu was also one of Huisi’s teachers. This is sufficient to show that Master Zui’s high virtue and reputation did accord with Tan Wuzui’s position. Tan Wuzui was particularly knowledgeable about the Huayan Sūtra. He was also one of those who initiated studies of the Huayan Sūtra. This Sūtra emphasises the “perfect interpenetration without obstruction.” This corresponded with the method of ‘fusing of the mind’ often used by Master Zui, where nature and outward appearances merge together, within and without being regarded as being the same character. Huisi’s disciple Xiancheng Huiming (531–568) wrote the “Treatise on the Fusing of the Mind’ ” (Rongxin lun 融心論). He also “discussed the Huayan Sutra to explain the Way.” Perhaps this was because Master Zui’s ‘fusing of the mind’ method had been transmitted to him through Huisi. Hence Master Zui was very likely Tan Wuzui. Once the identity of Master Zui is established, the identity of the fourth master, Master Jiu is also clear. He often used the quiet mind method and favored contemplation. He should be regarded as a meditation master. However, other details of his life cannot be examined. The third master was Master Song. The most famous Buddhist master named “Song” contemporary with Huisi was of course “the Confucius of the Abhidharma,” Huisong (d. u.) whose biography is contained in the seventh fascicle of “Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks”:

96

Xu

Shi Huisong, whose family was unknown, was from the country of Gaochang. His country is the place where a prince of the Juqu clan of the Northern Liang (401–439) took refuge. Therefore his family all knew Chinese. Song became a Buddhist monk when he was young. He was intelligent and quick to learn. Once he opened the fascicles and would search for Chinese words and thus he learned Chinese script. He studied philosophical works and particularly the Saṃyuktābhidharma-hṛdayaśāstra (Za apitan xinlun 雜阿毗曇心論) . . . He believed in Buddhism. He mastered the mystery of philosophical studies, so he freely studied the scriptures. At the end of the Northern Wei dynasty (386–534) the teachings of Buddhism spread. The king of Gaochang wanted to change the staff within the monasteries and ordered Song and his brother to go with commissioners to China. Gao was the counselor-in-chief at the time and depended on Song greatly. At the time master Zhiyou (d. u.) was regarded as a brilliant and excellent master. Song therefore followed him. He listened to the teachings of the Abhidharma and the Satyasiddhiśāstra (Chengshi lun 成實論) He received imperial commissions. He was highly regarded and trusted. As he was only a novice monk, his reputation was even more impressive. After he received the full precepts he ascended to the main seat. He started to classify sūtras and admonitory works. When he met people of other outlooks he would debate sharply to defeat the enemy. People one after another took refuge in Buddhism from him. His original country (Gaochang) requested him to return. Song said, “With my broad knowledge, I cannot be confined to a marginal and undeveloped country.” Soon he returned to Luoyang and took it as his responsibility to spread the Buddhist teachings. Afterwards Gaochang once again requested that he return, and Song maintained his previous stance. Gaochang then killed all his close relatives.’ When Song heard about this, he told his followers, “Do the sūtras not say that there is no constancy in the past, present and future? There is unhappiness everywhere, and not to mention the three destinies and eight sufferings. What is it so strange to experience this suffering?” In the Tianbao era (550–559) of the Qi dynasty (550–577) of the Gao family, the dynasty changed, and the court wished for new policy. Master Shangtong (aka. Fashang, d. u.) had an eminent reputation and was greatly depended on by the emperor Yang Gao (r. 550–559). Song enjoyed a reputation for the study of wisdom. Song constantly attacked Shangtong over the meaning of Buddhist doctrines, hence he eventually moved to Xuzhou and took the position of Monk Official (Sengtong 僧統). When he resided in Pengpei, he successfully spread the Buddhist teachings. People from South of the Yangtze

A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School

97

and the Yellow Rivers all followed his teachings. Master Zhinian (d. u.) of the early Sui dynasty inherited his teachings. It was believed that Song died in Xubu during the Tianbao era.12 Huisong once travelled back to Yeluo to spread the Buddhist teachings, and during his later years he was working in Pengcheng. It was possible that Huisi studied under him. Huisong was a master of the Hīnayāna teachings, particularly of the Abhidharma and the Satyasiddhi-śāstra. It seems unlikely that these doctrines were of interest to Huisi. However, Huisong was extremely broad in his Buddhist knowledge and did not specialize in the teachings of one particular school. Fashang was a great Buddhist monk under Huiguang (468–538) and was good at doctrinal studies. Huisong constantly attacked him over the meaning of the doctrines. It was obvious that his Buddhist knowledge was indeed broad. At the time the group around Huisong, and that around Daochang (d. u.) specializing in Mahāprajñāpāramita-śastra (Da zhidu lun 大智度論) and that around Daochong (d. u.) specializing in the “Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra” (Di Lun 地論) were very close. Huisong’s own disciple Zhinian had also studied under Daochang and Daochong previously. Later Zhinian frequently lectured on Mahāprajñāpāramita-śastra and other Hīnayāna treatises. “He first taught the Mahāprajñāpāramita-śastra and then the Samyuktābhidharma-hrdayaśāstra.”13 Therefore the group around Huisong studied both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna teachings. They particularly emphasized the Mahāprajñāpāramitaśastra, and this was the same emphasis as Huiwen and Huisi’s teachings. The main places where Huisong spread his teachings were Yedu and Pengcheng. It is certain that Huisi did not visit Yedu. However there is no clear evidence that he visited Pengcheng. Huisong had “soon returned to Ye-Luo” before the dynasty Qi was established. Huisong had taught in the area around Luoyang. It was possible that Huisi learned under Huisong after reaching the age of twenty. Other than Huisong, there was another meditation master named “Song.” According to the third fascicle in “Collected Records of the Efficacy of the Three Treasures in Divine Continent” (Ji shenzhou sanbao gantong lu 集神州 三寶感通錄): At the beginning of the Qi dynasty there was a Buddhist monk named Song who was a hermit living in the Song mountains. One day he planned to travel to Bailu mountains through the woods, but he lost his way. 12  T 50: 482c–483a. 13  T 50: 508c.

98

Xu

Approaching noon, he suddenly heard a bell. He followed the sounds and ventured further. Rocks and hills were layered one after another. He ascended onwards and saw a temple alone in the deep woods. Three doors were facing the South, bright and splendid. He went to the door and looked up, and the sign over the doors said that it was Lingyin temple. Outside the temple there were five or six dogs. They looked like cows with white fur and black mouths. Some of them were jumping around, and some were lying down. They looked at monk Song. Song was scared and was about to retreat. Suddenly some foreign monks appeared. Song called out to them, but they did not answer and did not even look back. They went straight through the door, and the dogs followed them too. For a long while Song did not see anyone. Then he entered the second door. There were buildings around and their doors were open and close. Song entered to the lecture hall and saw the bed and high seats were neatly arranged. He went to the south-western corner and sat on a bed. After a long while, he heard a sound among the beams. He looked up and saw a hole as big as a person’s mouth. [“Pearl Forest of the Garden of Dharma” (Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林) said it “as big as a well.” which seems preferable.] There were around fifty or sixty Buddhist monks flying down through it. After they sat down one by one on the seats, they asked one another, “Where did you eat at mealtime?” Some said Yuzhang or Chengdu, Chang’an or Longxi, somewhere north of Ji or south of the Five Peaks. There was no place unmentioned, and each was thousands of li away from another. Finally another monk came down. Everyone asked him, “Why are you so late?” He answered, “There was a lecture by Master Jian (d. u.) at the Bi’an temple to the east of Xiangzhou city. Many were arguing with him, intelligent young students asking difficult and incisive questions. It was well worth seeing and I lost track of time. Song originally served Master Jian. He heard this and wished to join their conversation and to demonstrate the teachings of his teacher. He arranged his clothes and was about to stand up. Suddenly he lost his ground and was sitting alone on a big rock under an oak tree. The temple he had seen was gone, just rocks and valleys remained. Birds were flying around. Song left and asked Master Shangtong about this. Master Shangtong said, “This temple was built by Fotucheng (ca.348) during the Zhao dynasty. It was built long ago, and the virtuous and sagely lived there. It sometimes manifested and sometimes was hidden. It was not fixed in one place.” The mountain travelers nowadays only hear its bells.14 14  T 52: 424bc.

A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School

99

This story also appears in the ninety-first fascicle of “Pearl Forest of the Garden of Dharma” and in the “Extensive records of the Taiping Reign” (Taiping guangji 太平廣記). Comparing the accounts, Daoshi’s record is more complete and his source was the “Citations of Marvels” (Jingyi ji 旌異記) and hence more reliable. The main character of the story, monk Song in the above account, appears as “monk Bao” in the Fayuan zhulin. Some versions of the story have “monk Shi.” All the variants were probably scribal error as a result of the similarity of the characters. Hou Junsu (d. u.), the compiler of the Jingyi ji, his given name was Bai, and his literary name was Junsu. He was from Weijun. His biography was supplemented in the biography of Lu Shuang in the fifty-eighth fascicle of “History of the Sui” (Sui shu 隋書). He had a sense of humor and was good at writing. He wrote fifteen fascicles of the Jingyi ji. This story was very well described, and more interesting than the story of Tan Wuzui lecturing on vinaya and attracting sixty extraordinary monks. This monk Song was a hermit Buddhist in the Mount Song at the beginning of the Qi dynasty. His lineage is obscure. It is only known that he was a disciple of Dhyāna master Jian of the Bi’an temple in Xiangzhou. Mount Song where he resided and Mount Bailu he was going to all had bases of the groups of Fotuo Huiguang and Sengchou. He also asked master Shangtong about his encounter so it seems that he may have been a connection to this group, but this cannot be proven. Monk Song and his teacher Master Jian do not appear in any collection of biographies of Buddhist monks and they did not take up any official posts. It seems that they were not of Huiguang’s branch, who were influential on their contemporaries. Mount Song was not only inhabited by Fotuo Huiguang’s group, but also that of Bodhidharma. There is no way to find more original materials. Whether this “monk Song” was really “monk Bao” or “monk Shi” is difficult to judge. It is even more difficult to determine whether he was the Master Song mentioned by Zhanran. Disregarding the issue of his name, there is the possibility that Huisi met him as monk Song lived on Mount Song and also lived in the same era as Huisi. If he was indeed the Master Song mentioned by Zhanran, there remains one unresolved problem: he was the third master in the lineage of the Tiantai school, but his teacher Master Jian was the fifth master. However, in effect the first six masters were Buddhist monks spreading the Buddhist teaching in the same era. As Pan Guiming and Li Silong have pointed out, there may not have been any formal transmission between them.15 15  Consult Pan Guiming, Wu Zhongwei (2001), Zhongguo Tiantai Tongshi. Jiangsu: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, p. 60; Li Silong (2003), Tiantai Zhiyi yanjiu. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, pp. 57–58.

100

Xu

This story mentions one important person in the lineage of the Tiantai school, Master Jian in the Bi’an temple of Xiangzhou. This story shows how influential Master Jian was at the time. His lectures were very popular. Not only was he an excellent scholar, but also there were many young distinguished students who would raise new and interesting points. The debates there were so exciting that even the sage monks forgot to return to attend a meeting at the Lingyin temple. This Master Jian was in all likelihood the fifth master Jian. The character jian 監 and the character jian 鑒 are similar in the form, and they may have been interchangeable in use. The biography of Huisi also said that he used to study under Master Jian 鑒, which provides us with another clue. Xiangzhou was an important place where Huike spread his teachings. Dhyāna Master Na, a disciple of Huike, was originally a master of Confucian studies. He had several hundred followers. Na went to Xiangzhou and encountered Huike’s lecturing on the Buddhist teachings, then he and ten other scholars joined the monastery and received precepts. Na’s disciples prepared a vegetarian meal to the east of Xiangzhou to bid farewell to their teacher. They wept loudly at his departure. Huiman (d. u.), a disciple of Na, originally lived in the Longhua temple in Xiangzhou. He received precepts from Dhyāna Master Na. According to “Biography of Fachong”, Dhyāna Master Na also had disciple Dhyāna Master Shi (d. u.). If monk Song’s original name is “Shi,” then it is still possible that he was a disciple of Dhyāna Master Na. Although there is no obvious evidence shedding light on the relationship between Dhyāna Master Jian and Huike’s group, it is certain that Dhyāna Master Jian would have been influenced by Huike because he was spreading Buddhist teachings at Xiangzhou. The sixth master was Master Hui. Li Silong has pointed out that based on the “Example of Explanation of the Doubtful Points of the Fifth Image of the Mind” (Diwu xinjing shiyi li 第五心境釋疑例) in “Meaning and Rules of Meditation” (Zhiguan yili 止觀義例) written by Zhanran, the sixth master Hui pointed to Mahasattva Fu (497–569) from Dongyang.16 Seeing the text of Zhanran’s work, he only meant to mention Mahasattva so as to compete with Bodhidharma. He emphasized that the teachings of the Tiantai school had “received the Buddhist Sūtras from afar and also fit well with the teachings of Mahasattva Fu.”17 However, he did not suggest that Mahasattva Fu was Master Hui.

16  Li Silong (2003), Tiantai Zhiyi yanjiu. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, p. 57. 17  T 46: 452c.

A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School

101

According to the twenty-fifth fascicle of the “Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks” there was a “Dhyāna Master Hui” after Huike. The life events of Dhyāna Master Hui are also seen in the biography of Xuanjing in the seventeenth fascicle. Xuanjing (d.606) “followed Dhyāna Master He (d. u.) and listened to the Dapin bore jing 大品般若經 (Mahāprajñāpāramita Sūtra) and Weimojie jing 維摩詰經 (Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa Sūtra). Because Xuanjing came late, he stood by the door and listened. He found the lecture to be profound and excellent and decided to take Master He as his master. Master He, due to his reputation for meditation and broad learning and having attracted exceedingly visitors and students, ordered Xuanjing to follow Master Hui who subsequently transmitted to Xuanjing the greatest mystery of the great vehicle.18 Dhyāna Master He and Master Hui were both disciples of Huike. Master Hui specialized in “the greatest mystery of the Great Vehicle,” and it seems that he inherited Huike’s quintessential teachings. Starting from Huike’s disciples, He, Hui and Duan and so on, were responsible for integrating “prajñā emptiness” into the Dhyāna teachings and became a branch of Chan school with a unique character.19 Based on Zhanran’s words, Master Hui often used “the investigation of the mind.” Inside, outside and in between, the mind was not obtainable. When the mind vanishes and becomes pure, the five senses exist only in the mind. This method was extremely close to Bodhidharma’s teachings. Therefore Master Hui was extremely likely to be Master Hui under Huike. Pan Guiming points out: The eight masters mentioned above had the common characteristics that they emphasized the teaching of the contemplation on one’s mind. The so-called “the fusing of the mind,” “the original mind,” “the quiet mind,” “the perceived mind,” “the investigation of the mind,” “the enlightened mind” were of this type of teaching. This type of Chan teaching was very different from the Hīnayāna teaching of “the four objects on which the thoughts should dwell” used by the Sengchou’s group. It was closer to the “the contemplation with a quiet mind by facing the wall in the Chan teaching of the Great Vehicle” used by Bodhidharma’s group.20

18  T 50: 569b. 19  Consult Xu Wenming (2004), Zhongtu qian qi Chan xue sixiang shi. Beijing: Beijing shifan daxue chubanshe, p. 174. 20  Pan Guiming, Wu Zhongwei (2001), Zhongguo Tiantai tongshi. Jiangsu: Jiang guji chubanshe, p. 60.

102

Xu

Li Silong also argued: The teaching of the lineage of Bodhidharma and of Huisi had in common the emphasis on the function and the importance of the mind. They used a simple style of teaching and leaned toward sudden enlightenment.21 To sum up the above points: based on the historical materials, of the first six masters of the Tiantai school, Master Ming, Master Song, Master Jian and Master Hui might belong to the Chan lineage of Bodhidharma. Master Zui and Master Jiu possibly belonged to the Huayan school. Master Ming, Master Song and Master Jian also possibly belonged to the groups of Fotuo and Sengchou. However, from the viewpoint of their philosophy, other than Master Ming and Master Zui, the rest were quite close to the lineage of Bodhidharma. The so-called “the original mind,” “the quiet mind,” “the perceived mind,” “the investigation of the mind,” “the enlightened mind” were all descriptions of one’s true nature. The sixth Patriarch Huineng was enlightened by the fifth Patriarch’s teaching. He said, “What do I expect from my own nature? It is originally pure and clean; what do I expect from my own nature? It originally does not come into being nor cease to exist; what do I expect from my own nature? It is originally complete; what do I expect from my own nature? It originally does not move; what do I expect from my own nature? It can give birth to all dharmas.”22 Huineng explained the purity, quietness, tranquility and enlightenment of one’s nature. These characteristics were essentially the same as the teachings of the six masters. Dhyāna Master Song emphasized on that one’s nature transcends the past, present and future. One’s true nature never moves. Huineng also said that one’s nature does not come into being nor cease to exist and does not move. Since nature does not come into being nor cease to exist, then there is no going or coming and no beginning or end. One’s true nature transcends time. Despite the past, present and future, the nature does not move. Dhyāna Master Jian said that the perceived mind could observe oneness. This was close to “Chan practice for attaching to suchness” (panyuan ruchan 攀緣如禪) in the Laṅkāvatāra sūtra. To observe suchness with complete wisdom and to rest one’s mind on the truth are the greatest Chan teachings of the Great Vehicle. Dhyāna Master Hui emphasized on “the investigation of the mind.” Inside, outside and in between, the mind was not obtainable and was pure. This was quite close to Daoxin’s (580–651) later Chan teaching. Later Chan teaching emphasized even more the practice of not 21  Li Silong (2003), Tiantai Zhiyi yanjiu. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, p. 57. 22  Xu Wenming (2004), Liuzhu tanjing zhu yi. Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, p. 6.

A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School

103

resting one’s mind on the differentiation, not in between, and not on anything. The mind was originally clear and pure. It was unclear what Master Hui meant by “the five senses existed only in the mind.” However, Daoxin taught five skillful means to practice, and they were all essential methods for keeping one’s mind still.23 I do not know if there is relation between the two teachings. The sources for the teachings of the Tiantai school were many. The early teaching of the Tiantai school emphasized the Mahāprajñāpāramita Sūtra and the Lotus Sūtra. There is no clear evidence that these six masters taught the Lotus Sūtra. The Early Chan school did not emphasize this doctrine either. Huisi “joined the monastery when he was fifteen. He recited Lotus Sūtra and other doctrines of the Great Vehicle. He was studying and practicing hard.”24 This showed that he greatly valued Lotus Sūtra at the beginning, and he seemed to have other teacher for this. According to the sixth fascicle in the “Accounts of Glorifying the Lotus Sūtra” (Hongzan Fahua zhuan 弘贊法華傳): Shi Jingjian, of unknown family background, joined the monastery when he was a child. He usually lived in the Songgao or Longmen mountains. He recited Lotus Sūtra thirteen thousand times. He mastered the system of three meditations of the Tiantai school and deeply understood the meditation teachings. Because he recited for such a long time he was very tired. After more than twenty years he suddenly heard several children at the northern side of his lodge. They were noisy and disturbing. He started to feel annoyed, but he did not know where the children came from. At that time there was a white-haired old man in a white silk dress. Every time he came to ask him, “How are your four elements, Dhyāna master?” Jingjian answered, “I gradually feel thin and tired. I do not know where so many children come from. They trouble and disturb me every day. I cannot tolerate it anymore.” The old man said, “Go to the place where they play and sit and wait for them to take off their clothes and get into the water to take a bath. Then take one of the children’s clothes and go home. If the child comes to ask for his clothes, be careful not to return them to him. If the child rebukes you, be careful not to answer. I will come and answer him.” Then Jingjian followed the old man’s words and went and waited. The children indeed took off their clothes and went into the pond for a bath. Jingjian took one child’s clothes and returned to his room. The child came to ask for his clothes. Jingjian remembered the old man’s words and persistently refused to return the clothes. The child then said some bad things to the master and even slandered his ancestors. 23  Consult Zhongtu qian qi Chan xue sixiang shi, pp. 196–7. 24  “Literary Work on Resolution and Wishes of Dhyāna Master Nanyue Si” T 46: 787a.

104

Xu

Jingjian still did not answer. The white-haired old man came and told the child, “Go into the Master’s arms.” The child did not at first obey. The old man pushed him several times, and then the child went to Jingjian’s arms and disappeared to his belly. The old man asked Jingjian, “How are your four elements?” Jingjian answered, “My energy is better than ever.” The old man then left. Afterwards Jingjian’s strength was strong. He could meditate and recite the Sūtra for a longer time. People who knew about this said that it must have been Samantabhadra Bodhisattva ordering the mountain god to make the spirits of medicine turn into children. Samantabhadra Bodhisattva then made Jingjian take it and eradicate his illness. Jingjian was the teacher who taught the meditation teachings to Dhyāna Master Miao. It was unknown when he died.25 Jingjian lived in the Songgao and Longmen mountains. He recited Lotus Sūtra thirteen thousand times and moved Samantabhadra Bodhisattva to reveal himself. He was naturally an eminent monk. Jingjian was the teacher of Dhyāna Master Huimiao. Master Huimiao was a companion of Huisi in Guangzhou, and he was also the teacher to Huiming (d. u.) and Fayin (531– 568). Huiming and Fayin “feared that they would lose the Truth, so they visited virtuous people. Their travel began south of the Yangtze River and ended north of the Yellow River. They met Huisi and Huimiao and then were able to dispel their obstructions. Afterwards they both returned to Xiaocheng. They only lived five more years and knew their death date in advance.”26 Huiming and Fayin met Huisi and Huimiao, and they died five years afterwards. This meeting probably took place in the third year of the Heqing reign (564) of the Northern Qi dynasty. That was when Huisi and Huimiao travelled to Guangzhou to spread the Buddhist teachings. Huimiao and Huisi were on a missionary tour at the same time. Huiming and Fayin met the two of them at the same time, and this illustrates that Huisi and Huimiao were companions. Therefore Jingjian, who was Huimiao’s teacher, was probably Huisi’s teacher too. Jingjian recited Lotus Sūtra, practiced three meditations of the Tiantai school and deeply understood the most important of the meditation teachings. These characteristics had a strong influence on Huisi. Therefore Jingjian and Huimiao made a great contribution to the birth of the Tiantai school. However, for no known reason, Guanding complained about Huimiao when he wrote the “Alternative Biography of Great Master Tiantai Zhiyi of the Sui Dynasty” (Sui Tiantai Zhiyi dashi biezhuan 隋天台智者大師別傳). He wrote 25  T 51: 29a. 26  T 50: 561b.

A Study of Early Transmissions of the Tiantai School

105

that “his behaviors were beyond common sense. It was often heard that he went astray in his debate.” Guanding also recorded the debate between Zhiyi and Huimiao and the story of his dreaming of debating with enemies.27 This might be because Zhiyi and Huimiao went different ways. No matter what happened, the contribution of Jingjian and Huimiao to the Tiantai school should not be forgotten. The rise of the Tiantai school was due to its absorption of the philosophies and the meditation teachings of various schools and its not limiting itself to the teachings of one particular school. More importantly it was the creative and revolutionary spirit of Huisi and Zhiyi and others who began the traditions of “the teachings change” and “the late comers were better than the previous ones.” They were not only the roots of the lively Tiantai school spirit but also were the main driving force for its later development. When the lineage was established, and the teachings were transmitted down without alteration, the Tiantai school began to gradually deteriorate. Therefore the multiplicity of sources of inspiration and great creativity were fundamental for the schools of Buddhism to continue thriving. Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title



Secondary Sources

Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義, T 33. Nanyue Si da chanshi lishi yuanwen 南岳思大禪師立誓願文, T 46.

Li Fuhua 李富華 (1998), Lue lun guanding 略論灌頂, Dongnan wenhua. Li Silong 李四龍 (2003), Tiantai Zhizhe yanjiu 天台智者研究, Beijing daxue chubanshi. Pan Guiming 潘桂明, Wu Zhongwei 吳忠偉 (2001), Zhongguo Tiantai zong tongshi 中國天台宗通史, Jiangsu guji chubanshi. Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1982), Sui Tang fojiao shi gao 隋唐佛教史稿, Zhonghua shuju. Xu Wenming 徐文明 (2004a), Zhongtu qian qi Chan xue sixiang shi 中土前期禪學思 想史, Beijing shifan daxue chubanshi. ——— (2004b), Liuzhu tanjing zhu shi 六祖壇經注釋, Zhongzou guji chubanshe.

27  T 50: 192a.

CHAPTER 6

A Preliminary Study on the Buddhist Thought of Huisi, the Tiantai School Pioneer: Questions regarding Early Tiantai Thought Zhang Fenglei 張風雷 Nāgājuna (c. 150–250 AD), the founder of the Madhyamaka school in ancient India, was esteemed as the first patriarch of the Tiantai School in Chinese Buddhism. The second patriarch is Master Huiwen 慧文1 of the Northern Qi Dynasty, and the third is Master Huisi 慧思 (515–577 AD). However, in reality founder of the Taintai school was Master Zhiyi 智顗 (538–598 AD).2 Zhang’an Guanding 章安灌頂 (561–632 AD), a student of Zhiyi, was to first to propose the lineage of the early Tiantai School in the “Origins” section of Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止觀.3 Such a viewpoint was further consolidated and strengthened by later generations. Through the formation of a lineage, espe­ cially the one that regarded Nāgājuna as the initial founder, it was Guanding’s intention to establish the orthodoxy of the Tiantai School rather than describe 1  Huiwen’s last name was Gao 高 before he became a Buddhist. His dates are unclear. Accord­ ing to the Biography of Huiwen in the fascicle 6 of Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀 by Zhipan 志磐 in the Southern Song Dynasty, he was active during the reigns of Emperor Xiaojing 孝靜 of the Eastern Wei Dynasty and Emperor Wenxuan 文宣 of the Northern Qi Dynasty (534–559 AD) See details in T 49: 178. 2  Previously Zhiyi’s dates were thought to be 538–597 AD However, according to Chen Yuan’s 陳垣 Ershi shi shuorun biao 二十史朔閏表, Yang Zengwen 楊曾文 argued that the date of Zhiyi’s death was 24th day of the eleventh month of the 17th year of Kaihuang era during the reign of Emperor Wen of the Sui Dynasty, that is, 598 AD See Yang Zengwen, “Guanyü zhon­ gri Tiantaizong de jige wenti” 關於中日天臺宗的幾個問題 (Questions about the Tiantai School in China and Japan), Dongnan wenhua 東南文化 (Southeast Culture), 1994 (2): 78. However, it is problematic that Yang inferred that Zhiyi was born in 539 AD given that he lived till the age of sixty. It is clear that sixty years before the 17th year of Kaihuang era of the Sui Emperor Wen is the 4th year of Datong era of Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty (538). Thus, Yang is wrong to infer the birth Zhiyi as 598 minus 60 equal 539. For further research, see Zhang Fenglei, “Zhizhe dashi de shishou yü shengnian” 智者大師的世壽與生年 (The lifetime and the birth year of Master Zhiyi), Zhengfa yanjiu 正法研究 (The Study of the True Dharma), vol. 1, published by the Mount Putuo Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture 普陀山佛教文化研究所, pp. 152–154. 3  Mohe zhiguan 1a, T 46: 1.

©

5 | 

/

Questions Regarding Early Tiantai Thought

107

the actual situation of historical development. In fact, it is impossible that Huiwen in the era of Eastern Wei and Northern Qi Dynasty could have suc­ ceeded Nāgājuna. Even in the early historical materials of the Tiantai School, the successional relationship between Huiwen and Huisi is unclear.4 However, it is generally acknowledged in the Buddhist historical materials that Zhiyi succeeded Huisi. Huishi of Nanyue no doubt played the most important role among the pioneers of Tiantai thought before Zhiyi. According to Buddhist history,5 Huisi was surnamed Li before he became a monk. He was born on 11th day, eleventh month, 515 AD in Wujin county, Ruyang prefecture, Nanyu (today located east of Shangcai county, Henan province). He became a monk when he was fifteen years old. Later, he travelled around the area of Yanzhou (now in Hao county, Anhui province), and Xinzhou (now Huaiyang, Henan province). He studied medication and Mahāyāna Buddhism with different masters. He determined to go south because several monks tried to poison him. He arrived at Yingzhou (now Xinyang, Henan province)6 in 553 AD He was invited to lecture on Mahāyāna by the governor of Yingzhou and 4  In the first section of the Mohe zhiguan, Guanding simply states “the Nanyue school inher­ ited from Master Huiwen” (T 46: 1). Daoxuan 道宣 said that Huisi “turned to Huiwen for Dharma and inherited the orthodox” in the biography of Huisi, fascicle 17 of Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳. He also mentioned that after Huisi learned the “Lotus Samādhi,” he “went to see Master Jian 鑒, Zui 最 and others, and expressed what he understood. They were all delighted to hear his explication.” (T 50: 562c–563a). In the biography of Zhiyi, Guanding stated that “Huisi followed Master Jiu 就 as well as Master Zui (T 50: 564b). Zhanran 湛然 proposed the so-called “the successive relationship of nine masters” (Ming 明, Zui, Song 嵩, Jiu, Jian, Hui 慧, Wen文, Si 思, Yi 顗) in the first part of fascicle 1, Zhiguan fuxing zhuan hongjue 止觀輔行傳弘決 (T 46: 149a–b). In Nanyue Si dashi lishi yuanwen 南嶽思大師立 誓願文, which is said to be authored by Huisi himself, Huisi said only roughly that “ he trav­ eled around the territory of Qi to learn Mahāyāna with different Masters” and he “stayed in Henan and studied with different Masters during the ages of twenty to thirty-eight.” (T 46: 787) He did not mention the exact names of these Masters such as Huiwen. Accordingly, although Huisi used to follow Huiwen, the successive relationship was not as simple and close as “in the same strain” as claimed by later generations. 5  The early historical materials referred here include Nanyue Si dashi lishi yuanwen by Huisi; Guanding’s Sui Tiantai zhizhe dashi biezhuan 隋天臺智者大師別傳; “Huisi’s biography” and “Zhiyi’s biography” in Daoxuan’s Xu gaoseng zhuan17, and Zhanran’s Zhiguan fuxing zhuan hongjue 1, the first part. 6  Huiyue 慧嶽 argued that Yingzhou where Huisi had been is modern-day Wuchang county, Hubei province. (Shi Huiyue, 1995, Tiantai jiaoxue shi 天臺教學史, the 6th edition. Taipei: Zhonghua fojiao wenxien bianzhuanshe 中華佛教文獻編撰社, p. 32. This is a misunder­ standing because there were two areas with the same name of Yingzhou in the Southern and Northern Dynasties. While “Yingzhou of the Southern Dynasty” was located in Wuchang

108

Zhang

was again poisoned by several vicious monks. The following year (554 AD), he arrived at Nanguangzhou (now Guangshan, Henan province). He was blocked by the war between the Western Wei and the Liang. As a result, he stayed and lectured in Mount Dasu, Guangzhou and attracted many followers. In 560 AD, Zhiyi was twenty-three years old and risked his life crossing the battle lines between Chen and Qi. He admired Huisi and became his disciple, studying the Lotus Samādhi and the meaning of “ten suchness” (shi ru 十如, a shorter form of shi rushi 十如是, the “ten kinds of thusness” of Tiantai teaching). Zhiyi stayed with Huisi for seven years until 567 AD following that he went to Jinling, the capital of Chen (now Nanjing, Jiangsu province), and promoted Buddhism under Huisi’s instruction and establishing the Tiantai School. The next year (568 AD), Huisi left Mount Dasu with his followers and dwelt on Mount Heng for ten years. Huisi died on the 22nd day of the sixth month, 577 AD. As the pioneer of the Tiantai School, Huisi’s thought is of great significance to the study on early Tiantai thought. According to various historical materials, Huisi composed nine texts including the Fahua jing anlexing yi 法華經安樂 行義, the Zhufa wuzheng sanmei famen 諸法無諍三昧法門, the Nanyue Si dashi lishi yuanwen, the Dasheng zhiguan famen 大乘止觀法門, the Suiziyi sanmei 隨自意三昧, the Shi lun xuan 釋論玄, the Cidi chanyao 次第禪要, the Sanzhi guanmen 三智觀門, and the Sishi’er zi men 四十二字門. While the latter four texts are no longer extant, most of the other five texts are of dis­ puted authorship, all apart from the Fahua jing anle xingyi and Zhufa wuzheng sanmei famen are considered forgeries. As a result, it is very difficult to conduct comprehensive research on the Buddhist thought of Huisi at present. Buddhist history that describes the Buddhist thought of Huisi is mostly based on the legends in Buddhist histories or biographies. It identifies that two aspects of his thought influenced the Tiantai School most significantly. One is the basic principle, “twofold practice of meditation and wisdom” (dinghui sankai 定慧 雙開), and the other is the “simultaneous vision of past, present, and future” (yixin sanguan 一心三觀). However, there remains much to be investigated. Accordingly, based on others’ research findings, the works of Huisi and Zhiyi, and other relatively reliable historical materials of the Tiantai School, this arti­ cle tries to put forward some ideas about the characteristics of Huisi’s Buddhist thought and their relationship to those of Zhiyi. This article provides only a limited observation and I hope other scholars will offer their comments.

county, “Yingzhou of the Northern Dynasty” was located in Xinyang county, Henan province. Huisi’s Yingzhou should be Yingzhou of the Northern Qi.

Questions Regarding Early Tiantai Thought

1

109

“Twofold Practice of Meditation and Wisdom” and “Wisdom Arising from Meditation”

Traditionally, “twofold practice of meditation and wisdom” is the major char­ acteristic of Huisi’s Buddhist thought. This idea was inherited by Zhiyi and the Tiantai School, and it became the fundamental thought of the Tiantai School. It also profoundly influenced Chinese Buddhism generally, both at the time and subsequently. Daoxuan, an eminent monk in the Tang Dynasty (596–667 AD) commented: Buddhism in the area of eastern Yangtze River emphasized scholasticism and despised the practice of meditation. Huisi deplored such a devel­ opment in the south and advocated both meditation and wisdom. He probed into doctrines during the daytime and practiced contemplation at night. Accordingly, what he said was always profound. It affirms the true principle that wisdom arises from mediation. Most of the southern and northern Chan schools followed his approach.7 This traditional view roughly conforms to the historical facts. As we know, there are various Chinese Buddhist schools in the Southern and Northern Dynasties. In general, Buddhism in southern China focuses more on the lectures and the doctrines of Buddhist sūtras, with less focus on meditation. In other words, it emphasizes wisdom over meditation. Buddhism in northern China focuses more on meditation and merit accumulation through the production of Buddhist statues, that is, valuing meditation over wisdom. This is known as “Southern Scholasticism and Northern Chan.” Recently, scholars have begun to question this. However, according to Zhiyi, it was obvious that “Northern masters practice inner realization” and “Southern scholars master language and words.” Apparently, there was such a difference between the Northern and Southern traditions. Compared with the view that “Northern masters practice inner realization” and “Southern scholars master language and words,” the idea of “twofold practice of meditation and wisdom” is an important charac­ teristic of Huisi’s thought. In the text of Zhufa wuzheng sanmei famen, Huisi said that “take the meditation as the mother and the wisdom as the father, the combination of wisdom and mediation produces the son, the Tathāgata.8 This definitely demonstrates the characteristics of the thought of “twofold practice of medication and wisdom.” 7  “Huisi zhuan,” fascicle 17 of Xu gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 563c–564a. 8  Fascicle 1 of Zhufa wuzheng sanmei famen, T 46: 630b.

110

Zhang

However, if we conduct further analysis, we will find that the “twofold prac­ tice of medication and wisdom” advocated by Huisi adopted the approach of “wisdom arising from meditation.” In Zhufa wuzheng sanmei famen, Huisi highlighted the importance of meditation and quoted various scriptures to elaborate the meaning of “wisdom arising from meditation”: As said in the Chanding lun 禪定論, the wisdom of three vehicles arises from meditation. The Bore lun 般若論 also states that wisdom arises from meditation. You feel confused because you do not know this . . . Again, Bore boluomi guangming shilun 般若波羅蜜光明釋論 states that: The Tathāgata’s wisdom, gorgeous light and divine power all arise from the practice of meditation. Also, Shengding jing 勝定經 states: If some­ one does not practice meditation and does not achieve realization, rather he reads twelve sets of scriptures, writing notes all over the scrolls, mas­ tering the knowledge of the whole world and with great diligence, he preaches on these scriptures for innumerable kalpas, such cannot com­ pare with his focusing on one thought and entering into meditation. Why is it? Anyone who ever tried to practice meditation, even those who only practiced at a preliminary level, are superior to all masters of exegetics, how much more so those who have achieved a meditative state.9 According to Huisi, although we have to learn meditation and wisdom at the same time, they are not equal. Huisi stressed that the wisdom of three vehicles arises from the practice of meditation. The true wisdom only comes from the practice of meditation. Adopting the approach of “wisdom arising from medi­ tation” is necessary because the practice of meditation is the foundation of the wisdom. Such a tendency in Huisi’s thought can be shown by the difference in his approach from that of Zhiyi. According to the more reliable, early history of Buddhism, Huisi regards Zhiyi as “the best among those who preached Buddhist sūtras.”10 He also said that “he [Zhiyi] is my Dharma son and I regret his lack of concentration.”11 Zhiyi followed Huisi in Mount Dasu and under­ stood Lotus Samādhi. He also made significant progress in the practice of meditation. He was well-known as a “Chan master” during the Chen and Sui Dynasties. Nevertheless, Zhiyi was still good at understanding the Buddhist sūtras yet did not sufficiently emphasize practicing meditation. Zhiyi himself 9   Zhufa wuzheng sanmei famen, fascicle 1, T 46: 629a–b. 10  Guanding, Sui tiantai zhizhe dashi biezhuan, T 50: 192a. 11  “Zhiyi zhuan,” Xu gaoseng zhuan, fascicle 17, T 50: 564b.

Questions Regarding Early Tiantai Thought

111

also acknowledged this. He once said in Xunzhi shiren 訓知事人 in his old age: “my fellow Master Zhao 照12 is the best in the practice of meditation among Huisi’s disciples in Nanyue.”13 Such a difference between Huisi and Zhiyi is not so much the lack of Zhiyi’s practice of meditation but the different ideas held by Huisi and Zhiyi. Of course, this is not to say that Huisi did not value wis­ dom or that Zhiyi did not value meditation. Both of them advocated “twofold practice of meditation and wisdom” or “equal capabilities of concentration and contemplation.” On a deeper investigation it emerges that Huisi stressed “wisdom arising from mediation,” which contained the characteristic of the Northern school that “treated mediation as the foundation.” Compared with Huisi, Zhiyi did not limit himself to the approach of “wis­ dom arising from meditation,” or “treated mediation as the foundation.” He tried to integrate the two strands of thought as a unity, namely, the southern emphasis on wisdom and the northern emphasis on mediation. Of course, strictly speaking, Zhiyi’s thought went through a process of transformation. There is a clear evidence that Zhiyi was influenced by Huisi’s “wisdom follows mediation” from his early text of Shi chan boluomi cidi famen 釋禪波羅蜜次 第法門, for example: Meditation is the only way to be released from disturbing passions. Obtaining wisdom by the practice of meditation helps to remove the bondage and instigators of the passions. Wisdom without meditation is just like a lamp in the wind. To understand this, one must know that all virtues and wisdom are to be found in meditation. The Moheyan lun 摩訶衍論 states that all Buddhas attain enlightenment, teach the path to enlightenment, reach the profound peace of mind, turn the Dharma wheel, and enter nirvana. All of these merits lay in mediation.14 However, in his later text of Xiao zhiguan 小止觀, Zhiyi discussed the rela­ tionship between concentration and contemplation, or put another way that between the mediation and wisdom. He had transcended the approach of “wisdom follows mediation,” or “treating the mediation as the foundation.”

12  Master Zhao is Sengzhao. He and Zhiyi followed Huisi in the Dasu mountain, then he go south with Huisi to Mt. Heng. After the death of Huisi, he and Dashan 大善 led the monks of Nanyue 南嶽. In the Sui Dynasty, Sengzhao hosted Huiri 慧日 practicing venue in Yangzhou upon the invitation of the Emperor, Yang Guang 楊廣. 13  Guanding, Guoqing bailu 國清百錄 fascicle 1, T 46: 799a. 14  Shi chan boluomi cidi famen 1a, T 46: 476c.

112

Zhang

He emphasized “parallel cultivation of concentration and contemplation,” and “equal capability of meditation and wisdom.” He pointed out: One should know that these two approaches are just like two wheels of a wagon, two wings of a bird. Emphasizing either of them would lead to bias. Accordingly, the sūtra states: if one only focuses on the merit of mediation without increasing wisdom, one is foolish; whereas only culti­ vating wisdom without any merit of mediation is madness. The mistakes of being foolish or mad are minute but different. However, there is no dif­ ference between them in terms of the turning of the wrong views. Those who do not practice them equally will completely go astray, and it will be impossible to reach the ultimate enlightenment quickly.15 The above paragraph from the Xiao zhiguan is often quoted. Strictly speak­ ing, this paragraph does not represent the most mature view of Zhiyi on the relationship between concentration and contemplation or between mediation and wisdom. According to the theory of “perfect and sudden con­ centration and contemplation” (yuandun zhiguan 圓頓止觀), in the most mature view of Zhiyi, concentration and contemplation, or mediation and wisdom can be stated easily as two ways, such as the two wheels of a wagon, or two wings of a bird. In fact, they are two sides of one thing. Zhiyi pointed out: There is no wisdom without Chan, no Chan without wisdom. Chan and wisdom are two sides of one thing. If teachings are separated, then there will be two understandings of meditation and wisdom.16 Accordingly, concentration and contemplation, or mediation and wisdom, are not two ways of cultivation, but two sides of the same cultivation. They are complementary and inseparable. They are separated into two different meth­ ods of cultivation for ease of understanding. In fact, wisdom is involved when talking about mediation and vice versa.17 There is no mediation that can be separated from wisdom, and there is no wisdom that can be separated from mediation. Mediation and wisdom, concentration and contemplation, are the unity of inner essence. In the Mohe zhiguan, Zhiyi argued concentration and contemplation connect with each other automatically:

15  Xiuxi zhiguan zuochan fayao 修習止觀坐禪法要, T 46: 462b. 16  Guanyin xuanyi 觀音玄義 1, T 34: 882a. 17  Ibid., p. 931a.

Questions Regarding Early Tiantai Thought

113

Concentration and contemplation are interlinked. Concentration also refers to contemplation as well as non-concentration. Contemplation also refers to concentration as well as non-contemplation.18 It is evident that in the theory of “perfect and sudden concentration and contemplation” proposed by Zhiyi, concentration and contemplation, media­ tion and wisdom are interlinked in perfect harmony. They are separated into two parts, but they are two sides of one coin. In this way, Zhiyi transformed the dualism of concentration and contemplation, or mediation and wisdom into a unity. It is not difficult to tell that meditation and wisdom are equally important, and twofold practice of concentration and contemplation did not simply advocate the equality of the practices of meditation and wisdom, or concentration and contemplation from the outside. Rather, he emphasized their internal complementarity. From his point of view, mediation with­ out wisdom is not mediation, and vice versa. The thought that opposed the separation of mediation and wisdom, or concentration and contemplation established the principle of the equal importance of meditation and wisdom, and twofold practice of concentration and contemplation in Buddhism, a fun­ damental tenet of the Tiantai School, a contribution to the further develop­ ment of Chinese Buddhism. Thus, we consider Huisi a pioneer of Tiantai thought because he proposed the principle of the twofold practice of mediation and wisdom. However, the principle proposed by Huisi adopted the approach of “wisdom follows mediation,” which bore traces of the Northern school’s approach of treating mediation as the foundation. It was not until Zhiyi who harmoniously integrated meditation and wisdom, concentration and contemplations based on the thought of Huisi, did the Tiantai School achieve further development. The fundamental thought of the Tiantai School, namely, “twofold practice of mediation and wisdom,” “parallel cultivation of concentration and contem­ plation,” refers to “perfect and sudden concentration and contemplation” proposed by Zhiyi, not the approach of “wisdom follows mediation” proposed by Huisi. 2

Three Contemplations (Sanguan 三觀) and Ten Suchness

Under the principle of parallel cultivation of concentration and contempla­ tion, the Tiantai School has its specific approach of contemplation. According 18  Mohe zhiguan 3a, T 46: 22c.

114

Zhang

to Tiantai theory, the approach of contemplation is to mediate the three truths of unreality, dependent reality, and transcendence in one mind, namely, “simul­ taneous vision of the past, present, and future” (Yixin sanguan). According to the traditional view, “simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future” was initially proposed by Huiwen, the teacher of Huisi. Huiwen created a complete and immediate approach, namely, the mediations of one mind, according to the thought of “attaining three wisdom in single mind” in fascicle 27 of the Dazhidu lun 大智度論 (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom)19 together with the “gatha of three truths” (Sanshi ji 三是偈) in the chapter Guan sidi pin 觀四諦品, fascicle 4 of the Zhong lun, is “All phenomena arising from causal relations are empty. This is a provisional name, indicating the Middle Way.”20 Huiwen passed this approach to Huisi, and Huisi to Zhiyi. Zhizi further elabo­ 19  The notion “attaining three wisdom in single mind” means that when Buddha was enlightened, he has the wisdom of knowing all things in their proper state (daozhong zhi 道種智), omniscience (yiqie zhi 一切智), and the wisdom of knowing all things in all their aspects and relationships (yiqie zhong zhi 一切種智). According to Fascicle 27 of Dazhidu lun:  “Those who aim to obtain omniscience through achieving the wisdom of knowing all things in their proper state, or to obtain the wisdom of knowing all things in all their aspects and relationships through achieving omniscience, should practice the perfec­ tion of wisdom. Question: When the Buddha achieved enlightenment, he attained the wisdom of knowing all things in their proper state, through which he then attained omniscience and the wisdom of knowing all things in their every aspect and relation­ ship. Why do you say that omniscience can bring about the wisdom of knowing all things in all their aspects and relationships now? Answer: When the Buddha was enlightened, he achieved omniscience and the wisdom of knowing all things in all their aspects and relationships. He also attained the wisdom of all things in their proper state, but he did not use it. It is just like a king possesses all the treasures in his country when he takes the throne, but he does not necessarily use them . . . Question: Since the single mind can attain omniscience and the wisdom of knowing all things in all their aspects and relation­ ships and then remove all disturbances, why is it stated that omniscience brings about the wisdom of knowing all things in all their aspects and relationships, which then removes all disturbances? Answer: The truth is that all will be attained in one instant. However, in order to convince people of the perfection of wisdom, there is the theory of hierarchical status. In order to enable people to attain pure mind, the theory was rendered as such.” (T 25: 269b)  The paragraph in the fascicle 27 of Dazhidu lun became the basis of the concepts of “attaining three wisdom in single mind” or “three wisdom of single mind.” 20  The “gatha of three truths” cited here was based on Zhiyi’s quotation. The extant gatha in the chapter “Guan sidi pin,” fascicle 4, the Zhong lun is: “All phenomena arising from causal relations are empty. This is a provisional name, and it also indicates the Middle Way. (T 30: 33b)

Questions Regarding Early Tiantai Thought

115

rated this approach. Finally, the approach of “simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future” became the foundation of the Tiantai School. The traditional argument was seen in Huiwen’s biography in fascicle 6 of Fozu tongji, written by monk Zhipan of the Tiantai School in 1269 AD21 When it comes to the Tiantai approach of “simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future,” this source is the most often referred to. Zhipan mentioned his source materials for Huiwen’s biography: Zhiguan fuxing 止觀輔行, Zongyuan lu 宗元錄 and Jiuzu luezhuan 九祖略傳.22 Zhiguan fuxing zhuan hongjue was written by Jingxi Zhanran 荊溪湛然 (711–782 AD), and Tiantai jiuzu zhuan 天臺九祖傳, also known as Jiuzu luezhuan, was written by Shiheng 士衡 of the Southern Song Dynasty. Neither Dazhidu lun nor the “gatha of three truths” in the Zhong lun mention that Huiwen developed the theory of “simultane­ ous vision of the past, present, and future” according to “achieving three wis­ doms in one mind.” As for the Zongyuan lu mentioned by Zhipan, also known as Tiantai zongyuan lu 天臺宗元錄, was written by monk Yuanying 元穎 from Wuxing in the Zhenghe era of the Northern Song Dynasty (1111–1117 AD). Wu Keji 吳克己 from Wunu, or Kai’an 鎧庵, expanded the Zongyuan lu into the Shimen zhengtong 釋門正統 during the reign of the Emperor Ningzong of the Southern Song Dynasty (1195–1200 AD), but died before finishing the text. Monk Jingqian 景遷, also known as Jing’an 鏡庵 from Yuyao, expanded the Zongyuan lu and the Shimen zhengtong during 1208–1224 AD and wrote Zongyuan lu. Later on, Zongjian 宗鑒 from Qiantang Liangzhu 錢塘良渚 supplemented Wu Keji’s work and maintained the same title. It was published in 1233 AD and republished in 1237 AD. This is the extant version and is con­ tained in the Shimen zhengtong in the Xu zangjing. In the section on Huiwen’s clan in fascicle 1 of Shimen zhengtong, it states that Huiwen established the theory of “simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future” based on the notion of “the achievement of three wisdoms in one mind” in the Dazhidu lun and the “gatha of three truths” in the Zhong lun.23 There is only a slight dif­ ferent in wording compared to fascicle 6 of Fozu tongji. Zongyuan lu, the source of the Shimen zhengtong and Fozu tongji, is probably lost, and we do not know if it has similar account. Even if this account is seen in Zongyuan lu, there is a gap of five or six hundred years from the time when Huiwen and Huisi lived. The records about Huiwen were very sketchy in earlier Buddhist literature. For example, Guanding mentioned Huiwen in the first section of Mohe zhiguan stating that 21  T 49: 178b–c. 22  Ibid., p. 178c. 23  See Xu zangjing 130: 730a–731a.

116

Zhang

“Huiwen’s approach was unique, high but unknown in the region of Yellow River and Huai River in the Qi Dynasty. He developed this approach accord­ ing to the Shi lun 釋論.”24 There is no biography of Huiwen in Xu gaoseng zhuan, and he is only briefly mentioned in Huisi’s biography, which states that Master Huiwen attracted several hundred disciples with his strict and impar­ tial laws. He was esteemed by the monks and laymen alike, and Huisi became his disciple.25 Zhanran mentioned Huiwen in the first part of fascicle 1 in the Zhiguan fuxing zhuan hongjue, which states, “Huiwen emphasized the mind, the double-contemplation samādhi, the annihilation samādhi, and the nonintermission samādhi. There is no difference in the dharmas.”26 In the more reliable historical materials dating to before the mid-Tang, there is no mention of Huiwen’s approach of “simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future.” There is also no record like those stories of the Tiantai after the Song Dynasty describing how Huiwen developed this approach according to fascicle 30 of Dazhidu lun27 and the chapter of “four truths” in the Zhong lun. The legends in the Shimen zhengtong and the Fozutong ji are hence doubtful. Secondly, in Zhiyi’s work, it is stated that the phrase the “three contempla­ tions” was from the Yingluo jing 瓔珞經28 and the phrase the “simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future” was from the Shi lun. The latter states: “The three wisdoms are to be attained in single mind.” Observing one contem­ plation and achieving the “three contemplations”; observing one truth and achieving the “three truths.” This approach is hence named “simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future.”29 Yet the Shi lun does not mention any transmission from Huiwen or Huisi. Guanding claims in the first section of Mohe zhiguan that the Tiantai School transmits Huisi’s three contemplations: gradual, unfixed, and perfect and sudden.30 He also states that the clarity and tranquility of this type of concentration and contemplation was unknown in the past.31 This perfect and sudden contemplation based on the “simultane­ ous vision of the past, present, and future” is what Zhiyi practiced himself and 24  Mohe ziguan 1a, T 46: 1b. 25  Xu gaoseng zhuan 17, T 50: 562c. 26  T 46: 149a–b. 27  Shimen zhengtong and Fozu tongji stated that Huiwen apprehended “three wisdoms in one mind” and created “simultaneous vision of past, present, and future” after he read fascicle 30 of Dazhidu lun. The quotations in the Shimen zhengtong and Fozu tongji were indeed from fascicle 27 of Dazhidu lun. 28  Mohe zhiguan, 3a, T 46: 24b. 29  Guan wuliangshou fojing shu 觀無量壽佛經疏, T 37: 187c. 30  Mohe zhiguan 1a, T 46: 1c. 31  Ibid., p. 1a.

Questions Regarding Early Tiantai Thought

117

then preached.32 It is obvious that, from Guanding’s perspective, the theory was actually invented by Zhiyi. His saying that “the Tiantai School transmits Huisi’s three contemplations” was intended to establish a tradition for the Tiantai School. He did not mean that this approach based on “simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future” was passed from Huisi to Zhiyi. Huisi’s thought also proves that this approach was not passed from Huisi to Zhiyi. As we know, the approach of “simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future” is closely related to the “perfect harmony of three truths” (sandi yuanrong 三諦圓融) of the Tiantai School; the former idea cannot stand without the latter. The former denotes a single mind’s realization of the three truths: emptiness, the empirical and the mean. If the approach of “simultane­ ous vision of the past, present, and future” was passed from Huiwen to Huisi, then Huisi to Zhiyi, there should be mentions of the three contemplations or the three truths in Huisi’s teaching. However, there are none in any of his texts (including the Dasheng zhiguan famen and the Nanyue Si dashi lishi yuanwen, which are regarded as forgeries by scholars).33 It is not difficult to conclude that there is no clear concept of “perfect harmony of three truths” in Huisi’s thought. The formulation of this concept has to do with “the attainment of three wisdoms in one mind” in the Dazhidu lun, the “gatha of the three truths” in the Zhong lun, and the “ten suchness” in the chapter on “Skillful Means” in the Lotus Sūtra. As the Lotus Sūtra explains “the real form of all dharmas”:

32  Ibid., p. 1b. 33  Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 said, in addition to Wuzhengxing men 無諍行門 and Anlexing yi 安樂行義, Huisi’s extant work includes the Nanyue chanshi lishi yuanwen 南嶽禪師立 誓願文. However, according to Daoxuan’s Biographies, Nanyue chansi lishi yuanwen may have been forged by later generations. Besides, according to the notes of Master Zunshi 遵式 in the Song Dynasty, a Japanese monk Jakushō (寂照, Ch. Jizhao) came to China in the third year of Xianping era of the Emperor Zhenzong and conferred on him the extant four fascicles of the Dasheng zhiguan famen (or two fascicles in the Tongji 統紀). There are many quotations from Qixin lun 起信論 (Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna) in fascicle 25 of Tongji. In fact the Qixin lun appeared during Huisi’s old age. Accordingly, the Dasheng zhiguan famen may not be Huisi’s work as Japanese monks had mentioned this earlier before.” (Tang Yongtong, 1982, Sui Tang fojiao shigao 隋唐佛教史稿 The Historical Manuscripts of Buddhism in the Sui and Tang Dynasty. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, p. 128.) Lü Cheng also said that “The Dasheng zhiguan famen is attributed to Huisi. however, its structure is the same as that of the Qixin lun. It must have been forged by later generations judging by its contents. (see Lü Cheng, Zhongguo foxue yuanliu lue jiang 中國佛學源流 略講, Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, p. 329.)

118

Zhang

Buddhas are enlightened through the most unique and difficult approach. Only Buddhas can see the real form of all dharmas: such a form, such a nature, such an embodiment, such a potency, such a function, such a pri­ mary cause, such a secondary cause, such an effect, such a recompense, and such a complete fundamental whole.34 In other words, the highest wisdom in Buddhism is to see the “real form of all dharmas,” namely, to completely master the reality of the universal law. The reality of the universal law can be explored from ten aspects concerning its form and characteristics. Zhiyi proposed a creative reading for the paragraph above: “the reading of three turns” (sanzhuan dufa 三轉讀法). In fascicle 2 of Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義: The Tiantai Master said: Reading the text in the light of its doctrines, there are three turns. The first is on xiang-ru 相如, xing-ru 性如, and even baoru 報如. The second is on rushi-xiang 如是相, rushi-xing 如是性, and even rushi-bao 如是報. The third is on xiang-rushi 相如是, xing-rushi 性如是, and the bao-rushi 報如是. For those called ru 如, it refers to identical meaning of emptiness. For those called rushi- 如是, it indicates the nature of emptiness but differs the name for different circumstances; this represents the empirical meaning. For those called -rushi, its shi in the doctrinal context of the Middle Way refers to the meaning of the mean. For the sake of convenience, the doctrine is differentiated as emptiness, the empirical and the mean. If speaking from the connota­ tion, emptiness is same as the empirical and the mean. Ru explains emp­ tiness: when one is empty, all is empty. This is like the understanding of xiang: when one is empirical, all is empirical. Explicating the mean from shi, then when one is the mean, all is the mean. Negating one-two-three but still one-two-three, not vertical nor horizontal, this is called the real form. Only Buddhas deeply comprehend this dharma. These ten dhar­ mas govern all phenomena.35 It is through the reading of three turns that Zhiyi elaborated the theory of the Taintai “perfect harmony of three truths,” which became the real form of all dharmas. It is undeniable that Zhiyi’s extreme emphasis on the “ten kinds of thusness” in the Lotus Sūtra was influenced by Huisi. Among the various translations of 34  The chapter of skillful means, fascicle 1, Lotus Sūtra, T 9: 5. 35  Fahua xuanyi 2a, T 33: 693b.

Questions Regarding Early Tiantai Thought

119

the Lotus Sūtra, only Kumārajīva’s translation mentions “ten kinds of thusness” However, Kumārajīva himself and his disciples did not pay serious attention to it in reading the Lotus Sūtra. It was not until Huisi who noticed the signifi­ cance of the “ten kinds of thusness” for revealing the real form of all dharmas. Nevertheless, it is worthy of attention that Huisi emphasized the character ru when he explained this paragraph. Fascicle 2 of Fahua xuanyi says: Master Huisi kept on saying ru while reading this text, hence called it “ten suchness” (shiru).36 Among the “three truths,” ru is the truth of emptiness. From Huisi’s perspec­ tive, the real form of all dharmas means that the ten aspects concerning the form and characteristics of all dharmas are all ru and empty. The real form of all dharmas is non-form and non-characteristics. In this respect, Huisi’s under­ standing was somewhat different from Zhiyi’s “reading of three turns.” Huisi’s emphasis on the “truth of emptiness” is also manifested in his media­ tion teaching. Huisi divided “Lotus serene and joyful practice” into two types in the Fahua jing anlexing yi. One is formless practice, and the other is formembracing practice.37 The latter, also called “form-embracing practice with words,” refers to the approach for those who do not practice meditation nor enter samādhi, and reciting the Lotus Sūtra to practice casually.38 Formless practice refers to the deep and wonderful meditation of the serene and joyful practice, the ultimate non-mind thinking, which attains the highest status that “in all dharmas, mind and form are extinguished, fundamentally non-arising.”39 This is consistent with Huisi’s use of ru to explain real form of all dharmas in the Lotus Sūtra. Although Huisi and Zhiyi both emphasized the Lotus Sūtra and the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (including the Dazhidu lun and the Zhong lun, etc.), their focus was different. Generally speaking, Huisi understood the Lotus Sūtra through the notion of the emptiness of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, emphasizing the notion of ru as equivalent to emptiness. Zhiyi treated the Lotus Sūtra as the axis, and the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra as the auxiliary. In other words, he explicated the perfect harmony of three truths through his reading of the three turns on the ten kinds of thusness in the Lotus Sūtra. Then, based on that, he explained the attainment of three wisdoms in one 36  Ibid., p. 693b. 37  Fahua jing anle xingyi, T 46: 700a. 38  Ibid., p. 700b. 39  Ibid., p. 700.

120

Zhang

mind in the Dazhidu lun, and the “gatha of three truths” in the Zhong lun, and thereby established the approach of simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future. Of course, it seems inappropriate to state that Huisi has nothing to do with the approach of simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future when con­ sidering his lost text Sanzhi guanmen. However, the approach he advocated in Sanzhi guanmen cannot reach the theoretical level of attaining three truths in one mind. There is still a long way to go from the notion of three types of wisdom in one mind to the Tiantai theoretical system of simultaneous vision of the past, present, and future and the perfect harmony of three truths. This was completed by Zhiyi. As for the narrative in the Shimen zhengtong and Fozu tongji, they are unreliable. In sum, there are two main features of Huisi’s thought. First, he proposed that wisdom arises from meditation: the twofold practice of meditation and wisdom is relied on the basis of meditation practice. Secondly, he under­ stood the Lotus Sūtra through the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, emphasizing the truth of emptiness. Zhiyi moved forward from the base of Huisi, initiated theoretical development, established the principle of “parallel cultivation of concentration and contemplation” for Buddhist practice, and completed the core of Tiantai doctrine: “perfect harmony of three truths” and “simultane­ ous vision of the past, present, and future.” The core Tiantai teachings and the whole set of contemplation theory should be attributed to Zhiyi, the founder of the Tiantai School. Zhiyi’s teacher Huisi should be regarded as a pioneer thinker of the Tiantai School. (First published in Studies in World Religions, Vol. 2, 2001. It was reprinted in Renda baokan fuyin ziliao: zongjiao人大報刊複印資料：宗教 [Reprinted Periodicals by Renmin University of China-Religion] Vol. 5, 2001.) Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Dazhidu lun 大智度論, T 48. Fahua jing anle xingyi 法華經安樂行義, T 46. Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義, T 33. Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀, T 49. Guan wuliangshou fojing shu 觀無量壽佛經疏, T 37. Guanyin xuanyi 觀音玄義, T 34. Guanyin yishu 觀音義疏, T 34. Guoqing bailu 國清百錄, T 46.

Questions Regarding Early Tiantai Thought

121

Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止觀, T 46. Nanyue Si dashi lishi yuanwen 南嶽思大師立誓願文, T 46. Shi chan boluomi cidi famen 釋禪波羅蜜次第法門, T 46. Sui Tiantai zhizhe dashi biezhuan 隋天臺智者大師別傳, T 50. The Lotus Sūtra 妙法蓮華經, T 9. The Zhong lun 中論, T 30. Xiuxi zhiguan zuochan fayao 修習止觀坐禪法要, T 46. Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳, T 50. Zhiguan fuxing zhuan hongjue 止觀輔行傳弘決, T 46. Zhufa wuzheng sanmei famen 諸法無諍三昧法門, T 46.



Secondary Sources

Chen Yuan 陳垣 (1962), Ershi shi shuorun biao 二十史朔閏表, Zhonghua shuju. Lü Cheng 呂澂 (1979), Zhongguo foxue yuanliu luejiang 中國佛學源流略講 (A General Introduction to the Origins of Chinese Buddhism), Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Shi Huiyue 釋慧嶽 (1995), Tiantai jiaoxue shi 天臺教學史, the 6th edition. Taipei: Zhonghua fojiao wenxien bianzhuanshe 中華佛教文獻編撰社. Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1982), Sui Tang fojiao shigao 隋唐佛教史稿 (The Historical Manuscripts of Buddhism in the Sui and Tang Dynasty), Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Yang Zengwen 楊曾文 (1994), “Guanyu zhongri Tiantaizong de jige wenti” 關於中日 天臺宗的幾個問題 (Questions about the Tiantai School in China and Japan), Dongnan wenhua 東南文化 (Southeast Culture), No. 2. Zhang Fenglei 張風雷 (1999), “Zhizhe dashi de shishou yu shengnian” 智者大師的世 壽與生年 (The lifetime and the birth year of Master Zhiyi), Zhengfa yanjiu 正法 研究, Vol. 1, published by the Mount Putuo Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture 普陀山佛教文化研究所, pp. 152–54.

Buddhist Classics

∵

CHAPTER 7

Questions about the Śūraṅgama Sūtra Li Fuhua 李富華 The full title of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is Dafoding rulai miyin xiuzheng liaoyi zhu pusa wanxing shoulengyan jing 大佛頂如來密因修證了義諸菩薩萬行首 楞嚴經, also known as Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經 or Dafoding shoulengyan jing 大佛頂首楞嚴經. It is a Mahāyāna Buddhist scripture translated in the middle of the Tang Dynasty. Zhisheng 智升, a famous cataloger of Buddhist scriptures, recorded the Śūraṅgama Sūtra in his work titled Xu gujin yijing tuji 續古今譯經圖記 and in the Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教錄. According to these works, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was recited at the imperial practicing venue (Zhizhi daochang 制旨道場) in Guangzhou by Pāramiti (Ch. Bancimidi 般刺蜜帝) from Central India during the reign of Emperor Zhongzong of the Tang Dynasty (705 AD). It is said that Miqieshijia 彌迦釋迦 from Udyāna translated the Śūraṅgama Sūtra into Chinese, Fang Rong 房融, a famous minister in the Tang Dynasty, transcribed it, and Monk Huaidi 懷迪 certified it. After Zhisheng, Yuanzhao 圓照 also included the Śūraṅgama Sūtra in his catalogue, the Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄, compiled during the Zhenyuan Era under Emperor Dezong of the Tang Dynasty. The entries in this catalogue were basically consistent with those of Kaiyuan shijiao lu. Afterwards, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was included in all versions of the Chinese Buddhist canon. From the Kaibao 開寶 canon, the first woodcarved Chinese Buddhist canon, produced in Chengdu, in the early years of the Northern Song Dynasty down to the Long 龍 canon, carved and printed during the period of Emperor Yongzheng and Kangxi of the Qing Dynasty, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was included with no exceptions. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra was investigated and reviewed by numerous catalogers and scholars over a thousand years from the mid-Tang Dynasty till the early Qing Dynasty. It is still included in the Chinese Buddhist canon, the most authoritative Chinese Buddhist collection. Accordingly, its reliability, or authenticity, should be beyond question. After the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was translated into Chinese, it exerted wide influence in Chinese Buddhism. Taixu 太虛, an influential monk in contemporary China, made the following statement in his text on Dafoding shoulengyan jing shelun 大佛頂首楞嚴經攝論:

©

5 | 

/

126

Li

The Śūraṅgama Sūtra was deeply rooted in China. Before it reached China, the Tiantai School eagerly sought for it. After its arrival in China, it was widely advocated by succeeding dynasties. Lü Cheng 呂澂, a famous Buddhist scholar in contemporary China, also stated: Sages based their explanation of dependent origination on [the Śūra­ ṅgama Sūtra] The Tiantai School applied it to discuss ceasing and contemplation, Chan monks employed it to verify sudden transcendence, and the Esoteric Buddhists used it to connect with the exoteric Buddhism. Since the Song and Ming, whether in Buddhist discussions about emptiness or Confucian refutations of Buddhism, they all mention the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.1 Buddhist scholars paid considerable attention to the Śūraṅgama Sūtra since its translation into Chinese. There are many writings on the studies and commentaries of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. There are over 40 writings collected in the Lengyan mengchao 楞嚴蒙抄 compiled by the scholar Qian Qianyi 錢謙益 in the late Ming and the early Qing Dynasties.2 Adding up the writings from the Qing till now, there are over 60. It is remarkable among Mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures. Few other Buddhist scriptures, such as the Diamond Sūtra and the Lotus Sūtra, are comparable. Especially in the late Ming Dynasty, the four factions of Chinese Buddhism including Hanshan Deqing 憨山 德清, Zibo Zhenke 紫柏真可, Lianchi Zhuhong 蓮池祩宏 and Ouyi Zhixu 蕅益智旭, all made notes and composed commentaries on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.3 Their high praise of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra led to its pervasive influence and it became a must-read scripture for Buddhists since the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Meanwhile, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra “is full of wonderful vocabulary and meaning with a closely correlated opening and ending, as well as doctrinal consistency.”4 Therefore, it received the attention of many literati and was 1  Lü Cheng, Lengyan baiwei 楞嚴百偽, in Lü Cheng foxue lunzhu xuanji 呂澂佛學論著選集, Vol. 1, Shandong: Qilu shushe, 1991. 2  “Gujin shujie pinmu” 古今疏解品目, in Lengyan mengchao. 3  Deqing, Shoulengyan jing xuanjing 首楞嚴經懸鏡, one fascicle; Shoulengyan jing tongyi 首楞嚴經通議, ten fascicles; Zhenke, Lengyan jie 楞嚴解, one fascicle; Zhuhong, Lengyan moxiang ji 楞嚴摸象記, one fascicle; Zhixu, Dafoding shoulengyan jing wenju 大佛頂 首楞嚴經文句, ten fascicles; Dafoding shoulengyan jing xuanyi 大佛頂首楞嚴經玄義, two fascicles. 4  Wenguan Zhenjiang 文光真鑒 of the Ming Dynasty, Dafoding shoulengyan jing zhengmai shu 大佛頂首楞嚴經正脈疏, fascicle 7.

Questions About the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

127

regarded as a literary treasure among Buddhist scriptures. However, such an important scripture “regarded by the Buddhists as a most precious asset”5 was the subject of dispute about its authenticity since the outset. This dispute continued intermittently for around a thousand years and there is no affirmative conclusion for the time being. 1

The Date of Composition of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

The Śūraṅgama Sūtra is a Mahāyāna Buddhist scripture translated into Chinese during the Shenglong Era of Emperor Zhongzong in the Tang Dynasty. In all the Chinese Buddhist catalogues, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is not classified as belonging to any of the five Mahāyāna categories such as Bore 般若, Huayan 華嚴, Baoji 寶積, Daji 大集, or Niepan 涅槃. It is classified as Esoteric Buddhism, which is also different from other Mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures such as the Lotus Sūtra, the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra, the Śrīmālā Sūtra, and the Bodhisattva Scriptures. Obviously, such a classification may not be adequate because the influence of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra in Chinese Buddhism lies not in its esoteric content, but its thought has similarities exoteric Buddhist traditions such as “true form of all dharmas,” “Tathāgatagarbha nature,” “myriad things in one mind,” etc. These are not exclusive characteristics of esoteric Buddhism. Nevertheless, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra does reflect the thought of esoteric Buddhism. The seventh fascicle of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is all about the rituals of establishing a practicing venue (daochang 道場) and reciting mantras. It also includes over 2,700 words of mantra and explanations about various powers of different mantras. This belongs to the content of esoteric Buddhism without doubt. From this aspect, it makes sense that all the Buddhist catalogers attributed it to the Esoteric Teachings. The content of esoteric Buddhism contained in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra demonstrated that this scripture has to do directly with the origin and the development of Indian esoteric Buddhism. It has significant implications for us to understand the formulation of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. Research findings demonstrate that Indian Buddhism was becoming esoteric during the 6th and 7th centuries. Esoteric Buddhism became dominant by the middle of the 7th century. The formulation of Indian esoteric Buddhism has gone through a historical process. As early as in the formulation of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the content such as dhāraṇī and mantras that reflected 5  Shi Baoxian 釋保賢, “Wenti Lengyan 問題楞嚴,” Xiandai fojiao xueshu congkan 現代佛教 學術叢刊, Vol. 35. Taiwan: Dasheng wenhua chubanshe 大乘文化出版社.

128

Li

the original creeds of esoteric Buddhism have been included in the Mahāyāna scriptures. This kind of content was common in all scriptures such as the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra, the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, and the Lotus Sūtra. In the 3rd century, independent esoteric Buddhist scriptures emerged in India. The translation of esoteric Buddhism scriptures such as the Wuliang men weimi chijing 無量門微密 持經 from the Huangwu to Jianxing Eras in the Wu Dynasty (222-227 AD) provides evidence of this. (For reference, see Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏記集 fascicle 2). Latter on, in the Jin Dynasty from the 3rd to the 4th centuries, Buddhist translators such as Śrīmitra and Dharmarakṣa, etc., translated a lot of esoteric Buddhist scriptures that belonged to early Indian esoteric Buddhism, including Dakongque wang shenzhou jing 大孔雀王神咒經, Foshuo guanding san­ gui wujie daipei hushenzhou jing 佛說灌頂三歸五戒帶佩護身咒經, Foshuo zhouchi jing 佛說咒齒經 and Foshuo moni ludan jing 佛說摩尼祿亶經. Chinese scholars classified these scriptures as “Miscellaneous Esoteric” (zami 雜密) texts. During this period, esoteric Buddhism neither formulated systematic creeds nor constituted an influential faction. Indian esoteric Buddhism did not mature until the 5th and 6th centuries. For example, Jin’gang daochang jing 金剛道場經 and Guanding daochang jing 灌頂道場經 were more systematic esoteric Buddhism scriptures. These scriptures contained not only dhāraṇī and mantras of early esoteric Buddhism but also the rules of Maṇḍala ceremonies, rules for offering, and the Maṇḍala Dharma, etc. However, these scriptures still emphasized appearance and did not formulate a coherent theory. Indian esoteric Buddhism was blooming in the middle of the 7th century. The presentation of the scriptures including the Mahāvairocana Tantra (Dari jing 大日經) and the Vajrásekhara Sūtra ( Jin’gang ding jing 金剛頂經) to the public signified the prosperity of Indian esoteric Buddhism. These scriptures such as the Mahāvairocana Tantra completed the system of esoteric Buddhism, and established the unique status of Vairocana Buddha. They completed the theory of Indian esoteric Buddhism that “when the three mysteries correspond, this body becomes a Buddha.” (Sanmi xiangying, jishen chengfo. 三密相 應, 即身成佛) Indian esoteric Buddhism was finally brought within the theoretical framework of the Mahāyāna.6 In parallel with the prosperous period of Indian esoteric Buddhism, Indian monks represented by Śubhakarasiṃha 6  On the formulation of Indian esoteric Buddhism, see Huang Xinchuan 黃心川 (1988), “Zhongguo mijiao de yindu yuanyuan” 中國密教的印度淵源, in Yindu zongjiao yu zhong­ guo fojiao 印度宗教與中國佛教, Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe 中國社會科 學出版社; Lü Jianfu 呂建福 (1995), Zhongguo mijiao shi 中國密教史, Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, Chapter One.

Questions About the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

129

(Shanwuwei 善無畏, 637–735 AD), Vajrabodhi (Jin’gangzhi 金剛智, 671–741 AD) and Amoghavajra (Bukong 不空, 705–774 AD) came to Chang’an during the Kaiyuan period of Tang (731–741 AD). They translated the Mahāvairocana Tantra and part of the Vajrásekhara Sūtra. They also established the Maṇḍala, instructed followers and disseminated esoteric Buddhist scriptures other than the above two. Indian esoteric Buddhism spread during the Tang Dynasty and formed Chinese esoteric Buddhism. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra was a Mahāyāna scripture translated in this background. In my opinion, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is not a pure esoteric Buddhist scripture. Its core contents reflect the basic ideas of Mahāyāna Buddhism even though there is a volume full of esoteric content including the establishment of Maṇḍala, the rituals of reciting mantras, mantras, and the declaration of mantra powers. Its contents illustrate that it is influenced by the ideas of Indian esoteric Buddhism, which is very important for us to verify its date of composition. It is evident that the esoteric contents of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra do not belong to early Indian esoteric Buddhism. In other words, it is different from other “Miscellaneous Esoteric” scriptures in that the esoteric contents of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra are more complete and systematic than that of early Indian esoteric Buddhism. However, it does not have a theoretical system like other scriptures such as the Mahāvairocana Tantra in the mature period. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra does not involve basic ideas associated with the mature period of Indian esoteric Buddhism, such as that “when the three mysteries correspond, this body becomes a Buddha,” that of the Buddhas of the five-directions or Vairocana Buddha. It seems that the esoteric contents of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra were closer to those of the esoteric scriptures of the 5th century. The esoteric Buddhism scriptures in that period contained not only dhāraṇīs and mantras, they also contained clearer formulae for Maṇḍala, statues, and offerings. The esoteric contents of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra contains all these rules. For example, there are detailed descriptions concerning the establishment of the Maṇḍala. There were rules for offerings such as setting up 16 lotuses and 16 incense burners, “placing white milk in sixteen vessels.” There were also the rules for placing statues, complete rituals and mantras such as “display the images of Vairocana, Śākyamuni, Maitreya, Akṣobhya, Amitābha, and Avalokiteśvara of different forms. Placing Vajrapani on their left and right side. In addition, placing Indra, Brahma, Ucchuṣma, the Blue Dirgha, Kundalin and koṭī, Four Heavenly Kings, with Vināyaka to the left and right side of the door. Accordingly, we could conclude that the appearance of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is later than most other Mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures. At the earliest it appeared after the 5th century and at the latest before the early 7th century because fundamental esoteric scriptures such as the Mahāvairocana Tantra

130

Li

was formulated in the 7th century. In addition, the origin of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was recorded as a “Scripture from Nalanda in Central India, recorded in a separate section from the Guanding 灌頂 Section” in all Chinese Buddhist canons before the Song and Yuan Dynasties. Another similar note can be seen in Zhisheng’s Xu gujin yijing tuji: Monk Pāramiti . . ., recited from the Guanding Section titled Dafoding rulai miyin xiuzheng liaoyi zhu pusa wanxing shoulengyan jing in ten fascicles, the 23rd day of the fifth month, the first year of the Shenlong Era of the Tang Dynasty. It is not clear on which account Zhisheng wrote the above note as the Sanskrit original is lost. If “Scripture from Nalanda, in Central India” did exist, then it was surely written after the 5th century because Nalanda was established during the Gupta Empire, and it became the center of Indian Buddhism after the 5th century. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra is a huge and multifarious Mahāyāna scripture, coherent its thought because it appeared later than most other Mahāyāna scriptures. It contains the fundamental concepts of Mahāyāna Buddhism, such as the idea “all dharmas have the characteristic of Śūnyatā” as found in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, the idea of the “Buddhas of the ten directions” and “myriad dharmas are nothing but one mind” of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, and “Buddha-nature” of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. It also contained rules and ceremonies, meditation, mantra recitation, aspects of both Pure Land Buddhism and Esoteric Buddhism. However, among Mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures, where do the Śūraṅgama Sūtra’s affinities lie? Where are the origins of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra? It is difficult to answer these questions definitively. As a result, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra remains controversial and the dispute about its authenticity has lasted for over a thousand years. 2

The Disputes about the Authenticity of The Śūraṅgama Sūtra

Disputes about the authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra began in the Tang Dynasty. However, the disputes were not recorded in the Chinese Tang texts, but in materials produced in Japan. According to the Daijō sanron taigi shō 大乘三論大義鈔 written by the Japanese monk Gen’ei 玄叡, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra reached Japan right after it was translated into Chinese. It caused competition among the monks. Later, Monk Tokushin 德清 was sent to China for investigation. He learned from a Chinese layman Faxiang 法祥 that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was forged by Fang Rong. It was not a real Buddhist scripture

Questions About the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

131

and Zhisheng did not analyze it carefully and wrongly included it among his list of authentic scriptures.7 Another Japanese monk Kaimyō 戒明 also heard about the dispute regarding the authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra when he visited China during the Dali era (766–799 AD) of the Tang emperor Daizong.8 Yet the dispute about the authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was simply an individual case, which neither caused broad discussions in China, nor did it influence the spread of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra spread widely in the Song and Yuan Dynasty. A lot of commentaries on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra also emerged during this period. Among these works, Shoulengyan yishu zhujing 首楞嚴義疏注經 by Zixuan 子璿 in the Song Dynasty, Shoulengyan jing yihai 首楞嚴經義海 by Xianhui 鹹輝 in the Song Dynasty and Dafoding shoulengyan jing huijie 大佛頂首楞嚴經會解 by Weize 惟則 in the Yuan Dynasty were the most well-known. Several famous ministers such as Wang Anshi 王安石 and Zhang Shangying 張商英 were well versed in Buddhism and wrote commentaries to the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.9 In the Ming Dynasty, following the Song and Yuan Dynasty, the influence of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra spread wider. The amount of believers outnumbered the skeptics. Especially during the Wanli Era of the Ming Dynasty (1573–1620) and afterwards, the status of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was elevated due to the promotion of the four great masters of the Ming. It was not until the late Qing Dynasty and the Republican Era did the disputes about the authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra emerge again. The most critical scholars were Liang Qichao 梁啟超 and Lü Cheng, both were famous scholars and politicians. Liang Qichao in his article entitled Gushu zhenwei ji qi niandai 古書真偽及其年代 stated: “The Śūraṅgama Sūtra contains ridiculous ideas, and is full of absurd vocabulary about immortals. It is obviously made up by later generations that plagiarized Buddhist creeds under the influence of the Daoism . . . . True Buddhist scriptures do share terminology with the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. Hence the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is a forgery.”10 Lü Cheng regarded the Śūraṅgama Sūtra as “a collection of fictions, its exquisite expressions and ambiguous meanings were suitable for those who were superficial.”11 He listed a hundred pieces of evidence to prove that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was a forgery. 7   Dainihon Bukkyō zensho 大日本佛教全書, Vol. 75. 8   Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Bukkyō kyōten sōron 佛教經典總論, Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐, p. 135. 9   Wang Anshi, Shoulengyan shuyi 首楞嚴疏義; Zhang Shangying, Lengyan haiyan 楞嚴 海眼. See “Gujin shujie pinmu,” in Lengyan mengchao. 10  “Gushu zhenwei ji qi niandai,” Yinbingshi zhuanji 飲冰室專集, Vol. 24. 11  Lengyan baiwei.

132

Li

The questions about the authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra can be classified into two heads: the translator of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, and its contents. There are several questions about the translator of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. 1.) Although Kaiyuan shijiao lu and Xu gujin yijing tuji were both written by Zhisheng, the two texts are inconsistent on this question. The Kaiyuan shijiao lu attributes the translation to Monk Huaidi. Huaidi travelled to Guangzhou and met an Indian monk who had a roll of a Buddhist scripture. He was invited by the monk to co-translate it in ten fascicles, and it was known as the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.12 According to the Xu gujin yijing tuji, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was recited by Pāramiti in Guangzhou and Monk Meghasikha from Udyāna translated it into Chinese. Fang Rong from Qinghe, a disciple who took Bodhisattva precepts, a Front Official of Remonstrance and the Secretariat Chancellery, transcribed it. Monk Huaidi of Nanlou Monastery on Mount Luofu, Xunzhou, certified it. 2.) As for the involvement of Fang Rong, according to Kaiyuan shijiao lu, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was translated into Chinese in the fifth month, the first year of Shenglong Era of the Tang Dynasty. But Fang Rong was exiled to Gaozhou (present day Gao Prefecture, Guangdong Province). The distance between the capital and Guangdong is thousands of kilometers and it would have been impossible for Fang Rong to arrive in Guangzhou within two or three months and to join the translation team. 3.) There are contradictions regarding the time when Huaidi participated in the translation of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. According to Kaiyuan shijiao lu, “Tripikata and Bodhiruci translated the Ratnakūṭa Sūtra (Baoji jing 寶積經), and invited Huaidi to certify its meanings. After finishing the work, Huaidi met an Indian monk while travelling in Guangzhou on his way home . . .” The record indicats that Huaidi joined the translation of the Ratnakūṭa Sūtra at first, and then participated in the translation of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. This record contradicts another found in the 9th fascicle of Kaiyuan shijiao lu, which states that Bodhiruci began to translate the Ratnakūṭa Sūtra in the second year of Shenglong Era (706 AD) and completed it in the second year of Xiantian Era (713 AD). This record appears to be accurate. Therefore, Huaidi’s participation in the translation of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra must be the earlier. But the record of Kaiyuan shijiao lu shows the opposite. 4.) As for Pāramiti, he was regarded as a fictional character because there are no detailed records of his activities. On the contents of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, the skeptics raise two major issues. One is the suspicion of plagiarism. For example, it is likely that the sentence that “Scripture from Nalanda in Central India, recorded in a separate section 12  Kaiyuan shijiao lu, fascicle 9.

Questions About the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

133

from the Guanding Section” was copied from the sentence that “translated at the Diamond practicing venue” in the “Preface to the Dhāraṇīsamuccaya Sūtra” (Tuoluoni jijing xu 陀羅尼集經序). Meanwhile, the skeptics believe that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra had nothing to do with the Guanding Section mentioned above, considering the fact the Dhāraṇīsamuccaya Sūtra mentions the Śūraṅgama-samādhi Sūtra 首楞嚴三昧經, Modengnü jing 摩登女經, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經, and Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, etc. The second is whether much of its content was fabricated such as the concepts of the twelve types of living beings, three overlapping streams, the seven elements, and the seven states of living beings, etc. These concepts are not consistent with the fundamental theory of Buddhism from common Buddhist scriptures.13 Indeed, several suspicious points us to doubt the authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, in particular the different, sometimes contradictory records about the translators. The skeptics concluded that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was a forgery on the basis of these records alone. However, in the view of Buddhist scholars, the views of the skeptics are nothing but personal, one-sided opinions which do not constitute as the evidence to prove that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was a forgery.14 For example, the fact that Fang Rong transcribed the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was not only recoded by Zhisheng in the Tang Dynasty but also in other Buddhist histories and local history since the Five Dynasties. Some texts written by literati also mentioned the transcription of Fang Rong. For example, the 9th fascicle of Nanhan chunqiu 南漢春秋 recorded that Lin Qu 林衢 in the Five Dynasties, wrote a poem about Guangxiao Monastery in Guangzhou. A sentence in the poem was “no visitors came here without seeing the Minister’s ink-stone; one was enlightened by Master’s banner.” The ink-stone in the poem refers to the one that Fang Rong used to transcribe the Śūraṅgama Sūtra in the Guangxiao Monastery. According to Guangxiaosi zhi 光孝寺志, there was a translation platform. “Originally, it was the place where the Tang’s Grand Councilor Fang Rong transcribed the Buddhist scriptures. Now it is abandoned. The older account stated that the platform was build by Jiang Zhiqi 蔣之奇, a military commissioner in the Song Dynasty. There was a translation stone with an inscription that stated: The Benevolent gentleman has long been lost.”15 The text entitled “Shu Liu Zihou Dajian chanshi bei hou” 書柳子厚 大鑒禪師碑後 in Dongpo houji 東坡後集 mentioned that “the Śūraṅgama 13  This paragraph is based on Lengyan baiwei. 14  Shi Baoxian, “Wenti Lengyan,” Xiandai fojiao xueshu congkan, Vol. 35. Taiwan: Dacheng wenhua chubanshe. 15  Guangxiaosi zhi, Fascicle 3.

134

Li

Sūtra is the most elaborate among the Mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures. It is wonderful and unique due to Fang Rong’s transcription.” As for the contents of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, eminent monks seldom took negative attitude towards it. In other words, all of them praised highly the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. For example, in the preface of Dafoding shoulengyan jing zhengmai shu, Zhenjian 真鑒 of the Ming Dynasty stated that “This is the scripture! The one vehicle completes here, and the perfect and sudden teachings conclude here. When it explains enlightenment, the esoteric factors were sufficient without the need to look externally. When it talks about practice, the wonderful gate to a full understanding is precise and insightful. The crucial path to enlightenment that the buddhas of ten directions took did not surpass this.” The four great masters of the late Ming Dynasty all believed in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra without doubt. In the Yuezang zhijin 閱藏知津, Ouyi Zhixu in his explanatory notes praised the Śūraṅgama Sūtra as “the compass of a religion, the guidance for the nature and appearance of things, providing the essence of the approach to become a Buddhist, and the orthodoxy to become a Buddha.”16 Lianchi Zhuhong even stated that “those who said that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is a forgery in front of the presence of the Buddha should be treated as evil” in Lengyan moxiang ji. In modern times, Yang Wenhui 楊文會, mentioned by Liang Qichao as one who influenced “nine out of ten contemporary Buddhist.”17 His conversion to Buddhism was precipitated by the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. According to volume 4 of the “Jinshi zhi fojiao” 近世之佛教 in Zhongguo Fojiao shi 中國佛教史 by Jiang Weiqiao 蔣維喬, “Yang Wenhui, during his sickness, obtained a volume of Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna written by Aśvaghoṣa in 1863 AD. He studied it repeatedly and learned about its significance. As a result, he searched for Buddhist scriptures and acquired the Śūraṅgama Sūtra in a bookstore. He read it right away in the bookstore. He did not notice where he was until the keeper of the bookstore asked him to leave at dusk. This was the starting point for Wenhui becoming a Buddhist.” Moreover, Dixian 諦閑, a well-known present Tiantai monk, only preached either the Lotus Sūtra or the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. He preached on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra twice in Beijing during the period 1915–1918. When he preached, there were not enough seats to accommodate those monks and laymen who came to listen to him.18 He also wrote a text

16  Yuezang zhijin, Fascicle 11. 17  “Zhongguo fofa xingshuai yange shuo lue wu” 中國佛法興衰沿革說略五, Yinbingshi zhuanji. 18  Jiang Weiqiao, Zhongguo Fojiao shi, Vol. 4.

Questions About the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

135

titled Lengyan jing xuzhi weisu 楞嚴經序指味素. Master Taixu’s high praise for the Śūraṅgama Sūtra has been mentioned before. He also composed works about the Śūraṅgama Sūtra such as the Dafoding shoulengyan jing shelun and the Lengyan dayi 楞嚴大意. The debates about the authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra have lasted for over a thousand years. There are probably different points of view now­ adays. However, as an important Mahāyāna Buddhist scripture, the fact that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra has exerted great influence in Chinese Buddhism is certain. Just like the argument that “Mahāyāna Buddhism was not taught by the Buddha” (dasheng feifo shuo 大乘非佛說) cannot change the status of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the debates about the Śūraṅgama Sūtra cannot change its status in the theory and practice of Buddhism. This article treats the Śūraṅgama Sūtra as a Mahāyāna Buddhist scripture translated in the Tang Dynasty. The arguments proposed by the skeptics are only suspicious points but do not prove the Śūraṅgama Sūtra as a forgery. In the article “Qidan zang yü kaibao zang zhi chayi” 契丹藏與開寶藏之差異 written by Luo Zhao 羅炤 in Cultural Relics (Wenwu 文物), Vol. 8, 1993, the author concludes that the author of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is Huaidi. Luo investigates the variety of attribution of translators of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. The version of the stone-carved canon in Fangshan (Fangshan shijing 房山石經) in the Qidan Canon recorded the Śūraṅgama Sūtra as “Translated by Monk Huaidi from Xunzhou and an Indian monk in Guangzhou in the Tang Dynasty.” Comparing these attributions, Luo concluded: I believe that the author of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is Huaidi. He was born during the Tang, the golden age of Buddhism, when all factions of Buddhism were at their peak. Huaidi was an erudite Buddhist scholar and was proficient in Sanskrit. He also participated in the translation of the Ratnakūṭa Sūtra. As a result, he was capable of writing a Buddhist scripture that dealt with the subjects of various Buddhist factions against such a background. Obviously, Luo agreed with the view that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was forged by a Chinese Buddhist. His article provided new materials for the study of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and it is worthy of praise. However, I do not agree with his conclusion. The investigation conducted by Luo shows that Huaidi is one of the major translators of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, or perhaps the only one. However, there is no clear evidence to prove that Huaidi is the author of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.

136

Li

3 The Śūraṅgama Sūtra and Its Influence in Chinese Buddhism As the above-mentioned, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was regarded as a forgery by some Buddhist scholars after it was translated into Chinese. Nevertheless, those skeptics also acknowledged its wide influence in Chinese Buddhism.19 The wide influence of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra should be attributed to its rich content that conformed to the needs of Chinese Buddhism since the Tang Dynasty and these thoughts were accepted by various factions of Chinese. Master Taixu said: I had an argument that Chinese Buddhism is purely from the One Vehicle. The development through generations did not exceed eight schools: Shaolin 少林, Lushan 廬山, Nanshan 南山, Kaiyuan 開元, Tiantai 天臺, Qingliang 清涼, Ci’en 慈恩, and Jiaxiang 嘉祥. If divided briefly into practices, they are: Chan 禪, Jing 淨, Lü 律, Mi 密 and Jiao 教. However, this single scripture combines all these five divisions, while at the same time respects and harmonizes them. Looking at all other scriptures available, nothing is like this. Searching the teachings of the great cannon, rarely is anything comparable to this. Hence only this [Śūraṅgama Sūtra] is the most prevalent. Given that all Chinese schools faithfully explicate this sūtra, one must undertsand this sūtra through practice.20 The Śūraṅgama Sūtra is a Mahāyāna Buddhist scripture with rich content and an enormous system involving almost all aspects of Buddhist theory. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra is separated into ten fascicles with over 70,000 words. According to the views of scholars, the contents of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra can be divided into three parts. The first part is “Jingxu fen” 經序分, started from “Thus have I heard” to “When Ā nanda and Mātaṅgī returned to the Buddha’s place,” namely, the first fascicle. The second part is “Jingzong fen” 經宗分, the main text, starts from “When Ā nanda saw the Buddha, he prostrated and cried with sorrow” . . . to “illustrating for those practitioners in the age of Latter Dharma . . . Knowing the existence of nirvāṇa, not to linger over the three realms” in fascicle ten. The third part is “Jingyi fen” 經益分, or “Liutong fen” 流通分, the concluding part, namely, the last paragraph of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. It is not difficult to tell that the former part of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra,

19  Lengyan baiwei. 20  Taixu, Dafoding shou lengyan jing shelun, vol. 1.

Questions About the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

137

namely, fascicle 1 to fascicle 6, elaborates Buddhist theory, and fascicle 7 to fascicle 10 emphasizes Buddhist practices. The Buddhist thought proposed by the Śūraṅgama Sūtra regarding theory and practice have been the major concerns of Buddhist scholars in the past. Zhenjian of the Ming Dynasty pointed out ten contributions of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra to the theory and the practice of the Mahāyāna Buddhism in Dafoding shoulengyan jing zhengmai shu: 1. Completely abandoning and establishing: This idea is radically abandoning expedients and manifesting the truth. The idea of “manifesting the truth through expedients” is proposed by the Lotus Sūtra, but it is not comprehensively explained. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra proposed two approaches to manifesting the truth. The first approach is to break the cause of life and death, namely, the delusions. The second way is to reach the state of perfect wisdom and liberation, namely, the eternal true nature. Hīnayāna Buddhism does not understand the two approaches. It wrongly takes the perceptive mind as its approach and fails to break the cause of life and death as a result. In the end it is merely as if “cooking sand to make a feast.” Only when one breaks down his consciousness-mind, directly revealing the true mind, can one attain enlightenment. 2. Perceptions pointing to the purpose: This is the perception of Buddhas. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra points out that perceptions are the characteristics of six senses: “it is only your own six senses which make you root in the cycle of life and birth;” “if you wish to know supreme Bodhi . . . it is also through your six senses;” “when perceptions do not perceive, it is nirvāṇa.” 3. Manifest the true characteristics: The Lotus Sūtra proposed the idea of “the true characteristics of all dharmas,” but did not demonstrate what they are. The tathāgatagarbha nature in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra refers to “the true characteristics of all dharmas;” to acknowledge that the seven filthy features are inherently clean is also to understand the true characteristics of all dharmas. 4. Modify the impermanent concept: Before the appearance of the Lotus Sūtra, impermanence had often been explained referring to the body having life and death, the mind having coming and going, and the realm having formulation and destruction. . . . For this reason, philosophically speaking, the three realms of saṃsāra (Skt. traidhātuka, trailokya) had been understood as real existence and death and birth as real. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra proposed that only mind sees the nature of things, and that the mind is immovable and irreducible. It further explained that the six entries, twelve locations, eighteen realms and seven elements are all permanent, brilliant, immovable, perfect Tathāgata-nature. Thus, it explains the permanent meaning of mundane world.

138

Li

5. Entering into Buddha wisdom: The Lotus Sūtra talks about Buddha wisdom, but only gives a name without providing real examples. In contrast, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra spells out the three-in-one perfect meditation, the tip of a hair on which manifests a palace, and the idea that sitting in a grain of dust turning the great Dharma wheel. These are all part of the doctrine of non-hindrance between all things, the essence of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. First the Buddha wisdom branches out into different wisdoms, which complete all expedient teachings. Later these different wisdoms converge into the ocean of Buddha wisdom, which accomplishes the one truth. The Lotus Sūtra opens the door to Buddha wisdom, and the Śūraṅgama Sūtra eventually realized the goal. 6. Illuminating real meditation: Non-Buddhists, heavenly beings, Hīnayāna and expedient bodhisattvas all have their respective meditation status, which is not the ultimate. It is because the meditation objects that they rely on are not the real mind. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra first refutes their position, stating “even if extinguishing all observations and perceptions, guarding the serenity, there remains the dust of dharmas and the shadow of discrimination.” If one does not abandon the deluded mind attaching to birth and death, one cannot achieve the great tathāgata meditation. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra teaches the Śūraṅgama meditation so as to attain the real fruit. 7. Directly pointing at the human mind: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra simply points at the human mind from the beginning to the end. There is no dharma detached from the mind. Whether gross or thin, it is all from the mind; whether following after the ordinary or the sage, it is nothing but the mind. 8. Illustrating the twofold doors: The twofold doors are the doors of equality and of skillful means. The ‘door of equality’ means that one mind has myriads of dharmas; the phenomenon of equality, all discriminative phenomena, of true-false, real-deluded, or righteous-evil are all unattainable. There is only one true reality, and all delusions are intrinsically empty. The ‘door of skillful means’ means the intrinsic truth has been lost, and without skillful means it cannot be manifest; delusions are intrinsically empty but have been deeply attached, and without skillful means it cannot be opened. The ‘door of skillful means’ is a wonderful method for entrance, while the ‘door of equality’ is the ultimate fruit of the perfect and complete approach. 9. Intensely pursuing real attainment: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra indicates three types of laziness: first is those who are keen to participate in unnecessary affairs, not pursuing real attainment; second is those who rely on other-power, but seldom practice Buddhism; third is those who maintain naïvity, but do not attempt to practice. The Buddha opened the door for efficient practice and

Questions About the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

139

listed the hierarchy of attainment so as to encourage practitioners into profound practice until they reach the final realization. 10. Strictly preventing evil thought: Since the cave of desire is deep and wide, the web of perceptions is thick and complex, it is difficult to free oneself from them. Hence the Buddha persistently admonished evil thought in this sūtra, aiming to dispel evil thought without tolerance and to protect righteous enlightenment from disturbance. Each of the fifty-five status of attainment is real and non-degradable. If one discerns the five dark and evil things, then one shall refrain from his thought. The contributions of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra to the theory and the practice of Mahāyāna Buddhism identified by Dafoding shou lengyan jing zhengmai shu are not accurate and comprehensive. Due to the limits of the length, I do not make further comments. Nevertheless, the ten contributions of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra to Mahāyāna Buddhism identified by Shi Zhenjian were very inspiring. They demonstrated that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was related to many important ideas contained in the Mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures. Such a relationship confirms the idea that the the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was a scripture that came into being later. As a result, it was able to further elaborate the thoughts of a more mature Mahāyāna Buddhism. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra discussed many concepts of Mahāyāna Buddhism as explained in the Dafoding shou lengyan jing zhengmai shu. It contains the idea that “all things being produced by causes and accessory conditions have no reality” from the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, “nonobstruction among individual phenomena” (shishi wu’ai 事事無礙) and “the Dharma realm of the one reality” (yizhen fajie 一真法界) from the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, “real character of all dharmas” (zhufa shixiang 諸法實相) and “starting with the expedient teachings an revealing the truth” (kaiquan xianshi 開權顯實) from the Lotus Sūtra, the Buddha-nature from the Nirvana Sūtra. It also contains teachings on correct practices, samādhi, the 55 stages towards perfect wisdom, upholding the rules, the maṇḍala liturgy, and recitation of mantras. It also maintained a basic theoretical concept when elaborating all Mahāyāna Buddhist thoughts, namely, “eternal true mind,” also known as “all the living beings contain the wonderful and pure nature of the tathāgatagarbha,” or “the wonderful brightness of this truly pure and wonderful mind,” or the mind of the tathāgatagarbha. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra states: the reason why all living beings transmigrate through life and death and circulate in the delusion of passion and desire is that they do not understand the eternal nature and are mired in delusions. The delusions produced by the six senses are the cause of

140

Li

transmigration for all the living beings. To apprehend the eternal and true reality directly Nirvana of prefect wisdom. All delusions of the mortal world, including the five aggregates, the six entries, the twelve loci, the eighteen realms are manifested by the wonderful and pure nature of the tathāgatagarbha. This tathāgatagarbha illuminates the mind and then spreads throughout the ten Dharma realms; it encompasses the emptiness of the ten directions, equating everything. Real character of all dharmas, the Dharma realm of the one reality, the Buddha nature, are all pure nature and are inherent in all living beings, in the nature of the tathāgatagarbha, the true and eternal reality. Myriad things but one mind, breaking the delusion of six senses, and so manifesing the eternal and true reality directly are the central thoughts of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. The theory that the true existence is only mental as stated by the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, or the theory of the tathāgatagarbha emerged from one of the Mahāyāna Buddhist theories in the 3rd century. Among the Buddhist scriptures translated into Chinese, in addition to the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, there are many others such as the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Śrīmālā Sūtra, the Angulimālika Sūtra, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenmen, the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, and others, also disseminated this theory. The most famous two are the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna. Yinshun 印順, a famous contemporary monk stated in his Yindu zhi fojiao 印度之佛教: The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, which proclaims true, permanent mind-only theory is special. It numerates examples of inner/outer, big/small, practice/ achievement, truth/delusions, seed/appearance, and so on, with a vast and complex structure. No other scripture of ‘true mind theory’ has surpassed it. The doctrine of true, permanent mind-only (zhenchang weixin lun 真常 唯心論) in contained in many sūtras, but few commentaries. Chinese people usually take the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna as the main scripture . . . The Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna establishes one mind and two doors: the ‘door of tathāgata’ contains the doctrine of emptiness and non-emptiness; the ‘door of birth and extinguishment’ contains the doctrine of enlightenment and non-enlightenment. The combination of truth and delusions is called ālāya. The principle confirms to the doctrine of true, permanent mind-only. The theory of true, permanent mind-only, or the theory of the tathāgatagarbha, is an important concept in the later period of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The

Questions About the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

141

so-called theory of the tathāgatagarbha is in fact the theory of Buddha-nature that has had profound influence in Chinese Buddhism. The pure nature inherent in all living beings is the nature of tathāgatagarbha, namely, the true, permanent mind-only, or Buddha nature. The major schools of Chinese Buddhism that matured in the Sui and Tang dynasties, such as Tiantai, Huayan and Chan, were established on the foundation of Mahāyāna thought. These schools held different interpretations of the theory of Buddha nature. As a result, they could each found compatible thoughts in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. The concepts of “a chiliocosm in a single thought” (yinian sanqian 一念三千), “perfect interfusion of the three truths” (sandi yuanrong 三諦圓融), one true Dharma realm, or “directly pointing at the human mind,” “seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved,” can be explained using the theory of the true, permanent mindonly, or the theory of the tathāgatagarbha. Therefore, Lü Cheng made the following comment: the enlightenment based on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra explained the theory of dependent origination, and the Tiantai school applied it to meditation teaching, Chan monks employed it to verify sudden enlightenment, and the Esoteric Buddhists connected it with Exoteric Buddhism. In fact, despite doubts about its authenticity, the status of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was fairly high among the Buddhists. Just like the Diamond Sūtra, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the Lotus Sūtra and so on, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was valued by all Buddhists. Chinese monks and nuns have to recite the Śūraṅgama mantra, of over 2,000 words, in the morning ritual. This is a requirement for Chinese Buddhists and this has not changed since the Ming Dynasty. For many Buddhist scholars throughout the centuries, studying the Śūraṅgama Sūtra has been a lifelong and enjoyable task.21As a result, the amount of works concerning the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is large, only that of the Diamond Sūtra and the Lotus Sūtra are compatible. (This article was first published in Studies in World Religions, Vol. 3, 1996.) Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏記集, T 55. Dafoding shoulengyan jing wenju 大佛頂首楞嚴經文句, X 13, No. 285. Dafoding shoulengyan jing xuanyi 大佛頂首楞嚴經玄義, X 13, No. 282. 21  Qian Qianyi, Foding mengchao mulu houji 佛頂蒙鈔目錄後記, in the Dafoding lengyan mengchao 大佛頂楞嚴蒙鈔, at the beginning of the fascicle.

142

Li

Dafoding shoulengyan jing zhengmai shu 大佛頂首楞嚴經正脈疏. Wenguan Zhenjiang 文光真鑒, X 12, No. 275. Daijō sanron taigi shō 大乘三論大義鈔, Gen’ei 玄叡, Dainihon Bukkyō zensho 大日 本佛教全書, Vol. 75. Dongpo houji 東坡後集, collected in Dongpo quanji 東坡全集, Su Dongpo 蘇東坡, Taipei: Taiwan zhonghua shuju. Guangxiaosi zhi 光孝寺志, Gu Guang 顧光, Yangzhou Shi: Guangling shushe 廣陵書 社, 2006. Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教錄, T 55. Lengyan mengchao 楞嚴蒙鈔 [Lengyan jing shujie mengchao 楞嚴經疏解蒙鈔], Qian Qianyi 錢謙益, X 13, No. 287. Nanhan chunqiu 南漢春秋, Vol. 84 of Ershisi shi waibian 二十四史外編, Wu Shuping 吳樹平, Tianjin: Tianjin guji chubanshe天津古籍出版社, 1998. Yuezang zhijin 閱藏知津, Ouyi Zhixu 蕅益智旭, Jiaxing dazing jing 嘉興大藏經, Vol. 32, No. B271, Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐.



Secondary Sources

Huang Xinchuan 黃心川 (1988), “Zhongguo mijiao de yindu yuanyuan” 中國密教的 印度淵源, in Yindu zongjiao yu zhongguo fojiao 印度宗教與中國佛教, Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe 中國社會科學出版社. Jiang Weiqiao 蔣維喬 (1931), Zhongguo fojiao shi 中國佛教史, Vol. 4, Shanghai: Shanghai shangwu yinshuguan 上海商務印書館. Liang Qichao 梁啓超 (1978), Yinbingshi zhuanji 飲冰室專集, Vol. 24. Taipei: Taiwan zhongua shuju, 1978. Lü Cheng (1991), “Lengyan baiwei” 楞嚴百偽, in Lü Cheng foxue lunzhu xuanji 呂澂佛 學論著選集, Vol. 1, Shandong: Qilu shushe. Lü Jianfu 呂建福 (1995), Zhongguo mijiao shi 中國密教史, Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙 (1983), Bukkyō kyōten sōron 佛教經典總論, Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐. Shi Baoxian 釋保賢 (1978), “Wenti Lengyan 問題楞嚴,” Xiandai fojiao xueshu congkan 現代佛教學術叢刊, Vol. 35. Taiwan: Dasheng wenhua chubanshe 大乘文化出 版社. Taixu dashi 太虛大師, Lengyan jing yanjiu: Dafoding shoulengyan jing shelun, Dafoding shoulengyan jing yanjiu 楞嚴經硏究: 大佛頂首楞嚴經攝論, 大佛頂首楞嚴經 硏究, Taipei: Wenshu chubanshe, 1987.

Buddhist Images

⸪

CHAPTER 8

A General Introduction to the Cliff Statues of Mount Kongwang Wen Yucheng 溫玉成 1

Literature Review of the Previous Two Decades

1.1 The Intensive Research Phase (1980–1987) Since the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the mystery of the cliff statues of Mt. Kongwang has attracted considerable attention among academic and research circles. However, it was not until June 1980, when Prof. Shi Shuqing 史樹青 argued that the Han Dynasty’s cliff statues of Mt. Kongwang contain Buddhist elements, did scholars begin to study them systematically. Conferences on the statues of Mt. Kongwang were held during the eightyear period from June 1980 to August 1987; studies on this subject reached an unprecedentedly active status during this time. Approximately sixty scholars participated in the discussions, and over fifty articles were published.1 These scholars possessed quite different opinions on the dates of the statues. The proposed dates ranged from the first century to the seventh century, including the periods of a) the Eastern Han, b) the Three Kingdoms, c) the Eastern and Western Jin Dynasties (between the Cao Wei and the Yuan Wei), and d) the Tang Dynasty. Regarding the content of the statues, some scholars held that these statues represented secular themes influenced by Buddhism, while the others contended that this place was an example of the mixture of Buddhism and Daoism (predominantly the latter). The majority of scholars agreed that these were indeed Buddhist statues, while some others suggested that these were not, in fact, Buddhist statues, but instead “statues influenced by Buddhist styles.” (See Table 8.1.)

1  Municipal Museum of Port Lianyun 連雲港市博物館, ed., Kongwang shan zaoxiang yanjiu 孔望山造像研究, Series 1, Qingdao: Haiyang chubanshe, 1990.

©

5 | 

/

Sage

Literati

Literati

X66

Sage

X1

Ding Yizhen

Possibly Gate-keeper

1982

Eastern Han Dynasty

Queen Mother of the West

1982

1981

Before the late Eastern Han Dynasty

Source

Jiangsu sheng kaogu xuehui 1982 nian nianhui lunwen xuan 江蘇省考古學會 1982 年年會論文選

Wenwu, 1982, No. 9

Wenwu 文物 1981, No. 7

Jiaqing Era, Jiaqing Haizhou Qing Dynasty zhili zhouzhi 嘉慶海州直隸州志, Fascicle 12 1958 Wenwu cankao ziliao 文物參考資料, 1958, No. 6 1977 Wenqing tongxun 文情通訊, Jiangsu Province, 1977, No. 17

Emperors Huan and Ling

Eastern and Tang Western Jin

Taiping Daoist

Three Kingdoms

Year of Publication

Han Dynasty

Probably the Han Dynasty

Similar to the Han paintings

Late Eastern Han

Estimated Date

Commoner

Literati

Sage

X68

Three Main Statues’ assumed characters

Commoner Commoner Li Hongfu 李洪甫; Ding Yizhen 丁義珍 Yü Weicao Taiping Taiping Daoist Daoist 俞偉超; Xin Liqun 信立群 Li Hongfu Donor

Gazetteers of Huai’an (Huai’an fuzhi 淮安府志) Zhu Jiang 朱江

Contents Author

TABLE 8.1  Views on the Statues of Mount Kongwang

146 Wen

Wen Yüchen

Ruan Rongchun 阮榮春 Ding Mingyi 丁明夷 Bu Liansheng 步連生 Cai Quanfa 蔡全法

Yan Xiaoci 閻孝慈

Contents Author

X66

Laozi

Possibly Gatekeeper

Confucius

Commoner Commoner

X1

King of the East

Commoner

X68

Three Main Statues’ assumed characters

Post-late Eastern Han Late Eastern Han at the latest

Late Eastern Han

Before the end of Three Kingdoms Around the Three Kingdoms

Three Kingdoms Between Cao Wei and Yuan Wei 1982

Year of Publication

Kongwang shan zaoxiang yanjiu 孔望山造像研究, No. 1 Kongwang shan zaoxiang yanjiu, No. 1 Forthcoming

1990

2000

1990

Kaogu, 1985, No. 1

Xuzhou shifan xueyuan xuebao 徐州師範學院學報, 1982, No. 3 Kaogu 考古, 1985, No. 1

Source

1985

Possibly Tang 1985

Eastern and Tang Western Jin

Estimated Date

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

147

148

Wen

On 3rd March 1981, The Guangming ribao 光明日報 published the article, “Lianyungang Kongwang shan faxian Dong Han moya zaoxiang” 連雲港孔望山發現東漢摩崖造像 (“The Eastern Han Cliff Statues Discov­ ered at Mt. Kongwang, Lianyungang”). On 8th April 1981, The Renmin ribao 人民日報 published, with an eye-catching headline, the article “Woguo fojiao yishu de chuxing—Lianyungang shi Kongwang shan faxian Dong Han moya zaoxiang” 我國佛教藝術的雛形——連雲港市孔望山發現東漢摩崖 造像 (“The Prototype of Buddhist Art in China: The Eastern Han Cliff Statues of Mt. Kongwang, Port Lianyun”). This attracted both domestic and international attention. The new discoveries of Mt. Kongwang shocked Chinese academia, and raised many new questions: Firstly, if these were indeed Buddhist statues of the Eastern Han Dynasty, they presumably came from Gandhara—however, we do not see any of Gandhara’s influences on these statues. Secondly, why did “the prototype of Buddhist art in China” appear in such a distant seaport as Port Lianyun? Thirdly, where did the earliest Chinese Buddhist art actually come from? Did it come from the Silk Road, the Maritime Silk Road, or the Burma Road?2 1.2 Period of Stagnation and Reorientation (1988–1999) The studies of the Mt. Kongwang statues posed great academic difficulties, and scholars were unable to achieve breakthroughs regarding major theoretical questions within a short time. As a result, these discussions became stagnant from 1988. Nonetheless, the debate regarding the “transmission route” continued. The first debate came from the discussion in regards to the Maritime Silk Road, which was, in itself, an old topic. Liang Qichao 梁啟超 (1873–1929) had argued in his book Zhongguo Fojiao yanjiu shi 中國佛教研究史 that “The root of Buddhism came from across the sea and transplanted in the Chu.”3 Li Hongfu 李洪甫 and Wu Kerong 武可榮 stated clearly in Haizhou shike 海州石刻 (1990) that “In the Eastern Han Dynasty, Buddhist images were able to come through the Maritime Silk Road to eastern China, without passing either Chang’an or Luoyang. Since Mt. Kongwang was located at the starting

2  “The Symposium on the Cliff Statues in Mt. Kongwang, Port Lianyun” was held in Beijing, see Wenwu 文物, 1981, No. 7. 3  Liang Qichao, Zhongguo Fojiao yanjiu shi, Shanghai: Sanlian chubanshe, 1988.

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

149

point of this Maritime Silk Road, this place becoming the genesis of Chinese Buddhist art was by no means accidental.”4 Although some scholars agreed with the above argument of maritime transmission,5 no strong evidence has been provided thus far—critics have noted repeatedly that “the evidence concerning maritime transmission, whether from literature or archaeological evidence, is insufficient.”6 The second issue of contention regarded the Burma Road, which was a question which has provoked international attention. The Dongnan wenhua 東南文化 has published a number of articles, and historical monographs have been published, but, in fact, this was also an old topic, one which already appeared in Ji Gudian shuo 紀古滇說 of the Yuan Dynasty.7 Ruan Rongchun 阮榮春 strongly advocated that the Burma Road was “the route of Buddhist transmission to southern China,” which meant that the earlystage Buddhism disseminated from India and through to Burma, and then to Yunnan, China, and northward to Sichuan, and then its course “fluctuated” eastward along the Yangtze River to Hubei, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang Provinces.8 However, critics have argued that there is no reliable historical evidence of Buddhism in Yunnan earlier than the seventh century. The Buddhist objects found in Sichuan Province, it has been widely agreed, are from the Shu, Han, and later dynasties, and the Buddhist objects from the Silk Road were ignored and damaged. “Obviously, this argument is invalid, judging from either textual or historical evidence.”9

4  Municipal Museum of Port Lianyun, Haizhou Shike 海州石刻, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1990. 5  Wu Yanqiu 吳延璆 and Zheng Pengnian 鄭彭年, “Fojiao haishang chuanru yanjiu” 佛教海上傳入研究, Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究, 1997, No. 2. 6  Sheng Li 盛利 and Yü Peng 於澎, “Fojiao haishang chuanru shuping” 佛教海上傳入述評, Haijiao shi yanjiu, 1997, No. 1. 7  Cited from Shen Fuwei 沈福偉, Zhongxi wenhua jiaoliushi 中西文化交流史, Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1985, p. 48. Ji Gudian shuo was written by Zhang Daozong 張道宗 in the Yuan Dynasty. 8   Ruan Rongchun, “Zaoqi fojiao chuchuan zhongguo nanfangzhilu yanjiu” 早期佛教初傳中國南方之路研究, Meishu shi yanjiu 美術史研究 (South Korea), 1996. 9  Wen Yucheng 溫玉成, “Zaoqi Fojiao chuchuan Zhongguo nanfang zhilu zhiyi” 早期佛教初傳中國南方之路”質疑, Gyeongju World Culture Expo: International Symposium Proceedings (Hanguo Qingzhou shijie wenhua bolanhui: Guoji xueshu lunwenji 韓國慶州世界文化博覽會: 國際學術論文集) (South Korea), 1998.

150 2

Wen

Two Cruxes and a New Thinking

The disparities in dating the Mt. Kongwang statues indicated that this subject was a grey area of Chinese archaeology, because pre-Han archaeological chronology has been based on the periodization according to burial types and related artifacts, however, the period from the late Eastern Han to the Three Kingdoms have proven to be grey areas due to their lack of corresponding burial-style evidence. For example, from the approximated dates of painted images from stone tombs in Yinan, Shandong Province, there are suggestions of at least three major time periods—the late Eastern Han,10 Western Jin,11 and between the late Han Dynasty and the Northern Wei.12 Due to this conflicting evidence, scholars have yet to reach a conclusion for the date of this site. The imprecision of this “periodization ruler” in archaeological studies have inevitably led to differing views. However, generally speaking, most scholars regard the Mt. Kongwang statues to be within to the period from the late Eastern Han, the Three Kingdoms, and the Eastern and Western Jin Dynasties, which should be “safe” enough (to use their choice of words). However, regarding those dates from the Tang Dynasty (as proposed by other scholars), these simply did not make sense. Consequently, the Mt. Kongwang statues represented a blank zone in the archaeology of Buddhist images; faced with Mount Kongwang, scholars simply did not know where to begin. The primary reason for this was that the starting point of Chinese Buddhist archaeology was cave studies, but the Mt. Kongwang statues represented a problem because the earliest caves, known as the Qinzhou mode 秦州模式13 and the Liangzhou mode 涼州模式,14 were both from the early fifth century, but the Mt. Kongwang statues were about 150 years younger than these.

10  Zeng Zhaoyü 曾昭燏, Yinan huaxiangshi gumu fajue baogao 沂南畫像石古墓發掘報告, Beijing: State Administration of Cultural Heritage, 1956. 11  Li Wenxin 李文信, “Yinan huaxiangshi gumu niandai de guanjian” 沂南畫像石 古墓年代的管見, Kaogu tongxun 考古通訊, 1957, No. 6. 12  An Zhimin 安志敏, “Lun Yinan huaxinag shimu de niandai wenti” 論沂南畫像 石墓的年代問題, Kaogu tongxun, 1955, No. 2. 13   Wen Yucheng, “Zhongguo zaoqi shikusi yanjiu de jidian sikao” 中國早期石窟 寺研究的幾點思考, Dunhuang yanjiu 敦煌研究, 2000, No. 2. 14  Su Bai 宿白, “Liangzhou shiku yiji he ‘Liangzhou muoshi’” 涼州石窟遺跡和”涼州模式,” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報, 1986, No. 4.

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

151

Due to the two cruxes of grey area and the lack of evidence, studies of the Mt. Kongwang statues mired in a long-term stagnation. In the spring of 1999, I proposed a new way of thinking15 to rectify these problems. The key point of my article was this: in the second half of the first century, the Chinese, incorporating their existing knowledge of Buddhism, modeled Daoist immortals to create a mixed mode of Immortals and Buddhas (Xian Fo muoshi 仙佛模式). This was a Buddhist imagery system created roughly at the same time as the Gandhara statues (see Figure 8.1). This notion is in accordance with the Dai Yong zhuan 戴顒傳 in the Songshu 宋書: “Buddhist statues began from the Han Dynasty, but they had no definite format.” This mode of Immortals and Buddhas existed between the second half of the first century and the end of third century. However, as an increasing number of Buddhist monks from Western Regions arrived in China, and brought with them more information concerning Buddhism and its related imagery, this increased influence from Western Regions gradually transformed the mode of Immortals and Buddhas in China. By the end of the third century, owing to the maturation and introduction of Buddhist paintings from the west (as well as the intensification of battles between Buddhism and Daoism), the mode of Immortals and Buddhas was replaced by the Buddhist paintings of the Western Regions. Chinese Buddhist images were mixed with Huang-Lao Daoism and funeral customs since the inception of this religion in China, which represented a unique cultural characteristic during the early stages of Buddhist introduction. In Figure 8.1, there is strong evidence to suggest that X1 is “Laozi,” and X2 a “standing Buddha.” I have argued in my previous writings that this is an example that shows people worshiped Huang-Lao and Buddha at the same time, and that the date of these statues was of the same period as, or slightly later than, the Yinan 沂南 tomb, namely from the mid Jian’an 建安 Era to the early Cao Wei. Interestingly, when Ji Dakai 紀達凱, the deputy director of the Municipal Museum of Port Lianyun, and I revisited Mt. Kongwang on 24th October 1999, Ji carefully examined the object on X1’s hands. He found that the object was neither a shield nor a chopping board: it was a fish with head, mouth, eyes, and tail. Therefore, it is confirmed that X1 is Laozi rather than a gatekeeper.

15   Wen Yucheng, “Xiyuan yi zhi san shiji zhongguo de xianfomoshi” 西元 1 至 3 世紀中國的仙佛模式, Dunhuang yanjiu, 1999, No. 1.

152

Wen

2.1 Identification of the Three Main Statues The three largest sitting statues (X1, X66, and X68) in Mt. Kongwang are arranged in a triangle formation on the main façade of the cliff. They are the key to identifing the characteristics of the Mt. Kongwang statues. Their identification is as follows: 2.1.1 X1 is Laozi rather than a gatekeeper (as was previously assumed) X1 is located at the lower part of the western end of the cliff façade (see Figure 8.2). The statue sits obverse and upright with the hands tucked in its sleeves. With a slim, long oval face, its eyes are large with hanging canthi, and the nose is straight. The line between mouth and chest has been badly eroded, so it is difficult to identify. It has a pair of large ears carved concavely. It wears a sage hat, and has a pair of accessory ears. It wears a cross-lapel garment with tight sleeves. It holds an object previously, and erroneously, classified as a shield or board, which is now identified as a fish with eyes and opened mouth. The fish’s head is eastward and tail westward. X1 can be confirmed as Laozi for the following reasons: There are Han portraits describing Confucius’s visit to Laozi. Confucius and Laozi are those figures wearing sage hats in the portraits, such as the painting stones No. 1 and No. 4 which were excavated from the stone tomb in Zhifang Town, Jiaxiang County, Shandong Province.16 The sage hats of Confucius and Laozi are taller in the paintings from Daqiao Town, Nanyan County, Henan Province,17 and also from the Sheyang stone gate, Baoying County, Jiangsu Province.18 The disciples in the paintings also wear sage hats and, holding booklets, stand on Confucius’s left side. In terms of the relationship between the characters, X1 is larger and sitting upright, while X2 is smaller and standing aside. This represents a clear visual hierarchy between X1 and X2. Previously, I identified the painting on the bronze mirror of the fifth year of Yongyuan (93 CE) unearthed in Mengjin County, Luoyang, Henan Province, as “Laozi entered the barbarian regions as a Buddha.” The superior figure (with beard, conspicuous hair, sitting on a 16  Jiaxiang xian wenguansuo 嘉祥縣文管所, “Shandong Jiaxiang Zhifang huaxiang shiku” 山東嘉祥紙坊畫像石窟, Wenwu, 1986, No. 5. 17  Nanyang diqu wenwu yanjiusuo 南陽地區文物研究所, Nanyang hanhua zaoqi tuopian xuanhi 南陽漢畫早期拓片選集, Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou guji chubanshe, 1993 (Picture 97). 18  Xing Yitian 邢義田, “Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yüyan yanjiusuo cang Baoying Yeyang Shimen huaxiang taben jilue” 中央研究院歷史語言研究所藏寶應射陽 石門畫像拓本記略, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物, 1996, No. 3.

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

153

circular pad, with a six-horse carriage) is Laozi, and the inferior figure (with neither beard nor conspicuous hair, sitting on a square pad, with a four-horse carriage) is Buddha (see Figure 8.3).19 Therefore, X1 is Laozi, and X2 is Buddha. The statue with a pair of big ears, holding a fish, is surely Laozi. For the image on the southern side of the octagonal stone pillar located in the middle room, Yinan stone tomb, in order to prove it as “Laozi entered the barbarian region, becoming Buddha,” I have analyzed, in my article, the transformation process from dragon, Laozi, and finally Buddha, from the base of the painting up. The fish on Laozi’s hands signifies the Buddha; this image borrows from the well-known Chinese legend of “transformation from fish to dragon.” Similarly, the fish on X1’s hands symbolized his transformation from dragon. Confucius’ praise of Laozi as “exactly a dragon”20 fortified the connection between Laozi and dragon. Emperor Huan of the Han Dynasty also “constructed a baldachin to worship Buddha and Laozi” at the “Palace of Rinsing Dragon.”21 Historical accounts mention that Laozi has a pair of big ears: “he has beautiful yellow eyebrows, long ears and big eyes. His forehead is wide and teeth sparse; his mouth square and lips thick.”22 In summary, X1 is unquestionably Laozi, and thereby disproves the proposition that X1 is a gatekeeper. Since the late Eastern Han, Daoists had respected Laozi as the Grand Elder Lord (Dalao jun 大老君), the head of the five deities. The other four deities are Lord of West Sea (Xihai jun 西海君), Lord of East Sea (Donghai jun 東海君), Lord of Immortal (Xianren jun 仙人君), and Lord of Perfect Man (Zhenren jun 真人君).23 2.1.2 X66 is not a donor but Confucius X66 is located in the middle part of the central section of Mt. Kongwang. Its posture and dress style are the same as X1. It faces the western side of Laozi’s statue, bowing with hands held in front (see Figure 8.4). X67 bows at the lower left side of X66, and holds an object, probably a bamboo strip or a silk scroll.

19  Wen Yüchen, “Xiyuan yi zhi san shiji Zhongguo de xianfo muoshi,” Dunhuang yanjiu, 1999, No. 1. 20  “Lao Zhuang Shen Han zhuan” 老莊申韓傳, Shiji 史記. 21  “Huandi ji” 桓帝紀, Houhanshu 後漢書. 22  “Lao Zhuang Shen Han zhuan zhengyi” 老莊申韓傳正義, Shiji. 23  Wen Yüchen, “Xiyuan yi zhi san shiji Zhongguo de xianfo muoshi,” Dunhuang yanjiu, 1999, No. 1.

154

Wen

X66 must be Confucius for the following reasons: In Eastern Han paintings of Confucius’s visit to Laozi, Laozi and Confucius dress similarly, and bow to each other. Confucius was just over twenty years old when he visited the Zhou to consult Laozi for etiquette. Hence, it is often represented that Confucius offers a “gift (pheasant)” to Laozi, in order to show his respect. Similarly, here, X66 bows to Laozi with his eyes, and holds his hands in front to show his respect. X67 is a disciple of Confucius, standing on the side, bowing and holding a bamboo strip. Textual evidence can be found: Firstly, when Emperor Huan of the Eastern Han constructed the Laozi Temple in the Lai Village, Ku County, he also commanded an image of Confucius to be made on the wall,24 to venerate both Laozi and Confucius. Secondly, in the second year of Huangchu Era (221 CE), the Emperor of Cao Wei issued an edict to respect Confucius as “sage of the time and role model for billions of generations.” The Emperor also designated Kong Xian 孔羨 as the Sagely Marquis (Zongsheng hou 宗聖侯), and worshiped the Confucius family. X66 is located in the center of Mt. Kongwang, because Cao Wei so deeply respected Confucius. Thirdly, Mouzi’s 牟子 Lihuo lun 理惑論 explicates that believing in Buddhism is by no means departing from Confucianism—he proposes that the relationship between Buddhism and Confucianism is like that between gold and jade, or spirit and soul. “I respect and study Buddhism, but do not abandon the way of Yao, Shun, Duke of Zhou or Confucius. The disciplines of Buddhism and Confucianism are not antithetical, just as gold and jade, or as spirit and soul, which do not impair each other. People call this a state of confusion simply because they confuse themselves.”25 Of course, out of this cultural atmosphere, statues of Confucius often appear in Buddhist sculptures of this time (see Figure 8.5). 2.1.3 X68 is not the Queen Mother of the West (Xi wangmu 西王母) but the King of the East (Dong wanggong 東王公) X68 is located in the middle-upper section of Mt. Kongwang, which implies its superior status to those below it. X68 has been assumed to be the Queen Mother of the West by scholars for many years—however, there is no victory stick, nor immortal rabbit, three-footed blue bird, or nine-tail fox on its side,

24  “Kongshi pu” 孔氏譜, Houhanshu jijie 後漢書集解. 25  Mouzi, Lihuolun, Section 14.

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

155

which are usually present in statues of this character. Therefore, it is difficult to identify it as the Queen Mother of the West. X68 is probably the King of the East for the following reasons: X68 wears a conical hat with brim, with an oval face, straight nose, and large ears. It wears a spacious, wide-sleeve, and crossed-lapel robe, and sits upright with hands tucked in its sleeves. It is quite similar to the King of the East on the mirror unearthed in Luoyang, and this mirror is also from the Cao Wei Period.26 The Shenyi jing 神異經 (traditionally regarded as written by Dongfang Shuo 東方朔, annotated by Zhang Hua 張華) mentions the King of the East: “The King of the East lives in a stone room in Mt. Donghuang 東荒山. He is about three meters tall, his hair white as snow. He has a human body, a bird face, and a tiger tail. He rides on a black dragon, looking left and right, front and behind.” Correspondingly, there is exactly a dragon beneath the King of the East on a painted stone from Beizhai, Yinan, Shandong Province. The conical hat with brim characterizes the King of the East, which also appears on the Eastern Han jade cup unearthed in 1991 from the tomb of Liu Hong 劉弘, the governor of Jingzhou in the Western Jin (now Anxiang County, Hunan Province). In this painting of “the King of the East (riding a dragon) visiting Queen Mother of the West (riding a tiger),” King of the East wears a conical hat with brim (see Figure 8.6).27 We can identify similarities between this image and X68. Theoretically speaking, Haizhou is located in eastern China, since the first Emperor of the Qin Dynasty “erected a stone on the coast of the East China Sea as Qin’s eastern border.”28 Port Lianyun belonged to the Qi and Lu cultural circles, where people worshiped dragons and birds, but never tigers. Therefore, is quite natural and logical for the locals to worship the King of the East, who has a dragon as the sacred animal.

26  Luoyang buowuguan 洛陽博物館, Luoyang chutu tongjing 洛陽出土銅鏡, Wenwu chubabshe, 1988, Picture 5. Note: The inscription on the bronze mirror states, “Huinan rose illuminating; the glorious animal Renshou transmits the name.” Liu An, The King of Huainan achieved the Dao, and all his family become immortals. Renshou, also known as Renshan, is an auspicious animal. The author of Luoyang chutu tongjing mistakes Renshou as an era name of the Sui Dynasty. The decorative pattern on the bronze mirror is similar to one of the Three Kingdoms unearthed from the prehistoric tomb in Funayama, Japan. 27  Zhongguo wenwu jinghua 中國文物精華, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1993, (Picture 65). 28  “Qin shihuang benji” 秦始皇本紀, Shiji.

156 3

Wen

Examination of Buddhist Images

Since Professor Shi Shuqing noted that the Mt. Kongwang statues contain Buddhist elements, my mentor, Professor Yan Wenru 閻文儒, has undertaken a careful investigation.29 Here, I plan to offer additional remarks. 3.1.1 Standing Buddha (X2、X61、X71) X2 has a long oval face, deep-set eyes, high nose, large ears, and a bun-shaped hair with a belt fastened on it. It wears a round-neck robe, and stands with feet splayed out. Its left hand grasps the edge of the robe, holding it up to the front of the chest. The five fingers can be clearly seen from the right hand palm, which is pushing out (see Figure 8.7). This is an unprecedented posture, yet it is similar to the image of Buddha on a gold coin (diameter 2cm) excavated in Afghanistan—the front side of this coin has the image of Kanishka the Great, and was probably made either between 128 and 151 CE, or between 187 and 212 CE. The only difference is that there is no halo above X2’s head, or around its body, but we may regard the edge of the stone shrine as its halo. The similarities between the image on the gold coin and X2 offer two important messages. Firstly, the image of X2 originated from the Kushan Empire. Secondly, the date of X2 is later than Kanishka the Great. The approximate dates of the abovementioned coin have been derived from two relevant historical events. The event that leads to the first date was the fact that the year 151 CE was the first year of Yuanjia Era of Emperor Huan of the Eastern Han Dynasty. In reference to the second suggested date, the year 212 CE was the seventeenth year of Jianan Era of Emperor Xian of the Eastern Han Dynasty; seven years later, the Eastern Han Dynasty ended. X61 is very similar to X2. The only difference is that the former’s robe reaches only to its knees (not to its feet). Also, the former’s pants and round collar garment imply its barbarian identity. X71 is located next to the painting of offering Buddha’s relics ( for X73, X74, X75, see elaborated below). X71 has a halo above its head and a belt fastened on its waist, from where two ropes hanging down. It stands upright with hands tucked in its sleeves, and rock cracks have damaged parts above these sleeves. The posture of X71 is similar to that of the standing Buddha on the northern upper side of the octagonal stone pillar, located in the middle room of the stone tomb in Yinan. It is very likely to be the future Buddha, Maitreya. If the image holds a chicken, or if there are any chickens surrounding it or in its vicinity, we 29  Yan Wenru, “Kongwangshan zaoxiang de ticai” 孔望山造像的題材, Wenwu, 1981, No. 7.

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

157

can assert that it is Maitreya coming down to the Chicken Head ( Jitou 雞頭) Kingdom. The Buddha died, cremated into relics, and was then reborn in our world in the form of Maitreya. This was a common belief in the late Eastern Han (see Figure 8.8). 3.1.2 Sitting Buddha (X76) X76 has a long oval, thin face, a bun-shaped hair, big eyes, high nose, and large ears. Its left hand grasps the edge of its robe, holding it in front of the chest. We can clearly identify the fingers from the palm of its right hand, which is extended directly in front of his chest. Its hand gesture is the same with that of the standing Buddha. The earliest sitting Buddha discovered in China was that carved on the ‘Laozi Buddha Mirror’ made in the fifth year of Yongyuan Era. The sitting Buddha wears a hat and a cross lapel robe. It tucks its hands in the robe sleeves and sits on a square pad. There are feathers outside its body. Compared to other Buddhist images, X76 is quite different—scholars have discovered similar sitting buddhas in the cliff tomb no. 1 in Mahao, Sichuan, and cliff tomb no. 1 in Shiziwan, however, there are halos above these sitting buddhas and robe decorations on their chests. All of the aforementioned four sitting buddhas originated from Gandhara. The sitting Buddha on the lid of Kanishka reliquary, found in Peshawar, also has a similar pattern. However, these types of Buddhist images might appear even earlier (see Figure 8.9). In 1992, a statue of Buddha made of glazed kaolin was unearthed from tomb no. 4 in Tangjiaotou Village, E’zhou, Hubei Province. Its face is small and round, with a bun-shaped hair. It wears shoulder-covered coat, which seemingly covers the shoulders. There are imprinted concentric circles on the coat. It sits upright with a meditation mudra.30 Four servant statues were also unearthed from the same tomb, each of which wears a round hat. According to the inference of the excavating experts, the date of tomb no. 4 was slightly earlier than that of tomb no. 2 (261 CE), that is, the sitting Buddha was made not long before the fourth year of Yong’an Era of the Sun Wu.31 There were also sitting Buddha statues on the celadon granary pot made in the third year of Yuankang Era, the Western Jin. It was unearthed in Lin’an, Zhejiang.

30  Yang Hong 楊泓, “Ba E’zhou Sunwu mu chutu taofoxiang” 跋鄂州孫吳墓出土陶佛像, Kaogu 考古, 1996, No. 11. 31   Hubeisheng wenwu kaugu yanjiusuo 湖北省文物考古研究所, “Hubei E’zhoushi Tangtojiao Liuchao mu” 湖北鄂州市塘頭角六朝墓, Kaogu, 1996, No. 11.

158

Wen

Concerning the appearance of the similar images, it is credible that Tang Changshou 唐長壽 dated cliff tomb no. 1 in Shiziwan to be “between the Han and Wei Dynasties” and cliff tomb no. 1 in Mahao, to be “in the Shu-Han period” (303–346 CE).32 After conducting a typological analysis, I have divided the aforementioned sitting buddhas into two groups, and infer their dates as follows: Group A: X76 of Mt. Kongwang, circa 240 CE Group B: the sitting buddhas in Shiziwan and Mahao, Leshan, after 250 CE 3.1.3 The Images of Offering Buddha’s Relics (X73、X74、X75) No one has, as yet, conducted research on X73、X74, and X75, and so I identify them as the images of offering Buddha’s relics (Sheli gongyang tu 舍利供養圖). X75 wears a barbarian hat, with a conical top and wings. X75 sits in profile, on its knees, and holds a circular reliquary in front of the chest. There are beads in the box, representing Buddha’s relics. This type of round reliquary was firstly seen on a stone statue of a Buddhist believer who holds a reliquary with two hands, which belongs to the Swat Archaeological Museum.33 Similar circular and shining features of Buddha’s relics are also seen in the murals of the Han tomb at Xiaobanshen, Horinger County, Inner Mongolia, and the murals of tomb no. 2 at Dahuting, Mi County, Henan Province.34 X74 also wears a barbarian garment, and is pointing to the reliquary with its left hand and raising a pole with its right hand. There is a shining object (possibly the Buddha’s relics) at the top of the pole. Its face turns right, while taking a large stride to prominently display the Buddha’s relics. X73 also wears a round hat, a round-neck garment, and the pants. It dances cheerfully (see Figure 8.10). Ancient scriptures also have examples of binding Buddha’s relics on a banner. Both Cao Wei and Sun Wu of the Three Kingdoms Dynasty documented miracle tales of Buddha’s relics. For example, the Weishu Shilaozhi 魏書· 釋老志 writes that when Emperor Ming of the Wei Dynasty tried to destroy the Buddha’s image at the western side of the palace, foreign monks, in response, filled a golden plate with water, put this in front of the palace, and threw the 32   Tang Changshou, “Leshan Mahao, Shiziwan yamu foxiang niandai xintan” 樂山 麻浩、柿子灣崖墓佛像年代新探, Dongnan wenhua 東南文化, 1989, No. 2. 33  Riben sichou zhilu dawenming zhan: sichou zhilu, Fojiao meishu chuanlai zhilu 日本絲綢之路大文明展．絲綢之路．佛教美術傳來之路), Nara: Nara National Museum, 1998, (Picture 27). 34  Henansheng wenwu yanjiusuo 河南省文物研究所, Mixian Dahuting Hanmu 密縣打 虎亭漢墓, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1993, (Picture 20).

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

159

Buddha’s relics into the plate, and then the Buddha’s relics emitted colored lights. The Emperor exclaimed, “If there were no supernatural power, how could this ever happen?” Additionally, Fascicle 40 of Fayuan Zhulin 法苑珠林 quotes the Puoxie 破邪 Section—“whenever temples tied Buddha’s relics on poles, disputations occurred in the palace, which annoyed the Emperor.” This was why Emperor Ming persecuted Buddhism. The biography of Kang Senghui 康僧會 in the Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 says that Kang arrived in Jianye in the tenth year of Chiwu Era (247 CE), built a thatched cottage, erected a Buddhist image, and began to preach. Sun Quan 孫權 summoned Kang Senghui, and asked him what kind of efficacious power he had. Kang Senghui replied, “The Buddha died over a thousand years ago, yet his relics shine in ten directions,” a claim which Sun Quan regarded as an exaggeration. Therefore, Kang Senghui and his fellow monks entered a quiet room, after fasting and cleansing themselves, and prepared a bronze jar, burned incense, and held rituals. At the dawn of the twenty-first day, a loud sound suddenly came from the jar—they went forward, and found Buddha’s relics in it. They gave the Buddha’s relics to Sun Quan in the morning. The courtiers gathered to look, and they saw that the bronze jar reflected the colored lights of the relics. Subsequently, Sun Quan ordered to build a pagoda for the relics, and named it the Jianchu temple. 3.1.4 The Images of Nirvana Professor Yan Wenru has confirmed that the second group of Kongwang statues X4–X42 probably depicted Buddha’s entering Nirvana. Yan explained why the disciples of Buddha appeared as laymen by noting that the MūlasarvāstivādaVinaya records show that “they had not shaved the head or dyed the robe yet.”35 Here I would like to offer only two additional remarks: Firstly, the disciple X13, kneeling beneath the head of the Buddha, wears a hat. He raises the hat’s left pawn to the left ear, and props the left elbow with the right hand. This seems to be Aniruddha, who is known for his ‘heavenly eyes’ among the ten disciples of Buddha. He has a serene facial expression, no tears in his eyes, and he is calming the crowd from sadness. Similar images have appeared in Gandhara’s Nirvana image.36 X13 might be regarded a vīra (mighty man, Ch. lishi 力士), but this proposition requires further investigation. 35  Yan Wenru, “Kongwang shan zaoxiang de ticai” 孔望山造像的題材, Wenwu, 1981. No. 7. 36  Sir John Marshall, The Buddhist Art of Gandhara: The Story of the Early School: Its Birth, Growth and Decline, translated into Chinese by Wang Jiqing 王冀青, Jiantuoluo de Fojiao yishu 犍陀羅的佛教藝術, Lanzhou: Gansu jiaoyü chubanshe, 1989, pp. 50–51, (Picture 68).

160

Wen

Secondly, each of the statues here has a round face, carved smoothly— hence, they were probably sculpted later than the other statues in Mt. Kong­ wang. Their face shape is closer to the “small and round face” style of the glazed kaolin statues from Tangjiaotou Village, E’zhou, Hubei Province. 3.1.5 The Other Buddhist Images It is difficult to arrive at judgments on the other Buddhist images for the time being. Professor Yan Wenru inferred, from secondary resources, that X82 represents Prince Sattva, sacrificing his life to feed a tiger; however, it is difficult to identify the tiger’s head. The recumbent barbarians X70 and X69 seem to represent the situations stated in Sutra of Forty-Two Chapters (Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經), that “to be fettered by wife, children, and house is even more miserable than to be imprisoned,” and also the story that the deity offered ladies to Buddha in order to perturb Buddha’s will, but to this the Buddha replied: “A human body is just a leather bag with excrement in it. You shouldn’t be bothered to do this. Take them back. I do not need them.”37 3.1.6 The Image of Five Monks The fifth group, the image of the five monks, was carved concavely in a long oval shrine. Chinese Buddhists did not shave off their hair initially. In fact, according to the Jingji zhi 經籍志 in Suishu 隋書, “it was not until the middle Huangchu Era of the Wei Dynasty (220–226 CE) did Chinese Buddhists take the tonsure according to Buddhist precepts.” Others suggest that it was not until Dharma-kāla’s (Ch. Tanhe jialuo 曇訶迦羅) arrival in Luoyang, in the mid-Jiaping Era of the Wei (249–254 CE), did Chinese Buddhists begin to “repent for their sins and conduct fasting and rituals of offering.” Each of the five monks has a round face, and has been dated close to the Nirvana image. According to Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha preached the Dharma for the first time at Sarnath, where he enlightened the five disciples: Kauṇḍinya, Aśvajit, Bhadrika, Vāṣpa, and Mahānāman, which were all Buddha’s relative-in-laws. This image intends to advocate Buddhist precepts and tonsure. 3.1.7 The Three Shrines beneath the Statue of Confucius These three long oval shrines are located beneath the statue of Confucius, and arranged horizontally (see Figure 8.11). Both X93 (the sixteenth group) and 37  Wang Chengzhu 王成竹, Foshuo sishi’er zhang jing jie 佛說四十二章經解, Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1991.

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

161

X99 (the eighteenth group) have beards, wear a hat, sit on the ground and are making a speech. They seem to represent the same character, and whether or not they convey Confucius’ life story needs more research. However, one thing is for certain: the eighteenth group does not represent Vimalakirti, because there are wine cups between X99 and X100, which obviously violate Buddhist precepts. The two characters in the seventeenth group are particularly difficult to identify. 3.1.8 The Barbarians (Hu 胡) Almost all donors’ statues in Mt. Kongwang are barbarians. They are easy to identify because they all wear round-neck garments and barbarian hats decorated with conical tops and wings (see Figure 8.12). There were roughly three types of barbarians in China at the introductory stage of Buddhism—the first type was those from the Western Regions of the Pamir Mountains; the second type was called “the nine surnames of Zhaowu” (Zhaowu jiuxing 昭武九姓); the third type was the Great Yuezhi people from the Kushana Empire. {Translator’s note: The Yuezhi 月氏 (also written 月支 and today officially read Rouzhi). Around the 1st century BCE the Yuezhi fell apart, and segregated into five tribes; among the five, the king of Guishuang 貴霜 (known as Kushana) proved to be the strongest and eventually swallowed the other kingdoms.} From the Chinese perspective, they were all foreigners, with “beards, deep eyes, and high noses.” According to Kang Sengyuan’s biography in the Gaosengzhuan, when the Chinese teased him (regardless of the fact that was born in Chang’an), he replied that, “Nose and eyes are like mountain and pond on one’s face. The mountain would not be efficacious if not high enough; the pond would not be limpid if not deep enough.” The barbarian statues on Mt. Kongwang appear to be the Great Yuezhi people (the Kushans). The head images of the three kings on the gold coins of the Kushana Empire are Vima Kadphises, Kanishka, and Huvishka. They wear a crown decorated with wings (see Figure 8.13), a crown similar to the barbarian hat in Mt. Kong­ wang. The “nine surnames of Zhaowu” wear hemispherical hats, just as those on the painted bricks unearthed in Ping’an County, Qinghai.38 According to experts, the Kushana Empire split into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms during the reign of Chinese Emperor Ling of Han. Wars occurred frequently, and a large number of refugees fled eastward, even to 38  Qinghai wenwuchu 青海文物處, Qinghai wenwu 青海文物, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1994, (Picture 94).

162

Wen

Luoyang. In 1924, Professor Ma Heng 馬衡, of Peking University, found three Kharosthi stone bars in Luoyang, which proved that the Great Yuezhi people had settled down in Luoyang and believed in Buddhism.39 The Kushan monk Lokakṣema translated fifteen Buddhist sutras in thirty fascicles in total into Chinese during 178–189 CE; Zhiyao 支曜 translated one sutra in one fascicle during the rule of Emperor Ling of the Han; and Zhiqian 支謙 translated thirty-six sutras in forty-eight fascicles during 222–253 CE during the Sun Wu. They were all from the Great Yuezhi 大月氏. The Great Yuezhi people who migrated to Haizhou were probably the refugees who continued moving eastward after the wars in Luoyang. Given that these people migrated to China between 180 and 190 CE, they would have been in China for four or five decades by the year 230 CE, which means that some of them (particularly the second and third generations) should have been deeply Sinicized. Therefore, it is very likely that these Great Yuezhi migrants brought the gold coins of the Kushan Empire, carved with Buddhist images, into China during the late Eastern Han. King Vasudeva II, of the Great Yuezhi, sent envoys to give tribute to the Cao Wei kingdom, and was conferred the title “Wei’s Affinity, King of the Great Yuezhi” (Qin Wei Da Yuezhi wang 親魏大月氏王), which shows a friendly relationship between Cao Wei and the Great Yuezhi. 3.1.9 The Vīra statues There are two characters in the thirteenth group of Mt. Kongwang statues. The first one, X85, wears a dome-shaped hat with wide brim. With deep and glaring eyes and high nose, the wide-open round eyes are formidable. Upper body naked, two belts are crossed in front of its chest, in a “martial-art squat” posture with strong limbs; some experts call this statue Vīra. A good number of naked bronze statues in this “martial-art squat” posture (usually about 4 cm tall) have been found in Ordos in northwestern China. They probably belonged to the Hun culture. Similar bronze statues have also been found among the Eurasian nomadic cultures, for instance a bronze statue from Ordos holds a dagger in its right hand and has male genitals at the lower part of its body. This statue was made between the Warring States and the Han Dynasty. According to Tian Guangjin’s 田廣金 “E’erduosi shi qingtongqi” 鄂爾多斯式青銅器, this bronze statue was a “hanging ornament,” to be threaded and hung as a decoration. The Great Yuezhi people also share 39  Lin Meicun 林梅村, “Luoyang suochu Qieluwen jinglan tiji: jianlun Luoyang de sengtuan yü Fojiao” 洛陽所出佉盧文井欄題記—兼論洛陽的僧團與佛教, Zhongguo lishi bowuguan guankan 中國歷史博物館館刊, 1989, No. 13/14.

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

163

this custom. As Hanshu: Xiyü zhuan 漢書•西域傳 said, “The Great Yuezhi was originally a nomadic country. Its people moved with their livestock, and had similar customs to that of the Huns.” If this is indeed true, then this kind of bronze statue seems to have served as a talisman. However, it is difficult to judge whether wearing this kind of bronze statue was part of the Great Yuezhi’s customs of worshiping “men and strength,” or, instead, belonging to a cult of witchcraft. Nevertheless, X85 must have something to do with the customs or witchcraft of the Great Yuezhi people, as horse, man, and sword were symbols of courage for the nomads. However, X85 was Sinicized, because this naked statue wears a hat and X-shaped belts, and, furthermore, it does not expose its male genitals (see Figure 8.14). These kinds of naked statue, with round hats, were also found in the ruins of Gandhara’s Taxila (Figure 8.15). 4

The Contents, Time, and Significance of the Mt. Kongwang Statues

4.1.1 New Phase of the Mode of Immortals and Buddhas As argued above, Mt. Kongwang was a deliberately designed site for worshiping the immortals and buddhas. The three main statues, namely, the King of the East, Confucius, and Laozi, were the predominant characters for worship at that time. The statue of Confucius is located at the central part of the cliff façade, looking at Laozi respectfully. Mount Jinping is in front of Confucius: this might be the reason why it is called “Mount Kongwang” (literally meaning: Confucious’ looking mountain). A commonly known expression is, “Laozi entered the barbarian region, and became a Buddha”; the Chinese, since Emperor Ming of the Han, believed that Laozi enlightened Sakyamuni to achieve Buddhahood. The Shiji states that, in Laozi’s later years, “seeing the decline of the Zhou Dynasty, he headed to the West.” However, “no one knew where his destination was,” and this account leaves room for the idea of “Laozi’s entering barbarian region.” Although it is certainly not true that Laozi enlightened the Buddha, this saying removed a great number of barriers Buddhist transmission into China previously possessed, and this mode of Immortals and Buddhas thus represented a cultural phenomenon in this historical context. Many archaeological sites represent the culture of worshiping immortals and buddhas: the Han tomb in Xiaobanshen, Horinger County, Inner Mongolia; the Han tomb in Dahuting, Mi County; the painted stone tomb in Yinan; the painted bricks unearthed in Ping’an County, Qinghai Province; the sacred animal mirror from Tangjiaotou Village, E’zhou; and the cliff tombs in Leshan.

164

Wen

Mt. Kongwang is the largest statue collection of immortals and buddhas in China, and its artworks entered the stage of imitating Buddhist images of the Western Regions. In other words, Yü Weichao’s 俞偉超 argument that “Buddhism and Daoism are mixed in this site, but Daoism possessed a superior status” is valid.40 There are also historical reasons for the emergence of statues at the Mt. Kongwang site: Firstly, the first emperor of Qin Dynasty erected its eastern border there, setting it as the sailing direction in search of immortality. The Eastern Han Dynasty built the East Sea Temple (Donghai miao 東海廟), and these ruins exist to this day. By the late Eastern Han, Buddhism had spread to the region of Xuzhou and Haizhou; it had become a tradition of believing in Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism for the people of Haizhou. On the painted stone excavated from Gaoli Village, Zou City, Shangdong Province, from the late Eastern Han, seven figures can be seen sitting together, wearing no hats, and holding hands for greeting; these appear to be Buddhists.41 Secondly, a group of Buddhist believers from the Great Yuezhi moved to the Mt. Kongwang region in the late Eastern Han. They integrated themselves into the local culture, and provided momentum for the development of Buddhist art. During the Three Kingdoms, Haizhou was a relatively peaceful region, which facilitated the development of Buddhist art. The statues of Mt. Kongwang undoubtedly inherited Han-style painted stones and bricks, but not as vigorous and unrestrained as the Han paintings. These statues imitated Gandhara art in characters, such as splayed-out feet, mudra, bun-shaped hair, and halos above the head. These were nothing new, compared to Gandhara art, but they were the precursors of Gandhara art’s eastward spread, and for this reason alone they are highly significant. 4.1.2 Periodization and Time As analyzed above, these statues can be divided into two phases: Phase One: the three main statues, and the majority of statues that were made between tomb no. 2 in Tangjiaotou Village, E’zhou, and the stone tomb in Yinan; hence around 220–250 CE in early Cao Wei.42 40  Lin Meicun, “Luoyang suo chu qieluwen jinglan tiji: jianlun Luoyang de sengtuan yü Fojiao.” 41  Zoucheng shi wenwu guanlichu 鄒城市文物管理處, “Shandong Zocheng Gaolicun Han huaxiang shimu” 山東鄒城高李村漢畫像石墓, Wenwu, 1994, No. 6. Picture 6, top-left corner of the third rubbing. 42  In 1987, I suggested its dates to be between 150 and 245 CE. See “Zhongguo zaoqi Fojiao tuxiang yü Kongwang shan” 中國早期佛教圖像與孔望山, in Kongwang shan zaoxiang

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

165

Phase Two: the Nirvana image (the second group), the five monks (the fifteenth group), and perhaps also X45–X60. They are later than Phase One, between 250 and 270 CE. Now we may reflect on different scholars’ opinions on the dates of the statues mentioned at the beginning of this article. The first proposition of “the late Eastern Han” places excessive emphasis on their similarities with the Han paintings, but ignores their differences, as well as neglecting the new Gandhara elements. The second proposition of the Eastern and Western Jin Period places excessive emphasis on the differences compared to the Han paintings and ignores the Gandhara influence. The third proposition of the Tang Dynasty is simply a guess without evidence, and is thus not worth mentioning. 4.1.3 The Significance of these Statues The statues of Mt. Kongwang include the Buddha and his disciples, but not the bodhisattvas. In addition, all sitting and standing buddhas have no attendant, which implies that the Haizhou people believed in Hinayana Buddhism at that time. These statues should not be regarded as isolated cases. Indeed, besides the East Sea Temple, there is almost certainly more pagodas and temples in that region from the Han period, which await more archaeological evidence for confirmation. Furthermore, the Dragon Cave (Longdong 龍洞), near Mt. Kong­ wang, might be a meditation cave of later time (ie. the Western Jin), which was eventually abandoned and forgotten because its statues were too plain to be respected. According to the Ming Sengshao zhuan 明僧紹傳 in Nanqishu 南齊書, the Qiyun Vihara 棲雲精舍 of Mount Kanyu 龕榆 existed during the Liu Song. The statues of Mt. Kongwang are the earliest cliff statues of “Immortals and Buddhas” in China. They had entered the stage of imitating the Buddhist images of the western countries, indicating an integration between Chinese and foreign cultures. Laozi and Confucius’ statues in Mt. Kongwang are particularly precious, because they are the earliest and biggest statues in China. Some of the paintings in Mt. Kongwang require further research.

yanjiu 孔望山造像研究, Vol. 1. In contrast, Cai Quanfa 蔡全發, in his “Kongwang shan Fojiao zaoxiang de shidai ji qi xiangguan wenti” 孔望山佛教造像的時代及其相關問題, suggested that the date should be after Emperors Huan and Ling of the Eastern Han Dynasty and before the Three Kingdoms; this article is collected in same volume of Kongwang shan zaoxiang yanjiu.

166

Wen

Since Emperor Ming of the Han turned his favor to Buddhism, the communication route between China and the Western Regions was blocked, and then reconnected, three times due to the dominance of the Huns. The Dunhuang area was also isolated from the support of Han court for two decades (200– 220 CE) during the turmoil of battles. By the third year of Hunagchu Era of Cao Wei, the communication between China and the Western Regions was reconnected and the Di 氐 and the Qiang 羌 sent envoys to give tribute. The sitting and standing buddhas in Mount Kongwang were obviously influenced by the art during Kanishka’s rule in the Great Yuezhi. There are various speculations about the era of the reign of King Kanishka (between 78 and 212 CE). Since the statues of Mt. Kongwang are estimated to be from between 220 and 250 CE, we may infer that Kanishka lived between late second and early third centuries, because if he lived in the first century, it is impossible that the Chinese imitated the Kanishka style so late. The intermittent communication between China and the Western Regions enabled the Great Yuezhi people to come to China at regular intervals. The Mt. Kongwang statues prove that the Silk Road was the primary route for the transmission of Buddhist art to China between the first and third centuries. The “Burma Road” is simply, instead, some scholars’ “illusive road”; similarly, the proposition of “fluctuation” does not make logical sense. To conclude, the Mt. Kongwang statues confirm Tang Yongtong’s 湯用彤 judgement in his Han Wei Liangjin Nanbeichao Fojiao shi 漢魏兩晉南北 朝佛教史: From the late Eastern Han to the early Western Jin, Buddhist worshipping resembled Daoist rituals because the Chinese had very limited knowledge of Buddhism, and thus mixed it with Daoism. They thought Buddhism was about the immortal soul, and repentance akin to Daoist rituals. During these times, Buddhist and Daoist priests could not be differentiated. (This article was first published in Dunhuang yanjiu, 2005, No. 5.) Author’s NB: Special thanks to He Zhijun 賀志軍 at the Institute of Longmen Grottoes (Longmen shiku yanjiusuo 龍門石窟研究所) and Guo Xiaohui 郭曉惠 at Luoyang nüzi shuhuayuan 洛陽女子書畫院 for their drawings in this paper. 1 2

It might be mistaken of the reference of Shiji in footnote 22. Footnote 38 might be mistaken.

FIGURE 8.1 Full Illustration of the Mount Kongwang Cliff Statues (Painted by Tang Chi 湯池 et al., Originally published on Wenwu No. 7, 1981.).

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

167

168

FIGURE 8.2 Mount Kongwang Cliff Statue: Laozi (X1).

Wen

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

FIGURE 8.3 Bronze mirror of “Laozi entered the barbarian regions as a Buddha.” (The fifth year of Yongyuan, Eastern Han.).

169

170

FIGURE 8.4 Mount Kongwang Cliff Statue: Confucius (X66).

Wen

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

FIGURE 8.5 Paintung of Laozi with Confucius.

FIGURE 8.6 Eastern Han jade cup unearthed from the tomb of Liu Hong.

171

172

FIGURE 8.7 Mount Kongwang Cliff Statue: Standing Buddha (X2).

FIGURE 8.8 Comparison of standing Buddha figures.

Wen

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

FIGURE 8.9 Comparison of seating Buddha figures.

FIGURE 8.10  Mount Kongwang: Barbarian donors.

173

174

FIGURE 8.11  Paintings in the three long oval shrines (Originally published in Haizhu shike 海州石刻.).

FIGURE 8.12  Mount Kongwang Cliff Statue: Yuezhi People (X3).

Wen

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

FIGURE 8.13  Images of the kings on the gold coins of the Kushana Empire.

FIGURE 8.14  Comparison of Vīra figures.

175

176

Wen

FIGURE 8.15  Clay statue found in Taxila, Gandhara.

Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Fayuan Zhulin 法苑珠林, T 53. Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳, T 50. Hanshu 漢書, Ban Gu 班固, Beijing: Zhonghua shuji, 1962. Houhanshu 後漢書, Fan Ye 范曄, Beijing: Zhonghua shuji, 1965. Houhanshu jijie 後漢書集解, Wang Xianqian 王先謙, Beijing: Zhonghua shuji, 2006. Ji Gudian shuo 紀古滇說, Zhang Daozong 張道宗, Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubenshe, 2007. Mouzi Lihuo lun 牟子理惑論, Hongming ji 弘明集, Sengyou僧祐 ed., T 25. Nanqishu 南齊書, Xiao Zixian 蕭子顯, Beijing: Zhonghua shuji, 1972. Shenyi jing 神異經, written by Dongfang Shuo 東方朔, annotated by Zhang Hua 張華, Siku quanshu 四庫全書, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe. Shiji 史記, Sima Qian 司馬遷, Beijing: Zhonghua shuji, 1982. Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經, T 17. Songshu 宋書, Shen Yue 沈約, Beijing: Zhonghua shuji, 1974. Suishu 隋書, Wei Zheng 魏征, Beijing: Zhonghua shuji, 1973. Weishu 魏書, Wei Shou 魏收, Beijing: Zhonghua shuji, 1974.

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues



Secondary Sources

177

An Zhimin 安志敏, “Lun Yinan huaxinag shimu de niandai wenti” 論沂南畫 像石墓的年代問題, Kaogu tongxun 考古通訊, 1955, No. 2. Cai Quanfa 蔡全發, “Kongwang shan Fojiao zaoxiang de shidai ji qi xiangguan wenti” 孔望山佛教造像的時代及其相關問題, Kongwang shan zaoxiang yanjiu 孔望山造像研究, Vol. 1. Henansheng wenwu yanjiusuo 河南省文物研究所 (1993), ed., Mixian Dahuting Hanmu 密縣打虎亭漢墓, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Hubeisheng wenwu kaugu yanjiusuo 湖北省文物考古研究所 (1996), ed., “Hubei E’zhoushi Tangtoujiao Liuchao mu” 湖北鄂州市塘頭角六朝墓, Kaogu 考古, 1996, No. 11. Jiaxiang xian wenguansuo 嘉祥縣文管所 (1986), ed., “Shandong Jiaxiang Zhifang huaxiang shiku” 山東嘉祥紙坊畫像石窟, Wenwu 文物, 1986, No. 5. Li Hongfu 李洪甫 and Wu Kerong 武可榮 (1990), Haizhou shike: Jiangjunya yanhua yü Kongwangshan moya zaxiang 海州石刻: 將軍崖岩畫與孔望山摩崖造像, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Li Wenxin 李文信 (1957), “Yinan huaxiangshi gumu niandai de guanjian” 沂南畫像石古墓年代的管見, Kaogu tongxun, 1957, No. 6. Lianyungang shi bowuguan 連雲港市博物館 (Municipal Museum of Port Lianyun), ed., 1990. Kongwang shan zaoxiang yanjiu 孔望山造像研究, Series 1, Qingdao: Haiyang chubanshe. Liang Qichao 梁啟超 (1873–1929) Zhongguo Fojiao yanjiu shi 中國佛教研究史, Shanghai: Sanlian chubanshe, 1988. Lin Meicun 林梅村 (1989), “Luoyang suochu Qieluwen jinglan tiji: jianlun Luoyang de sengtuan yü Fojiao” 洛陽所出佉盧文井欄題記—兼論洛陽的僧團與佛教, Zhongguo lishi bowuguan guankan 中國歷史博物館館刊, 1989, No. 13/14. Luoyang buowuguan 洛陽博物館 (1988), ed., Luoyang chutu tongjing 洛陽出土銅鏡, Wenwu chubabshe. Nanyang diqu wenwu yanjiusuo 南陽地區文物研究所 (1993), ed., Nanyang hanhua zaoqi tuopian xuanhi 南陽漢畫早期拓片選集, Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou guji chubanshe. Nara National Museum (Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan 奈良国立博物館) (1988), ed., Riben sichou zhilu dawenming zhan: sichou zhilu, Fojiao meishu chuanlai zhilu 日本絲綢之路大文明展．絲綢之路．佛教美術傳來之路, Nara: Nara National Museum. Qinghai wenwu chu 青海文物處 (1994), ed., Qinghai wenwu 青海文物, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Ruan Rongchun 阮榮春 (1996), “Zaoqi fojiao chuchuan zhongguo nanfangzhilu yanjiu” 早期佛教初傳中國南方之路研究, Meishu shi yanjiu 美術史研究 (South Korea), 1996.

178

Wen

Shen Fuwei 沈福偉 (1985), Zhongxi wenhua jiaoliushi 中西文化交流史, Shanghai renmin chubanshe. Sheng Li 盛利 and Yü Peng 於澎, “Fojiao haishang chuanru shuping” 佛教海上傳入述評, Haijiao shi yanjiu, 1997, No. 1. Su Bai 宿白 (1986), “Liangzhou shiku yiji he ‘Liangzhou muoshi’ ” 涼州石窟遺跡和” 涼州模式,” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報, 1986, No. 4. Tang Changshou唐長壽 (1989), “Leshan Mahao, Shiziwan yamu foxiang niandai xintan” 樂山麻浩、柿子灣崖墓佛像年代新探, Dongnan wenhua 東南文化, 1989, No. 2. Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1938), Han Wei Liangjin Nanbeichao Fojiao shi 漢魏兩晉南北朝佛教史, Changsha: Shangwu yinshuguan. Tian Guangjin 田廣金 and Guo Suxin 郭素新(1986), eds., E’erduosi shi qingtongqi 鄂爾多斯式青銅器, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. The Guangming ribao 光明日報, 3rd March 1981, “Lianyungang Kongwang shan faxian Dong Han moya zaoxiang” 連雲港孔望山發現東漢摩崖造像 (“The Eastern Han Cliff Statues Discovered at Mt. Kongwang, Lianyungang”). The Renmin ribao 人民日報, 8th April 1981, “Woguo fojiao yishu de chuxing— Lianyungang shi Kongwang shan faxian Dong Han moya zaoxiang” 我國佛教藝術 的雛形——連雲港市孔望山發現東漢摩崖造像 (“The Prototype of Buddhist Art in China: The Eastern Han Cliff Statues of Mt. Kongwang, Port Lianyun”). Wang Chengzhu 王成竹 (1991), Foshuo sishi’er zhang jing jie 佛說四十二章經解, Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe. Wang Jiqing 王冀青 (1989), trans., Jiantuoluo de Fojiao yishu 犍陀羅的佛教藝術, Chinese translation of Sir John Marshall’s The Buddhist Art of Gandhara: The Story of the Early School: Its Birth, Growth and Decline, Lanzhou: Gansu jiaoyü chubanshe. Wenwu 文物, “The Symposium on the Cliff Statues in Mt. Kongwang, Port Lianyun,” Wenwu, 1981, No. 7. Wen Yucheng 溫玉成 (2000), “Zhongguo zaoqi shikusi yanjiu de jidian sikao” 中國早期石窟寺研究的幾點思考, Dunhuang yanjiu 敦煌研究, 2000, No. 2. ——— (1999), “Xiyuan yi zhi san shiji zhongguo de xianfomoshi” 西元 1 至 3 世紀中國的仙佛模式, Dunhuang yanjiu, 1999, No. 1. ——— (1998), “Zaoqi Fojiao chuchuan Zhongguo nanfang zhilu zhiyi” “早期佛教 初傳中國南方之路”質疑, Gyeongju World Culture Expo: International Sympo­ sium Proceedings (Hanguo Qingzhou shijie wenhua bolanhui: Guoji xueshu lunwenji 韓國慶州世界文化博覽會: 國際學術論文集) (South Korea), 1998. ——— (1987), “Zhongguo zaoqi Fojiao tuxiang yü Kongwang shan” 中國早期佛教 圖像與孔望山, Kongwang shan zaoxiang yanjiu, Vol. 1. ——— (1981), “Kongwangshan zaoxiang de ticai” 孔望山造像的題材, Wenwu, 1981, No. 7.

A General Introduction To The Cliff Statues

179

Wu Yanqiu 吳延璆 and Zheng Pengnian 鄭彭年, “Fojiao haishang chuanru yanjiu” 佛教海上傳入研究, Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究, 1997, No. 2. Xing Yitian 邢義田 (1996), “Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yüyan yanjiusuo cang Baoying Yeyang Shimen huaxiang taben jilzue” 中央研究院歷史語言研究所藏寶應射 陽石門畫像拓本記略, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物, 1996, No. 3. Yan Wenru 閻文儒 (1981), “Kongwangshan zaoxiang de ticai” 孔望山造像的題材, Wenwu, 1981, No. 7. Yang Hong 楊泓 (1996), “Ba E’zhou Sunwu mu chutu taofoxiang” 跋鄂州孫吳墓 出土陶佛像, Kaogu 考古, 1996, No. 11. Zeng Zhaoyü 曾昭燏 (1956), Yinan huaxiangshi gumu fajue baogao 沂南畫像 石古墓發掘報告, Beijing: State Administration of Cultural Heritage. Zhongguo wenwu jinghua bianji weiyuanhui 《中國文物精華》編輯委員會 (1993), ed., Zhongguo wenwu jinghua 中國文物精華, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Zocheng shi wenwu guanlichu 鄒城市文物管理處 (1994), “Shandong Zocheng Gaolicun Han huaxiang shimu” 山東鄒城高李村漢畫像石墓, Wenwu, 1994, No. 6.

CHAPTER 9

The Drawing of Yama and Scripture-Carving of the Early Tang Dynasty: Case Study of the Rubbings of “Qi Shiyuan’s Inscriptions for the Xian Mausoleum” Zhang Zong 張總 Ye Changchi 葉昌熾, in his Yüshi 語石 Fascicle 5, mentions an important inscription: Qi Shiyuan’s 齊士員 inscription for the Xian Mausoleum (Xianling 獻陵) in the 13th year of Zhenguan Era (636 CE). It is interesting to note that this inscription includes four passages of minglü 冥律 (legal articles). Ye transcribed these passages and commented that this inscription is unlike conventional religious steles, but is closer to the artisan tradition of the Han dynasty. He wrote:1 The statues of Śakyamuni and Maitreya were shaped like sages, which is just like the examples of paintings of Xingtan Queli 杏壇闕里 and the paintings of the Zhou and Qin dynasties in Emperor Liang Wu Di’s stone chamber. Ye’s comment insightfully pointed out Buddhist absorption of the indigenous Chinese art tradition. The passages of minglü are inscriptions above the carved paintings. However, his judgment of Buddhist iconography is not that precise; the extant rubbing was taken from the bottom of the statue and is actually a rare illustration of “King Yama’s Judgment” (Yanluo wang shenduan tu 閻羅王審斷圖) dating to the early Tang. Thanks to the fact that this stele inscription is now stored in the rare manuscript collection in the Peking University Library, we can now discern these details. I examined this inscription, identified the important drawing of King Yama, and identified mistakes in previous studies. For example, Yifengtang jinshi wenzi mu 藝風堂金石文字目 recorded this inscription

1  Composed by Ye Changchi, commented on by Ke Changsi 柯昌泗, “Yüshi-Yüshi yitong ping” 語石·語石異同評, in Kaogu xue zhuankan 考古學專刊, bingzhong 丙種 4, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1994, p. 311. Same as in Yüshi, Fascicle 5.

©

5 | 

/

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving

181

as “Qi Shiyuan’s statue and the Heart Sūtra.”2 Yet what were carved in this piece are the Diamond Sūtra and the Guanyin Sūtra. The Yüshi does not mention the contents of the Buddhist Sūtras. Mao Fengzhi’s 毛鳳枝 Guanzhong shike wenzi xinbian 關中石刻文字新編 includes the inscription as well as a description of the drawing. The Guanzhou shike wenzi dingcun yikao 關中石刻文字定存逸考 includes the inscription and some research on it, but does not mention the Sūtra.3 Lu Xinyuan 陸心源 divided this inscription into two steles, “Stele Commemorating Emperor Taiwu and Empress Mu’s Offering of Stone Statues” (Taiwu huangdi Mu huanghou gongyang shixiang zhi bei 太武皇帝穆皇后供養石像之碑) and “Stele Commemorating Statues of the Xian Mausoleum” (Xianling zaoxiang bei 獻陵造像碑), as collected in his Tangwen shiyi 唐文拾遺, but did not explain their textual relationship to the King Yama’s Buddhist sūtras.4 In the Ba qiongshi jinshi buzheng 八瓊室金石補正, Fascicle 78, there is a title recorded as the “Signature of the Supreme Pillar of State, Zhao Wenhui for his Engraved Sūtra” (Shangzhuguo Zhao Wenhui jingke timing 上柱國趙文會經刻題名) of unknown origin. In fact, it is one part of the inscription in question. This inscription not only has important drawings of King Yama, but also provides information concerning 2  “Yifengtang jinshi wenzi mu,” Fascicle 4, see Shike shiliao xinbian: mulu tiba lei 石刻 史料新編 目錄題跋類 26: 19577. It records, “Qi Shiyuan’s statue and the Heart Sūtra, three sheets (zhi 紙), standard calligraphy, in Sanyuan, Shannxi.” This rubbing was originally stored in Mou Quansun’s 繆荃孫 Yifengtang 藝風堂, and later was owned by the library of the Peking University. 3  Mao Fengzhi’s Guanzhou shike wenzi xinbian 關中石刻文字新編, Fascicle 1, Shike shiliao xinbian: difang lei 石刻史料新編 地方類 22: 16910–16914. Mao originally wrote the title “Guanzhong shike wenzi dingcun yikao” 關中石刻文字定存逸考, but sometime later Gu Xieguang 顧燮光 (1875–1949) edited, changed the title as Guanzhong shike wenzi xinbian, and expanded the contents. Mao did studies on Qi Shiyuan’s inscription for the appearance of names, including the Changle Palace, military officers’ titles, and various courts and offices. For example, the Changle Palace was rebuilt on the site of Qin’s Xingle Palace during the Western Han, refurbished in the Eastern Han, and was abandoned after the Tianbao Era of the Tang dynasty. Therefore, there is no mention of it in the Baiguan zhi section of the Tang shu: Baiguanzhi 唐書 百官志. Qi Shiyuan’s title “juntou” 軍頭 was changed from “yingyang langjiang” 鷹揚郎將 in the first year of the Wude Era. “Lingshu ling” 陵署令 was one type of the zhongzheng siqing 宗正寺卿, changed into “xianzhao qianding qiaowu lingshu ling” 獻昭乾定橋五陵署令, one of the “taisheng ling” 台升令. These six fu 府 titles make restitution for the omissions in the Dili zhi section of the Xin Tang shu: Dili zhi 新唐書 地理志. 4  Lu Xinyuan’s Tangwen shiyi mentions at the end of the inscription that the source of Feijianzhai beilu 非見齋碑錄 is also Wei Xizeng’s Xu beilu bing 續碑錄丙. See Quan Tang Wen 11, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983.

182

Zhang

burial customs, the system of officials and of religions of the early Tang. Most specialists in stele inscriptions have not paid attention to the relationship between the rubbing and the statue. Hence, I attempt to provide a survey of this inscription along with an appendix of the full inscription so as to improve our understanding of Tang culture. This rubbing is now encoded Yifeng tang 20123B, in three sheets (zhi). The first zhi is 48 cm in height, and 160 cm in width. At the center of it there is an incense burner and the engraved image of two dancing bodhisattvas. On either side is text, corresponding closely to the drawings. At the beginning and end of the texts are the carving date and an account of the carving of the Buddha hall and statues by Qi Shuyuan and others. The text has 20 lines per side, which may be up to 23 characters in length, at a spacing of 1.8 cm between characters, which is 1 cm tall each square. The second half of this sheet is devoted to a passage entitled “Stele Commemorating Emperor Taiwu and Empress Mu’s Offering of Stone Statues,” which contains 22 lines, same character size as above. (See Figure 9.1) The second sheet is 55 cm in height, and 88 cm in width. The first half is continued from the first sheet, 11 lines, 20 characters each line, space 2 cm between characters, each of which is 1.5 cm square. The second half is the “Illustration of King Yama’s Judgment,” with passages of “minglü” at its top. (See Figure 9.2) The third sheet is 112 cm in height, and 89 cm in width, 51 lines, 58 characters each line, same character size as above. (See Figure 9.3) All of this is a quote from Buddhist scripture. The upper part is blurred while the lower part is still discernable. The first part has been identified as the Guanyin Sūtra, followed by the Diamond Sūtra. The contents continued from the first to the second zhi, no repeated rubbings, and the height and character size are similar. The corners of these rubbings are damaged, which probably reflects the original shape of the carved stone. It is known from these rubbings that the Qi produced stone statues and engraved sūtras. There have been many investigations of Tang mausoleums including Xian, but only the Tang guanzhong shiba ling shike: yisan baili diaoke yishu guan 唐關中十八陵石刻--—三百里雕刻藝術館 includes one stone Buddha from the Xian Mausoleum.5 This statue was discovered by Cheng Zheng 程征 from Shaanxi Art Academy (Guohua yuan) in June 1985. With his guidance, I investigated the site and found still extant the statues commissioned by Qi Shiyuan, and the situation of the statues and the inscriptions all conform with that given in the rubbings. However, the atlas Shaanxi sheng wenwu ditu ji 陝西省文物地圖集 indicates the location of the statues, 5  See Cheng Zheng 程征 and Qin Hui秦惠, Tang guanzhong shiba ling shike: yisan baili diaoke yishu guan, Shannxi renmin meishu chubanshe, 1988, p. 127.

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving

183

but simply names it “Stele Commemorating Zhang Wangyuan’s Offering of Statues” (Zhang wangyuan zaoxiang bei 張王塬造像碑) according to its location, not identifying its association with the Xian Mausoleum.6 Qi Shiyuan’s statues were located 1 km northeast of the Xian Mausoleum, at the border between Sanyuan and Fuping prefectures. At the front is the Hall of the Stone Buddha, and five meters from the back is the stone seat, all facing the south. The three rubbings were from the façade, the right front of the stone seat, and the stone Buddha hall’s right side respectively. (See Figure 9.4.) The Hall of the Stone Buddha imitates architecture with decorated rooftop and carved arches under the roof. The façade is a Buddha niche and its base has sunk into the ground. Its height is 225 cm, the front of the hall is 109 cm high, side is 98 cm in width, and the shrine is 107 cm high. The altar is 107 cm high, carved Amitābha Buddha and two bodhisattvas but the heads are damaged. The sitting Buddha, with the Sumeru throne, is 83 cm high. Right to the altar is female donor’s kneeling image, with her maid. Left to the altar are two male donors, which are damaged. Within and outside the altar are lines of delicate patterns. Next to the two bodhisattavas are Buddha’s disciples, Ānanda and Kāśyapa. At the fringe are yakṣa heavenly kings, with flames at their backs. Two are sidefacing and the other two are front-facing flying in the sky. The ornamentation of precious flowers and lotus on the base and dragons along the altar are all of exquisite design of early Tang style. Engraved sūtras on the right side of the hall are same as the rubbings. Texts at the lower part are discernable, but the back and left sides of the hall exhibit no trace of engraved scriptures. The stone seat is 63 cm high, the façade 164 cm, and the width 90 cm. The front carving lines are shallow and some are damaged and refined edge line, while the back has bold lines. King Yama’s portrait is no longer sharp, yet it is still discernable. The text is basically all gone, and hardly any lines on the façade remain. According to the inscription, the stone seat and the Buddha hall were built at the same time, but the base of the hall is smaller than the current Buddha hall, so it was probably not the original match. Something was once attached to the stone seat, which might have been an incense burner or a stele. There are also a good number of bricks surrounding the sculptures, which is likely Qi Shiyuan’s original residential site. Now we will introduce the contents of the stone seat and the stele rubbings from the Buddha hall in five sections:

6  Guojia wenwu ju 國家文物局, ed., Shannxi sheng wenwu ditu ji, Vol. I, map of Sanyuan 三原 Prefecture; Vol. II, p. 451, No. 91-D2 is the “Zhangwangyuan zaoxiang bei,” in Xumu xiang Zhangwangyuan cun xibei ce: Tang dai 徐木鄉張王塬村西北側·唐代, Xi’an ditu chubanshe, Dec. 1998.

184

Zhang

a.

“Colophon to the Inscribed Scriptures for the Images and the Buddha Hall created by Qi Shiyuan and others during the Thirteenth Year of Zhenguan Era” (Zhenguan shisan nian Qi Shiyuan deng zao fodian xiang kejing tiji 貞觀十三年齊士員等造佛殿像刻經題記). Rubbing 1, the eastern side of the façade of the stone seat. b. “The Incense Burner and the Engraved Image of Two Bodhisattvas” (Xianglu yü er pusa tu xianke huamian 香爐與二菩薩圖線刻畫面). Rubbing 1, the middle of the façade of the stone seat. c. “Stele Commemorating Emperor Taiwu and Empress Mu’s Offering of Stone Statues” (Taiwu huangdi Mu huanghou gongyang shixiang zhi bei 太武皇帝穆皇后供養石像之碑). Rubbings 1 & 2, the right part on the façade, and the southwestern part at the right side of the stone seat. d. “Illustration of King Yama’s Judgment” (Yanluo wang shenduan tu 閻羅王審斷圖), and the minglü. Rubbing 2, the northern part of the right side of the stone seat. e. “The Universal Gateway Chapter of the Lotus Sūtra” (also known as the Guanyin Sūtra, usually referred to as the Universal Gateway Chapter, Ch. Pumen pin 普門品) and the Diamond Sūtra. Rubbing 3, the right part of the Buddha hall. 1. “Colophon to the Inscribed Scriptures for the Images and the Buddha Hall created by Qi Shiyuan” and “The Incense Burner and the Engraved Image of Two Bodhisattvas” (Figure 9.5): On the first day of the first month of the thirteenth year of the Zhenguan Era, [there were] Vice Palace Gate Guard and Commander, Yanling Prefecture, Qi Shiyuan from Xingtang, Heng Prefecture, Wangbao Garrison Commandant Zhao Jia 趙伽, Pinyang Garrison Tian A’nü 田阿女, Huaixin Garrison Vice Commandant Dugu Fan 獨孤范, Tianqi Garrison Hu Lühuan 斛律環, Changfeng Garrison Wang Xiugan 王修感, Pinyang Garrison Guan Wenzan 關文瓚, Vice Palace Gate Guard Commandants, Sanyuan District Magistrate, Director of Record Office Cui Biyü 崔璧玉, Record Office Aide Pei Min 裴瑉, Palace Administration Defense Commandant Guo Yuanzong 郭元宗, Imperial Mausolea Palace Guards Lü, Ren, Wang, Liu, Zhu, Tanglu, Fang, Yuanlü and Xie Settlements. Shiyuan received an imperial edict, endowed with the honor to guard the Imperial Mausoleum for his entire life and to never leave the Palace. Even if his bones became ashes and his body diminished, he had nothing to repay the state. On this day, a portion of officers’ salary is taken for Emperor Taiwu and Empress Taimu to respectfully erect a Hall of the

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving

185

Stone Buddha, statues of Amitābha Buddha and two bodhisattvas, and an incense burner seat, on which the four sides are engraved with the Diamond Sūtra, the Guanyin Sūtra and all other sūtra titles for the sake of palace security. When the Han dynasty ended, it was transported to Chang’an and disappeared for three years. Three months passed, the world was in disunion for years. The soldiers were offered minimum food and the commoners ate corpses. Everyone was in sadness and hatred. Golden paper was distant from the imperial clan, while jade came from private households. Countries were in disturbance and rivers boiled. The Great Emperor responded to Heaven and followed his fate to subjugate the criminals. He initiated a battle in Jinyang and dispelled the rebellions from the capital. The eight wild lands submitted themselves and ten thousand states came to pay homage. He conquered the new land and all beings revived. Only he could attain this divine merit. With sagely virtues he relieved [the people from] their sorrows, and through compassion he helped them to the other shore. High mountains were set up with railings and the grand mausoleum was moved. It will be everlasting like the sun and the moon, and as solid as heaven and earth. This is to repay the grace of the Emperor for thousands of generations. However, those who are ignorant might cause damage. In later times if someone cracks these Buddhist statues or defaces the words from the sūtras, may they be consigned to hell in future lives and never be reborn as a human being and to permanently suffer from retributions of disastrous and destitute circumstances. There are eighteen imperial mausoleums from the Tang dynasty in Guanzhong, Shaanxi. The Xian Mausoleum, comprised of the tombs of the Tang founder Li Yuan and Empress Dou, is located at the Yonghe village, 40 km northeast to Sanyuan Prefecture. The hill is piled up by soil, and on the hill, there are the Xian 獻 and Qin 寢 halls. Although it is not particularly monumental, the stone animal sculptures are distinctive, such as the simplistic and powerful rhinoceros and tiger sculptures.7 According to the report, there were pairs of stone tigers in front of all four gates at this mausoleum. Buddhist halls had been seen since the Northern Wei Empress Feng’s 馮 Yonggu Mausoleum永固陵 on 7  He Zicheng 賀梓城, Guanzhong Tang shibaling diaocha ji 關中唐十八陵調查記, in Wenwu ziliao congkan 文物資料叢刊, No. 3. Liu Qingzhu 劉慶柱, Li Yüfang 李毓芳, Shaanxi Tangling diaocha baogao 陕西唐陵調查報告, in Kaoguxue jikan 考古學集刊 3, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1987. Gong Qiming 鞏啟明, Tang Xianling tachaji 唐獻陵踏查記, in Wenbuo 文博, 1999 (1), pp. 47–55.

186

Zhang

Mt. Fang, Datong. However, the design of that mausoleum has a pagoda-shaped foundation and a wall around the statue hall, which imitates the “painting of remembering distant spirits” (Si yuanling tu 思遠靈圖) of the pagoda-andcourtyard temple plan. The guard officer of the Xian Mausoleum built a stone Buddha hall which imitated a Buddhist temple. Chu Suiliang 禇遂良 wrote the Jian Zhaoling huanjian fosi zou 諫昭陵緩建佛寺奏,8 which tells us that there were examples of Buddhist temple-type mausoleums during the Tang. In fact, ‘Empress Mu’ was her posthumous title. Ms. Dou died in the early Daye era of the Sui, buried in the Shou’an Mausoleum and later moved to the Xian Mausoleum.9 Over thirty concubines and royal family members were buried surrounding the Xian Mausoleum. Those belonging to Li Shou 李壽 and Li Feng’s 李鳳 have been excavated.10 There are murals of Buddhist and Daoist monasteries, imperial processions and farmers in Li Shou’s. There is incredibly rich stone carving in this tomb.11 The accompanying people in this tomb include the Vice Palace Gate Commander Fan Xing 樊興 (650 CE) who was of a higher rank than Qi Shiyuan. The stele describes the military achievements of the Imperial Servant Fan Xing; the fine calligraphy, of Chu 褚 and Xue 薛 style, is one of the best examples remaining from the early Tang period. In contrast, Qi’s inscription was earlier and the calligraphy is in the regular script of the Sui. This inscription contains a detailed account of the statue carving and sūtra transcribing activities of Qi Shiyuan and ten officials which took place on the first day of the thirteenth year of the Zhenguan era. The Dilizhi 地理志 section 8  Tangwen shiyi 15; Tang huiyao 48. Near Tang Xuanzong’s Tai Mausoleum, there is also a gigantic dhāraṇī pillar, and there might have been a Buddhist temple there. 9  According to the Shaanxi jinshi zhi 陕西金石志, an ancient stele of Tang Taizong’s poem and Empress Mu’s biography (identical to the Jiu Tangshu) were found in a temple near the Shou’an Mausoleum in the Wugong Prefecture during the Ming dynasty. A new stele of the same inscription with a lineage chart of Tang emperors was erected. According to recent studies, The Empress was originally from the Ling 陵 family of Hedo 紇豆, Feyetou clan 費也頭種, of Xiongnu ethnicity 匈奴系. During the Northern Zhou, the Hedo Ling family made marriage ties with Yü Wentai’s 宇文泰 family. Empress Dou’s mother was Yü’s fifth daughter. Later in the Tang, Dou claimed to be the offspring of prestigious Dou family from the Han dynasty. See Shijian Qingyü 石見清裕, Wode Tangshi yanjou chengguo yü fangfa 我的唐史研究成果與方法, edited by Hu Qi 胡戟, in Tang yanjiu zong­ heng tan 唐研究縱横談, Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1996, pp. 74–75. 10  Tang Li Feng mu fajue jianbao 唐李鳳墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 考古, 1977 (5). 11  Ibid. Tang Li Shou mu bihua shitan 唐李壽墓壁畫試探, Wenwu 文物, 1974 (9). Sun Ji 孫機, Tang Li Shou mu shiduen xianke ‘shi’nü tu,’ ‘yuewutu’ sanji 唐李壽 石椁線刻《侍女圖》、《樂舞圖》散記, in Zhongguo shenghuo 中國聖火, Liaoning jiaoyü chubanshe, 1996, pp. 198–242. Li Shou’s stone coffin is currently displayed in the stone art exhibition room, Shaanxi Stele Museum.

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving

187

of the Xin Tangshu 新唐書 mentions 131 Garrisons in the Capital but this list does not include any of the six Garrisons recorded in this inscription, namely the Wangbao 王保, Pinyang 頻陽, Huaixin 懷信, Tainqi 天齊, Changfeng 長豐 and Panshui 潘水 Garrisons. It also mentions local officials of Sanyuan Prefecture and the officers of the Imperial Mausoleum, Interior Attendant eunuch Guo Yuanzong 郭元宗, and others. In order to demonstrate his loyalty to Emperor Taiwu and Empress Mu, Qi Shiyuan built the hall of the stone Buddha, containing statues of Amitābha Buddha and two bodhisattvas, and Buddhist sūtras carved in it. The cults of Amitābha and Guanyin are evidenced along with the practice of offering sūtras during the early Tang The wish for long-lasting scriptures and statues, and the punishment for people who destroy Buddhist objects also explains the later appearance of the “Illustration of King Yama’s Judgment.” The “Incense Burner and the Engraved Image of Two Bodhisattvas” is engraved on the back of the stone seat with delicately compact lines. (See Figure 9.5) On the top there is a garuḍa bird with boys sitting on either side. There are mani-jewel ornaments on the incense burner and two dragons below it. The dragons’ long noses resemble the features of a makara fish, but are also similar to the dragons subjugated by the Arhats in Lu Lengqie’s 盧楞伽 Luohan tuce 羅漢圖冊. On a stone excavated at the Great Goose Pagoda (Ci’en Monastery 慈恩寺) in Xi’an, there is a dainty engraved image of two bodhisattvas. There is also a stone Buddha throne found in the Small Goose Pagoda (Jianfu Monastery 薦福寺); on its archway the sitting bodhisattvas have exquisite engraved lines. Those bodhisattva images of the Xian Mausoleum standing on lotus flowers holding silk banners, their body moving elegantly with thick engraved lines represent early Tang style.12 2. “Stele Commemorating Emperor Taiwu and Empress Mu’s Offering of Stone Statues.” (Figure 9.6): It is like the cause of birth of subtle enlightenment which persists for countless kalpas. Dusts rub the earth continuously and the world is filled with life and death. Grass shines like crystal jade, and the sun and moon feature similar appearance with the landscape of hills on earth. All share the characteristics of birth and demise, which do not distinguish any 12  Ni Zhijun 倪志俊, “Xi’an Ciensi faxian Tangdai xianke pusa xiang canshi” 西安慈恩寺發現唐代線刻菩薩像殘石, in Wenwu, 1984, No. 3. Wang Huamin 王化民, “Tang jintu bianxiang xianke huaxiang shi” 唐“淨土變相”線刻畫像石, Wenwu, 1980, No. 3, pp. 67–8. The section on stone images in the Zhongguo meishu quanji 中國美術全集 also included the engraved bodhisattva image from the Small Goose Pagoda.

188

Zhang

rulers’ achievement. In early life the Emperor Taiwu responded to the Heavenly Pivot, in later life he encountered the teachings of impermanence. He founded the country and initiated sainthood. He ascended to the gate of heaven, and his clothing was buried in Mt. Qiao. Empress Mu’s virtue parallels his, both shining like the sun and the moon. They did not end in the ten-goodnesses? and abandoned the six palaces, resting together in the Xian mausoleum, eternally bidding farewell to wordly pleasure. The high hill is as steep as Xingling Mountain and the night platform is as deep as River Wei. The mausoleum is near, pine trees lament; the reed leaf whistle ceased, remaining in the birds and people’s thought. The Supreme Pillar of State, Dynasty-founding District Viscount, Qi Shiyuan had long been seeded with benevolent capacities, inheriting subtle strengths from his family. He was awakened to righteousness young and respected Asoka. He allied with rightful troops and was entrusted with missions. His heart is clear as water, his virtue pristine as autumn frost. He understood the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra and comprehended the Great Vehicle. He distinguished the great compassion and paid homage to the great wisdom. Sands were gathered into a tower, and jade plates were piled up into a platform. The wife donated funds and the husband offered elephants and horses, in order to pursue the marvelous labor and to open the secret treasure. Jade stones were first carved, eventually shedding golden light. These resulted in a section of Amitābha Buddha statues and protector bodhisattvas. Emperor Taiwu and Empress Mu, two sages, made offerings, in order to revere benevolence for kalpas, so the will chanting echoes persistently and fragrant incense would never be interrupted. Gold mountains and jeweled caves are never the habitat of foxes and hares. Deep oceans and lakes have no frogs or flies surrounding them. Non-duality is Dharma-nature. When the mind has neither birth nor death, such is nirvāṇa. The dust spread over yojanas of length and countless stone kalpas passed; while all dust and stone extinguished, the merit will still be flourishing. Mt. Grdhrakuta emerged again, and the Land of Amitāyus is vivid in front of he eyes. The inscription says, Your Majesty conquered the world, and later returned to the true purity. Your achievements corresponds to heaven and your karma is equal to the lordly sage? I was humbly enlightened by the three doctrines of emptiness so as to practice the noble eightfold path. All goodness is reinforced and all the effort is spent for cultivating the crystal qualities. There is neither coming nor going, but all is serene and eternal. One is abiding in the heavenly gate and permanently residing in Dharma-nature.

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving

189

[He was] Vice Palace Gate Guard and Commander, Vice Protector Commander, Imperial Guardsmen Commander, Chief Supervisor of the Changle Palace, Regional Inspector of Dingzhou, the Supreme Pillar of State, Dynasty-founding District Viscount of Yanling Prefecture, Qi Shiyuan. His great grandfather Chang was the Pingnan General, Governor of Ru’nan Commandery, Yüzhou. His grandfather En was the Palace Provisioner of the Northern Qi. His father Xian was the Jingzhou Record Keeper to the army in the Sui dynasty. His elder brother Ao was the Luzhou Command to the army of the Sui. His wife from the Lü clan was a Vice Standby Guard. His elder son Shiwu was Empress Wende’s Tomb Attendant. His other sons were Shiwen, Shicai, and Shigui. His grandsons were Shengan, Shenfa, and Shenyu. Shiwen’s children were still too young to take official titles. His daughter was the wife of Panshui Garrison Guoyi He Yi, who gave birth to a girl, Niang’er. However, [Qi] Shiyuan had inherited his family’s success and achievements; at a young age, he was appointed to reside and protect the palace during the Kaihuang era, and to allocate the military establishments. He was detained in the martial sect and therefore never had opportunity to master literary abilities. In the late Da’ye era, politics and morals declined. Fortunately he encountered the dynasty founders and coordinated for them. He assisted in founding the new dynasty and the grand fulfillment of territory division. Since the beginning of the battle, he had conferred on him the titles of Grand Master for Proper Consultation and the Head of Left Army, designing battle plans to win in warfare thousand miles away. On the battlefield, he could combat ten thousand soldiers. The imperial awards for him were lavish and he was entrusted with crucial tasks for over thirty years. Right after the grand emperor and empress ascended to heaven, he received the command to serve at the mausoleum and not to leave whether alive or dead. Several miles behind the mausoleum is the land granted to him. In this way the etiquette was observed and loyalty upheld; accomplishments were made earlier, and righteousness persisted later on. The eulogy is composed for his virtue, and stone inscription is carved to memorize the grace. Even thousands of years may pass by, [this incident] will not vanish. This inscription accounts for Qi Shiyuan’s life and background. He was originally from Xingtang, Hengzhou (present day Xiangtang Prefecture, Hebei Province). His great grandfather Chang was the Pingnan General, Governor of Ru’nan Commandery, Yuzhou. His grandfather Qi En was the Palace Provisioner of the Northern Qi. His father Qi Xian was the Jingzhou Record Keeper to the

190

Zhang

army in the Sui dynasty. His elder brother Qi Ao was the Luzhou Command to the army of the Sui. His wife was from the Lü clan. He had sons: Shiwu, Shiwen, Shicai, and Shigui. His daughter was the wife of Panshui Garrison Guoyi He Yi. His grandsons were Shengan, Shenfa, and Shenyu. Judging that his elder son Shiwu was the Tomb Attendant of Empress Wende, who died in the tenth year of the Zhenguan era, it is obvious that his family was closely connected with the Tang royal clan. Shiyuan was a palace guard residing inside the court during the Kaihuang era of Sui (581–600), and later joined the army. When the country was in turmoil after Emperor Yang failed in the battle of Koguryŏ-Sui, Qi Shiyuan to joined Li Yuan’s troops. From the start, Li Yuan gave him a high military position. He achieved remarkable victories in military campaigns and was granted prestigious titles, and remained close to the inner court as a chief minister for over thirty years. With various official titles, his main post was the Vice Palace Gate Guard and Commander, commanding the Tang palace army. This position exited a position of Palace Gate Garrison Commander during the Sui, but Tang Gaozong changed it to Palace Gate Guard and Commander, which were important positions responsible for palace security.13 He served Emperor Gaozu until the latter died in 635 CE, and then was granted the post of Mausoleum Guard. He was even granted a tomb a few miles behind the Xian Mausoleum. He was bound to serve the emperor for his entire lifetime as well as after his death. The main statue of this hall was in fact the image of Qi Shiyuan, but the title is “Stele Commemorating Emperor Taiwu and Empress Mu’s Offering of Stone Statues,” which represented an act for merit accumulation. The image of donors in the Amitābha niche was the emperor and empress. In the famous sculptures of seven jewels platform in Xi’an, the main statues were palace guards, including the Vice Palace Gate Guard Grand General Liang Yishen 梁義深, and Palace Gate Guard General Li Shancai 李善才, and the rest were eunuchs of the Inner Attendant Sect, such as Yang Sixu, Du Huaijing and others. Qi Shiyuan’s stele also mentioned the Inner Attendant officers. It is noteworthy that since the early Tang period, the statues represented the donors who were palace guards and eunuchs.

13  Chief and Vice Palace Gate Garrisons were the headquarters of palace army in the Sui dynasty. There were also one General, two Commanders, and thirty Guardsmen Commanders. There were also other posts called Changshi, Sima, Lushi and armies of Cang and Bing troops. Emperor Yang of Sui changed the title of General to Commanders in 607 CE. The Tang first maintained the same system until Emperor Gaozong changed the name to be Chief and Vice Palace Gate Guards in 662 CE.

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving

191

3. “Illustration of King Yama’s Judgment” and the minglü: King Yama sent two boy attendants to record monastics and laymen who transgressed the law. These records will be reported to an officer for a thorough check, and those who have committed crimes will be reported to and judged by King Yama. There are many unworthy monks who purposefully break the law and have committed numerous crimes, such as killing, drinking and eating meat. They are greedier and exhibit stronger sexual desire than lay people. They falsely preach on karmic retribution to delude people. Why is that there are no such people in hell? King Yama commissioned the officer to investigate thoroughly and divide people into groups of five, within which hiding the crime of others will count the same as a crime committed by oneself. The officer will arrest them and deliver them to the eighteen hells. After the punishment is over, they will be further sent to the Avīci hell. King Yama told the officer that those who respect the three teachings, being loyal, honest, and diligent in fulfilling the labor duties are not to be subjected to this grouping regulation. This first minglü is divided into two paragraphs, one of lines of four characters and one of nine characters. Therefore many scholars mistook it for two laws. The main object on the painting is a portrait of the side of King Yama, whose hair is bound on the top of his head and whose mustache covers most of his face. His right hand stretches out as if in judgment. In front of him is a twolayered desk, and an officer bows while handing him a document. The other officer is holding an umbrella with two hands for King Yama. There are two groups of sinners wearing a cangue being led by the officers. One group is led by an officer, who wears hat and narrow sleeves. The cangue are bolted around the sinners’ neck, clasped at both ends. One wooden bolt is extraordinarily long and sticks out from one sinner’s neck. The other two sinners, standing in the back of the officer, wear short garments with narrow sleeves, long pants, and have shorter cangue. Their faces are unusual with high noses and steep eyes, and their hair is either bound on top or behind the head. These three sinners all stand facing the King. Another group has one sinner with two officers with hats and robes. The sinner wears a robe, his hair untied, facing the king with his back as if the judgment was over and he is about to leave. There are also four monks on the left top standing in a row. The most interesting part is on the bottom where there are all kinds of animals. Some of these animals wear the cangue and all are running towards the King. There are mouse, dog, eagle, deer, tiger, boar, hare, chicken, fox, wolf, goat etc. making for a very lively painting. (Figure 9.7)

192

Zhang

This painting shows the sinners and animals all moving towards King Yama, waiting to receive punishment. The officer in front of the desk is reporting the sins to him. According to the minglü, boy attendants keep records of sinners’ actions and then officers, called Changshi 長史, are dispatched by King Yama to check the situation, and those who have committed sin deliberately are consigned to the eighteenth hells, and finally to the Avīchi hell. Apparently the officers’ roles are extremely important. The changshi were important officials in the Tang bureaucracy, so the minglü clearly reflects the reality of Tang dynasty. It also mentions the rule of grouping every five people, within which hiding the sinner equals the sinner’s sin. A similar rule is mentioned in the Shilao zhi 釋老志 section of the Weishu 魏書: “Monks did not live in monasteries. They hung around the villages and had indulged in sexual misconduct for years. It was decreed that commoners be divided into groups of five and must not tolerate such situation.” It seems this regulation system had some effect on the maintaining of monastic order. There was a “stele commemorating Fannuzi’s offering of statues” (Fannuzi zaoxiang bei 樊奴子造像碑) in Fuping perfecture, Sahnnxi province.14 The back of the stele is inscribed with paintings of King Yama and the Great Divinity of the Five Realms (Wudao dashen 五道大神). It was made in the Northern Wei, 532 AD, and is the earliest extant depiction of King Yama’s visit to the hell. The Xian mausoleum is rather close to the city of Fuping prefecture, and it is interesting to note that these two important paintings of King Yama appeared in locations near each other. In the painting of Fannuzi, King Yama sits inside a tent and a dog and goat are reporting others’ sins. There is an illustrated chart of the five realms in front of the divinity. A similar combination also appears in the standing Cosmological Buddha statue (Fajie renzhong lifo xiang 法界人中立佛像) of Sui dynasty, currently owned by the Freer Gallery, USA. Numerous Vairocana Buddhas with paintings on the body were unearthed recently in Qingzhou and Linqu, Shandong province. In the newly discovered Tang A’ai Cave, in Kuche prefecture, Xinjiang province there have also been murals of various forms of the Buddha’s body excavated. I also found the illustration of the five realms in front of the divinity at the Guanyin painting in the inner cave in Dunhuang 217 Cave dating to the mid Tang dynasty. The conceptual and stylistic evolution of the paintings of King Yama and hells is certainly noteworthy. From the “stele commemorating Fannuzi’s offering of statues” to Qi Shiyuan’s 14  For the image in the back of the stele, see my article: “Yanluo wang shouji jing zhuibu yankao” 閻羅王授記經綴補研考, in Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 敦煌吐魯番研究, 2000, No. 5.

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving

193

inscription of the early Tang, then Du Fali’s 杜法力 offering of King Yama, Five Realm General, Lord of Mt. Tai from the cave of the Jingshan Temple 敬善寺 in Longmen Cave made during the rule of Empress Wu, and finally the variety of depictios of the Ten Kings in Dunhuang dating from the late Tang and the Five Dynasties, there is an evolutionary process that can be observed within the paintings. Therefore, Qi Shiyuan’s example cannot be neglected in understanding the development of the image of King Yama. 4. The Engraved Guanyin and Diamond Sūtras Qi Shiyuan’s stele states: “The four sides [of the shizi incense burner platform 師子香爐座] are engraved with the Guanyin and Diamond Sūtras, along with the Catalogue of all the Sūtras ( yiqie jingmu 一切經目), to accumulate merit for the security of the inner palace.” The third sheet of this inscription is a sūtra engraved on the west side of the Buddha hall. Although the upper part is damaged, the writing on the lower part is still discernable. The standard calligraphy (kaishu 楷書) represents the style of the previous dynasty. The content corresponds to the stele’s title indicating the Guanyin and Diamond Sūtras, but not the Heart Sūtra. It says “the builder of the Buddha hall was Zhang Shiji 張世基 of Zongnan prefecture,” and below the first two lines it has the “Signature of the Supreme Pillar of State, Zhao Wenhui.” The first twenty-seven lines is the twenty-fifth chapter of the Lotus Sūtra, known as the Guanyin Sūtra, which begins “at that time the Unlimited-Thought Bodhisattva (Wujinyi pusa 無盡意菩薩) . . .,” and ends with “in all sentient beings arose the anuttarāṃsamyak-saṃbodhim bodhicitta” omitting the Gātha which usually follows. It is then followed by part of Kumārajīva’s translation of the Diamond Sūtra, which begins with “Thus have I heard, when the Buddha was in the Śrāvastī kingdom” and ends with “if an arhat produces this thought, I will attain arhat-hood.” This stone Diamond Sūtra is not complete. The “catalogue of all sūtra” mentioned in the stele should appear behind the Hall of the Stone Buddha, but no engraved trace has been found. It is not clear whether this part was not completed or was engraved on another stone. The “catalogue of all sūtra” is also called “yiqie jing” 一切經 in the Buddhist canon; if it did exist at this spot, this is extremely significant. Even if the catalogue did not appear, this account is still noteworthy. During the transmission of diverse Buddhist sūtras, the earliest catalogues were never collected systematically. Daoan 道安 (314–385) was the first person to compile a catalogue, and following him, Sengyou 僧佑, Fajing 法經, Fei Changfang 費長房, Zhisheng 智昇, Jingtai 靜泰 and others also compiled catalogues based on the imperial collections of Buddhist scriptures. According to Daoxuan’s Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方志, Fascicle two, Jiaoxiang 教相 chapter,

194

Zhang

section eight, Emperor Daowu (386–408) of the Northern Wei had all the sūtras transcribed. Then during the time of the son of Emperor Xianwen, Situ Beihai 司徒北海, Wang Yuanxiang 王元詳 and Simu Gaoyang 司牧高陽 and Wang Yuanyong 王元雍 had transcribed all sūtras of twelve canons.15 Emperor Ming of Southern Qi transcribed had all the sūtras and the Jingling, Prince Xiao Ziliang 蕭子良 did obeisance to all the sūtras. The Guang Hongming ji 廣弘明集, preserves Xiao’s Jingzhuzi jingxing fa 淨住子淨行法: Li sheli baota men 禮舍利寶塔門 in the Jiegong 誡功 Chapter in Fascicle 27, which states: “Worship the sūtras from all canons of the Great Shenzhou country. Worship the stone sūtras of Yizhou 易州 and stone statues and sūtras in Heng’an 恒安 Cave, Shuozhou.”16 Emperor Wu of Southern Chen transcribed all sūtras of the twelve canons. His successors Emperors Wen and Xuan also ordered that the sūtras of the fifty canons and twelve canons be transcribed. His subject Xu Ling 徐陵 transcribed one canon and Jiang Zong 江總 transcribed all the sūtras in 3752 fascicles. Wei Shou’s 魏收 Beiqi sanbu yiqie jing yuanwen 北齊三部一切經願文 described the flourishing statue making and sūtra transcribing activities,17 referring to all sūtras as “pronounced by the golden mouth, and transcribed by all beings.” Similar mention is found in the stone carving of Tang Yong kejing ji 唐邕刻經記 at the cave in North Xiangtang shan 北響堂山: “Pronounced by one voice, all carved on famous mountains.” It means that the one-voice teaching from the Buddha’s golden mouth should be engraved for preservation. Emperor Xiaozhao of Northern Qi transcribed all the sūtras of twelve canons for the the benefit of preceding emperors, and Feng Xi 馮熙 of the Northern Zhou transcribed all the sūtras in sixteen sets. It is obvious that this became a prevalent activity for merit accumulation. The Fayi 法義 Chapter of the Hongming ji 弘明集 preserves Wang Bao’s 王褒 Zhou jingzang yuanwen 周經藏願文 and Emperor Yang of Sui’s Baotai jingzang yuanwen 寶台經藏願文. The former writes, “I am commanded to transcribe all the sūtras, starting from the teaching of birth and death, and 15  Zhou Shujia 周叔迦, Fayuan Tancong 法苑談叢, Zhongguo Fojiao xiehui chuban 中國佛教協會出版, 1990: 102–103. 16  Heng’an Cave, Shuozhou certainly refers to Yungang 雲岡 Grottos, but we do not know what stone sūtras in Yizhou refer to. It must have been an important stone carving of sūtras of the Northern and Southern dynasties since Xiao Ziliang held them in high esteem. Yet Yizhou normally refers to Yi prefecture, Hebei province, which was named relatively late. This location is still in question. 17  Guang Hongming ji 廣弘明集, Fascile 22, the Fayi 法義 chapter. Wei Shou’s Weishu Shilaozhi 魏書·釋老志 contains an important account of Buddhist development as in a standard Chinese history.

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving

195

ending at that of nirvāṇa”; the latter text provides a detailed account of the formation of the Buddhist canon.18 Emperor Wen of the Sui once ordered all sūtras of 46 canons be transcribed, amounting to 132,086 fascicles. The colophon of Cave No. 2 in Mt. Baifo 白佛山, Dongping, in Shandong province states: In the tenth year of the Kaihuang era of the Sui . . . Monk Tanxian 曇獻 . . together with the others the transcribed all sūtras respectfully made a statue of the Amitābha Buddha on Mt Wei. From the emperor downwards, all beings share this joyfulness. According to this inscription, it seems that those “who transcribed all sūtras” first transcribed the sutras and then left the cave to made a statue. Unfortunately we do not know whether the full text of all the sūtras were transcribed or only the titles. In 631 CE, Emperor Taizong ordered the Dechong and Yixing Monasteries in the palace to transcribe sutras for the empress. In 635 CE, he ordered monk Zhitong 智通 at the Great Zongchi Monastery and the Assistant in the Palace Library 秘書郎 Chu Suiliang to transcribed all the sūtras inside the palace. In 637 CE, the prince Li Zhi 李治 transcribe all sūtras at the Yanxing Monastery. These events were not far from Qi Shiyuan’s activities. Later in 644 CE, Emperor Gaozong ordered Master Jingtai of the Great Jing’ai Monastery, Luoyang to transcribe all sūtras the and create an imperial canon. The catalogue “Dongjing Da Jing’ai si yiqie jingmu” 東京大敬愛寺一切經目 was once widely circulated.19 Among the stone sutras carved in the Song dynasty at the Wofo yuan 臥佛院 on Mt. An, Sichuan, is Master Jingtai’s catalogue “Dongjing Da Jing’ai si yiqie jingmu.”20 In Xiaofowan, Mt. Baoding, Dazu, a three-storied pagoda of sūtra titles is engraved with 510 types of catalogue of enormous length.21 It was widely accepted by the populace that transcribing all the 18  The original passage writes: . . . [I] repaired the old versions and renewed platforms. The four canons amount nearly hundred thousands scrolls. Hence I proclaimed a great vow to facilitate the circulation of sutras and composed this Vow ( yuanwen 願文). 19  After this event, all major Buddhist monasteries began to transcribe all the sutras, such as the Ximing Monastery in 659 CE. 20  Peng Jiasheng 彭家勝, Sichuan Wofo yuan diaocha 四川安嶽臥佛院調查, Wenwu, 1988 (8). 21   Chongqing Dazu shike yishu buowuguan 重慶大足石刻藝術博物館, Sichuan shehui kexueyuan Dazu shike yishu yanjiusuo 四川社會科學院大足石刻藝術研 究所, Dazu Baodingshan Xiaofowan zushi jingmuta kancha baogao 大足寶頂山小 佛灣祖師經目塔勘查報告, Wenwu, 1994 (2).

196

Zhang

scriptures’ titles equals to the merit of transcribing all scriptures in their entirety. Qi Shiyuan’s activity must be of this type.22 All these terms—“zhong jing” 眾經, “yiqie jing” 一切經, “dazang jing” 大藏經 and “spoken by one voice; pronounced by the golden mouth”—refer to the Buddhist scriptures as a whole. The merit accumulation activity of sūtratranscribing was popular during the Northern and Southern Dynasties and the early Tang. It is often said that the full set of all the scriptures is one canon, and thus the meaning of “all the sutras” evolved into the term “dazang jing.” Early Tang emperors exalted Laozi and Daoism. Buddhism experienced persecution during the Wude era and was ignored during the Zhenguan period.23 In the fourth year of the Wude era, Director of Astrology Fu Yi 傅奕 launched an attack on Buddhism and Emperor Gaozu issued an edict reducing numbers of monks and nuns in the ninth year of Wude. Two years before Qi Shiyuan established the Buddha Hall, Emperor Taizong issued the edict ordering that Daoist preists be given priority over Buddhist monks (Ling daoshi zai seng qian zhao 令道士在僧前詔). Taizong distrusted Buddhism at first, stating, “Buddhism is not what I intend to follow, even though it has a long-lasting tradition in the state [in China], and has techniques to resolve some secular problems.” (Quan Tang Wen 8) He drew the conclusion from previous dynasties that the flourishing of Buddhism and Daoism does no good to the state, saying, “Emperor Wu of Liang and his subjects talked about [the doctrine of] suffering and emptiness so much, and yet during the Hou Jing rebellion, none of his court officials could ride a horse . . . This is a profound forewarning. What I prefer is the teaching of Yao, Shun, the Duke of Zhou and Confucius’ which is just like wings to a bird, or water to a fish—one will perish without it so cannot dispense with it for a moment.” ( Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑒 192) Qi Shiyuan’s inscription provides an indication as to how much Buddhism was integrated in to the society. He was immersed in Buddhist teaching because of his family background, and it is natural that he began to make

22  Some of the catalogues were made solely for merit accumulation; they were incomplete and symbolically represented. For example, the Xitian daxiaosheng jing lü lun bing zai Tang guodu shu mulu 西天大小乘經律論並在唐國都數目錄 (Dunhuang Manuscript S.3565 back side and P.2987) only includes nearly 40 scriptures, and its passage of offering (gongyang wen 供養文) claims that offering the catalogue equates offering an entire canon. 23  Tang Yongtong 湯用彤, Tang Taizong and fojiao 唐太宗與佛教, in Tang Yongtong xueshu lunwen ji 湯用彤學術論文集, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju,1983, p. 11.

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving

197

Buddhist statues for merit accumulation. Li Shimin 李世民 (later Emperor Taizong) was ill when he was around nine in the second year of Daye era, and his father Li Yuan 李淵 (later Emperor Gaozu) made a set of stone Buddhas and an inscription at the Caotang Monastery to pray for his son’s health.24 In the fourth year of Taizong’s reign, the emperor also held a vegetarian banquet, built the Longtian Monastery for Emperor Taiwu and the Honghu Monastery for Empress Mu. Taizong commanded governmental officers to transcribe the Fo yijiao jing, distributed one copy to each official above the fifth rank as well as each Regional Inspector, and furthermore commanded governmental officers to transcribe Xuanzang’s newly translated commentary and scriptures to bestow on the governors of the Nine Routes. Xuanzang left China for India in the first year of Zhenguan era, and returned in the eighteenth year, requesting to setting up a translation bureau, which was not approved by Taizong. Taizong gave recognition to Xuanzang’s translation out of the purpose of promoting a distinguished master. However, Taizong changed in his later years; he wrote the preface Shengjiao xu 聖教序 in person, audited the lecture on the Yogācāra Sūtra, discussed the Diamond Sūtra, and said to Xuanzang, “I met you so late that I was unable to advocate Buddhist law broadly.” It is clear that Xuanzang had an immense influence on Taizong. Qi Shiyuan’s inscription and statues of the Xian Mausoleum are earlier than Xuanzang’s return to China and reflect Buddhist belief in early Tang society. The edict to reduce monastics announced in the ninth year of the Wude era had an impact on Qi Shiyuan’s engraved minglü. The edict states that, “those who are diligent in practicing and upholding the precepts shall be moved to reside in big monasteries. They shall be provided with clothing and food without insufficiency. As for those who cannot keep up with diligent practice and those who cannot sustain by themselves must be expelled and caused to return

24  Caotang si weizi qiji shu 草堂寺為子祈疾書, in Quan Tang Wen 3, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. The annotation in the Shannxi jinshi zhi 陝西金石志 7 indicates that its colophon provides the year of the second year of Daye era. The Dahai Monastery, Yingyang Prefecture, Henan Province once unearthed a group of statues dating from the Northern Wei to the Tang, see Henan Yingyang Dahai si chutu de shike zaoxiang 河南滎陽大海寺出土的石刻造像, in Wenwu, 1980, No. 3, pp. 57–62. The Yingyang xianzhi 滎陽縣誌 writes, “The Dahai Monastery was located outside the eastern gate of the city. Tang Gaozu was at the time the commandery Governor and rebuilt the temple for the cure of Taizong’s eye disease.”

198

Zhang

to their home towns.”25 Although due to the Xuanwu Gate rebellion,26 Gaozu resigned from the throne, the respect toward diligent monastics was promoted in Qi Shiyuan’s minglü. In conclusion, the Xian Mausoleum is meaningful and valuable in many respects. From the inscription we learnt Qi Shiyuan’s background and the setting for the statue making. It also depicts the cultural richness and Buddhist belief of early Tang. In particular, the “Illustration of King Yama’s Judgment” is a rare example of an early painting of King Yama. Connecting this with the inscription of Fanuzi’s staues, Du Fali’s statues in the Longmen Cave, and Dunhuang manuscripts, it provides a clear depiction of the evolution of the contemporaneous conception of King Yama and his image. It helps us to understand the relationship between religious concepts and social life and is worth further research. (Originally published in the Tang yanjiu 唐研究, Vol. 6 (2000): 1–17. Peking University Press.)

FIGURE 9.1 Rubbing 1.

25  Zizhi tongjian 191 writes “the fourth month of the ninth year of Wude,” while Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 says “the fifth month.” 26  Due to this rebellion, Gaozu was compelled to issue an edict saying, “All Buddhist monastics and Daoist priests to remain of the same status. All political affairs should follow the regulations implemented by Qinwang 秦王 (also known as Emperor Taizong).” Therefore, the previous edict was overridden See Zizhi tongjian 191, the ninth year of Wude, the sixth month.

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving

FIGURE 9.2 Rubbing 2.

FIGURE 9.3 Rubbing 3.

199

200

FIGURE 9.4 Location of the three rubbings.

FIGURE 9.5 The Incense Burner and the Engraved Image of Two Bodhisattvas.

Zhang

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving

201

FIGURE 9.6 Stele Commemorating Emperor Taiwu and Empress Mu’s Offering of Stone Statues.

202

Zhang

FIGURE 9.7 Painting of “King Yama’s Judgment”.

Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Baotai jingzang yuanwen 寶台經藏願文, Guang Hongming ji 廣弘明集, T 52. Caotang si weizi qiji shu 草堂寺為子祈疾書, Li Yuan 李淵, Quan Tang Wen 3, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983. Guang Hongming ji 廣弘明集, T 52. Jian Zhaoling huanjian fosi zou 諫昭陵緩建佛寺奏, Chu Suiliang 禇遂良, Tangwen shiyi 唐文拾遺, Quan Tang Wen 8, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983; Tang huiyao 唐會要, Wang Pu 王溥 ed., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1955. Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書, Liu Xu 劉昫, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975. Ling daoshi zai seng qian zhao 令道士在僧前詔, Li Shimin 李世民, Quan Tang Wen 8. Shannxi jinshi zhi 陝西金石志, Wu Shushan 武樹善, Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1998. Weishu 魏書, Wei Shou 魏收, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Yingyang xianzhi 滎陽縣誌, Yingyang: Yingyang xianzhi bianzuan weiyuanhui zongbianshi, 1989 Zhou jingzang yuanwen 周經藏願文, Wang Bao 王褒, in Guang Hongming ji 廣弘明集, T 52. Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑒, Sima Guang 司馬光, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1997.

The Drawing Of Yama And Scripture-carving



Secondary Sources

203

Cheng Zheng 程征 and Qin Hui 秦惠 (1988), Tang guanzhong shiba ling shike: yisan baili diaoke yishu guan 唐關中十八陵石刻--—三百里雕刻藝術館, Xi’an: Shannxi renmin meishu chubanshe. Chongqing Dazu shike yishu bowuguan 重慶大足石刻藝術博物館, Sichuan shehui kexueyuan Dazu shike yishu yanjiusuo 四川社會科學院大足石刻藝術研究所 (1994), Dazu Baodingshan Xiaofowan zushi jingmuta kancha baogao 大足 寶頂山小佛灣祖師經目塔勘查報告, Wenwu 文物, 1994 (2). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Fuping xian wenhuaguan, Shannxi sheng bowuguan, and Shannxi sheng wenwu guanlu weiyuanhui 富平縣文化館; 陝西省博物館; 陝西省文物管理委員會 (1977), Tang Li Feng mu fajue jianbao 唐李鳳墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 考古, 1977 (5), Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue kaogu yanjiu suo. Gong Qiming 鞏啟明 (1999), Tang Xianling tachaji 唐獻陵踏查記, Wenbuo 文博, Vol. 1, Xi’an: Shannxi sheng wenwu xinxi zixun zhongxin. Guojia wenwu ju 國家文物局 ed. (1998), Shannxi sheng wenwu ditu ji 陝西省 文物地圖集, Xi’an: Xi’an ditu chubanshe. He Zicheng 賀梓城 (1980), Guanzhong Tang shibaling diaocha ji 關中唐十八陵調 查記, Wenwu ziliao congkan 文物資料叢刊, 1980 (3), Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Henan sheng Zhengzhou shi bowuguan 河南省鄭州市博物館 (1980), Henan Yingyang Dahai si chutu de shike zaoxiang 河南滎陽大海寺出土的石刻造像, Wenwu, 1980 (3), Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Iwami Kiyohiro 石見清裕 (Ch. Shijian Qingyü) (1996), Wode Tangshi yanjiu chengguo yü fangfa 我的唐史研究成果與方法, in Hu Qi 胡戟, ed., Tang yanjiu zongheng tan 唐研究縱横談, Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Liu Qingzhu 劉慶柱 and Li Yüfang 李毓芳 (1987), Shaanxi Tangling diaocha baogao 陝西唐陵調查報告, Kaoguxue jikan 考古學集刊, Vol. 3, Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Mao Fengzhi 毛鳳枝 (2006), Yifengtang jinshi wen zimu 藝風堂金石文字目, Shike shiliao xinbian: mulu tiba lei 石刻史料新編 目錄題跋類, Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 1977–2006. ——— (2006) Guanzhou shike wenzi xinbian 關中石刻文字新編, Shike shiliao xinbian: difang lei 石刻史料新編 地方類, Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 1977–2006. Ni Zhijun 倪志俊 (1984), “Xi’an Ciensi faxian Tangdai xianke pusa xiang canshi” 西安慈恩寺發現唐代線刻菩薩像殘石, Wenwu, 1984 (3), Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Peng Jiasheng 彭家勝 (1988), Sichuan Wofo yuan diaocha 四川安嶽臥佛院調查, Wenwu, 1988 (8), Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe.

204

Zhang

Shannxi sheng bowuguan wenguan hui 陝西省博物館文管會 (1974), Tang Li Shou mu bihua shitan 唐李壽墓壁畫試探, Wenwu, 1974 (9), Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Sun Ji 孫機 (1996), Tang Li Shou mu shiduen xianke ‘shi’nü tu,’ ‘yuewutu’ sanji 唐李壽石椁線刻《侍女圖》、《樂舞圖》散記, Zhingguo shenghuo 中國聖火, Shenyang: Liaoning jiaoyü chubanshe. Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1983), “Tang Taizong yu fojiao” 唐太宗與佛教, Tang Yongtong xueshu lunwen ji 湯用彤學術論文集, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. Wang Huamin 王化民 (1980), “Tang jintu bianxiang xianke huaxiang shi” 唐“淨土變相”線刻畫像石, Wenwu, 1980 (3), Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Xitian daxiaosheng jing lü lun bing zai Tang guodu shu mulu 西天大小乘經 律論並在唐國都數目錄, Dunhuang Manuscript S.3565. Ye Changchi 葉昌熾 (1994), “Yüshi-Yüshi yitong ping” 語石·語石異同評, Kaogu xue zhuankan 考古學專刊, bingzhong 丙種 4, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. Zhang Zong 張總 (2000), “Yanluo wang shouji jing zhuibu yankao” 閻羅王 授記經綴補研考, Zhongguo Dunhuang Tulufan xuehui 中國敦煌吐魯番學會, Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 敦煌吐魯番研究, 2000 (5), Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe. Zhou Shujia 周叔迦 (1990), Fayuan Tancong 法苑談叢, Beijing: Zhongguo Fojiao xiehui chuban.

Buddist Exchanges between China and Other Countries

⸪

CHAPTER 10

Buddhist Interaction between China and Korean Peninsula during the Sui and Tang Dynasties: A Survey of Korean Monk Visitors in China Huang Xinchuan 黃心川 China and Korea are neighboring countries just like the lips and teeth. Over the centuries, there have been strong political, economic, and cultural connections between these two countries, and their people have built robust friendships among themselves. Buddhism has played an important role in this cultural interaction. During the Sui-Tang period, Buddhism in Silla entered its peak. A great amount of Korean monks and scholars visited China for studying and pilgrimage. Their activities and writings have left many traces in the history of Chinese Buddhism. After returning to Korea, they brought back Indian and Chinese Buddhist thought and culture, and stimulated the establishment and development of Buddhist doctrines and schools in Silla. This paper aims to provide a historical survey of Buddhist relations between the two countries, as well as some necessary examinations of these overseas monks, so as to fill in the gaps in western scholarship. 1

The Socio-Political Background of Korea during the Sui-Tang Period

The Sui-Tang period saw the separation and unification between the three kingdoms of Koguryŏ, Paekje and Silla, and the formation of their feudal system. After the sixth century, Silla, at the southeast corner of Korean peninsula, rapidly grew due to the battles between Koguryŏ and Paekje. Around 660s CE, Silla collaborated with the Tang court to subdue the other two kingdoms, and united the peninsula. Following the establishment of a unified kingdom, Silla enforced various political measures which were highly centercontrolled to complete the systems of Nine Regions (Chu 州, the biggest administrative unit at regional level), Five Capitals (Kyŏng 京, special administrative unit), and Commandaries and Districts (Kunhyŏn 郡縣). In so doing, Silla intensified central supervision towards regional officials. Economic policies

©

5 | 

/

208

Huang

were introduced in order to encourage production. Waterways were built, and agricultural technology increased. Weapons were recast into farming instruments. The “Household class system” (land was granted to households according to their numbers of males and females) was implemented, which was so successful that “families were self-content; the society was safe and stable; no worries or troubles were within the region; crops were piled up like mountains.” While this society developed steadily, culture and art grew into prosperity. The ethnic culture formed during this period became the foundation of the classical culture of Korea, and enhanced her economic and cultural interaction with China and Japan by frequently sending a large number of students to study in China—for example the 105 Korean students who were back from China in 840 CE, who introduced advanced technology of Korean handicrafts into China, and, at the same time, brought back the Tang spirit and material culture to their own country. Both private and official interactions were extremely active during this period of time, and, according to the Tang huiyao 唐會要, Silla had the largest amount of produce among Tang’s vassal states. Silla merchants were spread all over, from the Shandong peninsula to the mouth of Yangzi River. They built “Silla houses,” some of which had their own temples and dormitories. The Japanese monk Ennin 圓仁 (794–864) accounted in his diary Ru Tang qiufa xunli xingji 入唐求法巡禮行記 that a Korean temple “Lotus Hall” (Fahua yuan 法華院) was located in Mount Chi, in the Shandong peninsula. This temple had 29 resident monks, and held regular Korean lectures on the Lotus Sūtra and the Golden Light Sūtra, which usually attracted an audience of 200 to 250 people. During the Sui-Tang period, despite the fact that there were wars occasionally between China and the three kingdoms in Korean peninsula, overall they maintained an amicable relationship. During the unification of Silla kingdom, its alliance with the Tang was interrupted for some time, but soon, in the early eighth century, they restored the alliance, which lasted for another two hundred years. This friendly relationship enhanced their trade and cultural interaction. 2

Introduction of Buddhism from China to Korea

The earliest introduction of Buddhism into Koguryŏ was during the second year of the seventeenth Emperor Sosurim’s 小獸林王 (d. 384) reign—in 372 CE, Fu Jian 符堅 (338–385), the ruler of Qian Qin Dynasty in northern China, sent envoys and monks to deliver Buddhist statues and scriptures, and Emperor Sosurim replied with gratitude. Two years later, Monks Shundao

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China

209

順道 and A’dao 阿道 of the Eastern Jin Dynasty visited Koguryŏ and were received to stay in the Sŏngmunsa and Ibullansa monasteries near the capital city Ji’an.1 In the last year of the Taiyuan Era of Emperor Xiaowu of the Western Jin Dynasty (196 CE), the “White Foot Monk,” Tan Shu, brought a vast amount of scriptures to Liangdong area (present day Korea) and “taught three vehicles and established on the precepts.” This is the very beginning of the introduction of Buddhism in Koguryŏ.2 In 576 CE, in the eighteenth year of Emperor P’yŏngwŏn’s 平原 reign (r. 559–590), the Minister Wang Kodŏk 王高德 sent Monk Ŭiyŏn 義淵 to Ye (Capital of Northern Qi, present day west to Linzhang prefecture, Henan province) to study Buddhism under Fashang 法上 of Dingguo Monastery.3 During the late Song and early Qi, Sŭngnang 僧朗 (Ch. Senglang) of Koguryŏ traveled from Liaodong to the Jiangnan area to study the Three Treatises school (Sanlun 三論) from Tangqing 曇慶, and to receive lineage from Fadu 法度 of Huanglong (present day Jilin province) in Sheshan, where he studied Huayan scriptures. In 512 CE (the eleventh year of the Tianjian era), Emperor Wu of the Liang sent monk officials Zhiji 智寂, Senghuai 僧懷, Huiling 惠令 and seven others to visit Sŭngnang at Shenshan for their study of Huayan and Sanlun. The emperor even composed commentaries according to Sŭngnang’s teachings.4 Buddhism was transmitted into the southwest corner of the peninsula, Paekje, shortly after Koguryŏ. In the first year of Emperor Chimnyu’s reign (384 CE), the Indian monk Mālānanda went to Paekje’s Hansansŏng from the Eastern Jin. He was received warmly by the emperor, and soon established a monastery at Hansan. Ten people were ordained there, and it was regarded as the beginning of Paekje’s state Buddhism.5 However, even earlier than that, Paekje had frequent contact with Jin, and Buddhism had been transmitted into Paekje through Koguryŏ—this is proven by the inscription on a golden bronze Buddha statute dated 338 CE, which was discovered at Ttuksŏm by the Han River. From that time on, Buddhism flourished in Paekje, and there were a considerable amount of monastics and temples.6 For instance, at the 1  Samguk sagi 三國史記, fascicle 18. However, in fascicle 1of the Haedong kosŭng chŏn 海東高僧傳, it says, “four years after the arrival of Monk Shundao, Monk A’dao caem from the Wei Dynasty.” In contrast, the Samguk yusa 三國遺事 writes, “Four years later in the year of Jiaxu 甲戌, A’dao came from the Jin Dynasty.” 2  Gaoseng zhuan 10. 3  Xu gaoseng zhuan 8. 4  Gaoseng zhuan 8. 5  Samguk sagi 24. 6  Zhou shu 周書 49.

210

Huang

transport centre of Sŏsan, in the Taean peninsula, and the western coast of Tangjin, famous temples include cliff-carved temples in Taean and Unsan, Kŭmgangbulsa and Sudŏksa in Paekje. In 541 CE, Paekje sent ambassadors to the Liang Dynasty to require commentaries on the Nirvana Sūtra and Buddhist painters.7 According to Japanese Buddhist accounts, some of the earliest Paekje monks who introduced Buddhism to Japan had studied in China first. For example, in 554 CE, the Korean monks Tamhye 曇慧 and Toshim 道深 went to Japan after studying Sanlun, Chengshi in China, and being influenced greatly by Kumārajīva. It is generally held that Silla, located in the southeastern corner of the Korean peninsula, received Buddhism through Koguryŏ, around 417–418, during the reign of Emperor Nulchi 訥祇 of Silla (r. 417–457). There were a considerable number of Silla monks who traveled to China for study and pilgrimage during the Northern and Southern dynasties. According to incomplete surveys, the 150 year period spanning from mid-sixth century to late seventh century, there were 21 Silla monks who went to China and India; among them, nine went to the latter. Those who visited China include Hyŏn’gwang 玄光, Myŏnggwan 明觀, Musang 無相, Wŏn’gwang 圓光, Chimyŏng 智明, Anham 安含, and Chajang 慈藏. In 549 CE, Emperor Wu of the Liang sent official Shen Hu 沈瑚 and Silla monk Kakdŏk 覺德 to deliver Buddha’s relics to Silla, which were then venerated by Emperor Chinhŭng of Silla 真興王 (534–576) at the Hŭngnyunsa Monastery 興輪寺.8 In 565 CE, Emperor Wen of the Chen Dynasty sent ambassador Liu Si 劉思 and monk Myŏnggwan to deliver over 2,700 fascicles of Buddhist scriptures.9 At this point, the collection of Buddhist scriptures was nearly complete in Silla, and its interaction with China greatly increased entering the Tang Dynasty, which is the topic of next section. 3

The Activities and Writings of Silla Monks in China

The Sui—Tang period is also the period when Silla’s emperor unified the three kingdoms. During this unification period, Silla saw remarkable economic growth, cultural development and unprecedented flourishing in all aspects of society, which is why this is called the “sage era” by historians. Following the growth of Buddhism, Silla sent numerous monks to China. According to the

7  Zhou shu 3; Samguk sagi 26. 8  Samguk sagi 4; Haedong kosŭng chŏn 2. 9  Samguk sagi 4.

211

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China

Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa 朝鮮佛教通史 [General History of Korean Buddhism] by Yi Nŭng-hwa 李能和 (also known as Yi Neunghwa, 1869–1945), during the 380 year period from the time when Buddhism became Silla’s state religion during the early sixth to early tenth centuries, there were 64 Korean monks regularly visiting China, and, amongst them, 10 also visited India. According to the survey of the appendix of Kaitō no Bukkyō 海東の佛敎, edited by Nakagiri Isao 中吉功 (1974), during a period of 328 years (from 581 to 907 CE), there were 66 Silla monks who visited China. However, according to my survey based on various sources, there were 117 people, roughly double the amount previously thought true. Among them, around 20 monks had no records in Korean histories. Below is a chart of the dharma names of visiting monks from Korea, dates of their visits, summary of their activities, compositions and any notable and/or suspicious points: Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Chimyŏng 智明

585

Arrived during the Chen Dynasty in 585, and traveled around China. Returned to Silla with their ambassadors in 602. His advocacy of Buddhist precepts was praised by Emperor Chinp’yŏng 真平, who first endowed him the title “Great Virtue” and then “Great Great Virtue.”

Sabunnyul kalmagi 四分律羯磨記, 1 fascicle, not extant.

Silla Monk, surnamed Park. He learned Confucianism during childhood. He went to Jinling of the Sui Dynasty and was ordained as a monk. He then primarily

Yŏraejang kyŏng sagi 如來藏經私記 in 1 fascicle, lost. Taebangdŭng yŏraejang kyŏngso 大方等如來藏 經疏 in 1 fascicle, lost.

Wŏn’gwang 589 圓光

Suspicion

Source

Samguk sagi 4; Haedong kosŭng chŏn 2.

According to the Xu gaoseng zhuan 13, Wŏn’gwang’s secular surname is Park, a descendent of Jinhan. He died

Xu gaoseng zhuan 13; Haedong kosŭng chŏn 2; Samguk sagi 4; Samguk yusa 5.

212

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

studied the Satyasiddhiśāstra and Nirvana doctrines under Sengmin 僧旻 of the Zhuangyan Monastery. Later he went to Mt. Huqiu of the Wu. In 589, he visited Chang’an, and was influenced by Tanqian 曇遷 and Huiyuan’s 慧遠 lectures of Mahāyāna-samgrahaśāstra. In 600, he was called to Silla. Well received by the court, he began lecturing on Mahāyāna scriptures and promoting state-protection ideas until he died at the age of ninety (641 CE).

in 641. Korean histories conventionally record that his surname is Sŏl and was ordained at thirty. He studied in China and died at eighty-four years old.

Source

Wŏnan 圓安

?

As Wŏn’gwang’s disciple, he travelled around in China and search for Sūtras and treatises. He dwelled in Lantian Jinliang Monastery, but details of his life after this are unknown.

No record in the Xu gaoseng biographies of zhuan 13. Korean monks.

P’aya 波若

Before 589

Paekje monk. He traveled to China during the Chen Dynasty and

No record in the Xu gaoseng biographies of zhuan 13. Korean monks.

213

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

studied Buddhism in Jinling. In 589, he travelled to study and enter Mt. Tiantai at sixteen to study under Master Zhiyi. From that time, he was a hermit for over 16 years. In 613, he descended from the mountain and died in Guoqing Monastery in his fifty-second year. Tamyuk 曇育

596

Hyŏn’gwang Between 玄光 557–589

Silla monk. He visited to China for pilgrimage, and returned to Silla with Silla missionary in 605.

No record in the Samguk sagi 4. biographies of Chinese monks.

Originally from Ungju, Silla, he went to China during the Chen Dynasty to study meditation, and visited Huisi at Mt. Heng. Huisi taught him the “gate to serenity and joyfulness” of the Lotus Sūtra. He claimed to have attained the Lotus Samādhi and travelled to the Jiang’an region. After returing to Silla, he established his own temple to teach Tiantai Buddhism to numerous followers.

Xu gaoseng Ungju was a subsidiary state zhuan 18. to Paekje during the Sui Dynasty. It was named Ungju after Koguryŏ took over Silla. See Zhongguo lishi ditu ji 中國歷史地 圖集 Vol. 14, pp. 9–10, 67–68. Since the biography of Xuanguang only mentions that he went to

214

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

China during the Chen, it is evidential that Xuanguang must be alive after Koguryŏ’s unification. Anham 安含 (Anhong 安弘) Hyesuk 惠宿

616

Silla monk. He was originally from a literati family. In 600, he and monk Hyesuk went to the Sui. They were received by the Sui emperor and dwelled in the Great Xingsheng Monastery. In 620, he returned to his country with VimalaParamārtha. In 641 CE, he died in the Mansŏn Temple.

In Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn’s biography of Ŭisang, it says: “Ŭisang was born in the 42nd year of Jianfu era, and visited the Tang with Master Anham, three Indian monks and two Chinese monks.” According to the Samguk sagi, Anhong entered the Chen to study Buddhism in 576, and returned with three foreign monks. There is a difference of 44 years between 576

Samguk sagi 4; Haedong kosŭng chŏn 2; Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn’s biography of Ŭisang.

215

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

and 620 CE, therefore Anham and Anhong are probably two different people who had similar stories. Vimala? Paramārtha 毗摩羅真諦

Northern Indian monk. He went to Silla when he was forty-four (605 CE) with Damyuk and Huiwen 慧文 to work on translation. He returned to the Tang in 620.

Nongqietuo ? 農伽陀

Western-region monk who came to China. At the age of fourty-six (605 CE), he went to Silla with Damyuk and returned to Tang in 620 CE.

Buddhasangha 佛陀僧伽

Indian Mathurā monk. He went to Silla with Damyuk at the age of fourty-six (665 CE). He returned to Tang in 620 CE and went to Silla again in 625 CE.

?

Koguryŏ 625 ambassadors (names unknown)

They entered the Tang to study Buddhism and Daoism.

Chŏndan hyanghwa sŏnggwang myogyŏng 旃檀香 火星光妙經, lost.

Haedong kosŭng chŏn 2.

Samguk sagi 20.

216

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Hyehyŏn 慧顯

627

Paekje monk. He lived in the Xiudao Monastery studying the Lotus Sūtra, and he died in China at fifty-eight, during the early Zhenguan era.

No record in the Xu gaoseng biographies of zhuan 28. Korean monks.

Ariyabalma 627 (Skt. Āryavarman) 阿離耶跋摩

Silla monk. He left Chang’an during 627–649 CE (the Zhenyuan era of Tang) and went to India. He did pilgrimage and stayed in the Nālandā temple to inscribe Buddhist scriptures. He died there at seventy.

Some dated the year of his arrival at India to be 641 CE.

Hyeŏp 慧業

627

Silla monk. He went to the western region during 627–649 and then visited India. He died there at Nālandā temple at sixty.

Da Tang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan

Hyŏnt’ae 玄太

627

Silla monk. He passed by Nepal on the way to central Inida during 650–655 CE. He worshipped the Bodhi tree in Bodhigaya and examined Sūtras and treatises there. He then returned to the Tang,

Da Tang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan

Da Tang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan 大唐 西域求法高 僧傳.

217

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

and his subsequent whereabouts are unknown. Hyŏn’gak 玄恪

627

Silla monk. He followed Xuanzhao to Nepal’s Great Awakening Temple during the Zhenguan Era and died of illness there.

Two Silla monks

?

Monk names unknown. They departed from Chang’an for Nanhai. He took a boat to Sri Vijaya and Western Baros, but died of disease there.

Hyeryun 慧輪 (惠輪)

Silla monk, also known by his Sanskrit name Panyabalma 般若缽摩. He took a boat from Silla to the Chinese Min-Yue area and travelled to Chang’an. He then followed Xuanzhao to India for pilgrimage and lived in Amaravatic for ten years.

Hyŏnyu 玄遊

Originally from Koguryŏ, he followed his master and was ordained in Sri Lanka.

Da Tang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan

218

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Myŏngnang 632 明朗

Silla monk, with a courtesy name Kugyuk 國育, also known as Yoga Master. He was the founder of the Sinin School 神印宗 after returned to Silla in 635. When the Tang General Li Ji 李勣 invaded Silla in 668, Silla Emperor asked help from Myŏngnang, who performed the Esoteric Buddhist ritual to protect the state.

Chajang 慈藏, Sŭngsil 僧實 and ten others.

Silla monk, secular name Kim Sŏnjong. After the death of his parents, he abandoned his wife and properties and became a monk. In the tenth year of the Zhenguan era, he brought more than ten disciples to the Tang. First they went to Mt. Wutai for pilgrimage and then stayed in Yunji Temple in Mt. Zhongnan. While receiving honours from Emperor Tai of Tang. King Sŏndŏk 善德王 of Silla invited him to

636

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Samguk yusa 5.

Amit’a kyŏngso 阿彌陀經疏, 1 fascicle, lost. Amit’a kyŏng ŭigi 阿彌陀經義記, 1 fascicle, lost. Sabunnyul kalma sagi 四分律羯磨 私記, 1 fascicle, lost. Sipsongnyul mokch’a gi 十誦律木叉記, 1 fascicle, lost. Kwanhaeng pŏp 觀行法, 1 fascicle, lost.

Xu Gaoseng zhuan 24. Samguk yusa, relevant entries.

219

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

return in 643. He brought back a set of Tripitaka, Buddha’s relics and flags to Silla. The king titled him Taegukt’ong 大國統. He reformed Buddhist laws and imposed Tang’s “monk official” system and clothing. Wŏnsŭng 圓勝

627–649

Silla monk. He entered Tang during the Zhenguan era and returned to Korea with Chajang to promote the Vinayas.

Pŏmmang kyŏnggi 梵網經記, Sabunnyul kalmagi 四分律羯磨記, 1 fascicle, not extant. Sabunnyul mokch’agi 四分 律木叉記.

Xu Gaoseng zhuan 24.

Ŭisang 義湘

661

Silla monk, surnamed Kim from a nobility origin. He was ordained at the age of twentynine. He entered the Tang in 661 and first lived in Yangzhou and then in the Zhixiang Monastery in Mount Zhongnan to study Huayan (Kr. Hwaŏm) Buddhism under Zhiyan 智儼. He was a fellow of Xianshou 賢首 and was well known to his contemporaries. During the time of conflict

Hwaŏm ilsǔng pŏpgyedo, 華嚴一 乘法界圖, one fascicle, available. Ip pŏpgye myop’um 入法界妙品, lost. Hwaŏm simmun kanpŏpgwan 華嚴十門看法觀, one fascicle, lost. Amit’a kyŏng ŭigi 阿彌陀經義記, one fascicle, lost. Paekhwa toryang parwŏnmun 白花道場發願文, one section

Pusŏksa pi 浮石寺碑; Song gaoseng zhuan 4; Samguk yusa 3.

220

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

between Tang and Silla, available. Cheban Ŭisang received secret ch’ŏng mun 諸般請文, lost. edict to return in 670–671 with the information about Tang’s plan to invade Silla. He established the Busŏksa Monastery to promote Mahāyāna Buddhism, as the founder of Hwaŏm in Korea. He died in 702 at the age of seventy-eight, having thee thousand disciples, including ten eminent ones. Hyet’ong 惠通

?

Silla monk. He entered the Tang to teach Subhakara-simha mantra and dhāraṇī, and returned in 665.

Samguk yusa 5.

Myŏnghyo 明曉

?

Silla monk. He served Master Amoghavajra at Foshouji Monastery in Chang’an and translated the Amoghapasha Dhāraṇī Sūtra 羂索陀羅尼經.

Biography of Amoghavajra

Sunyŏng 順璟

666–667

Originally from the Lelang (Kr. Rakrang) region, and of Silla nobility, he entered the Tang furing the

Pŏphwa kyŏng nyogan 法華經 料簡, one fascicle, lost. Taebip’asa simnonch’o 大毗

No record in Chosŏn’s biographies of monks.

Song gaoseng zhuan 4.

221

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Sinbang 神昉

Year

?

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Qianfeng era of Emperor Gao of the Tang. He studied the Yogācāra school and mastered logic (Sk. Hetuvidyā). It is said that he first received Xuanzang’s The True Consciousness-Only (真唯識量) and then established the theory of “absolute different indefinites” (決定相 違不定量). For that he was greatly praised by Kuiji and became very famous. His expertise is Mahāyāna Yogācāra and he composed a large amount of works, which are mostly lost. Only a few are preserved in China.

婆娑心論抄, ten fascicles, lost. Sŏngyusingnon’ gan 成唯識論簡, one fascicle, lost. Inmyŏngipchŏng ironch’o 因明入 正理論抄, one fascicle, lost.

When Xuanzang was translating seven fascicles of the Ity-uktaka at the Ci’en Monastery in 650, Shinbang was the transcriber. In the following year, when the former translated the ten fascicles of the Ten Wheels Sūtra, the latter composed its preface.

Simnyun kyŏngch’o Not clear in Chosŏn’s 十輪經抄, three histories. fascicles, lost. Simnyun kyŏngso 十輪經疏, eight fascicles, lost. Simnyun kyŏng ŭmŭi 十輪經音義, one fascicle, lost. Taesŭng taejib chijang simnyun kyŏngsŏ 大乘大集 地藏十輪經序, one fascicle, preserved.

Source

Kaiyuan Shiiao lu 8. Dongyu Chuandeng mulu, Hongjing lu 1.

222

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Sŏngyusingnon yojip 成唯識論 要集, thirteen fascicles, lost. Hyŏn Sŏngyusingnon jipki 顯成唯識論集記, one fascicle, lost. Chongsŏng ch’abyŏl chip 種姓差別集, three fascicles, lost. Fa’an 法安

?

Emperor Gao of the Tang sent Fa’an to Silla to seek a magnetic stone in 669, but the latter was killed in the Bei River the following year.

Linrun 琳潤

?

Tang monk. Emperor Gao of the Tang sent him to Silla in 671.

Toryung 道隆 (Tojing 道澄)

Sŭngjŏn 勝詮

?

Samguk sagi 6, It is not clear whether he was a Silla or Chinese monk.

Samguk sagi 7.

Silla monk. He returned to Silla in 692 and submitted an astrological map to the court.

It is written “Tojing” 道澄 in the Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa, Vol. 1, p. 90.

Samguk sagi 8.

Silla monk, who came to the Tang and paid a visit to Xianshou and Fazang, receiving subtle teachings of Huayan. When he returned to

The letters he brought back to Silla were discovered in a glass factory in Beijing in 1816.

Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa, Vol. 1, p. 89. Tang Hyŏnsu kugsa chinjŏg gi Silla Ŭisang pŏpsa

223

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Silla in 692, he brought correspondence with Fazang and Xiangshou’s commentaries to Ŭisang. The Hwaŏm school was much more developed after this. Simsang (Jp. Shinjō) 審祥

Chiin 智忍 (智仁)

?

Suspicion

Source

However, issues concerning the authenticity and who brought it back are still under debate.

sŏgo 唐賢首國 師真跡寄新 羅義湘法師 書考, in Nanto Bukkyō 南都佛 教 26, 1971.

Silla monk, who entered the Tang to study Huayan with Xianshou and went to Japan afterwards. He lectured on Huayan at the Kinshō dōjō in Japan in 704, and later died in 742.

Hwaŏm kisin kwanhaeng pŏmmun 華嚴起信觀行 法門, one fascicle, lost.

Honchō kōsōden 本朝高僧傳

Silla monk. He was the scribe of Xuanzang’s translation of the Heart Sūtra and the Nyāyapraveśatāka- śāstra (Ch. Yinming zhengli lunben 因明正理論本) in 649. The rest is not clear.

Sibilmyŏn kyŏngso 十一面經疏, 1 fascicle, lost. Sabunnyul yukkwŏn ch’ogo 四分律六卷 抄記, 10 fascicles, lost. Pulji nonso 佛地論疏, 4 fascicles, lost. Hyŏnyang nonso 顯揚論疏, 10 fascicles, lost. Chapjip nonso 雜集論疏, 5 fascicles, lost.

Zhenyuan shijiaolu 11, Dongyu chuandeng mulu 2 and 3.

224

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Wŏnch’ŭk 圓測

627

Originally from Silla’s royal family. He was ordained in childhood and entered Chang’an of the Tang in his fifteenth year to study Yogācāra under Fachang 法常 and Sengbian 僧辯. Hearing about Xuangzang’s return to China, he immediately paid a visit and received instruction for the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra and the Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi. He became the chief monk of the Ximing Temple in his fourtysixth year and lectured on Yogācāra treatises. Later he was appointed as the Rectifier in the translation projects led by Dipoheluo, Tiyunbore and Shichanantuo. Emperor Sinmun 神文王 of Silla urged him to return but it was never approved by Empress Wu of the Tang. He also participated in the

He composed 19 scriptures in 83 fascicles, but only three scriptures in 17 fascicles are preserved. These are the Hae simmil kyŏngso 解深密 經疏, 10 fascicles. Inwang kyŏngso 仁王經疏, 6 fascicles. Simkyŏng ch’an 心經贊, 1 fascicle.

a. On the question concerning the origin of Wŏnchŭk, Samguk yusa writes, “Due to his humble origins, he cannot be conferred of any position of monk official.” This contradicts to the account of “Silla’s royal family” as written in the Song gaoseng zhuan. b. According to Chosŏn monks’ biographies, Wŏnchŭk once returned to his country when he was eighty (692), but this is not mentioned in any Chinese records. Concerning his personality, there are inconsistencies;

Song Fu’s 宋複 Yuance (Kr. Wŏnch’ŭk) fashi sheli taming 圓測法 師舍利塔銘; Song gaoseng zhuan 4; Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn’s Wŏnch’ŭk hwasang hwiil mun 圓測和尚 諱日文.

225

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra in 696, but died before its completion, at the age of eighty-four.

Tojŭng 道證

?

Silla monk and Wŏnchŭk’s disciple. He returned to his country in 692 and submitted an astrological map to the Court. He was also T’aehyŏn’s 太賢 master. The rest is not clear.

Suspicion

Source

some sources say he was a “wicked person” while others refer to him as “chaste person.” Panya rich’wi bun’gyŏng so 般若 理趣分經疏, 1 fascicle, lost. Taebanya kyŏngjŏk mok 大般若經籍 目, 2 fascicles, lost. Kŭmgang panya gyŭngso 金剛般 若經疏, 1 fascicle, lost. Sŏbang kŭngnag yoch’an 西方極樂要贊, 1 fascicle, lost. Sŏngyusik non gangyo 成唯識論綱 要, 13 fascicles, lost. Sŏp taesŭng non Sech’in sŏngnon so 攝大乘論世親釋 論疏, 16 fascicles, lost. Pyŏn chungbyŏn nonso 弁中邊論疏, 3 fascicles, lost. Inmyŏng ipjŏng iron so 因明入正理 論疏, 2 fascicles, lost. Tae inmyŏng nonch’o 大因明 論鈔, 2 fascicles,

Samguk sagi 8; Sinp’yŏnjejong kojang ch’ongnok 新編諸宗 教藏•總錄 1; Dongyu chuandeng mulu, 2 and 3, T 55. Chūshin Hossō shū shōsho 注進法 相宗章疏, ibid.

226

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

lost. Sŏnggyo ryagsul chang 聖教略述章, 1 fascicle, lost. Ch’ŏndaesan Chija Taesa pyŏljŏn 天臺 山智者大師別傳, 1 fascicle, lost. Samguk sagi 8.

Kim Sayang 703 金思讓

He returned from Chang’an in 704 and submitted the Golden Light Sūtra.

Sŭngjang 勝莊

Despite of limited records concerning him, we know that he was the Rectifier of Yijing’s 20 translations while at the Luoyang Fuxian Monastery and Ximing Monastery. He also participated in Bodhiruci’s new translation of Mahāratnakūṭa sūtra in 120 fascicles. He is referred to in Wŏnch’ŭk’s epitaph and biography as the chief monk of Dajianfu Monastery as Wŏnch’ŭk’s disciple.

Kŭm kwangmyŏng ch’oesŭng wang kyŏngso 金光明最 勝王經疏, 8 fascicles, lost. Posal kyebon sogi 菩薩戒 本疏記, 4 fascicles, extant. Sŏngyusing non’gyŏl 成唯識論 決, 3 fascicles, lost. Pulsŏng nonŭi 佛性 論義, 1 fascicle, lost. Tae inmyŏng non sulgi 大因明論 述記, 2 fascicles, lost. Kisinnon mundap 起信論 問答, 1 fascicle, lost.

A Silla monk of the Kaiyuan Monastery in

Kŭmgang panya kyŏngso 金剛般

Kim Taebi 金大悲

722

Kaiyuan shijiao lu 9; Zhenyuan shijiao lu 13; Song gaoseng zhuan 4.

The Jingde chuandeng lu

Jingde chuandeng lu 5.

227

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Musang 無相

Year

728

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

若經疏, 1 fascicle, Hongzhou. He paid lost. Zhang Jingman 張淨滿 from Ruzhou twenty thousand qian to steal the skull of the Sixth Patriarch in order to venerate it in Korea.

records that the Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa, Vol. 1, skull of the Sixth Patriarch p. 99. was stolen by a Silla monk, which was brought to and venerated in Korea; this is probably false. It is likely that the Kŭmgang panya kyŏngso was composed by another monk named Daebi.

Third son of a Silla king. He came to Chang’an with a ship in 728 and was called upon by Emperor Xuanzong of the Tang, who ordered him to reside in Chanding Monastery. He then visited Zhishen in Sichuang, where he was taught meditation and changed his name to Musang. During the An-Shi Rebellion, when Xuanzhong escaped to Sichuang, the emperor patronized him in the inner court. In 756, he died without illness, aged seventy-seven.

No record in any Chosŏn accounts.

Song gaoseng zhuan 19.

228

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Ponyŏ 本如

After 744

A Silla meditation monk under the Dharma lineage of Nanyue Huairang 南嶽懷讓 (677–744).

Muru 無漏

758

Prince of Silla, who came to the Tang with a ship in order to escape from inheriting the throne. He travelled far to Khotan, reached the hill of Congling, but returned to Mt. Helang and resided in a small thatched cottage. During the An-Shi Rebellion, Emperor Su assembled an army and dispatched Guo Ziyi 郭子儀 to transmit his edict. He answered the edict to join the army, but returned to the mountain before long and died there.

Song gaoseng The Song gaoseng zhuan zhuan 21. also claims that Muru is the third son of a Silla King, which is probably confused with Musang. There is no detailed evidence in any Chosŏn accounts.

Mup’yo 無表

742–759

Sam Han person. He came to the Tang during the Tianbao era and traveled to the Western Region for pilgrimage, carrying 80 fascicles of the Huayan jing and lived in stone caves.

Song gaoseng zhuan 30.

Jingde chuandeng lu 6.

229

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Sun Di 孫逖 had a poem, Song Xinluo fashi guiguo 送新羅法師 歸國. Sun Di was active during the Kaiyuan and Tianbao eras of the Tang and died in 761.

Biography of Sun Di can be found in Wenyuan yinghua 文苑英華 219, Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 190, and Xin Tangshu 202.

During the Huichang persecution, the scriptures hidden by him were preserved safely. It is not clear where he died. Anonymous d. 761

Silla monk who once visited the Tang. No clear details exist concerning his life.

Ojin 悟真

781

Silla monk. He received womb treasure and mantras from Huiguo 惠果 of the Qinglong Monastery in Chang’an. He went to central India in 789 and died in Tibet.

Qinglong si sanchao gongfeng dade xingzhuang 青 龍寺三朝供 奉大德行狀; Huiguo heshang beiming 惠果 和尚碑銘.

Hyemok 惠目

781

Silla monk. He offered symbols of trust from his country to Master Huiguo for receiving womb treasure, diamond treasure and

Same as above.

230

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

other divinities. He returned to his home country after accomplishing his studies. Myŏngsuk 明寂

784

Silla monk, who entered the Tang with envoys Han Ch’an 韓粲 and Kim Yanggong 金讓恭.

Chijang 地藏

756–803

Silla prince with a secular name of Kim Kyogak 金喬覺. Being gifted from youth, he came to the Tang after ordination to practice meditation in Mt. Jiuhua, where he then practiced the retreat in a vehara. His country discovered this and searched for him across the sea. He died in cross-legged position in 803, aged ninety-nine. He is called Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva.

Bŏmsu 梵修

799

Silla monk, who brought the Huayan jing and commentaries by Chengguan 澄觀.

Zutangji 祖堂集 17.

No record in most Chosŏn accounts.

Song gaoseng zhuan 20.

Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa, Vol. 1, p. 99.

231

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Sunŭng 順應 Yijŏng 利貞

800–808

Silla monks, who cured the severe illness of Empress Aejang 哀莊 after returning to his country and built Haeinsa.

Hyech’o 慧昭

804

Surnamed Ch’oe, from Han origin. He came to the Tang with yearly tribute envoys in 804. He then went to Cangzhou to visit Shenjian 神鑒 and received full ordination at the Shaolin Monastery in Mt. Song. He later traveled to Mount Zhongnan and returned to Silla in 830 and established Okchŏnsa in Jirisan, Gangju. He died in 850 CE, aged seventyseven with a posthumous name Chin’gam.

Kim Hŏnjang 金憲章

810

Silla prince. He went to Tang in the second year of Emperor Hyŏndŏk of Silla’s reign (811 CE) to offer golden and silver Buddhist statues and Sūtras.

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Ibid., pp. 100–102.

According to another account, he entered the Tang during the reign of Emperor Heungdŏk of Silla 興德王 (r. 826–835), and resided in Cangzhou.

4. Ch’oe Chiwŏn’s Chin’gamkuksa pimyŏng pyŏngsŏ 真鑒國師碑 銘並序.

Samguk sagi 10.

232

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Hyech’o 慧超 (惠超)

?

Silla monk. After entering the Tang, he went to India via the sea for pilgrimage. In 727, he returned to the Western Region via the land, whereby he composed the Wang och’ŏnch’uk kuk chŏn, 往五天竺國傳. In 733, he received esoteric Buddhism from Vajrabodhi. In 740, he became the transcriber for translation in the Jianfu Monastery. In 780, he composed the Taesŭng yuga taegyowang kyŏngsŏ 大乘瑜伽大教王經序 in the Qianyuan Puti Temple of Mt. Wutai. The rest of his life is not clear.

Wang och’ŏnch’ukkuk chŏn, 3 fascicles, remains found in Dunhuang. Taesŭng yuga taegyo wang kyŏngsŏ, 1 article preserved. Ha Ognyŏdam kiup’yo 賀玉女潭祈雨表, one article preserved.

There are discrepancies in interpretations of the accounts in the Wang och’ŏnc’hukkuk chŏn.

Fragments of the Wang och,ŏnch,ukkuk chŏn.

Hyech’ŏl 惠哲 (慧徹)

814

Silla monk. His courtesy name is Ch’egong 體空, and also known as Master Ch’ŏgin 寂忍. He entered Tang in 814, paid a visit to Chijang 智藏 (Ch. Zhizang) in Mt. Gonggong and studied meditation

Jingde chuandeng lu 9 mentions of Xitang Zhizang’s disciple, called monk Hui of Silla. This is probably Hyechŏl.

Ch’oe Ha’s 崔賀 Ch’ŏgin sŏnsa pimyŏng pyŏngsŏ 寂忍 禪師碑銘 並序, in Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa, Vol. 1, pp. 112–116.

233

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

from Huangrang’s disciple Daoyi. Following this, he traveled across mountains and rivers and spent three years studying Buddhist canons at Fusha Monastery in Xizhou. He returned to Silla in 839, and established Ch’ugmaengsa, became a Preceptor during the rule of Emperors Kyŏngmun 景文 and Hŏn’gang 憲康, and was respected by Emperor Hyŏndŏk, who once asked for the master’s advice for ruling the country. Hyech’ŏl’s suggestions all corresponded to the crucial matters of the time. He died in 861 at the age of seventy-seven. Toǔi 道義 (道儀)

814

Silla monk; surname Wang. He entered Tang in 814 and was ordained in the Baotan Monastery in Guangzhou. He later became the third Dharma generation

Jingde chuandeng lu 9

234

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

under Huirang, Master Xitang Zhizang Fachang of Kaiyuan Monastery, Jiangzi. Muyŏm 無染

821–824

Musŏlt’o ron Surnamed Kim, the 無舌土論, eighth generation of Emperor Muyŏl 武烈. available. In 821, he followed Silla rince to the Tang, visited numerous places, and became a disciple of Baoche 寶徹 of Mt. Magu, Puzhou. During the Buddhist persecution in 845, he returned to his country and lived in Sŏngjusa. He was the Preceptor for three reigns and was often consulted for political affairs. He died in 886, and was given the posthumous name “Master Great Nanghye” 朗慧.

Much’ak 無著

fl. 821

Silla monk. No clear records remain about his life.

Tae Nanghye hwasang Paegwolpog­ wang chi t’appi 大朗慧和尚 白月荷光之 塔碑, in Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa, p. 134; Jingde chuandeng lu 9.

The Chinese monk Fazhao 法照 composed a poem titled Song Wuzhuo chanshi gui Xinluo guo

Wenyuan yinghua 220. Song gaoseng zhuan 21, 25.

235

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

送無著禪師 歸新羅國. However, there were two Fazhaos in the Tang; one was a Chan monk (821 CE), and another was a Pure Land monk (777 CE). Hyŏnhwang 824 玄晃 Hyŏnuk 玄昱

Silla monk and disciple of Huaihui 懷惲 of the Zhangjing Monastery in Chang’an. He returned from the Tang in 837, and received respect from four successive emperors of Silla. He died in 870 at the age of eighty-two. He was called Tongguk Hyesan 東國慧山, and given the posthumous name “Wŏn’gam” 圓鑒.

Toyun 道允 (道均)

Silla meditation monk. Surnamed Park and lived in Ssangbongsa. When he read the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, which reads, “how could perfect and sudden teachings compare to the mind-sealed

825

Zutangji 17; Jingde chuandeng lu 9.

Jingde chuandeng lu 10 mentions Toyun as Nanquan Puyuan’s disciple.

Haedong ch’ildaerok 海東七代錄, as cited in Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa, pp. 104–105; Jingde chuandeng lu 10.

236

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Silla princes who went to Mt. Wutai for pilgrimage.

No record in Chinese histories.

Samguk yusa 3.

Pŏmil 梵日 831 (品日)

Silla monk, ordained at the age of fifteen. He arrived at the Kaiguo Monastery in Mingzhou, China in 831 and later became a disciple of Yan’guan Qi’an 鹽官齊安. He once returned to Silla and came to the Tang again in 836. In 847, he returned to Silla to establish Kulsansa. He died in 889 at the age of eighty. He is known as Patriarch Kulsan 崛山.

There are discrepancies in Korean sources concerning whether Boemil re-entered the Tang or not.

Samguk sagi 10; Samguk yusa 3; Jingde chuandeng lu 10.

Togyun 道均

Silla meditation monk. Nanquan Puyuan’s disciple.

approach,” he set off to the Tang in search for Dharma. He was a disciple of Nanquan Puyuan 南泉普願 and returned to his country in 847. He died in 866 at the age of seventy-one. Poch’ ŏn 寶川 Hyomyŏng 孝明

827

?

Jingde chuandeng lu 10.

237

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Kim Nŭngyu 831 金能儒 and nine monks

Emperor Hŭngdŏk sent the prince Kim Nŭngyu and nine monks to the Tang.

Samguk sagi 10; Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa, Vol. 1, p. 103.

Kim Ŭijong 836 金義琮

Silla prince. In the first year of Emperor Huigang’s 僖康 reign, the prince was sent to the Tang to express gratitude, and monk Boemil was in company.

Samguk sagi 10

Kakch’e 覺體

?

Silla monk. Disciple of Huaihui 懷惲 of Zhangjing Monastery in Chang’an.

Jingde chuandeng lu 9.

Ch’ejing 體澄

837

A Silla meditation monk. His surname was Kim, from Ungjin. After the ordination, he went to the Tang in 837 and visited various mountains and locations in China. He returned to Silla with P’yŏngnyŏ 平廬 in 840. Emperor Hŏnan 憲安 invited him to the Capital for many times without success. He lived in Gajisansa until he died in 880 at the age of seventy-seven, and was awarded the posthumous name “Pojo” 普照.

Pojo sŏnsa yŏngt’ap pimyŏng 普照 禪師靈塔碑 銘

238

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Chŏngyuk 貞育 Hŏhoe 虛會

837

He went to the Tang with Ch’ejing; the rest is not recorded.

Kaitō no Bukkyō, Ibid. chronology, p. 67. It is likely that the incident of Chŏngyuk was replaced by Chŏnghoe 貞懷, due to its occurrence in the Porimsa ch’angsŏng t’appi 寶林寺 彰聖塔碑. However, the author has never encounteered this inscription, and doubts its authenticity.

Silla monk, also known as Tongguk Silsang 東國實相. He was a disciple of Xitang Zhizang and returned to Silla during the rule of Emperor Hŭngdŏk 興德 while being received by the prince to teach meditation in the court. He was awarded the posthumous name “Chŭnggak” 證覺.

According to Chosŏn’s records, he retuned during the rule of Emperor Hŭngdŏk (742–764), but this does not conform to his dates of entering the Tang, nor his return date.

Hongchŏk 洪直 (陟)

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Chŭnggak taesa pimyŏng 證覺 大師碑銘, Jingde chuandeng lu 9.

239

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Kaji 迦智, Saŏn 忠彥

?

Silla monk. Dharma linage under the third generation of Huirang, Master Fachang 法常 of Mt. Damei, Mingzhou.

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Jingde As Kaji is the chuandeng name of one lu 10. sect of Silla Buddhism, with its headquarter at the Porimsa Monastery on Mt. Kaji, this may be a common way of referring to monks of this sect.

Taemo 大矛

Silla monk. Disciple of Zhichang 智常 from Guizong Monastery in Mt. Lu.

Jingde chuandeng lu 10.

Chirisan hwasang 智異山和尚

Silla meditation monk. Dharma linage under the fifth generation of Huirang, Linji Yixuan 臨濟義玄.

Jingde chuandeng lu 12.

Hŭmch’ung 欽忠

Silla meditation monk. Disciple of Qingzhu 慶諸 in Mt. Shishuang, Tanzhou.

Jingde chuandeng lu 16

Silla sent envoys to the Tang to bring back Buddhist Sūtras and Buddha’s tooth.

Samguk sagi 11.

Ach’an Wŏnhong 阿飡元弘

851

240

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Taet’ong 大通

856

Silla monk. He went to the Tang with Silla’s envoys.

Sunji 順之

858

Silla monk, surnamed Park, also known as Ryoo 了悟. He was ordained at a young age on Mt. Ohkwan. He went to the Tang in 858, and became a disciple of Yangshan Huiji 仰山慧寂. He returned to Silla in 874 and lived in the Yongŏmsa Temple on Mt. Ohkwan and died in his sixty-fifth year.

Kimin 金因

870

He arrived at Tang in 870. The rest is not clear.

Haengjŏk 行寂

870

His surname was Ch’oe and he was a decedent of the Ding Family of Qi. He was ordained at a young age and went to the Tang with envoy Kim Kinyŏng 金緊榮, staying in the Baotang Monastery in Chang’an. He later went to the

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Ch’ungju Taebo sŏn’gwang t’ammyŏng 忠州大寶禪 光塔銘 Hyŏnpŏpsangp’yo 現法相表, extant; Samp’yŏn sŏngbul p’yŏn 三遍成佛篇, exatnt.

Jingde chuandenglu has a different character for Sunji 順至 and the different mountain name of Kugwan.

Jingde chuandeng lu 12; Zutang ji 20.

Samguk sagi 11.

According to the Nanggong taesa Paegwŏl t’appi 朗空大師 白月棲雲塔碑, he arrived at the Tang in 870 and returned to Silla in 885. There is an

Nanggong taesa paegwol t’appi, in Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa, Vol. 1, pp. 168–174; Jingde chuandenglu 16.

241

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Anonymous

Agak 雅覺

860–874

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Huayan Monastery in Mt. Wutai, visited the portrait hall for Master Musang in Chengdu, and worshipped the stupa of the Sixth Chan Patriarch in Caoxi. He was a disciple of Qingzhu (慶諸 in Mt. Shishuang, Tanzhou. When he returned to Silla, Emperor Hyogong 孝恭 respected him as a Preceptor. He lived in Sŏngnamsansa. He died in 916 at the age of eighty-five, and was granted the posthumous name Nanggong 朗空.

inconsistency in the dates and it is possible that he returned to the Tang, but there is no clear evidence of this.

Silla monk.

Yao Hu’s 姚鵠 Wenyuan poem, Songseng yinghua 23. gui Xinluo 送僧歸新羅.

Silla monk.

Zhang Qiao’s 張喬 poems, Songlong [Xin] luo seng 送龍 (新) 羅僧 and Songseng Yajue gui Donghai 送僧雅覺歸 東海. Zhang Qiao was a

Wenyuan yinghua 224; Zhongguo renming dacidian 中國 人名大詞典, p. 954.

242

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Daoist priest of Tang, a hermit in Mt. Jiuhua, and mastered in poetry. Ch’ŏnghŏ 清虛

Silla monk, under the lineage of Master Qingzhu of Mt. Shishuang, Tanzhou.

Jingde chuandeng lu 16.

Kŭmjang 金藏

Silla monk, under the lineage of Master Dongshan Liangjie 洞山良价 in Yuanzhou.

Jingde chuandeng lu 17.

Ch’ŏngwŏn 清院

Silla monk, under the lineage of Jiufeng Daoqian 九峰道虔, Yunzhou.

Jingde chuandeng lu 17.

Waryong 臥龍

Silla monk, under the lineage of Zhiyuan 志元 of Mt. Yungai, Tanzhou. Silla monk, under the lineage of Master Zang 藏 of Mt. Gu, Tanzhou.

Jingde chuandeng lu 17.

Silla monk, under the lineage of Xuefeng Yicun 雪峰義存, Fuzhou.

Jingde chuandeng lu 19.

Sŏam 瑞岩 Paegam 泊岩 Taeryŏng 大嶺 Taemuwi 大無為

Jingde chuandeng lu 17.

243

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Hyŏngmi 逈 (向) 微

891

Silla monk. He studied Chan under Master Hongzhou Daoying 道膺 and returned home in 905. He died in 917, and was granted the posthumous name Sŏn’gak 先覺.

Iŏm 利嚴

894

Secular name Kim, of a Chinese origin. He was ordained at the age of twelve, and then followed the Silla envoy Ch’oe Yehǔi 崔藝熙 to the Tang and studied under Master Daoying. He travelled far, south and north, in China, before returning to Silla in 911. The emperor held him in the inner court of Sana 舍那 and consulted him with political affairs frequently. He was respected by both the court and society, and later he built the Kwangjosa. He died in 936 at the age of sixty-seven, with the posthumous name of Preceptor Chinch’ŏl 真徹.

Composition

Suspicion

Source

There are mentions of Daoying in Chan histories, but he cannot be clearly identified.

Sŏn’gak taesa p’yŏn’gwang nyŏng t’appi 先覺大師遍 光靈塔碑

Powŏl sŭnggong t’appi 寶月 乘空塔碑, Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa, Vol. 1, pp. 163–168.

244

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Unju 雲住

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Silla monk, under the lineage of Master Hongzhou Daoying.

Jingde chuandeng lu 20. Jingde chuandeng lu 2.

Kyŏngyu 慶猷

?

Under the lineage of Hongzhou Daoying. He returned to Silla in 909 and was granted the position of Preceptor. He died in 965, with the posthumous name Pŏpkyŏng 法鏡.

Hye sŏnsa 慧禪師

?

Silla monk, under the lineage of Hongzhou Daoying.

Kŭngyang 兢讓

899

Silla monk, secular surname Wang. He studied Confucian texts in his youth, was ordained at the age of twenty, and then traveled to many places. In 899 he took a boat to come to the Tang and visited Daoyuan 道緣 in Mt. Gu; at this time, he enquired about the core teachings of Shishuang 石霜. He then traveled across China, visited Mt. Wutai, and lived in

Unclear

Jingde chuandenglu 20. Chŏngjin kugsa tap pimyŏng 靜真國師塔 碑銘, Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa, Vol. 1, pp. 151–162.

245

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China Monk name

Year

Activities

Composition

Suspicion

Source

Boyan Monaster, Kangzhou. Silla emperor called him back, and let him reside at the Hoguk chesŏk wŏn Temple in the capital to compose treatises. Soon he returned to his home town just before his death at the age of seventy-seven, with the posthumous name Preceptor Chŏngjin 靜真. Hyŏnhwi 玄暉

906

Silla monk. He returned home after visited Daoqian 道乾 of Pureland School in Mt. Jiufeng.

Ryŏŏm 麗嚴

?

Silla monk, surnamed Kim. He became a monk at Wuliang Monastery in China in 881. He returned to his home country from the Latter Liang in 908. Koryŏ Emperor T’aejo 太祖 treated him respectfully. He lived in the Porisa and died in 929 at the age of sixty-nine.

Chŏngtosa pŏpkyŏng Taesa jadŭng t’appi 淨土寺 法鏡大師慈 燈塔碑 There is another theory, claiming that he returned to Korea in 904—see Kaitō no Bukkyō, p. 27.

Taegyŏng Taesa hyŏn’gi t’appi 大鏡大師玄 機塔碑

246

Huang

(cont.) Monk name

Year

Activities

Minsan 黽山

?

Silla monk, under the lineage of Changqing Hueileng 長慶慧棱, Fuzhou.

Jingde chuandeng lu 21.

Hyeun 慧雲

?

Silla monk, under the lineage of Zhiyuan 志圓, Mt. Baizhao, Anzhou.

Jingde chuandeng lu 21.

4

Composition

Suspicion

Source

The Relationship between Silla Buddhism and Sui-Tang Buddhism

After unifying the Korean Peninsula in 668, Silla was flourishing. Out of political considerations, the ruling class protected Confucianism, while supporting Buddhist and Daoist development at the same time. For the establishment and spread of Silla Buddhism, those Korean monks who visited China played an important role. Numerous monks participated in the translation projects of Xuanzang and Vajrabodhi (669–741), and even participated directly in the sectarian schism in China. They brought back a great amount of Buddhist scriptures and artistic projects, continuing their promotion and study of Buddhism. Some of them built and established mountain temples, and found new schools. After a period of philosophical preparation and institutional organization, several schools with distinct Korean features were formed. The formation and schism of Korean Buddhism roughly began in 668 CE, during Emperor Munmu’s 文武 rule, and ran into the reign of Emperor Hŏndŏk (805– 826), spanning 140 years. This is also a period of sectarian movements in China. Generally speaking, there were three types of Buddhism transmitted from Silla to China—(1) “Doctrinal” Buddhism: preaching and studying Indian and Chinese scriptures. (2) “Practice” Buddhism: promoting the practices of Chinese Chan Buddhism and esoteric Buddhism. (3) Widespread Buddhist cults of Amida Buddha, Avalokiteśvara and Maitreya, which were widespread among the ordinary people.

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China

247

Regarding Chinese Buddhist schools during the Sui and Tang dynasties, there are different opinions among modern scholars, for instance, it is generally accepted that there were doctrinal schools of the Nirvana (Niepan 涅槃), Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (Dilun 地論), Mahāyāna-samgraha (Shelun 攝論), Abhidharma-kośa ( Jushe 俱舍), Abhidharma (Bitan 毗曇), Satyasiddhi-śāstra (Chengshi 成實). In contrast, it is accepted that there were also sectarian schools of Chan, Vinaya, Tiantai, Huayan, Sanlun, Ci’en, Pure Land, and Esoteric Buddhism. Apart from the schools of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and the Abhidharma, all of them were transmitted to Korea at different times, and became influential in different ways. It is generally accepted that there were “five teachings and nine mountains” in Korea. The “five teachings” are those of the Nirvana, Vinaya, Dharma Nature, Hwaŏm (Huayan) and Pŏpsang (Faxiang 法相), and the “nine mountains” refer to the Chan Schools of Silsangsan 實相山, Kajisan 迦智山, Sagulsan 闍崛山, Tongnisan 桐裡山, Sǒngjusan 聖住山, Sajasan 獅子山, Hǔiyangsan 曦陽山, Pongnimsan 鳳林山, and Sumisan 須彌山. Below is a brief introduction of Buddhist schools in Korea: (1) The Nirvana School: This is a sect based on the teachings of the Nirvana Sūtra. It was founded by Podŏk 普德 during the reign of Emperor Muyŏl 武烈 (r. 654–660). Famous monks of the Nirvana Sūtra include Wŏnhyo, Ŭisang, Kyŏnghǔng, Ŭijŏk 義寂, and Taehyŏn 大賢. There are eight major temples of this school, and the headquarters are at Kyŏngboksa. The founder master has eleven eminent disciples, including Musang 無上 and Kŭmch’wi 金趣. (2) The Vinaya School: The principle of this school is the Dharmaguptavinaya (“Vinaya in Four Parts”). It was founded during the reign of Empress Sŏndŏk 善德 (632–646) by Chajang at the Tongdosa, where an ordination platform was also built. He brought disciples, including Sŭngsil, to visit the Tang in 636, and studied Vinayas of the Nanshan system at the Yunji Temple of Mt. Zhongnan. After returning to Korea, and being appointed as the Great Monk Governor, he started to lecture on the “manuals for bodhisattva precepts” at the Bunhwangsa, and modified the Buddhist regulations for Korean monastics. (3) The Hwaŏm School: This school is based on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. There are two branches in Korea: one follows the Chinese doctrines transmitted by Ŭisang, called the Pusŏk School 浮石宗; another is the Haedong School 海東宗 which was created by Wŏnhyo. Ŭisang arrived at the Tang in 661, and then studied under the second Huayan Patriarch Zhiyan 智儼.

248

Huang

After returning to Korea, he was based in the Busŏksa, and promoted Zhiyan and Fazang’s thought to establish the Busŏk School. It was said that three thousand disciples, including everyone from aristocracy to laymen, attended this school. Wŏnhyo’s school is also named Haedong or Bunhwang School, which promoted his Hwaŏm kyŏngso 華嚴經統 and Taesŭng kisin nonso 大乘起信論疏. Wŏnhyo’s followers attempted to harmonize different standing points with the Simmun hwajaeng non 十門和諍論. It had been very popular until the end of Koryŏ Kingdom. (4) The Pŏpsang School: It is also called the Consciousness-Only School, which is based on the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and the Vijñaptimātratā­ siddhi-śāstra. It was founded by the vinaya monk Chinp’yo 真表 at the Geumsansa, and succeeded the Dharma lineage of Xuangzang-Wŏnch’ŭkTojŭng—Kyŏnghŭng—Tojŭng—Kyŏnghǔng. Wŏnch’ŭk stayed in China until he died, spreading Sthiramati’s teachings from India. His disciple Tojŭng wrote the Sŏp taesǔng non Sech’in sŏngnon sŏk 攝大乘論世 親釋論釋 to develop the master’s thought. Following this, Kyŏnghǔng wrote the Sŏng yusingnon ŭigi 成唯識論義記, Yuga nonso 瑜伽論疏, and Sungyŏng wrote the Sŏng yusingnon yogan 成唯識論料簡, which became the doctrinal foundation of Silla’s Pŏpsang School. The latter’s writings were spread in China and regarded as vitally important. (5) The Dharma-Nature School: its mainly focus is the Middle Treatise, the Hundred Treatise, and the Treatise of the Twelve Gates, so as to explicate the meaning of true nature of all dharmas. This school originated early: the monks A’dao and Shundao, from the Eastern Jin, and Tamsi 曇始 from Koguryŏ, promoted the “Three Treatise” since the introduction of Buddhism, even though they were not the founders of this school. During the late sixth century, Monks Sil 實 and In 印 of Koguryŏ advocated the “Three Treatise” avidly. After the Silla unified three kingdoms, Wŏnhyo wrote the Samnon jongyo 三論宗要 and Kwangbaeknon jongyo 廣百論宗要 to continue the advocacy, which, unfortunately, did not last for a long time. Besides the aforementioned five schools, there were also other smaller schools. The relatively more important ones include a) the Sinin School 神印宗 founded by Myŏngnang, transmitting the “Mixed” Esoteric Buddhism, b) the Ch’ongji School 總持宗 founded by Hyetong, transmitting Śubhākarasiṃha’s mantras and tantras, and c) later, Myŏnghyo, Hyeil, Hyech’o, and others transmitted Vajrabodhi and Amoghavajra’s teachings. In addition, other earlier schools, such as the Abhidharma-kośa and the Satyasiddhi-śāstra had been introduced

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China

249

to Korea. It was said that, “upon the arrival of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāsāśāstra, śāstras of the Four Noble Truths began to flourish in four prefectures (in Korea).”10 Important Silla monks, including Wŏnhyo, Kyŏnghŭng, Wŏnch’ŭk and Chŏngwŏn 淨遠, all wrote commentaries on the Abhidharmakośa, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāsā-śāstra, and the Satyasiddhi-śāstra. In this way, the Hīnayāna doctrine of emptiness was spread first to Korea and then to Japan. Approximately a hundred years after Silla unified the Three Kingdoms, Sŏn Buddhism superseded all the other schools mentioned above in Korea from the early ninth century. The reasons of the growth of Sŏn Buddhism were largely due to intellectual backgrounds, as well as profound socio-economic contexts. In the final period of the Silla Kingdom, the feudal system was reinforced, and, because of the increasing exploitation and persecution of farmers and labors from the ruling class, there was a battle. Many monks joined this battle. At the same time, the conflict between the Court and regional powers gradually intensified. During the 150 year period from Emperor Sŏndŏk’s 宣德 (r. 780– 785) reign until Silla’s final Emperor Kyŏngsun 敬順 (r. 927–935), there were cruel slaughters among the royal family. Over twenty emperors succeeded the kingship within a short period. This tension is reflected in the contemporaneous thought. In 682 CE, the Korean court established State Learning, and encouraged the nobilities to study Confucian classics. Confucianism once again became the major ruling ideology. Even though Buddhism was still influential in political and social terms, the “scholastic Buddhism,” which was previously predominant among the aristocrats, could no longer correspond to social needs in Korea. Therefore, two new trends came to existence: the first is the Sŏn School, emphasizing practice, which was attractive among the populace; and the second is the popular cult of Amidabha, Avalokiteśvara, and Maitreya. Towards the end of the Silla kingdom, there was a form of Buddhism which focussed on merit accumulation, which literally combined beliefs of Buddhist retribution, five Daoist elements, and geomancy. This made Buddhism both more localized and mystified. During the Silla period, there were eight sects of the Sǒn School: Silsang, Kaji, Sagǔl, Tongni, Sǒngju, Sajasan, Hǔiyang, and Pongnim. Until the early Koguryŏ kingdom, the Sumisan sect was established; together, these were called the “Nine Mountains of the Sǒn School.” These nine sects have intimate doctrinal relations with the Chinese Chan School. After the Silla unified three kingdoms, Pŏmnang 法朗 was the first person who spread the 10  Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn, Chijŭng taesa pimyŏng.

250

Huang

teachings of the fourth Chinese patriarch Daoxin 道信. Pŏmnang’s disciple Sinhaeng 神行 went to the Tang to study under the fifth patriarch Hongren, and transmitted the Northern School teachings from Hongren and Shenxiu. In addition, Toǔi, Hyech’ǒl, and Hongchŏk went to the Tang to study from Xitang Zhizang 西堂智藏 of Daoyi and Huirang’s lineage and spread the Southern School Chan Buddhism in Korea. After them, Hyech’o, Muyŏm, Hyeil, Towŏn 道元, and Hyŏnhwang also returned to Korea to promote the Southern School Chan Buddhism, which eventually became the mainstream manifestation of Silla Buddhism. The relations between Korean and Chinese Chan schools are as listed earlier. NB: See the “lineage chart of the Nine Mountains Schools” in Kaitō no Bukkyō 海東の佛敎, edited by Nakagiri Isao 中吉功 (Nihon Kokusho Kankōkai, 1974), p. 24. 5 Conclusion (A) The Buddhist interaction between Silla and China is significant in religious, political and cultural terms. Many Korean monks carried their own diplomatic and political missions to China—some were official envoys themselves, and others were guides or interpreters for Silla’s official envoys. They participated in state affairs, either directly or indirectly. For example, monk Wŏngwang was received by King Chinpyŏng of Silla in 608, and was asked to compose the Kŏlsap’yo 乞師表, and present it to Emperor Yang of the Sui, in order to invite the Sui army to defeat Koguryŏ. When the Tang general Li Ji 李勣 defeated Koguryŏ in 668, and was about to attack Silla, King Munmu of Silla sought for help from the Korean Monk Myŏngnang (who had studied in the Tang) and used esoteric Buddhism to solve this crisis. Ŭisang, the founder of Korean Hwaǒm School, studied in China during the time when the Tang Emperor Gaozong was preparing to invade Silla. Ŭisang received a secret edict from Silla envoy Kim Hǔmsun 金欽純 who was detained in China, and was asked to return hastily to Silla in 671 CE to report the plan of invasion to King Munmu. Other monk visitors, such as Ji’myŏng, Wŏngwang, Chajang, Hyech’o, Hyech’ŏl, Muyŏm, Hyŏnhwang, Haengjŏk 行寂, Kŭngyang 兢讓, Ryŏŏm, were treated respectfully by kings of Silla, and also participated in political affairs. For example, Hyech’ŏl was the Preceptor during the reigns of King Kyŏngmun 景文 and Hŏn’gang 憲康. King Hŏn’gang asked for key points for ruling the state, and Hyech’ŏl reported several points which were all essential to the contemporary political climate. Similarly, despite being known

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China

251

as people strolling in the mountains and brooks, Muyŏm still gave helpful responses to queries from the court and proposed beneficial policies for the time. After returning home, Wŏngwang preached the Sūtra of Benevolent King to propagate loyalty to the kings. Overall, Silla’s control of Buddhism is stricter and more thorough than the Chinese Sui and Tang court, as many Korean monk visitors carried out political duties. (B) Following the spread of Buddhism in Silla, Buddhist philosophy, logic, literature, music, painting, architecture and sculptures were imported to Korea. It stimulated her academic and cultural development, which, in turn, made an impact on China. According to the statistics in the Han’guk pulsŏ haeje sajŏn 韓国佛書解題辞典 (Jp. Kankoku bussho kaidai jiten) edited by Tongguk taehakkyo pulgyomunhwa yŏn’guso 東國大學佛教文化研究所, during the Three Kingdoms and Silla Dynasties, there were 47 Buddhist writers, and 377 manuscripts, equal to an quantity of 1,323 scrolls. Famous writers of this period include Wŏnch’ŭk, Wŏnhyo, Ŭisang, Kyŏnghǔng, Hyech’o, Taehyŏn, and Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn. For instance, Wŏnhyo’s Haedongso 海東疏 developed the Hwaŏm thought and was praised by Chinese Huayan master Chengguan 澄觀, who then wrote Houyi Huayanjing shu 後譯華嚴經疏 accordingly. Sunyŏng came to the Tang, studied Buddhist logic under Xuanzang, understood the latter’s “the proof of idealism” (Zhen weishi liang 真唯識量), and then proposed the “mutually conflicting proof” (Jueding xiangwei buding liang 決定相違不定量). Kuiji 窺基 heard this, and lamented “this Silla master possesses a fame spreading in the Tang and such an immense knowledge. . . his doctrinal development is unrivalled.”11 Due to the vast amount of manuscripts accumulated during the Silla period, a solid foundation of Buddhism was established, and, therefore, the incredible cannon Koryŏ taejanggyŏng 高麗大藏經 was compiled during the Koryŏ Dynasty (1237–1251). During the unification period of Silla, a great amount of temples, Buddhist statues, bronze bells, iron pagodas and handicrafts were made. The most famous examples are “Three Treasures of Silla”—1) the nine-storey pagoda, height 325 meters, at the Hwangnyongsa, 2) Buddha statue, 5.33 meters tall, and a painting called Changsipto 長十圖, and 3) a jade banner. Silla’s handicrafts show a trace of Chinese Six Dynasties and Sui-Tang style. For example, the four heavenly kings at the Kamŭnsa Temple, built in 682 CE, resemble those of the Fengxiansi Grotto at the Longmen Grotto site in China. The face and ornaments of the seated stone Buddha statute at Mirŭkkok share a resemblance with the Chinese Jiangnan region. It is also said that the statues located 11  Song gaoseng zhuan 4.

252

Huang

at the Chungsaengsa and Paegsogsa Monasteries are carved by a “marvellous Chinese caster.” Those unique Buddhist craftworks produced in the latter Silla Kingdom were oftentimes brought to, and admired in, China. For example, in the mideighth century, Emperor Kyŏngdŏk 景德 presented a gift of “Ten-Thousand Buddha Mountain,” carved into sandalwood, to Emperor Daizong of Tang. The latter was truly moved, saying “the wonder of Silla’s craftwork is as if coming from heaven.” Silla priests’ ceremonial costumes were adapted from Tang style, as suggested by Chajang, who visited China. Tealeaf was introduced by Korean Hwaŏm masters who visited the Tang, and drinking tea became a common practice among the populace and monasteries thereafter. (C) Before the Chinese liberation, some Chinese and Japanese scholars stated that Silla Budhism was an “extension” or “transplantation” of Chinese Sui-Tang Buddhism. This is untrue. It is beyond question that Silla Buddhism was influenced by China, but the former should be a product of her own sociohistorical circumstances. Hence, Korean Buddhism has its own features and tradition. For example, Won’gwang, who visited China during the late Chen and early Sui Dynasties, promoted the “Three Homage and Five Precepts” after returning home. He interprets the secular Five Precepts as—1) loyalty towards the kings; 2) filial piety towards parents; 3) trust towards friends; 4) non-withdrawal facing a battle; 5) selection in killing living beings. His interpretation is contradictory to Chinese and Indian “non-killing” and “nonharming” doctrines, and it obviously functions as a defence for Silla’s military affairs towards conquering Koryŏ and Paekje. Moreover, Wŏnhyo, the “father of the eight schools,” represents special features of Korean Buddhism in his ample commentaries. He advocated “returning to the origin of one-mind,” and harmonized debates between Buddhist sects. From this angle of harmonizing debates, he criticized Korean and Chinese sectarian doctrines, and scolded Chinese master Zhiyi’s statement of “Five Times and Eight Teachings,” claiming that it is just like “tasting the sea with a spiral shell and looking at the sky from a thin pipe.” His philosophy was also criticized by the Chinese Huayan School. Jingfa Yuangong 静法苑公 regarded his commentaries as “poisonous trees which must be removed.” However, Wŏnhyo’s explanations, targeting realistic problems, as well as his transcendental argumentation, epistemology, harmonizing position, and symbolist rituals have played an important role in Buddhist history.

A Survey Of Korean Monk Visitors In China

253

Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Da Tang gu dade zeng sikong dabianzheng guangzhi Bukong sanzang xingzhuang 大唐故大德贈司空大辨正廣智不空三藏行狀, Zhao Qian 趙遷, T 50. Da Tang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan 大唐西域求法高僧傳, Yijing 義淨, T 51. Da Zhou Ximingsi gu dade Yuance fosheli taming 大周西明寺故大德圓測佛舍利 塔銘, Song Fu 宋複, X. 88. Dongyu Chuandeng mulu 東域傳燈目錄, Yongchao 永超, T 55. Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳, Huijiao 慧皎, T 50. Haedong kosŭng chŏn 海東高僧傳 T 50. Honchō kōsōden 本朝高僧傳, Mangen Shiban卍元師蠻, Dai Nihon Bukkyō zensho 大日本佛教全書, Tokyo: Bussho Kankōkai, 1912–1922. Jingde chuandeng lu 景德傳燈錄, Daoyuan 道原, T 51. Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書, Liu Xu 劉昫 ed., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975. Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教錄, Zhisheng 智昇, T 55. Quan Tang Wen 全唐文, Dong Gao 董誥 ed., Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1990. Ru Tang qiufa xunli xingji 入唐求法巡禮行記, Ennin 圓仁, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1986. Samguk sagi 三國史記, Kim Busik 金富軾, Sŏul: Ŭryu Munhwasa, 1977 Samguk yusa 三國遺事, Iryeon 一然, T 49. Tang huiyao 唐會要, Wang Pu 王溥 ed., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1955. Wenyuan yinghua 文苑英華, Li Fang 李昉 ed., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1966. Xin Tangshu 新唐書, Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 ed., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975. Xinbian zhuzong jiaozang zonglu 新編諸宗教藏總錄 (Sinp’yŏnjejong kojang ch’ongnok), Yuanlu 元錄, T 55. Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳, Daoxuan 道宣, T 50. Zhou shu 周書, Linghu Defen 令狐德芬, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1971. Zhu jing fangxiang zong zhangshu 注進法相宗章疏 (Chūshin Hossō shū shōsho), Zangjun 藏俊, T 55.

Dictionaries

Han’guk pulsŏ haeje sajŏn 韓国佛書解題辞典, Tongguk taehakkyo pulgyomunhwa yŏn’guso 東國大學佛教文化研究所 ed., Tokyo: Kokusho kangyōkai, 1982. Zhongguo renming dacidian 中國人名大詞典, Liao Gailong 廖蓋隆 ed., Shanghai: Shanghai cishu chubanshe and Waiwen chubanshe, 1989–1990.

254

Huang

Secondary Sources

Kanda Kiichirō 神田 喜一郎, Tang Hyŏnsu kugsa chinjŏg gi Silla Ŭisang pŏpsa sŏgo 唐賢首國師真跡寄新羅義湘法師書考, Nanto Bukkyō 南都佛教, no. 26, Nara: Nanto Bukkyō Kenkyūkai, 1971. Yi Nŭng-hwa 李能和, Chosŏn pulgyo t’ongsa 朝鮮佛教通史, Tokyo: Kokusho kankokai, 1918.

CHAPTER 11

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology on the Idea of the Geographical Center in Pre-Modern China Lü Jianfu 呂建福 The idea of the geographical center, including the idea of the natural geographical center and that of the cultural geographical center, shows the ways in which human beings recognize themselves, their geographical environment and their surrounding world. It is often colored by mythological and religious pigments. It is also affected by people’s geographical range of activities, their understanding of the geography of their external world, and their additional geographic knowledge, specific or otherwise. Introduced into China during the Han period (206 BCE–220 CE), Buddhism had been widely spread by the time of the Six Dynasties (220–589 CE), and had shown a significant influence on philosophy and culture in China. As a result of this geographical spread and philosophical and cultural influence, Buddhist cosmology and geography had largely altered the traditional idea that the world’s geographical center was in China, and thereupon deeply influenced the practical geographic knowledge in China. This paper will explore and discuss the profound influence of Buddhism in China, the changes of the concept of the geographical center in China, and some other related issues on Chinese historical geography. 1 People familiarize themselves with their surrounding environment by becoming familiar with themselves and their identities first, taking oneself as the center to recognize the surroundings and their relation to it. This is particularly true when they get to know their geographical environment: they begin from the place they are located in, and then extend to surrounding areas, so as to establish basic concepts of geographical directions, such as the Four Directions (siji 四極) and the Five Places (wufang 五方). People’s understanding of their geographical environment depends on their practice of geographical activities, and this understanding is extended as the range of activities is enlarged. The idea of the geographical center is the primary representation of the practice of geographical activities around the center of which people ©

5 | 

/

256

Lü

are based—any geographic concept and geographic knowledge system would include the idea of the geographical center. From this idea comes the concept of “the central state” (zhongguo 中國). The concepts of “the center of the earth” (zhongtu 中土) and “the central state” exist both in China and India. “The central state” is not only considered as the center of a state or a place, but also as the center of thousands of states in all four directions; even the center of the universe. In the past, people chose the geographical center to establish a state and its capital city. As it is said in Wujing yaoyi 五經要義 [Essentials in Five Classics]: “[When] the monarch receives the mandate to create the beginning, to found a country and to establish its capital, [he] must be located in the center of the earth. By doing so, [he can] collect the harmony of heaven and earth, hold the balance of yin and yang, lead the Four Directions equally, and control thousands of states.”1 This concept is echoed in Faxun 法訓 [Instruction of Regulation] by Qiao Zhou 譙周 (c. 201–270 CE): “the monarch lives in the central state. Why? [It is to] follow the harmony of heaven and earth, so as to unify the Four Directions.”2 It shows that when establishing a country and its capital, choosing the geographical center would not only help unify the world and rule other countries, but also fulfill the requirements of the harmony of heaven and earth and the balance of yin and yang; it thus gives additional cultural and philosophical significance to the idea of the geographical center. Therefore, the idea of the geographical center is different from practical geographic knowledge—it might not fully represent people’s knowledge in the geography of nature, but it shows people’s cultural and philosophical thoughts. Its formation is not only decided by people’s geographical activities, but is also connected to their ideological activities, including mythological and religious imagination, which occasionally comprises a much larger part than practical knowledge. The geographic knowledge, either learnt from geographical activities within people’s accessible range, or by hearing from others, becomes the foundation of people’s geographic ideas. But the geography in areas where people are not able to reach, or hear about (and therefore would be unaware of), would depend on people’s imagination under a certain pattern, which becomes the major factor controlling people’s geographic thoughts. The idea of the geographical center in China had already achieved its complete form in myths and culture in the pre-Qin period (before 221 BCE)—Pangu split heaven and earth; Fuxi and Nüwa created human beings; Huangdi (or the Yellow Emperor) battled against Chiyou; the Great Yu subdued floods. All of 1  See the citation in Taiping yulan 太平御覽, Li Fang 李昉 ed., Zhoujun bu 2 州郡部二, Fascicle 156, Wuhan: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 1994, Vol. 2, p. 316. 2  Ibid., p. 317.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

257

these are the ancient myths that contain rich geographic thoughts. The Five Possessions (wufu 五服), Nine Possessions ( jiufu 九服), Nine Divisions ( jiuzhou 九州), and Twelve Divisions (shi’er zhou 十二州), represent the social systems and cultural geographic concepts in the ancient Three Dynasties (c. 2070 BCE–771 BCE), as well as the geographic ideas with certain boundaries of imagination and prediction. In the Warring States (475–221 BCE), Qin (221– 206 BCE) and the Han period, due to the influence of alchemy, the development of philosophy and astronomy, and the expanding range of people’s geographical activities, there was an enormous change in the fundamental concept of the geographical center in China. For instance, the content of Nine Divisions was extended to contain more mythical ramifications and connotations. It is said in Lüshi chunqiu 呂氏春秋 [The Annals of Lü Buwei] that heaven has Nine Spaces ( jiuye 九野) and earth has Nine Divisions.3 Hetu kuo dixiang 河 圖括地象 [Coverage of Geography in the Hetu Pattern] claims that there are Nine Orbits ( jiudao 九道) in heaven and Nine Divisions on earth; heaven has Nine Spaces ( jiubu 九部) and Eight Orders (baji 八紀); earth has Nine Divisions and Eight Pillars (bazhu 八柱).4 Shiji 史記 [The Records of the Grand Historian] refers to the geographic thoughts of Zou Yan 鄒衍 (c. 305–240 BCE) and states that, under heaven, there are nine times Nine Divisions, thus totaling eighty-one Divisions; of these eighty-one, China is only one, and thus the country is called the Division of Red Land (chixian zhou 赤縣州).5 In between the Divisions, there are small surrounding seas, so that each Division is individually separated, and, expanding the scene further, a massive external ocean surrounds all of these areas, and this is the boundary of heaven and earth.6 3  Lü Buwei 呂不韋, Lüshi chunqiu 呂氏春秋, Fascicle 13, in Zhuzi jicheng 諸子集成 Vol. 6, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1954, p. 124. This text also says: “There was [a time when] the heaven and the earth began, the heaven was formed by the minutes, the earth was formed by the matters; the heaven and the earth integrate harmoniously, [which is] the great rule of birth.” (天地有始，天微以成，地塞以形，天地和合，生之大經也。). 4  See the citation in Taiping yulan, ed. Li Fang, Zhoujun bu 3, Fascicle 157, Wuhan: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 1994, Vol. 2, p. 320. 5  Wang Chong’s 王充 Lunheng 論衡 also quotes Zou Yan, but it reads “chixian shenzhou 赤縣 神州,” so the character “shen 神” is presumably missing in the term chixian zhou here. See Zhuzi jicheng, Vol. 7, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1954, p. 106. 6  The original text is as below: “China is one out of the eighty-first under the heaven. China is named chixian zhou, inside which there are Nine Divisions, as those numbered by [Emperor] Yu, [but they are] not counted as zhou. Outside China, there are nine zhou similar to chixian zhou, and these are the jiu zhou. There are small seas surrounding the zhou, so people, birds and beasts are not able to travel through, which is like being inside a division, thus this is a zhou. There are nine such divisions, and a large ocean surrounds from the outside, that

258

Lü

The idea of the Nine Divisions was well developed in Huainanzi 淮南子, in which the mythological tree Fusang 扶桑 was believed to be the center of the world: “On Fusang, the gods ascend and descend [to and from heaven]. [It] casts no shadow at midday, and there is no echo if one calls, because it is the center of the world.”7 Taking the Fusang tree as the center, heaven had Nine Spaces and Eight Orders, while earth had Nine Divisions and Eight Pillars.8 Outside the Nine Divisions there were Eight Remoteness (bayin 八殥) and Eight Marshes (baze 八澤), beyond which there were Eight Vastness (bahong 八紘) and Eight Plainness (bazheng 八正), beyond which there were Eight Extremes (baji 八極) and Eight Gates (bamen 八門). The Nine Divisions measured a thousand square li, and each of the Eight Remoteness, Eight Vastness and Eight Extremes also measured a thousand square li. In Hetu kuo dixiang, it was suggested that the center of the Nine Divisions is Mount Kunlun, surrounding which there are eighty-one districts in total under heaven. It proclaims: “[Regarding] the allocation of divisions on earth, the one with a lofty shape is Mount Kunlun, the center of which should be in heaven; it is located in the center, surrounded by eighty-one districts, and China is in the southeastern corner as one out of [eighty-one].”9 The theory of Mount Kunlun being the geographical center was established during the Qin and the Han periods, and was related to other popular contemporary theories, including the theory of the egg-shaped universe (huntian 渾天) and the theory of the canopy-shaped universe (gaitian 蓋天). Legends of Mount Kunlun can frequently be seen in pre-Qin texts. It was generally considered as a lofty mountain to the northwest of China; the Jade Pool ( yaochi is the boundary of heaven and earth.” (中國於天下乃八十一分之一耳，中國名赤縣 州，內有九州，禹之序九州是也，不得為州數。中國外，如赤縣州者有九，乃 為九州也。於是有裨海環之，[人]民禽獸莫能相通，如一區中者，乃為一州。如 此者九，乃有大瀛海環其外，天地之極也。) See the citation in Taiping yulan, Zhoujun bu 3, Fascicle 157, Wuhan: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 1994, Vol. 2, p. 321. 7  See the citation in Taiping yulan, Dibu 1 地部一, Fascicle 36, Wuhan: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 1994, Vol. 1, p. 288. 8  Here the Nine Divisions refer to: the southeastern division Shenzhou 神州, which is also called Nongtu 農土; the southern division Cizhou 次州, or Wotu 沃土; the southwestern division Rongzhou 戎州, or Taotu 滔土; the western division Yanzhou 渰州, or Bingtu 并土; the central division Jizhou 冀州, or Zhongtu 中土; the northwestern division Taizhou 臺州, or Feitu 肥土; the northern division Jizhou 泲州, or Chengtu 成土; the northeastern division Bozhou 薄州, or Yintu 隱土; the eastern division Yangzhou 陽州, or Shentu 申土. See Huainanzi 淮南子, Fascicle 4, Zhui xing xun 墜形訓, in Zhuzi jicheng Vol. 7, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1954, p. 55. 9  Huang Hui 黃暉, Lunheng jiao shi 論衡校釋, Fascicle 11.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

259

瑤池) is located there, where the Queen Mother of the West lives and King Mu of Zhou had paid a visit. However, Mount Kunlun changed from being merely a mountain to the geographical center in the Qin and Han texts. For example, Hetu kuo dixiang regards Mount Kunlun as the center of universe: “Mount Kunlun is the center of earth.” “Mount Kunlun is a pillar, [through which] the qi ascends to heaven.” “Underneath, there are eight pillars, each of which measures ten thousand square li, and contains three thousand, six hundred axles that tie up each other, [so] mountains and rivers communicate through cavities.”10 Referring to Mount Kunlun as a pillar, Shenyi jing 神異經 [Classic on Divine Marvels] by Dongfang Shuo 東方朔 (c. 161 BCE–93 CE) asserts that a bronze pillar can be found on the mountain: “There is a bronze pillar on Mount Kunlun. It is as tall as [piercing] onto heaven, [so] it is called the Heavenly Pillar.” This text also says that the perimeter of the Heavenly Pillar is three thousand li, and it has a cutting edge; under the bronze pillar there is a square room, the walls of which measure a hundred zhang.’11 It is also recorded in Long yu hetu 龍魚河圖 [The Hetu Pattern of Dragon and Fish] that Mount Kunlun is the pillar in the center of heaven.12 Hetu kuo dixiang also regards Mount Kunlun as the head of earth: “Mount Kunlun is the head of earth, on which there is the document of controlling [the world]; it is filled with Four Rivers (sidu 四瀆), and horizontally it is the axis of earth; on [Mount Kunlun] there is the guard of heaven, and vertically there are Eight Pillars (bazhu 八柱).”13 This text takes Mount Kunlun as the head of earth, or the center of earth, primarily on the basis of Mount Kunlun’s lofty shape, as its shape resembles a central pillar holding, supporting, and being able to reach heaven. Similarly, Shanghai jing 山海經 [Classic of Mountains and Seas] also regards Mount Kunlun as the center of earth, albeit for an alternative reason—that Mount Kunlun is where the earthly palace of Huangdi (Yellow Emperor) is located, and Huangdi is the Heavenly Emperor of the Center. To quote from Hainei jing 海內經 [Classic of Regions within the Seas]: “Mount Kunlun is fifty thousand li away from the central state, and it is the Heavenly Emperor’s Capital on earth.” It is also recorded in the third section of Xici sanjing 西次三經 [Classic of the Western Mountains]: “the mountain of Kunlun is actually the Emperor’s earthly Capital, and the deity Luwu 陸吾 administrates it.” In a later text titled Sou shen ji 搜神記 [In Search of the Supernatural], it is ­written: “The mountain 10  See the citation in Taiping yulan, Dibu 1, Fascicle 36, Wuhan: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 1994, Vol. 1, p. 285. 11  Ibid., Tian bu 2 天部二, Fascicle 2, Vol. 1, p. 15. Also see Dibu 3, Vol. 1, p. 303. 12  Ibid., Dibu 3, Fascicle 36, Vol. 1, p. 302. 13  Ibid., p. 302.

260

Lü

of Kunlun is the Emperor’s earthly Capital, surrounded by flamed mountains.”14 Here the Heavenly Emperor (or just the Emperor) is referred to as Huangdi, as it is said in Mu Tianzi zhuan 穆天子傳 [Tale of King Mu, Son of Heaven]: “The Son of Heaven ascended onto the mountain of Kunlun, in order to view Huangdi’s palace, and made additional sacrifices on Mount Kunlun.”15 Shuijing 水經 [Water Classic] by Sang Qin 桑欽, written during the Han period, also considers Mount Kunlun in northwestern China as the center of earth: “Mount Kunlun is in the northwest, fifty thousand li away from the lofty [Mount] Song, and is the center of earth.”16 After Buddhism entered China, Buddhist cosmology and geography were integrated with the Chinese idea of the geographical center, and this conceptual merging had an important influence on Chinese geography. Buddhism was brought into China during the Western and Eastern Han periods—Buddhist canons were first translated into Chinese in late Eastern Han, and then spread out widely in the Wei and the Jin periods (220–589 CE). Buddhist scriptures that introduce Buddhist cosmology (the structure of universe) and geography were also introduced and translated during this period. The sutra that is specifically dedicated to, and systematically introduces, the Buddhist theory on the structure of universe and the cause of its creation and destruction, is Loutan jing 樓炭經 (full name: Daloutan jing 大樓炭經; Skt. loka-sthāna). This was translated into Chinese by Dharmarakṣa and then again by Faju, during the reign of Emperor Hui of Western Jin (259–307 CE). Dharmarakṣa’s version was translated on the twenty-third day of the first month in the first year of Tai’an (302 CE), and the text consists of five fascicles.17 Around the same time, Faju also completed his translation, which consists of six fascicles.18 Shiji jing 世記經 [the Sutra of Records of the World], which is the last sutra (18th–22nd 14  Ibid., p. 303. 15  Ibid., p. 302. 16  Li Daoyuan, Shuijing zhu 水經注, Heshui tiao 河水條, Fascicle 1, in the edition proofread by Wang Xianqian, Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 1985, p. 48. 17  According to the Buddhist catalogue Dao’an lu 道安錄 recorded in Fascicle 2 of the Buddhist catalogue Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏記集 [Compilation of Notices on the Translation of Tripitaka] by Sengyou (c. 445–518 CE), this text is noted in the category of Mahāyāna sutras. See the annotated edition published by Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, p. 39. 18  In Fascicle 2 of his Buddhist catalogue Chu sanzang jiji, Sengyou suggested that, according to Bielu 別錄, Faju’s version was also based on the same original text as Dharmarakṣa’s version of five fascicles. However, according to an appendix in Zhu Fahu zhuan 竺法護傳 in Fascicle 13 of Chu sanzang jiji, Faju worked on sutra translations during the reigns of Emperors Hui and Huai; he first finished the translation of Loutan jing 樓炭經, and then co-operated with Fali on the translations of Faju jing 法句經 and Futian jing 福田經;

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

261

fascicles) in Chang ahan jing 長阿含經 (Skt. Dīrghāgama) that was translated by Buddhayasas in the Later Qin period (384–417 CE), is a different translation of the same original text of Loutan jing. Later in the Sui period (581–618 CE), Jñānagupta and Dharmagupta translated the same sutra a second time, now re-titled Qishi jing 起世經 [the Sutra of the Creation of the World] and Qishi yin ben jing 起世因本經 [the Sutra of the Cause of the Creation of the World]. From these new translations, we can see how extensively this sutra on Buddhist cosmology had spread out, and how influential it had become. There are a vast number of scriptures that contain descriptions of Buddhist cosmology, such as Fenbie shijian pin 分別世間品, the fascicle on ‘The World’, in Jushe lun 俱舍論 (Skt. Abhidharma-kośa), translated by Paramārtha first and then by Xuanzang 玄奘. In the Southern and Northern Dynasties (420–589 CE), Sengyou 僧祐 compiled texts on Buddhist cosmology together, from several sutras, including Chang ahan jing, Loutan jing, and Huayan jing 華嚴經 (Avataṃsaka Sūtra), to produce Shijie ji 世界記 [The Records of the World], the first collection in the central plain dedicated to the scriptures on Buddhist cosmology.19 Jinglü yixiang 經律異相 [The Sutras and Vinayas Considered in Their Particularities], which was edited by Baochang 寶唱, also compiles details of Buddhist cosmology, and the ideas of time and space, from sutras. Daoshi’s 道世 Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 [Forest of Gems in the Garden of the Dharma] in the Tang period (618–907 CE) even makes a comparison between Buddhist cosmology and cosmological concepts in China. At the same time, a myriad of sutras only describe one type of Buddhist world, including Foshuo wuliang qingjing pingdengjue jing 佛說無量清淨平等覺經 by Dharmarakṣa, which is an early translation of Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, and Fo sheng Daolitian wei mu shuofa jing 佛升仞利天為母說法經, as well as other later translated works, such as Avataṃsaka Sūtra and the Lotus Sutra; each era had its own work of popularity. As Buddhism was propagated, and its cosmology was increasingly translated and introduced (in particular by many monks who came from India and the Western Regions to preach in China), geographic knowledge and myths from India and the Western Regions were also brought in. Additionally, the Chinese who traveled to India and the Western Regions also investigated the geography there. Consequently, the study on Buddhist geography in China began, marked by the publication of Xiyu zhi 西域志 [Annals of the Western Regions] by Dao’an therefore, it should be in the reign of Emperor Hui (290–306 CE) when Faju translated Loutan jing. 19  The book is lost, but its table of contents and its preface have survived, as recorded in Fascicle 13 of You lu 祐錄 (the other name of Chu sanzang jiji).

262

Lü

道安 in the Former Qin period (351–394 CE).20 When Li Daoyuan 酈道元 annotated Shuijing in the Northern Wei period (386–534 CE), he cited a number of works on Buddhist geography from earlier periods: in addition to Xiyu zhi, he also referred to Fotudiao zhuan 佛圖調傳 [Biography of Fotudiao], Zhu Fawei zhuan 竺法維傳 [Biography of Zhu Fawei], Zhiseng’s 支僧 Waiguo shi 外國 事 [Affairs of Foreign Countries], Zhu Fatai zhuan 竺法汰傳 [Biography of Zhu Fatai], Zhuzhi’s 竺枝 Funan ji 扶南記 [Records of Funan], Kangtai’s 康泰 Funan zhuan 扶南傳 [Accounts of Funan], and Faxian’s 法顯 Foguo ji 佛國記 [The Records of Buddhist Countries], his contemporary. Other works recorded in later catalogues include Dao’an’s Sihai baichuan shuiyuan ji 四海百川水源 記 [The Records of the Origins of Hundreds of Rivers and Four Seas], Tanjing’s 曇景 Waiguo zhuan 外國傳 [Accounts of Foreign Countries], Fasheng’s 法盛 Liguo zhuan 歷國傳 [Accounts of Traveling around Countries], and Zhimeng’s 智猛 Youxing waiguo zhuan 遊行外國傳 [Accounts of Traveling in Foreign Countries]. All these texts show that studies of Buddhist geography were blooming at that time. In the Northern and Southern Dynasties, treatises on Chinese Buddhist geography appeared, such as Luoyang qielan ji 洛陽伽藍記 [The Records of the Monasteries of Luoyang]. In the Sui and the Tang periods, even more works on Chinese Buddhist geography emerged, including Sita ji 寺塔記 [The Records of Monasteries and Pagodas], Tiantaishan ji 天臺山記 [Records of Mount Tiantai], and Gu qingliang zhuan 古清涼傳 [Accounts of the Historical Mount Wutai]. Also, there were many written accounts of India and the Western Regions, among which the most famous would be Xuanzang’s Datang Xiyu ji 大唐西域記 [Great Tang Records on the Western Regions]. Also, Daoxuan’s 道宣 Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方志 [A Gazetteer of Śākyamuni’s World], in the Tang period, by titling the book “gazetteer,” provides a review on Buddhist cosmology and geography, and, thus, together with Xuanzang’s work, became the two masterpieces representing the greatest achievement of the study on Buddhist geography in China. The construction of the universe in Buddhism borrows the idea from Hindu legends that Sumeru (literally “wonderful highest mountain”) is the center 20  This scripture by Dao’an was first seen as catalogued in his own work Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理眾經目錄 [Bibliographical Catalogue Comprehensively Arranging the Sutras]. Accordingly, Sengyou catalogued Dao’an’s scripture as “Xiyu zhi of one fascicle” in his Xinji Angong zhujing ji zajing lu 新集安公注經及雜經錄 in Chu sanzang jiji. Later Buddhist catalogues such as Zhangfang lu 長房錄 and Neidian lu 內典錄 also recorded it. The scripture is lost, but the section quoted by Shuijing zhu has fortunately been passed down, allowing us to have an insight as to its content. It is mostly titled as Shishi Xiyu ji 釋氏西域記, or Shishi Xiyu zhuan 釋氏西域傳, or Shishi Xiyu zhi 釋氏西域志.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

263

of the universe, but the “universe” constructed in Buddhism is a multivariate structure with several layers. Taking Sumeru as its center, a world is composed of Nine Mountains, Eight Seas, Four Continents, Eight Seas of Virtue (ba gongde hai 八功德海), the ring of iron mountains (Skt. Cakravāla), and finally the sun and the moon. A thousand of such a world forms a small chiliocosm (xiao qian shijie 小千世界); a thousand of these small chiliocosms forms a medium chiliocosm (zhong qian shijie 中千世界), and a thousand of these medium chiliocosm forms a great chiliocosm (da qian shijie 大千世界), which is also called one Buddha-world of three thousand (Skt. tri-sahasra-mahā-sahasra-lokadhātu). In addition to all this, Sumeru rests on a metal circle which is above the water circle, which is above the wind circle, which rests on space itself. Buddhism believes that the universe consists of a multitude of such great chiliocosms; the universe is vast with no boundary, and it is endlessly multiplied. However, in Mahāyāna Buddhist canons, there are also other various different Buddhist worlds that may not be included in these systems of great chiliocosms—for instance, the geography of the ordinary world that human beings live in is also involved in Buddhist cosmology. Specifically, the Four Continents—the eastern Pūrva-videha, western Apara-godānīya, northern Uttarakuru, and southern Jambudvīpa—in the Saha World, (which is taught by Śākyamuni Buddha), is where all the living beings dwell in. The Shah World is ruled by the four Chakravartin (literally ‘wheel-turning’) Kings—the kings of a wheel of gold, a wheel of silver, a wheel of copper, and a wheel of iron. Among the Four Continents, Jambudvīpa, the southern land mass, is considered as the earth that human beings now live on—it measures two hundred and eighty thousand square li, with a wider northern edge and a narrower southern edge; it takes the shape of a wheel, and the field looks like a human’s face.21 In Buddhism, it is believed that there is a vast lake named “Lake Anavatapta” (literally “heat-free lake”), in the center of Jambudvīpa.22 This lake is located 21  Regarding the measurement and shape of Jambudvīpa, there are various different descriptions, but here I have followed the version in Loutan jing. It is said in Shijia fangzhi that from north to south this area measures two hundred and eighty thousand li, but in Jushe lun it is said that three of its coasts measure the same, and it is shaped like a cart, so each of the three coasts is two thousand yojanas long, while the southern coast is only three and a half yojanas long. 22  The Chinese name of the lake is “a nou da 阿耨達,” a transliteration of its Sanskrit name Anavatapta. It has also been transliterated as “a nou da duo 阿耨達多.” In Datang Xiyu ji, Xuangzang transliterated it into “a na po da duo 阿那婆答多” with an explanation that, in Chinese, it means “no torment by heat,” and he pointed out that the earlier transliterations were inaccurate. See the preface to the Datang Xiyu ji, annotated by Ji Xianlin, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2000, Vol. 1, p. 39, and footnote 1 on p. 41.

264

Lü

to the south of the Incense Mountain, and to the north of the Himalayas, and it measures eight hundred li in circumference, and is bordered by gold, silver, glass and crystal. The water of the lake is cool, and gold sands are widespread, and, also, the Anavatapta Dragon lives in its depths. Four rivers flow out from four sides of the lake: from the eastern mouth of silver ox flows River Gaṅgā into the southeastern sea; from the southern mouth of golden elephant flows River Sindhu into the southwestern sea; from the western mouth of glass horse flows River Caksu into the northwestern sea; from the northern mouth of crystal lion flows River Sīta into the northeastern sea.23 The mountain where Lake Anavatapta lies is called the Anavatapta Mountain (a nou da shan 阿耨達山), literally translated as ‘heat-free mountain’. It is said in Dao’an’s Xiyu zhi that ‘above the great Anavatapta Mountain there is a great deep lake; its palaces and pavilions are magnificent’.24 Accordingly, the Anavatapta Mountain is taken to be the center of Jambudvīpa,25 and, since then, the ideas in Buddhist cosmology that the Anavatapta Mountain was the center of the world, and the Chinese notion that, Mount Kunlun was the center of the world became related,26 and thus went on to influence the development of Chinese historical geography.

23  Regarding the details of Lake Anavatapta, there are various different descriptions—here I follow the version in the preface to Xuanzang’s Datang Xiyu ji. River Gaṅgā refers to the Ganges; River Sindhu refers to the Indus; River Caksu refers to the Amu Darya; River Sīta refers to River Yarkand and River Tarim. See Datang Xiyu ji, annotated by Ji Xianlin, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2000, Vol. 1, footnotes 6–9 on p. 42. 24  See the citation in Shuijing zhu, Heshui tiao, Fascicle 1, in the edition proofread by Wang Xianqian 王先謙, Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 1985, p. 50a. 25  In some other resources, the location of Lake Anavatapta is suggested as the top of Himalayas (xue shan 雪山, literally “snowy mountain”), as seen in Shiji jing 世記經 inside Chang ahan jing 長阿含經, in Qishi jing 起世經, in Qishi yinben jing 起世因本經, and in Daoshi’s Fayuan zhulin. In Da loutan jing, the location is translated as “the king of winter” (dong wang 冬王), which also implies the meaning of snowy mountain. Another suggestion is that the lake is at the top of the Incense Mountain, as can be seen from Daoxuan’s Shijia shipu 释迦氏谱 and in Xu Gaoseng zhuan. 26  In China, Sumeru was also suggested as being Mount Kunlun. For example, in the fascicle on Maming pusa 馬鳴菩薩 in the Lotus Sutra translated by Kumārajīva, it says: “this is Sumeru of the four continents, which is Mount Kunlun in Chinese” (See Fascicle 30). Also, in Shijia fangzhi, it quotes from Shizhou ji 十洲记 [Records of the Ten Islands], by Dongfang Shuo, that Mount Kunlun is a hundred and thirty thousand li away from the Hai 亥 region in the North Sea, thus “it probably refers to Sumeru in Buddhist sutras” (See Fascicle 1).

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

265

2 Along with the wide spread of Buddhism, the idea of Lake Anavatapta, or the Anavatapta Mountain, as the center of Jambudvīpa, progressively influenced the Chinese idea of Mount Kunlun as the center of the world, and so people consequently believed that the Anavatapta Mountain in Buddhism referred to Mount Kunlun, and that the Yellow River originated from Lake Anavatapta. From then on, the idea of Mount Kunlun being the center of the world was transformed from the intangible realms of mythology to practical geographic knowledge, and the religious geographic theory in Buddhism was also gradually embodied in geographic theory and practice. The earliest work which takes Mount Kunlun as the Anavatapta Mountain was Fanmoyu jing 梵摩渝經 (Brahmāyu Sutra) translated by Zhi Qian 支謙 during the third century. This text says that the Buddha preached in eight different languages, so Śakra, and all the deities, including the deities of earth and dragons in seas, rulers and subjects, all came to worship and listen to his teachings: “[when] the sound of preaching came into [their] ears, each [of them] understood it by heart, as it was in their own languages. The Buddha’s enlightenments and wisdoms are like River Kunlun, which thousands and millions of rivers originate from; [all these] rivers are overflowing, but River [Kunlun] does not lose any little drop, and yet the Buddha’s enlightenments are even better than that.”27 Here the text compares the Buddha’s wisdom to River Kunlun, which thousands and millions of rivers depend on (thus it seems that River Kunlun was considered as the source of all rivers in the world). However, there was no River Kunlun in China, nor was it used in metaphors for enlightenments and wisdom. Instead, the so-called ‘River Kunlun’ can be taken to refer to the water of Anavatapta: as seen in Loutan jing, each of the Four Rivers that flow out of Lake Anavatapta consist of five hundred rivers, which go around the Anavatapta Dragon and then flow into the Four Seas. Anavatapta means “free from the torment by heat.” For a description of the Anavatapta Dragon, it is said in Loutan jing that this creature is known for being free from three specific kinds of distress that plague other dragons, specifically, torments from fiery sands, fiery air, and being preyed upon by Garuda birds.28 In Buddhist teachings, distress is considered as the opposite to wisdom, thus “being free from distresses” equals to “having enlightenments and wisdoms.” 27  Zhi Qian trans., Fanmoyu jing 梵摩渝經, in T 1, No. 76, p. 884b. Another version of translation of the same sutra is Fanmo jing 梵摩經, No. 61 in Fascicle 41 of Zhong ahan jing 中阿 含經 translated by Samghadeva, but there is no such content in this version. 28  Fali 法立 trans., Da loutan jing, Yanfuli pin 閻浮利品, Fascicle 1, T 1, No. 23, pp. 278c–279a.

266

Lü

The use of the name “River Kunlun” is also used in Fo ban nihuan jing 佛般泥洹經 [the Sutra of the Buddha’s Nirvāṇa] translated by Bai Fazu 白法 祖 in the Western Jin period (265–316 CE), in which there is such a gāthā: “none of the rivers are able to overtake River Kunlun; none of its waters are able to overtake the sea.”29 Within the pages of Fo nihuan jing 佛泥洹經 [the Sutra of the Buddha’s Nirvāṇa] (another translation of the same sutra dated in the Eastern Jin (316–420 CE)), there is a similar gāthā saying: “none of the known rivers are able to overtake River Kunlun; none of the known waters are able to overtake the sea.”30 Considering that the largest and most widely known river in India should be the Ganges and the Indus, the only possible river that is able to overtake them would, therefore, be the water of Anavatapta—the origin of the Four Rivers. Consequently, it is safe to assume that “River Kunlun” is the corresponding translation of the water of Anavatapta—in other words, they are the same entity. Among the translated sutras, it is Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing 佛五百弟 子自說本起經 [the Sutra of the Buddha’s Five Hundred Students Talking of Their Own Origins] (translated by Dharmarakṣa during the Western Jin), that is the one which clearly refers the Anavatapta Mountain to Mount Kunlun, because there is a text which precedes the translation akin to a preface, and it reads: “regarding the Anavatapta Dragon, whose name in Chinese is Wufen, or ‘fire-free’, it became a bodhisattva when the Buddha was alive. It has the characteristics of a great savage, and it dwells in Mount Kunlun. [From] the palatial halls that this dragon lives, the origins of five rivers are all in view. There is a pool of eight flavors, [in which] grow flowers of seven colors, and whoever drinks this water would instantly know his or her fate.”31 In the preface to Fo xing qixing jing 佛興起行經 [the Sutra of the Cause of Creation Taught by the Buddha] dated to the same period, it is also stated clearly that the Anavatapta Mountain refers to Mount Kunlun: “Mount Kunlun is the center of Jambudvīpa. The mountain is full of precious stones; around [the mountain] there are five hundred caves, all [made of] gold, where five hundred arhats usually live. Lake Anavatapta surrounds the mountain. Inside the mountain there is a flat plain, on which there is a river. On the riverbank there are four gold beast heads, from the mouths of which flow out rivers; each [river] circles a round and goes back to its side respectively, and then goes into Four Seas. The one from the elephant’s mouth is the Yellow River. The Lake is a square with twenty-five yojanas of each side in length, and is twenty-one li in depth. Inside the Lake there is a 29  Bai Fazu trans., Fo ban nihuan jing, Fascicle 2, T 1, No. 5, p. 174a–b. 30  Fo nihuan jing, Fascicle 2, T 1, No. 6, pp. 189c–190a. 31  Dharmarakṣa trans., Fo wubai dizi zishuo benqi jing, T 4: 190a.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

267

gold terrace of one square yojanas. On the terrace there is a gold lotus, the stem of which is made of seven treasures. Tathāgata often gives teachings there to the five hundred arhats on the fifteenth day of the month.”32 The Fo xing qixing jing is also the earliest text which takes the river from the elephant’s mouth as the Yellow River. It is also shown in the texts mentioned above that the sutra translators in the Wei and the Jin periods had already referred the Anavatapta Mountain as Mount Kunlun. Also, based on the idea that the Yellow River originates from Mount Kunlun, they believed that Lake Anavatapta was the source of the Yellow River. Here, the idea of Anavatapta as the world’s center, and the notion of Mount Kunlun being the world’s center, began to integrate with each other. In the Eastern Jin and the Sixteen States periods (304–439 CE), the idea that “the Anavatapta Mountain refers to Mount Kunlun and the Yellow River originates from there” also appeared in many works on Buddhist geography. For example, Fotudiao’s travel accounts from India made a record of Lake Anavatapta and its river system, and believed that the Anavatapta Mountain appears to be what is called Mount Kunlun in China.33 In Funan zhuan by Kangtai, it is also believed that “the Anavatapta Mountain is Mount Kunlun.”34 It also says: “the origin of the Ganges is in the far Northwest, from [Mount] Kunlun. In the mountain there are five great origins, and all waters are divided from these five great sources.”35 By comparing the descriptions of Indian geography and its river systems in Fotudiao zhuan and Funan zhuan, Dao’an argued that the Anavatapta Mountain refers to Mount Kunlun, and he produced Xiyu tu 西域圖 [Map of the Western Regions] to show to his fellow student Fatai 法汰. However, Fatai doubted its accuracy, because he considered that Mount Kunlun must be located even beyond foreign regions—his reasoning was that, if Mount Kunlun were merely several thousand li away to the south of Dunhuang, how was it that so many famous people, from the Han dynasty to 32  Kang Mengxiang trans., Fo xing qixing jing, T 4, No. 197, p. 163c. The paragraph is seen in Jinglü yixiang 經律異相, Fascicle 3, and is noted as cited from Fascicle 1 of Fo xing qixing jing. This sutra consists of two fascicles. It is catalogued in “the miscellaneous collection whose translator is unknown” section in You lu, and it has a different translation version (with a different title by a different translator), as well as another translation version with selected sections only. Some of the later catalogues, such as Wu lu 吳錄, record it as translated by Kang Mengxiang. 33  See the citations preceding and following Heshui tiao in Shuijing zhu, Fascicle 1, Wang Xianqian, ed. Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 1985. 34  See the quotation from Dao’an, Ibid. p. 56. The same quotation can also be seen in Shijia fangzhi by Daoxuan, Fascicle 1, T 51: 949b. 35  See the citation in Heshui tiao in Shuijing zhu, Fascicle 1, Wang Xianqian, ed., p. 51a.

268

Lü

present, did not know where it was? A reply from Dao’an came in the form of a quote from King Mu of Zhou, as he replied to the Queen Mother of the West at the Jade Pool beside Mount Kunlun: “according to Mu Tianzi zhuan, King Mu toasted to the Queen Mother of the West at the Jade Pool beside Mount Kunlun, and it was here that he said that [Mount Kunlun is] ten thousand and a hundred li away from Capital Zongzhou and the Chan and Jian rivers. It is just like what Fotudiao suggested, isn’t it? Now you can see from this Zhuan that it was not unknown to people in the past. From now on, [you] should know Mount Kunlun as the heat-free mountain, [so] how could you say it is beyond foreign regions?”36 In the light of such writings, it seems clear that, at that time, there was a debate among scholars regarding whether the Anavatapta Mountain should be referred to Mount Kunlun—before Dao’an, Fotudiao and Kangtai had suggested that the two mountains should be the same place, and Dao’an also supported this idea in his Xiyu zhi. When Li Daoyuan in Northern Wei annotated on Shuijing, he combined the achievements of both theories from India-Western Regions and from China. Based on traditional Chinese geography, he accepted and summarized the idea that the Anavatapta Mountain refers to Mount Kunlun, and that the Yellow River originates from there. He intensively cited the works on Buddhist geography, and examined the geography suggested in Buddhism, including the main rivers which originated from Lake Anavatapta, as well as their tributaries and valleys. Among the works on Chinese geography, Shuijing zhu probably contains the most detailed research on the geography and river systems of India and the Western Regions. Within the volume Shuijing zhu, the most quoted work on Buddhist geography is Dao’an’s Xiyu zhi (quoted in it 21 times). Dao’an’s Xiyu tu, and his discussion with Zhu Fatai, were also quoted. The other quoted works include Faxian zhuan 法顯傳 [Biography of Faxian], Zhu Fawei zhuan, Fotudiao zhuan, Kangtai zhuan 康泰傳 [Biography of Kangtai], Funan zhuan, Funan ji, Waiguo shi, and Guo Yigong’s 郭義恭 Guang zhi 廣志 [General Annals]. Shuijing zhu also shows the influence of Buddhist geography on Chinese geography. After using a large amount of references and comparing the two theories in India and China, Li Daoyuan generally agreed in with the works on Buddhist geography, such as those by Dao’an, and was convinced that the Anavatapta Mountain was Mount Kunlun, and the Yellow River originated from there. For instance, when he cited from Xiyu zhi that “above the great Anavatapta Mountain there is a great deep lake; palaces and pavilions are magnificent,” Li Daoyuan commented that this mountain is Mount Kunlun.37 36  Ibid., p. 56c. 37  Ibid., p. 50a.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

269

Another example is, when Li Daoyuan quoted the paragraph of when King Mu was ascending the mountain of Kunlun to view the palace of Huangdi, he commented: “the palace of Huangdi is the Anavatapta palace.” With this in mind, Li Daoyuan extensively studied the river system which originated from the Anavatapta Mountain. In particular, he examined the river systems of the Ganges, the river systems going north into the inlands of the Western Regions, and their relationship with the Yellow River. He went through the legends of Mount Kunlun, and suggested that there were multiple origins of the River. He also argued that the Yellow River originated from Amne Machin ( Jishi shan 積石山) beyond the Great Wall in the West. However, Li Daoyuan also criticized the works on Buddhist geography, such as those by Dao’an, on the grounds that they often used the Chinese geographic works as evidence without selection and verification: “I examined Buddhist works, [which] do not show good evidence. Mu Tianzi [zhuan], Zhu shu 竹書 [Bamboo Annals], and Shanhai jing, these treasures had been buried for ages; some parts might have been lost, and the orders might be wrong; it is difficult to edit them and put them together. They were likely to have been compiled falsely by later generations, and mostly went far away from original meanings. As for visiting places and investigating rivers, [the real situation] does not match the sutras; [after] checking distances and verifying journeys, it is for certain that [they] do not match. Buddhist [works] are no longer based on the great interest that all of them used to possess, [which was] to state the details so as to discern [right and] wrong. [This is] not [what I am] satisfied with.”38 Li Daoyuan also examined and doubted the many statements about Mount Kunlun. He pointed out that the mountain of Kunlun in the northwest, mentioned in Shanhai jing, had been annotated by Guo Pu 郭璞 that this is another small Kunlun. The “Kunlun” in Huainanzi, which is said to have auspicious grain growing on its summit, to have palatial gates, and to be the origin of rivers, however, is “seemingly similar to Fotudiao’s statements.” Regarding the description “Mount Kunlun fifty thousand li away” in Dongfang Shuo’s Shizhou ji 十洲記 [Records of the Ten Islands], it is difficult to say this mountain is the one mentioned in Fotudiao zhuan or Kangtai zhuan. Li Daoyuan, therefore, came to a conclusion: “Regarding the rivers in the universe, the big ones are not necessarily great [in terms of flow], the small ones are not necessarily fine [in terms of flow], the existing ones do not necessarily have [water], and the hidden ones do not necessarily have no [water], [so] a wide [range of variations] is included. Among [these variations] there are different regions bearing the same name, or the names are confusing, [the 38  Ibid., p. 56c.

270

Lü

cases of which] are not few.”39 Therefore, the Mount Kunlun that Li Daoyuan identified as the Anavatapta Mountain from which the Ganges originated, and its related mythology, was denounced. Concerning the source of the Yellow River, Li Daoyuan proposed the theory of not one, but multiple sources: “I examined all the books, which all claim that the [Yellow] River comes out of Kunlun with multiple origins, and secretly developed; it is enveloped at Lop Nur, and goes into the sea. Therefore it is said in Luoshu 洛書: ‘the [Yellow] River is from Kunlun, and comes out in Chongye 重野.’ It is talking about this. [When it] arrives at Amne Machin, it becomes a river of China. Therefore, it is said by Cheng Zi’an in his book Dahe fu 大河賦 [Ode to the Great River]: ‘viewing the splendor of hundreds of rivers, none is more magnificent than the Yellow River. [It is] enveloped under the lofty peak of Kunlun, and emerges from the high and steep mountains of Amne Machin.’ It is said in Shishi Xiyu ji: ‘the [Yellow] River goes underground from Lop Nur, running secretly, and reappears in Amne Machin in the south.’ But the text here seems to be in the wrong order, as Amne Machin should be at the downstream of Lop Nur.” After flowing out from the Anavatapta Mountain, according to Li Daoyuan’s study, the Yellow River goes south into the Pamir Mountains, and from there it goes out and flows northeast. The River has not only two, but three origins. One of the origins is the Pamir Mountains in southwestern Juandu 捐毒; the second comes from the southern mountain in the Kingdom of Khotan (Yutian guo 於闐國), and goes north to merge into the river from Pamir; the third is from northeastern Kunlun, and is called the river of Dunhong. This river goes west to meet the big Yellow River and flows into Lop Nur. The river, from all three origins, merges into Lop Nur, runs underground in the south of Dunhuang and Zhangye, and then reappears in the stone gate under Amne Machin. Li Daoyuan’s theory of the River’s origins has been demonstrated to be wrong, however, by several investigations carried out during the Tang, Yuan (1271– 1368), and Qing (1644–1911) dynasties, as well as in modern times. However, his geographic arguments, in reference to Buddhist cosmology and geography, had greatly impacted Chinese geographic ideas and theories, and had thus been passed along for many generations. Li Daoyuan made his judgment, as a geographer, that Mount Kunlun is the Anavatapta Mountain, and the geographical center—this idea was then regarded as the final conclusion both by monks and laymen in later generations. Following this, Buddhist cosmology, and its idea of the geographical center, was widely accepted. In comparison, the traditional myths of Mount Kunlun were absorbed into Buddhist cosmology and replaced by practical 39  Ibid., p. 57c.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

271

geographic theories, and gradually disappeared over time. After Li Daoyuan’s work, Baochang edited Jinglü yixiang, in which he followed the description in the preface to Xing qixing jing 興起行經 and believed that Mount Kunlun was the center of Jambudvīpa, and that Mount Kunlun was where the five hundred arhats live. Referring to Buddhist sutras, the works by Kangtai and Xuanzang, as well as other geographic works on the central plain, Daoxuan’s Shijia fangzhi also takes Mount Kunlun as the Anavatapta Mountain where the River originates from: In the center of Jambudvīpa there is a large lake named Anavatapta, or ‘free from the torment of heat’ in Chinese. It is what is called ‘a nou da chi’ in sutras. It is to the south of the Incense Mountain and north of the Himalayas; located on top of the mountains, it is not accessible by commoners. It also says: [If] looking for the nearer Mount Kunlun, it is in the territory of Xiliang 西涼 and Jiuquan, where King Mu met the Queen Mother of the West and got hold of its map. If [looking for] the farther Mount Kunlun, it is between the Incense Mountain and the Himalayas, from where the [Yellow] River originates. Therefore it is said in Erya 爾雅: “the [Yellow] River comes out from the mountain of Kunlun.” Guo Pu’s eulogy in Tu says: “Kunlun [has] three layers and is called the Heavenly Pillar. Actually [it] is the spiritual house of the water that the River sources from.” It is said in Yugong 禹貢 that [the Great Yu] directed the River from Amne Machin, [which was] just to name it after the place that the hidden river comes out of. If searching for the origin, indeed there is an origin.”40 This is also a generally acknowledged idea established by Li Daoyuan. In another work by Daoxuan, Shijia shi pu 释迦氏谱 [Genealogical Record of Sakyatnuni], it says: “in the center of Jambudvīpa there is the Incense Mountain, an alternative name of Kunlun. This mountain is the only high mountain and the highest on the continent. To the south of the mountain there is a lake named Anavatapta, which means being free from the torment by heat.”41 It refers the Incense Mountain to the Anavatapta Mountain. In Daoxuan’s Xu Gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 [Further Biographies of Eminent Monks], in the biography 40  Daoxuan, Shijia fangzhi, Fascicle 1, T 51: 949b–c. 41  Daoxuan, Shijia shi pu, T 50: 87.

272

Lü

of Xuanzang, it is recorded that Xuanzang had traveled to the Kingdom of Zaoli (Zaoli guo 皂利國), climbed up to the highest peak of the Himalayas, and said: In Jambudvīpa, this area [has] a forest of mountains. How to know [this is the center]? Taking the area to the west as an example, the plains in Persia are vast and boundless; searching for steep [mountains] to the east, there is no sign of an ending; looking north, broad fields are wild and deserted; to the south it is a plateau beside a lake in India; the so-called ‘Incense Mountain’ in sutras. Lake Anavatapta is [so] deep [that] it is unable to discover its source. All four rivers originate from this [place]. The socalled ‘mountain of Kunlun’ in Erya should refer to this one, why not? As for Yugong, which says that the [Yellow] River comes from Amne Machin, it was just talking about the place where the hidden river reappears. To search for the origin of the River, Zhang Qian 張騫 visited Bactria (Daxia 大夏). [He] had already been beyond [the places described in] the classics [that he] relied on, but he still did not mention the beginning of the river’s origin, as you can see.42 However, if Xuanzang had such an experience, and these words were said by him, they cannot be found in any of the following texts—[Datang] Xiyu ji, or Datang Daci’ensi Sanzang fashi zhuan 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 [Biography of the Tripitaka Master of the Monastery of Great Compassionate Blessings in Great Tang], or Datang gu Sanzang Xuanzang fashi xingzhuang 大唐故三藏 玄奘法師行狀 [Accounts of the Late Tripitaka Master Xuanzang of the Great Tang]. As for the words in the text, that Xuanzang said “something alike” (suggesting that the words were falsified or altered), they could have been, instead, said by Daoxuan himself. On the issues of the center of Jambudvīpa and the origin of the River, Xuanzang had a discussion in the preface of Datang Xiyu ji: “the center of Jambudvīpa is Lake Anavatapta. In Chinese it means ‘free from the torment by heat’. It used to be translated into ‘a nou da chi’, which was wrong. It is to the south of the Incense Mountain and north of the Himalayas, and it measures eight hundred li in circumference.” “From the mouth of crystal lion in the north of the Lake flows River Sīta. It used to be translated as ‘situo he’ 私陁河, which was wrong. It circles once around the Lake and goes into the northeastern sea. There is a legend that a hidden river runs underground and comes out in Amne Machin; this refers to River Sīta, and it is the source of the rivers in China.”43 Xuanzang did not, eventually, come to a 42  Daoxuan, Xu Gaoseng zhuan, Fascicle 4, T 2: 453. 43  Xuanzang, Datang Xiyu ji, annotated by Ji Xianlin, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2000, p. 39.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

273

c­ onclusion on the origin of the River. In Beishan lu 北山錄 [A Record of North Mountain] written by Shenqing from Huiyi Monastery in Zizhou in the Tang period, the first section describes the beginning of heaven and earth, and it reads: “the [Yellow] River originates from Mount Kunlun, and runs underground in Amne Machin. Directed by [Da] Yu, it goes through China, and flows into the sea. It is one of the rivers from Lake Anavatapta. This lake goes across seven Black Mountains in the north of mid-heaven. It is close to the north of the Himalayas and south of the Incense Mountain, and is between the two mountains.” Huibao 慧寶, a monk from Caoxuan Monastery in the Later Shu period (405–413 CE), annotated here: “today the Yellow River is from Lake Anavatapta.” “Mount Kunlun, from which the Yellow River originates, is in the state of Dayangtong (Dayangtong guo 大羊同國). In Tibetan (Tubo 吐蕃) language, Mount Kunlun is named Mount Menmoli 悶摩棃, or Purple Mountain in translation. [From here,] Chang’an is five thousand li in distance in the east. According to the biography of Zhang Qian, [he] traveled to Bactria to look for the River, and discovered a stick made of Qiong bamboo [which only grows in Shu], [so] he knew it is connected to Shu. Only Du You’s 杜佑 Tongdian 通典 [Comprehensive Institutions] is accurate.”44 Huibao located Mount Kunlun in the state of Dayangtong and explained its name in Tibetan language, showing that he absorbed the knowledge from the Tibetan in the Tang period. Daoists and Confucian scholars were also greatly influenced by Buddhist geography, and vice versa, Shijia fangzhi makes several references to Daoist works: “the Daoist scripture Zaoli tiandi ji 造立天地記 [The Records of Creating Heaven and Earth] says that Mount Kunlun is four thousand and eight hundred li in height. Also, Zhuanxing jiku jing 轉形濟苦經 [Classic on Transforming to Relieve Suffering] says that Mount Kunlun is nineteen thousand li in height and flies in air, and that in thirty li to the south of Mount Kun [ie. Mount Kun in Daoist texts refers to Mount Kunlun] there are a thousand Mount Kun in sequence, which are called small chiliocosms. Huahujing 化胡 經 [Classic on Converting the Barbarians] says that Mount Kun is nine layers high, and the distance between [every two layers] is nine thousand li; or the height [of Mount Kun] is a hundred million and five thousand li.”45 Regarding “a thousand Mount Kun in sequence called small chiliocosms,” obviously this concept is copied from Buddhism. Guang Hongming ji 廣弘明集 [An Extended Collection for Propagating Enlightenment] also refers to Daoist works: “Laozi xisheng jing 老子西升經 [Laozi’s Scripture of Western Ascension] says that the master traveled to India and nicely achieved Nirvāṇa. In Fuzi 符子 it is said 44  Shenqing 神清, Beishan lu 北山錄, Fascicle 1, T 52: 576b. 45  Daoxuan, Shijia fangzhi, Fascicle 1, T 51: 98b–c.

274

Lü

that Laozi’s teacher’s name is Śākyamuni. I discovered that in ancient times, when the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors encountered a problem, they went west, but rarely went east; that is why Wang Shao 王劭 regarded as the state of Huaxu 華胥, visited by Huangdi, should refer to India. Also, in reference to [Laozi] climbing the mountain of Kunlun, it should be the Incense Mountain. Laozi’s trace was lost in Fufeng; in historical texts he was traced in the Western Regions; in all the Daoist works, he went up to Mount Kun in the west and ascended to heaven. Thinking about it carefully, [he] also joined the realm of Buddha.”46 Here, Daoxuan believed that “the Mount Kunlun” which was visited by Laozi in the west, was probably the Incense Mountain recorded in Buddhist sutras. The Daoist construction of the universe was based on traditional Chinese stories of deities and immortals, but imitated and absorbed Buddhist cosmology; evidence of this can often be seen in Daoist scriptures. Before Daoism, Shanghai jing and Huainanzi probably also absorbed the ideas from Buddhist cosmology when they conceived Mount Kunlun. In Shuijing zhu, Li Daoyuan pointed out that the Mount Kunlun described in Shanghai jing and Huainanzi seems to be similar to the one in Fotudiao’s suggestion—that is, similar to the Buddhist Sumeru and the Anavatapta Mountain in Fotudiao zhuan. It seems that Li Daoyuan was suggesting some manner of subtle connection between the two. In the Sui and the Tang periods, due to connections with Tuyuhun 吐谷渾 and Tubo, an amount of knowledge of the River’s origin was gathered.47 However, since traditional geographic ideas had been compiled over centuries, these ideas did not change substantially at the time. No matter whether it was in the writing of historical texts, or in the editing of gazetteers, traditional ideas were followed, mostly adopting Buddhist geographic theories. In Kuodizhi 括地志 [Treatise Extended to All Regions] edited by Li Tai 李泰, it says: “Anavatapta Mountain is also called Jianmoda Mountain ( jianmoda shan 建末達山) or Mount Kunlun. Coming from its south side out of the mouth of a lion, the Ganges passes by India and goes into Dashan 達山. Coming from its northwestern corner out of the mouth of a horse, the Amu Darya (guishui 媯水), or Huhai 滸海 in the present-day, goes into the West Sea through 46  Daoxuan, Guang Hongming ji 廣弘明集, Fascicle 1, T 52: 949c. 47  The Sui government had once established Heyuan 河源 (literally “river’s origin”) military in Chishuidi 赤水地 of Tuyuhun 吐谷渾. The Tang Army had been to Bailan 白蘭 in Heyuan when they battled with Tuyuhun. When Princess Wencheng went to Tubo 吐 蕃 for her marriage, Songtsän Gampo greeted her in Baihai 柏海 (or Bailanhai 白蘭海). Also, in Tubo, there was a monograph on rivers’ origins. All of these are clearly recorded in historical texts.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

275

Parthian (Anxi 安息) and Bactria. Coming from its northeastern corner out of the mouth of an ox, the Yellow River goes northeast to pass Lanze 濫澤, runs underground through Amne Machin, arrives in the north of Mount Hua, and goes east into the sea. Each of these three rivers runs thirty thousand li from mountain to sea. [All of] this is regarding the Major Kunlun, while the mountain in Suzhou 肅州 is the Minor Kunlun.”48 Kuodizhi believes that the Mount Kunlun in traditional Chinese geography should be the Minor Kunlun in Suzhou, eighty li to the south of Jiuquan; on the contrary, the Anavatapta Mountain in Buddhism should be the Major Kunlun, which is in the north of the state of Nü (nü guo 女國), 15,370 li to the southwest of Yongzhou 雍州, and contains two sources of the river Ruoshui 弱水. Zhang Shoujie’s 張守節 Shiji zhengyi 史記正義 quotes from Kuodizhi and comments: “Past scholars often refer to Dahuang xi jing 大荒西經 [Classic of the Western Great Wilderness], which says that Ruoshui has two sources, both from the Anavatapta Mountain in the north of the state of Nü; [these two sources] run towards south and meet one li away in the east of the state; [the river] is more than one zhang in depth and sixty bu in width; [one] can only cross it by bamboo rafts; it goes south into the sea. The Anavatapta Mountain is Mount Kunlun, [thus] it matches with Dahuang xi jing.” Zhang Shoujie also noted: “The discussion is based on Kuodi[zhi] of the Han [people]. I am still worried that this source is not reliable, but the two [sources of] Ruoshui mentioned above both exist.”49 In his annotations of Dawan zhuan 大宛傳 in Shiji, Zhang Shoujie also cited a lot from Buddhist historical texts. When Du You edited Tongdian, in the entry of Yutian in “Border Defense” he also said that “in the state [of Yutian] there is the Anavatapta Mountain, which, according to Hanshu 漢書, is the origin of the River. The River is called Shouba 首拔, or Shuba 樹拔, or it is also said that it is called the Yellow River. It flows north for seven hundred li and merges into River Jishu 計戍, or alternatively called River Jishou 計首, which is indeed River Yarkand, and then both go into Lop Nur. It is also said that this Anavatapta Mountain is indeed Mount Kunlun.”50 Here it even takes the Karakoram as the Anavatapta Mountain. The most representative example of accepting Buddhist geographic theories, it could easily be argued, is Zhu Xi 朱熹, the great Confucian scholar during the Song period. He also believed that Lake Anavatapta is on the top of Mount Kunlun, the center of the world and the origin of the Yellow River. 48  See the citation in Shiji zhengyi 史記正義 by Zhang Shoujie, in Shiji 史記, Fascicle 117, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. 49  Sima Qian, Shiji, Fascicle 117, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. 50  Du You, Tongdian 通典, Bianfang 邊防, Fascicle 192, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984.

276

Lü

In the discussions recorded in Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類 [Classified Dialogues of Master Zhu], it says: “Kunlun is fifty thousand li away from China, and it is the center of heaven and earth. China is in the southeast, but it might not be [as far as] fifty thousand li. I have seen in Buddhist sutras that, on top of Mount Kunlun, there is Lake Anavatapta, the water of which flows in four directions: the river that goes southeast into China is the Yellow River; from the other two directions flow the rivers Ruoshui, Heishui 黑水 and so on.”51 Here, it takes Mount Kunlun, where Lake Anavatapta is located, as the world’s center. The same text also reads: [Someone] asked: “is it [true] that the area where India is located is extremely vast?” [Zhu Xi] replied: “Taking Mount Kunlun into consideration, India is right in the south of Mount Kunlun, therefore the land is vast, and many unusual people were born there. Shuijing says Mount Kunlun is fifty thousand li away from the lofty [Mount] Song, [but] it seems that it should not be that far. Because it is twenty thousand li between China and Yutian, and it does not make much sense if there are thirty thousand li between Yutian and Kunlun. It is recorded in Wenchang zalu 文昌雜錄 [Records from State Council] that Yutian sent in their envoy to make contributions, and the envoy said Mount Kunlun is a little more than a thousand and three hundred li to the west of his state. Now, China is in the southeast of Kunlun, and the countries in India are in the south. It is also said in Shuijing that the Yellow River flows from the northeast of Kunlun into China, in which case, Kunlun should be in the southwest, but there is also a saying that it is in the northwest, so I have no idea what it is like. Perhaps the River meanders a lot, and only after it enters China can we see it go from northeast. The Anavatapta Mountain mentioned in Buddhist sutras is Mount Kunlun. It is said that on top of the mountain there is Lake Anavatapta, the water of which flows to four directions and becomes four great rivers; the one going into China is the Yellow River; those from the other three directions flow respectively into south, west and north sea, such as the rivers Ruoshui, Heishui and so on. Probably the earth is shaped as a steamed bun, whose tip is Kunlun.” [Someone] asked again: “do heaven, earth and the Four Continents suggested by Buddhism really exist?” [Zhu Xi] replied: “it is [recorded] in Buddhist sutras that China is in the southern Jambudvīpa, so are all Indian countries. The eastern Pūrva-videha, western Aparagodānīya, northern Uttarakuru, and also the ‘Division of Red Land’ as 51  Zhu Xi, Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類, Liqi xia 理氣下, Fascicle 2, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

277

Zou Yan had said, are the Four Continents, collectively called the Saha World. There are several such worlds, but the Saha World is the only one in the center. Its shape is round, so people born here are the only ones whose shapes are round, representing the land’s shape, because [they] obtain the central qi of heaven and earth. The shapes of the other worlds are either slant, inclined, pointed or incomplete, and they are all outside the boundary of Saha World. Because they cannot obtain the upright qi of heaven and earth, people born there are mostly not upright. This is the theory of the ‘canopy-shaped universe,’ supported by the concept of hengqu 横渠, but I do not fully understand. However, it is said that when the sun rises, it firstly shines on the Saha World, thus its qi is harmonious; and for the other worlds, the sun shines either at noon or in the afternoon, thus the qi is not harmonious. Merely at this point, the theory could have collapsed of itself. Because according to what it says, the sun should have shined on all worlds and then go underground, in which case, in one day the sun must shine on four worlds so as to complete a round. Now the sun already sets when it just shines on the Saha World; if it goes on to shine on the other three worlds, how much time it would take! In that case, the night needs to be extremely long. Why now in China the time of day and night is equal and the lengths of days in winter and summer do not have much difference? Therefore the theory does not make any sense.52 It is clear that Zhu Xi’s cosmological view had generally adopted Buddhist cosmology, but he interpreted it with the Confucian theories, such as being moderate and upright and harmony in qi, and with the theory of the canopyshaped universe. In the Yuan period, an investigation especially targeting on the origin of the Yellow River was carried out. As a result, Pan Angxiao 潘昂霄 produced Heyuan zhi 河源志 [A Gazetteer of the Origin of the River], and so, at this point, it seemed that the issue of the River’s origin, as a geographical problem, had been solved.53 However, the debate on whether the Anavatapta Mountain 52  Zhu Xi, Zhuzi yulei, Li 3 禮三, Zhouli zonglun tiao 周禮總論條, Fascicle 86, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986. 53  It is recorded in Yelü Liuge zhuan 耶律留哥傳 in Yuanshi 元史 that, in the early Yuan, the government used to take the Great Snowy Mountain (da xueshan 大雪山), which was to the south of the Iron Gate Pass (tiemenguan 鐵門關), as Mount Kunlun, and granted it the honorary title Prince of Supreme Heaven (xuan ji wang 玄極王). Also, the Great Salt Pool (da yanchi 大鹽池) was titled Prince of Kindness and Relief (hui ji wang 惠濟王). See Yuanshi, Fascicle 194.

278

Lü

or Mount Kunlun was the geographical center of the world did not stop. The traditional geographic idea continued to cast its influence on people, and continued until as late as the Qing period, when a special investigation was undertaken, in which a fieldwork team trekked to Mount Kunlun, and finally put the impact of Buddhist cosmology and geography to an end in China. The expedition to the Anavatapta Mountain, or Mount Kunlun, in the Qing period, suggested that the Anavatapta Mountain or Mount Kunlun referred to the Gangdise Mountain. In Dili zhi 地理志 [Treatise on Geography] in Qingshigao 清史稿, it is recorded in the entry of “Tibet” that the Gangdise Mountain is located in Buling 布陵, Dingri 定日: “[It is] more than 550 zhang in height and more than 140 li in circumference. Peaks in four directions are rough and extremely steep, and are more than a hundred zhang higher than other mountains. Snow has accumulated as cliffs, white and magnificent. At the peak there is a spring streaming down to the foot of the mountain, and then running underground. The mountains in front and behind are all lofty and steep; astonishing peaks are either surrounding or arranged in lines. In regards to topography, from the outside of the southwestern border, the land gradually becomes higher until it reaches its summit there.” The mountain range zigzags in four directions, and becomes several large mountains. In the fifty-sixth year of the Kangxi reign (1717 CE), the Emperor sent Chu’erqinzangbu and Lanmuzhanba, two Tibetan Buddhists, and Shengzhu, the Secretary of the Court of Colonial Affairs, to survey and map the territories in Qinghai and Tibet, because this place is the Roof of the World, and all mountain ranges begin from here. This Dili zhi also takes Buddhist geography into consideration in its research, as it says: It is said in Shuijing zhu: “to the southwest of the Anavatapta Mountain there is a river named Yamuna; slightly east, in the southwest of the Mountain, there is a river named Sahan 薩罕; [again] slightly east there is a river named Hengjia 恒伽. These three northern rivers all come out from the same mountain and merge to form the Ganges.” Now Ali 阿里 is the farthest southwestern area in Tibet, near the territory of ancient India. From the west of the North Mountain come out three rivers, namely Langchu 狼楚, Lachu 拉楚, Machu 麻楚, all of which flow west, turn east and then south, and join together as River Gangga 岡噶— [I] suspect that this is the Anavatapta Mountain. Also, there is a mountain called Damuzhukabapo, the shape of which is like a horse; a mountain called Langqiankabapo, the shape of which is like an elephant; a mountain called Shenggekabapo, the shape of which is like a

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

279

lion; a mountain called Mapojiakabapo, the shape of which is like a peacock; all of them are connected to the Gangdise Mountain. River Gangga originates from the north side of Mount Langqiankabapo: springs emerge and collect into a pool; [it] flows northwest, meets another river from northeast, again another from west and from northeast, together [they] become a pool; [it] runs underground and reappears, [merges with] three rivers from north, and then a river from southwest joins in, so it becomes the lake of Mapinmudalai. Flowing out from its west, it becomes the lake of Langga 郎噶, which is joined by River Langchu from the northeast, flowing out from the west, and turns southwest.54 In the fifty-eighth year of the Kangxi reign (1719 CE), an investigation on the river system in the southwest also led to the conclusion that the Gangdise Mountain is the Anavatapta Mountain, or Mount Kunlun. This expedition is recorded by Emperor Kangxi, and shows that all the inner rivers, including River Min, River Jinsha and River Han, all belong to a main stream, called Nuomohunwubaxi, in the Western Regions, and that all the rivers going outwards, including River Lancang, River Nu and River Longchuan, originate from outside the main stream of Nuomuhunwubaxi. River Binglang 檳榔, which flows from the border of Yunnan to Myanmar, originates from the mountain of Damuzhukababo—which means the mouth of a horse—in the Gangdise [range] in Ali, where a river emerges as the Yarlung Zangbo River. In the south of the Gangdise there is a mountain called Langqiankabubo, which means the mouth of an elephant, from which a river flows out into Mapimudalai, and then into Lake Langga. Two rivers go west to the land of Sangnan 桑南. In the north of the Gangdise there is a mountain called Senggekababo, or the mouth of a lion, from which a river appears towards the west and also arrives at the land of Sangnan. The two rivers join together and go south, and then turn east to the land of Nakelasumuduo, meeting the river originated from the mountain of Mabojiakababo in the west of the Gangdise. Mabojiakababo means the mouth of a peacock. The river goes south to the land of Nakelasumuduo, joined by the river going east, and flows southeast to the state of Enatekeke; it then becomes River Ganggamulun, or, indeed, the Ganges referred to in Buddhism. Emperor Kangxi also researched textual evidence: he noted that it is recorded in Foguo ji that Faxian, in the Wei period, traveled along the Ganges to the South Sea and reached the Bohai Sea estuary in Shandong, and so it should be River Nuomuhunwubaxi. Buddhist sutras say that the Four Great 54  Zhao Erxun 趙爾巽, Qingshigao 清史稿, Fascicle 80, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976.

280

Lü

Rivers originate from the Anavatapta Mountain, below which there is Lake Anavatapta—in terms of contemporary geography, this should refer to the Gangdise. The Chinese name for Anavatapta must come from the Tang period, and the word “Gangdise” means the root of all mountains and rivers, which matches what is said in Buddhist sutras. In front of the Gangdise there are two lakes connected together, which are called by local people as the Jade Pool of the Queen Mother of the West—that is, Lake Anavatapta.55 The survey on the origins of all rivers in the fifty-eighth year of the Kangxi reign (1719 CE) clarified and confirmed yet again that the Yellow River originates from Xingxiuhai 星宿海 in the south side of the Bayan Har Mountains. As is recorded in Xichao xinyu 熙朝新語 [A New Account of Tales from the Prosperous Dynasty], Emperor Kangxi said: “The Yellow River originates from the east of Mount Ku’erkun 枯爾坤 outside Xining. Numerous springs are all scattered, as bright as stars at a glance. It is called Aoduntala by the Mongolian, or Suoluomu in the Western Regions, or Xingxiuhai by the Han Chinese. It is the origin of the River. [These springs] join together and become two rivers called Saling 薩陵 and Eling 鄂陵, which go towards southeast, turn north, go east, and enter Lanzhou at Jishiguan 積石關 in Guidebao 歸德堡.”56—this is the source of modern geographic knowledge on the origin of the Yellow River. During the Qing period, the investigations on the Gangdise Mountain, the conclusion that the Anavatapta Mountain is Mount Kunlun, and the clarification of the River’s origin (on the basis of the full survey on the river systems in the southwest), marked the complete integration of the Buddhist ideas of the geographical center, and the Chinese idea of the geographical center. As a result, the notion of Anavatapta being the geographical center was transformed from a religious cosmological view in Buddhism, into practical geographic knowledge in Chinese culture; also, the traditional Chinese idea of Mount Kunlun as the geographical center is no longer confined to the category of mythology. 3 After Buddhism entered China, similar to the issue of the geographical center, a debate regarding whether China or India should be the cultural center was also raised. The traditional Chinese view that China or Huaxia 華夏 is the center 55  Yu Jin 余金, Xichao xinyu 熙朝新語, Fascicle 5, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1983. 56  Ibid..

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

281

not only raises a geographic idea, but also ethnic and cultural ideas. As a geographic idea, the idea of Huaxia as the center was based on people’s k­ nowledge of practical geography, and geographic culture, in the pre-Qin periods. As an ethnic and cultural idea, however, the sentiment of Huaxia being the center gives an additional ethnic and cultural significance to the geographic idea of the geographical center, which means that both the state of Huaxia, and its culture, is in the center of the world. The idea of Huaxia as the center, in short, is that Huaxia is in the center of the world, and the barbarians such as Yi and Di are distributed on the borders of the four directions, so these ideas create the ideological model that it is Huaxia who grants the law of rites to the Yi and Di in the four directions. This is further explained in Gu Huan’s 顧歡 Yi Xia lun 夷夏論 [On Yi and Xia]: “Talking about this Yi Xia theory, in the east there are ugly Liji people, in the west there are people like Rong and Di, in the north there are [people with] odd hair styles and unfastened hair, and in the south there are [people who] cut hair and wear tattoos. Confucius granted [the law of] rites among them, so there is a difference between Yi and Xia.”57 After Buddhism was introduced, the view of Huaxia as the center was challenged, and the view of India as the center was proposed. Mouzi lihuo lun 牟 子理惑論 [Master Mou’s Statement for Clearing Confusions] was the first to challenge the view of Huaxia as the center, and also the first to propose that India should be the center. It was believed that, although China was in the center of earth, it was not in the center of heaven; comparatively, India was in the center of both heaven and earth. Mouzi lihuo lun first cites Chinese evidence: “It is said in [Zuo]zhuan: the North Star is in the center of heaven, and to the north of humans. From this point of view, the Han might not locate at the center of heaven.”58 It then takes Indian evidence and claims that “the Buddha was born in India because it is in the center of heaven and earth, in balance and harmony.”59 Mouzi believed that the reason why he believed in Buddhism was also because the Buddha-World is much broader. He said: “it is said in Buddhist sutras that, in heaven, earth, and all surroundings to their extremes, the category that contains blood as well as all matter belong to Buddha, therefore I respect it again and learn it.”60 Here we can see that the world described by Mouzi is a three-dimensional one, with heaven, earth and all surroundings to 57  Sengmin 僧愍, Rong Hua lun zhe ‘Gu daoshi Yi Xia lun’ 戎華論折顧道士夷夏論, in Hongming ji 弘明集, Fascicle 7, T 52: 42b. 58  Mou Rong 牟融, Mouzi lihuo lun, in Hongming ji, Fascicle 1, T 52: 3c. 59  Ibid., p. 1c. 60  Ibid., p. 3c.

282

Lü

their extremes, and the world contains all living creatures (the category that contains blood) and all matter. India becomes the world center because it is where heaven and earth are in balance and harmony. Therefore, the Buddha was born there, and Buddhism was founded there. This is the philosophical and cultural meanings attached to the view of India as the center. Similar to Mouzi’s theory of balance and harmony, Xie Zhenzhi 謝鎮之, during the Southern Dynasties, supported this view of India as the center, by applying the theory that ‘the sage can feel things, and therefore understand them’. In Chong shu yu Gu daoshi 重書與顧道士 [The Second Letter to Daoist Practitioner Gu], he wrote: What is a sage? The person who can feel things and therefore understand them. Nevertheless, feeling cannot be done by oneself, and understanding cannot be done by oneself. Feeling always exists within oneself, but understanding always comes from the other side. Speaking from the other side, [it is like] hanging a mirror in a lofty hall; speaking from this side, ten thousand phenomena seem to return to their origins. So we know that India is in the central land of the Saha [World], where honesty and virtue nicely merge together. So it is able to feel and understand with the Supreme Sage, and its land is in the center of three thousand worlds. When the sage has responded to the other side, the sound covers this side.61 In this situation, India is considered to be in the center of universe, and that of three thousand worlds. Consequently, India was given moral and cultural significance, as it was thought to be where honesty and virtue nicely merge together, thus there appeared a sage who could feel and understand things. It seems that the birthplace of a sage and his teachings were considered as an important evidence of recognizing the center of the world, and thus the cultural significance of being at the center is obvious. This manner of recognition was also seen in the other contemporary arguments which supported India as the center. For example, in Huitong’s 慧通 Bo Gu daoshi ‘Yi Xia lun’ 駁顧道士夷夏論 [A Debate against Daoist Priest Gu’s Theory of Yi and Xia], it says: “India, the center of heaven and earth, the birthplace of Buddhism.”62 In Rong Hua lun zhe ‘Gu daoshi Yi Xia lun’ 戎華論折顧道士夷夏論 [RongHua Theory Debating against Daoist Priest Gu’s Theory of Yi and Xia], Sengmin proposed his own theory that Rong and Hua as one should be the center: 61  Xie Zhenzhi, Chong shu yu Gu daoshi 重書與顧道士, in Hongming ji, Fascicle 6, T 52: 47b. 62  Huitong, Bo Gu daoshi Yi Xia lun, in Hongming ji, Fascicle 7, T 52: 45c.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

283

“­ (regarding) Rong and Hua, its eastern boundary is in the land of void, its western boundary finishes in the secluded village, its northern boundary passes the circumstances of the sea, and its southern boundary explores the extremity of emptiness. Because the Buddhist teaching was spread to the central land, there began the differentiation between Rong and Hua.” He thought that Gu Huan’s point of view was far too parochial: “[Gu Huan’s narrow view is merely] from the bottom of a deep well, and has never seen a river or a lake.” He also referred to Buddhist scriptures, and claimed: “the Buddha occupied the center of heaven and earth, purified and taught in ten directions, so [I] know the land of India belongs to the central state.”63 In the postscript of Hongming ji 弘明集, Sengyou of the Liang period (502–557 CE) said: “the great virtue covers endless territory, and the entire universe is unified under one rule. The Northern Star is in the northwest, so [I] know India is in the center”64 He believed that Buddha rules three thousand great chiliocosms, and the range is not only confined to India and the Western Regions; in comparison, Huaxia merely occupies the land of three thousand li, so he considered dividing Hua and Yi, within such a limited space, as a lamentable situation. The view of taking India as the center was originally the geographic idea, rather unsurprisingly, of Indian people—Indians divided their land into “five Indias,” and regarded the central India as the center, which they also called “the central state.” As Buddhism spread to other countries, the Indian idea of the geographical center was also extended to be applied to other countries, so they considered China as a country of barbarians on their borderland. This idea was brought into China, and influenced the Chinese view of the center. For instance, it is recorded in Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏集記 [Compilation of Notices on the Translations of Tripitaka] that, when Kumārajīva read Faxing lun 法性論 [Disquisition on Dharma-nature], by Huiyuan 慧遠 of Eastern Jin, he commented: “a person from the state of borderland had never seen a sutra, but [his writing] secretly matches the fundamental law, isn’t it wonderful!”65 When Kumārajīva’s student Sengrui 僧叡 wrote the preface to Siyi jing 思益經 (Skt. Visesacintabrahma Pariprccha), he praised the translation of the text that “it can be analogized to the wheel of Law that turns again in Jambudvīpa, the drum of Law that sounds again in universe, the sweet dews that beautifully flow at the end of the seasons, and the effective fluid drops and moistens

63  Sengmin, Rong Hua lun zhe Gu daoshi Yi Xia lun, in Hongming ji, Fascicle 7, T 52: 42b. 64  Sengyou, Hongming ji houxu 弘明集後序, in Hongming ji, Fascicle 14, T 52: 95c. 65  Sengyou, Chu sanzang jiji, Fascicle 15, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995, p. 569. Also see Hujiao 慧皎, Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳, Fascicle 6, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1992, p. 218.

284

Lü

­ eople in remoteness.”66 This is a case of the Chinese seeing themselves as livp ing on borderland in remote wilderness. In Shijia fangzhi, Daoxuan wrote that “the Buddha’s invincible might does not emit in borderlands”—and Daoxuan considered China as a remote place. In fact, such a view of China as the cultural borderland was generally held among common Chinese followers of Buddhism. For Daoists and Confucians, however, the major influence was on geographic ideas. In Shijia fangzhi, Daoxuan also argued for the view of India as the center. He believed that, considering the idea of the center from cultural aspects, the Saha World, where the Buddha teaches, takes Jambudvīpa as the Capital, and Kapilavastu (the kingdom where the Buddha was born), should be the center of Jambudvīpa; that is, as described in Buddhist sutras, the center of twelve thousand heavens and earths, shone upon by three thousand suns and moons inside four rings of Iron Mountains. However, due to the inclined earth, the Buddha attained Buddhahood on the Diamond Throne (Skt. vajrāsana) under the Bodhi tree in the country of central India—therefore, logically, the center of heaven and earth must be in central India. Also, according to Buddhist sutras, the reason why Jambudvīpa was regarded as the Capital of Four Continents was simply because it held the Diamond Throne, on which the Buddha attained Buddhahood, so it was the steps, or the way of becoming a sage, and then ascending to heaven. On the issue of taking central India as the world’s center, Daoxuan discussed this with evidence from five aspects: the name, the distance, the calendar, the river system, and the people. Firstly, the name—the Western Regions regarded central India as “the central state,” as it is in the center of heaven and earth. Secondly, the calendar—Daoxuan used such an example: in the Song period, He Chengtian 何承天, who was well known as a knowledgeable person, once asked a Buddhist monk named Huiyan 慧嚴: what calendar does the Buddha’s state use so as to be entitled to the center? Huiyan replied: “in India, on the day of summer solstice, right in the center there is no shadow, so it is called the center, or the balance, of heaven and earth. Instead, in the central plain of this country [China], measuring the shadow with a gui ruler, there is extra length [of shadow]. As a result, the [Chinese] calendars have [changed] three times, and so [there is the problem of] either adding or reducing the remaining days of a long month or a short month, and [the problem of] calculating the accumulated d­ ifference of

66  Sengrui, ‘Si yi jing xu’ 思益經序, in Chu sanzang jiji, Fascicle 8, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995, p. 308.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

285

time and solar terms—so it is obviously not the center.”67 Next, the topic of the distance—the land of Jambudvīpa was divided into three parts. More than two parts were vast but scarcely populated, lands where the Xunyun people lived with no responsibility to [Buddhist] Law. The other part is in the south, with three seas as its border, where people were mostly clear-minded, and were entitled to receive the sage’s teachings, so it is said that [Buddhist] Law is prosperous in the sage’s Capital. From the country of central India, to China in its east, or to the country called Jindi 金地 in its south, or to the country called Ajuzhe 阿拘遮 in its west, or to the Incense Mountain and Lake Anavatapta in its north, each is 58000 li in distance. The fourth point is the river system— Lake Anavatapta is the source of all rivers in Jambudvīpa, and [all rivers] flow towards the Four Seas from there. However, this lake is the dwelling of the deity, [so] no human beings can access it. Also, it was the area of snowy mountains in northern heaven, and, to the south, it is adjacent to the central earth where the Buddha was born, so its location is superb and lofty, not in remoteness. Lastly, the people as commoners or sages—the highest rank among com­ moners is the Chakravartin (wheel-turning) King, and the highest rank among sages is the King of the Law, but these two [types of] kings would never be born in a normal sense, but, instead, be born in the center. The Four Continents are ruled by four Chakravartin Kings. The King of Gold Wheel ruled all four continents; the King of Silver Wheel ruled the eastern, western and southern continents; the King of Copper Wheel ruled the eastern and southern continents; the King of Iron Wheel ruled the southern continent. Therefore, southern Jambudvīpa is ruled by all four Chakravartin Kings. In addition to this, Jambudvīpa was named after its pronunciation in the language in central heavens (Skt. brahmaloka), and it referred to the residence of Chakravartin Kings, as they lived in central India.68 From all this evidence, it can clearly be seen that Daoxuan’s view of the center is completely based on Buddhist cosmology, and is supported by Buddhist geographic evidence. The view that India was the cultural center, which was proposed with the spread of Buddhism, had shaken the view of China as the cultural center, and 67  In the traditional Chinese view, Luoyang was the geographical center. For example, Lunheng says: “Luoyang is the center of Nine Divisions.’ Xiaojing 孝經 quotes from Shenqi 神契: ‘In the vastness of eight directions, Luoyang of Zhou is the center.” Fengtu ji 風土 記 quotes Zheng Zhongshi: “on the day of summer solstice, if a biao gnomon of eight chi long is established, and the ruler for measuring the shadow reads five cun, then it is called the center of earth. Some suggest that it should refer to Yangcheng 陽城, and the others say it is Luoyang.” See Lunheng jiao shi, Fascicle 11. 68  Daoxuan, Shijia fangzhi, Fascicle 1, T 51: 949–950.

286

Lü

profoundly changed the views of Chinese people on culture and ethnicity, as well as their psychological structure, and cultural pluralism therefore became a fundamental concept among the Chinese. The idea that Indian or Buddhist culture is the center, or the idea that Chinese or Han culture is the center, were both adopted by the pre-modern Chinese people. The cultural pluralism of Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism has been generally accepted among the Chinese as a Chinese cultural concept, and, as a result, the minds on culture in China have become more open, and the Chinese people have become more broad-hearted. (This paper was originally published in Shaanxi shifan daxue xuebao 陝西師 範大學學報, 2005:4.) Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Beishan lu 北山錄, Shenqing 神清, T 52. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集, Sengyou 僧祐, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. Da lou tan jing 大樓炭經, Yanfuli pin 閻浮利品, Fali 法立 trans., T 1, No. 23. Datang Xiyu ji 大唐西域記, Xuangzang 玄奘, annotated by Ji Xianlin 季羨林, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2000. Fanmoyu jing 梵摩渝經, Zhi Qian 支謙 trans., T 1, No. 76. Fo ban ni huan jing 佛般泥洹經, Bai Fazu 白法祖 trans., T 1, No. 5. Fo ni huan jing 佛泥洹經, T 1, No. 6. Fo wubai dizi zi shuo ben qi jing 佛五百弟子自說本起經, Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 trans., T 4. Fo xing qi xing jing 佛興起行經, Kang Mengxiang trans., T 4, No. 197. Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳, Huijiao 慧皎, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1992. Guang Hongming ji 廣弘明集, Daoxuan 道玄, T 52. Hongming ji 弘明集, Sengyou 僧祐, T 52. Huainanzi 淮南子, Zhuzi jicheng 諸子集成, Vol. 7, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1954. Lunheng 論衡, Wang Chong 王充, Zhuzi jicheng 諸子集成 Vol. 7, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1954. Lunheng jiao shi 論衡校釋, Huang Hui 黃暉 ed., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2006. Lüshi chunqiu 呂氏春秋, Lü Buwei 呂不韋, in Zhuzi jicheng 諸子集成 Vol. 6, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1954. Qingshigao 清史稿, Zhao Erxun 趙爾巽, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976. Shiji 史記, Sima Qian 司馬遷, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959. Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方志, Daoxuan 道宣, T 51.

The Influence of Buddhist Cosmology

287

Shijia shi pu 釋迦氏谱, Daoxuan 道宣, T 50. Shiji zhengyi 史記正義, Zhang Shoujie 張守節, Shiji 史記, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959. Shuijing zhu 水經注, Li Daoyuan 酈道元, Wang Xianqian 王先謙 ed., Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 1985. Taiping yulan 太平御覽, Li Fang 李昉 ed., Wuhan: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 1994. Tongdian 通典, Du You 杜佑, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984. Xichao xinyu 熙朝新語, Yu Jin 余金, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1983. Xu Gaoseng zhuan 续高僧传, Daoxuan 道玄, T 2. Yuanshi 元史, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976. Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類, Zhu Xi 朱熹, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986.

CHAPTER 12

Cultural Confluence during the Development of Buddhism: A Case Study of the Liushi liwen 劉師禮文 (The Writ of Master Liu’s Ritual) Fang Guangchang 方廣錩 1 Religion is a cultural form in a society. Each cultural form in a society is a historical phenomenon. History develops within the context of a specific time and space, and culture functions likewise. Like the Yangzi River, which originates in the Bayan Har mountains and enters the sea at Chongming island, history flows incessantly. It absorbs hundreds of smaller rivers and flows forwards. But, what do we mean by the Yangzi River? Does it refer to the limpid creek at the origin, the Jinsha River that roars through the mountains, giant waves that flow eastwards, accompanied by the chatter of monkeys alongside the Three Gorges, or the ripples that run smoothly through the fertile plains in the east? Like the Yangzi, Buddhism developed in relation to varying circumstances in the course of its dissemination from India to China, and other neighboring countries, until finally spreading throughout the world in more recent years. And like the Yangzi, Buddhism absorbed elements of these various cultures over the course of its journey. We do not agree with those in Japan who advocate for a ‘Critical Buddhism’ (Jp. hihan bukkyō 批判仏教), who deny that Buddhism was transformed as it absorbed the cultural attributes of nonIndian cultures. Nor do we agree with Buddhist monks who advocate a return to early Buddhism, ignoring the fact that Buddhism has been transformed by the cultures through which it passed. The present article aims at understanding the changes Buddhism underwent, the driving forces behind these changes and the impact of these changes on its later development. Chinese Buddhism should be viewed as a product of Indian and Chinese cultures because it emerged ancient India and developed in China. The intriguing question we wish to broach here is whether or not Chinese culture ever influenced Buddhism as it developed in the Indian and Central Asian contexts. * The article is funded by Shanghai important academic subjects, No. T0406.

©

5 | 

/

Cultural Confluence during the Development of Buddhism

289

We should understand the dissemination of religion across cultural lines not merely as a one-way street but as a dialogue or exchange. Did Chinese traditional culture ever influence Indian Buddhism in the manner that Indian culture altered Chinese culture? Or, to put this question more generally, how was Buddhism molded and developed by specific Asian cultures through which it passed? There are various approaches to this question. One possibility which has been taken up by researchers is that Indian Esoteric Buddhism was influenced by the indigenous Chinese schools of thought such as Daoism. Another approach has been suggested by researchers who claim that the Pure Land concept in Indian Buddhism contains elements of Iranian culture. The fact that the twelve signs of the Chinese zodiac appear in the Mahāsamghāta Sūtra (Ch. Daji jing 大集經) is another example of indigenous Chinese thought making its way into the Indian Buddhist tradition.1 This article attempts to investigate the cultural confluence during the development of Buddhism by taking Liushi liwen, a Dunhuang manuscript, as an example. The manuscript is not complete. Its former part is lost. The extant texts are as follows: (All texts are in their original titles, except where noted otherwise.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (11) (12) (13)

Fangguang jingdian chanhui wen, 方廣經典懺悔文2 Qing guanyin zhou, 請觀音咒 Chu dudu tuoluoni zhou, 除度毒陀羅尼咒 Chu shuiyan tuoluoni, 除睡眼陀羅尼 Guanshiyin pusa tuoluoni, 觀世音菩薩陀羅尼 Zhouyan tuoluoni, 咒眼陀羅尼 Fahua zhou yaowang pusa zhou, 法華咒 藥王菩薩咒 Yongshi pusa zhou, 勇施菩薩咒 Pishamen tianwang zhou, 毗沙門天王咒 Chiguo tianwang zhou, 持國天王咒 Shi luocha’nü zhou, 十羅刹女咒 Puxian pusa zhou, 普賢菩薩咒

1  The Mahāsamghāta Sūtra substituted tiger with lion, but otherwise maintained the sequence and position of Chinese zodiac animals. 2  The title of this text is unclear because the first part of the original version is lost. Judging from its contents, it must be a text for ritual and confession. A sentence is written as “fuxing fangguang jingdian chanhui 複行方廣經典懺悔.” Therefore, this text is provisionally titled “Fangguang jingdian chanhui wen.”

290 (14) (15) (16) (17)

Fang

Fashu shi, 法數釋3 Liushi liwen, 劉師禮文 Shou baguanzhai wen, 受八關齋文 Shishizhou yuanwen, 施食咒願文

The colophon provides a certain level of basic historical data to the reader: “Finished on 27th day, the fifth month, the eleventh year of Datong (545 AD), owned by Daoyang 道養 in the Pingnan monastery.” The scroll is found in Daoyang’s personal collection.4 Therefore it is also known as one of the “Daoyang manuscripts” (Daoyang wenben 道養文本) of the Western Wei of Northern and Southern Dynasties. British Sinologist Lionel Giles labeled these texts “Daoyang manuscripts” in his Descriptive Catalogue of the Chinese Manuscripts from Tunhuang in the British Museum. However, no further research has been conducted on the manuscripts.5 The Daoyang manuscripts contain over ten Buddhist documents. However, this article focuses only on the fifteenth text Liushi liwen. The content is as follows: Liushi liwen Between 3–5 a.m., on the 24th day of the first month, make obeisance 8 times toward the northeast, expiation of 21 sins. Between 1–3 a.m., on the 9th day of the second month, make obeisance 10 times toward the southeast, expiation of 31 sins. Between 9–11 p.m., on the 26th day of the third month, make obeisance 4 times toward the south, expiation of 400 sins. Between 11p.m–1 a.m., on the 7th day of the fourth month, make obeisance 4 times toward the north, expiation of 40,000 sins. Between 7–9 p.m., on the 6th day of the fifth month, make obeisance 6 times toward the northwest, expiation of 1,800 sins. 3  This text explains four Buddhist terms: eight filthy things, ten impure meats, thirty-six impurities, and fourteen tones. It is temporarily titled as Fashu shi. 4  In addition to the notes “owned by Daoyang” in the end of the roll, there are two other places stating “owned by yang”: one is under Qing guanyin zhou, and the other is under Liushi liwen. Yang is the short name for Daoyang. The Chinese character “xu 許” means “possess” in this text. 5  French scholar Michel Soymié noticed in his work “Les dix jours de jeûne de Kṣitigarbha” that the Shi’er yue lifo wen 十二月禮佛文 was transcribed together with the Dizang shizhai ri 地 藏十齋日. He mentioned the Dunhuang manuscripts S.2565, P.3588 and P.3809, etc., but he did further research on the Shi’er yue lifo wen, S.4494.

Cultural Confluence during the Development of Buddhism

291

Between 7–9 a.m., on the 3rd day of the sixth month, make obeisance 6 times toward the south, expiation of 1,400 sins. Between 3–5 p.m., on the 4th day of the seventh month, make obeisance 4 times toward the southeast, expiation of 2,800 sins. Between 5–7 a.m., on the 8th day of the eighth month, make obeisance 9 times toward the south, expiation of 6,000 sins. Between 7–9 a.m., on the 10th day of the ninth, make obeisance 9 times toward the southeast, expiation of 1,800 sins. Between 9–11 a.m., on the 11th day of the tenth month, make obeisance 9 times toward the south, expiation of 6,000 sins. Between 5–7 p.m., on the 11th day of the eleventh month, make obeisance 9 times toward the west, expiation of 6,000 sins. Between 7–9 p.m., on the 2nd day of the twelfth month, make obeisance 30 times toward the east, expiation of 30,000 sins. In the eleventh year of Xuanshi era, the year of Jimao in Chinese calendar,6 Master Li followed these rules and taught his followers how to expiate their sins through this practice. Believers can attain enlightenment after three years if they conduct this practice without interruption. They will get what they wish. Nothing will go against their will. They will be reborn anywhere they wish, whether in the Realm of Maitreya or the Wonderful Land in the West, or in the 33th heaven. After the practice is completed, the practitioners will be like Buddhas of the Dharma realm as well as enlightened monks. The Gongde wen 功德文 (Document of Merit) that circulated at a later time states, “The eleventh year of Xuanshi, the year of Jimao in Chinese calendar, Master Liu abided by the rules to teach the followers how to be exempt from their sins through the means of worship.” From this evidence, it is clear that when Daoyang was transcribing the document in the Western Wei Dynasty (435–451 A.D.), it was generally presumed that the Liushi liwen was circulated by a certain Master Liu during the years of Xuanshi of the Northern Liang (412–427). Then, who is Master Liu exactly? We suggest here that this Master Liu is Liu Sahe 劉薩訶, a significant representative of early Chinese Buddhism. Liu Sahe is the first monk who appears in the section of Xingfu 興福 biography in Huijiao’s 慧皎 Gaosengzhuan 高僧傳 of the Liang Dynasty. Daoxuan’s 道宣 Xu gaosengzhuan 續高僧傳 of the 6  Xuanshi is an era name of the Northern Liang Dynasty. Its eleventh year is 422 AD, which is the year of Renxu 壬戌, rather than year of Jimao in Chinese calendar.

292

Fang

Tang Dynasty also mentions him, where he appears as the third monk in the Gantong 感通 section. He also appears in Daoxuan’s Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方志, Ji shenzhou sanbao gantong lu 集神州三寶感通錄, Guang hongming ji 廣弘 明集, and then in the Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 written by Daoshi 道世 who lived in the same period as Daoxuan. Earlier records may also be found in the Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏記集, Mingxiang ji 冥祥記, Foji 佛記, and Liangshu 梁書 zhuyizhuan 諸夷傳. The Dunhuang manuscripts and the wall paintings in the Mogao Grottoes preserve quite a lot material about Liu Sahe. From these materials, we can confirm that Liu Sahe was active during the Eastern Jin Dynasty. Due to the significant literary license taken by Liu Sahe’s biographers, the historian is left with images of this figure which are often contradictory.7 It is likely that the story of Liu incorporates narratives from the hagiographies of several other individuals. The present article does not intend to sort out what is historical in each source, but seeks only to note that Liu was consistently depicted as being esteemed by the populace during period from the late Northern and Southern Dynasties to the early Tang Dynasty. Daoxuan wrote: “Liu’s solemn icon is highly venerated by people. In the regions of Shizhou, Xizhou, Cizhou, Danzhou, Yanzhou, Suizhou, Weizhou and Lanzhou, people worshipped his portrait and called him ‘Master Liu Buddha’.”8 Therefore, we can probably identify the Master Liu in the manuscript S4494 as the Liu Sahe who was highly esteemed by Chinese Buddhists at that time. The format of Liushi liwen is rather straightforward. It simply asked followers to bow a specific number of times in certain directions at the indicated times and on certain dates. It was believed that this practice could expiate sin. Followers who persisted in their practice for three years would attain enlightenment and get what they wished. The first question which arises when examining this text is whether this kind of practice is consistent with any traditions within Indian Buddhism. The Śīgalovāda Sūtra (Ch. Shijialuoyue liufang li jing 屍迦羅越六方禮經), translated by An Shijao 安世高 in the Han Dynasty is part of the Taishō canon. This scripture is traditionally classified as a Hīnayāna Buddhist scripture in the Āgama section of the canon. There are three different translations of this text, including that which appears in the Chang ahan jing’s 長阿含經 (Skt. Dīrgha-āgama) shansheng jing 善生經, translated in the later Qin Dynasty, the Shanshengzi jing 善生子經, translated in the Western Jin Dynasty, and the Zhong ahan jing’s 中阿含經 (Skt. Madhyama-āgama) shansheng jing 善生經, 7  See also articles by Shi Weixiang 史葦湘, Sun Xiushen 孫修身, Chen Zuolong 陳祚龍, Helene Vetch, and Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤. 8  T 50: 645a.

Cultural Confluence during the Development of Buddhism

293

translated in the Eastern Jin Dynasty. The Śīgalovāda Sūtra is a scripture from the early stage of Indian Buddhism, judging from the date at which it was translated. The contents of these four scriptures differ only slightly. The basic story is that Śīgalovāda’s father asked him to bow toward the six directions of east, south, west, north, heaven, and earth everyday. Śākyamuni Buddha asked him why he did so and he replied that he was following his father’s instructions. The Buddha said, “Your father told you to worship the six directions, not just with your physical body.”9 Then the Buddha explained to him the ethical norms about the relationship between parents and children, mentors and disciples, husbands and wives, relatives and friends, masters and slaves, ordinary people and monks. This scripture became an important reference point for our understanding of Hīnayāna ethics. One particular passage from the Śīgalovāda Sūtra is rendered differently in each version of the translation. In the Shansheng jing section of the Chang ahan jing, the text runs as follows: “At that time, Śākyamuni Buddha said that this kind of worship did exist. However, we cannot find a source of this worship of the six directions in our tradition.10 In the version of Shansheng zi jing, the paragraph is as follows: “Śākyamuni Buddha replied: “Son, what your father told you does not mean the six directions. Sitting in front of the desires from the six sides, if one commits filthy sins from four sides without remorse, his soul will be reborn in the hell after the body is dead.”11 The version of Zhong ahan jing: shansheng jing, states: “Śākyamuni Buddha told him, ‘Son, I do not deny the six directions. Son, if one can clearly distinguish the six directions, and keep away from four kinds of sins, he is respectable in this phenomenal world. After the body is decayed, and life ended, he will be reborn in the heaven.’ ”12 These different narratives convey the same meaning. Śākyamuni Buddha was not in favor of this kind of practice. In fact, one cannot find any mention of such practice in early Indian Buddhism. Then, where did this kind of worship in Liushi liwen come from? If we read Baihu tongyi 白虎通義 and Lunheng 論衡 by Wang Chong 王充, or early Daoist scriptures, it becomes clear that assigning directions with mysterious meaning comes from indigenous Chinese culture.

9  T 1: 250c. 10  T 1:70b. 11  T 1: 252b. 12  T 1: 639a.

294

Fang

Let us turn to the temporal frame, which is so important for this practice. Liushi liwen requires the followers to carry out this practice on a specific date at a specific time. Can we find any sources from Indian Buddhism for similar practices? Firstly, with regard to the timing of this practice of worship, the ancient Indians divided a month into two parts—the white and black moon—according to the lunar calendar. The six fasting days in the Foshuo sitianwang jing 佛說四天王經 are distributed evenly, with three days taken during white moon and three during the black moon. In contrast, in the Liushi liwen, only in January and March, the worship was in the 24th and the 26th days of month. The worship during the other ten months fell in the first half month.13 In Chinese tradition, the fist half of month belongs to Yang, and the later half belongs to Yin. Carrying out this practice during the Yang months brings more benefits. Hence it is obvious that the choice of dates in Liushi liwen was deeply influenced by Chinese traditional culture. Secondly, the Foshuo sitianwang jing states: “On Mount Sumeru, which is to say the Trayastriṃśa Heaven, the ruler is Śakra. With majestic fortune and virtue, he leads the four heavenly kings, who are in charge of the four directions of Śakra. Generally, they send agents down on the 8th day of the month to patrol the territory. These agents have to check on the good and evil thoughts, words, and behaviors of various species including emperors, ministers, peoples, dragons, ghosts, worms, etc. The four heavenly kings send their sons down on the 14th day and they go down themselves on the 15th day. On the 23rd day, the kings go down again. On the 29th day, their sons down again. On the 30th day, they go down themselves again. When all four heavenly kings go down together, all the divinities of the sun, moon, five stars, and the twenty-eight mansions all go down to the world.14 In other words, the four heavenly kings will send agents, their sons, or even themselves down to the land on the 8th, 14th, 15th, 23rd, 29th, and 30th day of each month. The Foshuo sitianwang jing states: “When they see all the living beings doing good, they will each report to Śakra . . . Then Śakra will confer his decision, such as prolonging the life of living beings, increasing their fortune and sending heavenly kings to protect them.15 Otherwise, Śakra will darken the sun and moon, and disrupt the order of the stars and climate, in order to warn the people. Hopefully people will change their behavior from bad to good.”16 13  Shi’er yue lifo wen is the variation of Liushi liwen in the Tang Dynasty, which set the dates of worship in the first half month, namely, the Yang moon. 14  T 15: 118b. 15  T 15: 118b. 16  T 15: 118b–c.

Cultural Confluence during the Development of Buddhism

295

The Foshuo sitianwang jing was introduced by its author as an Indian Buddhist sūtra. According to the record, it was translated by Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲 from Liangzhou in the Liu Song Dynasty. This text discussed the idea of heavenly kings’ inspection (tianshen sicha 天神伺察) of men’s acts. For those who are good, the heavenly kings reward them with longevity and good fortune. However, for those who do bad deeds, the heavenly kings do not punish them by sending them to hell as in the Indian tradition; rather, the heavenly kings urge them to examine themselves. This approach to punishment corresponds the idea of cosmic resonance (tianren ganying 天人感應), which is a Chinese cultural concept. So, we may wonder, is Foshuo sitianwang jing an Indian Buddhist scripture? How do we treat this text? Of course, the idea of heavenly king’s inspection may have exist in ancient India. In fact, this idea of heavenly king’s inspection appears in the Vedas scriptures. However, the concept of the heavenly king’s inspection in the Vedas is completely different from that of the Foshuo sitianwang jing. There was no narrative in the early period of India Buddhism which is similar to that of the latter scripture. At least we do not find this kind of account in other early Indian Buddhist scriptures, such as the Faju jing 法句經 or the Jingji 經集.17 If we put the idea of heavenly king’s inspection aside and focus on the cosmic resonance advocated in the Foshuo sitianwang jing, we can comfortably suggest this scripture was deeply influenced by traditional Chinese culture. Since the Foshuo sitianwang jing is a translated scripture from a Sanskrit original, how could it be influenced by indigenous Chinese culture? The question involves another question, which I have discussed in recent years: the development of Buddhism. The development of Buddhism involves not only Indian culture, but also the outcome of cultural confluences from China, western India and broader Asia. It is very likely that the Foshuo sitianwang jing was composed in China and then sent back to India, and then translated back into Chinese; this text is a typical example of indigenous Chinese cultural elements spreading to Central Asia, and then to India. This cultural product was later transmitted back to China, and then re-translated into Chinese. As I suggested elsewhere: “Buddhism was nurtured mainly by Indian culture, but the­

17  The third part of the twenty-four section in chapter Gaochuang 高幢 of Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經 (Skt. Ekottara-āgama) and Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 (Skt. Saṃyuktaāgama) (No. 1117) contain similar texts. The former was noted as translated in the Eastern Jin Dynasty. But the current circulated version is the one in the Southern and Northern Dynasties, translated by Gunabhadra. These two scriptures were in the same era with the Foshuo sitianwang jing.

296

Fang

development of Buddhism benefited from its exposure to Chinese and other Asian influences. In other words, China is the second home of Buddhism, a fact made clear through an examination of its cultural products and the historical process through which they emerged.”18 2 The Jingdu sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 is another similar example. The Jingdu sanmei jing was translated by Baoyun 寶雲 in the Liu Song Dynasty. It was initially kept in Chinese canons until Zhisheng 智升 expressed his doubt about its authenticity in his canonical catalogue Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 of the eighth century. Even though there was no hard evidence to reject the authenticity of this text, he put it in the appendix at the end of the catalogue, stating the following: The ten scriptures in fifteen scrolls following the Jing du sanmei jing are all “suspicious” texts as recorded in previous catalogues. Although the Jingdu sanmei jing was listed as “authentic” in the catalogue of Zhou lu 周 錄 (Da Zhou kanding zhongjing mulu 大周刊定衆經目錄), it obviously contains certain agendas. Therefore, it is excluded in this catalogue.19 Zhisheng’s judgment is obviously not correct. Regarding this question, I wrote an article, “Jingdu sanmei jing de muluxue kaocha” 淨度三昧經的目錄學 考察, to confirm that it was certainly a translated scripture.20 Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the Jingdu sanmei jing contains a trace of Chinese culture, such as the following passage: The heavenly kings inspect and make a record of people’s sins and merits, regardless of their status. They report six times each month, four replies a year. The four replies take place the “eight-kings” days. On these dates, the heavenly kings evaluate the deeds of devas, people, and animals. Those

18  Fang Guanzhang (2003), “Menggu wen ganzhu’er danzhu’er mulu qianyan” 蒙古文甘珠 爾丹珠爾目錄前言 (Foreword in The Catalogue of Mongolia Kangyur and Tengyur), Menggu wen ganzhu’er danzhu’er mulu 蒙古甘珠爾丹珠爾目錄 (The Catalogue of Mongolia Kangyur and Tengyur), Menggu renmin chuban she. 19  T 55: 699c. 20  Fang Guanzhang, “Jingdu sanmei jing de mulu xue kaocha,” in Qisi guyi jingdian yanjiu congshu 七寺古逸經典研究叢書, Vol. 2. Dadong chuban she, April, 1996.

Cultural Confluence during the Development of Buddhism

297

who behave well will be given longevity, and those who behave badly will be deprived of longevity and fortunes. The world is enormous and living beings are countless. The devas, the hell-beings, the Heavenly king of five realms, the Heavenly king in charge of life and death, the record-keepers, the five officials, the military commanders, the envoys for the four territory kings, Chengtian, and generals govern the four seasons, and they forbid and report unlawful behaviors. They keep the names and the records of all the living beings and decide their lives without any error. People are foolish so they do not know what the heavenly kings record. They do not know where they came from and where they are going after death. They do not know that their lifetime has been recorded by the five heavenly kings. They do not do good behaviors to pursue safety, and to expiate sins by making merits. They do not know how to save themselves in their next life by following the three honored ones. They do not know how to pass safely through the world by following those wise people who obey Buddhist disciplines. For example, a cow became too old and useless, and everyone said, “This cow is old and useless. Keeping it is a burden and has no benefits for me. I should kill it, so I can eat its meat and remove the burden.” So is with ordinary people. If we do not obey the disciplines, do not do good deeds, we are just like the cow, which is useless and cannot survive. People live with and are nurtured by the energy of the Dao. People who do not follow the Dao cannot save themselves. After their lives are taken by the five officials, they will go into hell. All those governed by the thirty-three heavens are as such. It is no wonder that Zhisheng judged this text to be apocryphal. When it comes to texts often regarded as apocryphal, the most controversial are the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna and the Renwang bore jing 仁王般若經. Modern scholars have disputed their status for a hundred years. Many have pointed out that these two Buddhist scriptures were full of the concepts indigenous to pre-Buddhist Chinese culture and believe that they were not originally Indian Buddhist scriptures. That is to say, they were written by the Chinese. However, these two scriptures are surely translated works from Sanskrit. How do we come to this conclusion? Here we must recognize the fact that the Buddhism of this stage was a product of the westward dissemination of Chinese culture to Central Asia and India. Indian and Central Asian elements were added to this Chinese cultural layer and the text was then once again disseminated in China. The westward dissemination of Chinese culture can be defined in two ways. The first is that the concept of “Western Regions”, defined in a narrow sense and the second is this notion taken more broadly.

298

Fang

In the narrow sense, the Western Regions refer to the Xinjiang area in present-day China. This area has been a place where various cultures met. Han culture has become more and more influential in the Western Regions since the time Zhang Qian 張騫 entered that region. Xinjiang is a place where a great number of Mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures were produced, disseminated, and preserved. And, indeed, Buddhist scriptures that were produced there must have been influenced by Chinese culture. Then, how did Chinese culture influence Xinjiang? First of all, Han culture had a direct influence on the local people in Xinjiang. The Dunhuang manuscripts and the Turfan texts have demonstrated that Dunhuang and the Western Regions were places, where various ethnic groups lived together. NonHan people were influenced by Han culture. Non-Han people used their own languages, while simultaneously using Chinese in various activities. The Qu’s Dynasty in Gaochang, and the Li Dynasty in Yutian are two typical examples. Although some researchers have noted the influence of the Han immigrants, in general, there have been very few publications on this topic. Let me take the example of Monk Fahai 法海 to illustrate the situation. There is a list of translators at the end of the fifth fascicle of the Golden Light Sūtra, the edition of the Beijing Library, number BD03339 (Yü 39). Eighteen monks participated in the translation at Yijing 義淨 translation team, as recorded below: On 4th day of the tenth month in the third year of Chang’an Era of the Great Zhou Dynasty, Year Guimao, Master Yijing, received the edict to translate Buddhist scriptures at the Ximing Monastery, Chang’an. Monk Baosiwei 寶思惟 clarified the meanings of Sanskrit. . . . .  Monk Mingxiao 明曉 in the Tiangong monastery. Monk Fahai of the Beiting Longxing monastery. Verified by Hongjian 弘建. Meanwhile, a paragraph of Huichao wang wutianzhu guo zhuan 慧超往五 天竺國傳 in the Dunhuang manuscripts, numbered P.3532, mentions Fahai differently: In Anxi, there are two Buddhist monasteries led by Han abbots. They practice Mahāyāna Buddhism and eat no meat . . . The abbot of the Longxing monastery Fahai is a Han born in Anxi. His knowledge and moral conduct are not different from those in China. The above mentioned passages noted two Buddhist temples with Han abbots. One is the Longxin Monastery, led by Fahai, who was Han people born in Anxi.

Cultural Confluence during the Development of Buddhism

299

In the third year of the Chang’an Era (703 A.D.), Monk Huichao arrived at Beiting Anxi. From the two pieces of information appearing above, we know that Fahai was born and became a monk in the Western Regions, and then went to Chang’an. In 703, he participated in Yijing’s translation group as a rector of the Longxin monastery. Subsequently, he returned to the Western Regions. He became the abbot of the Longxin monastery around 727 AD. That Huichao’s praise of Fahai’s knowledge and moral conduct were comparable with those in central China must have something to do with his experience translating Buddhist scriptures. Examples such as these are extremely helpful for understanding the immigrant culture in the Western Regions at that time. Now, we will turn to a discussion of the Chinese influence on the production of Buddhist scriptures. Most of the documents found at Dunhuang were written in Chinese or Tibetan. There are other documents, which were written in languages such as Old Uyghur, Sogdian, Khotanian, and Sanskrit. There were documents translated from Tibetan to Chinese, and documents, originally appearing in Chinese, which were then translated into other languages. For example, the Liangchao Fudashi song Jingang jing 梁朝傅大士頌金剛經 was translated into the old Uyghur, and the Fo wei xinwang pusa shuo toutuo jing 佛為心王菩薩說頭陀經 was translated into Sogdian. It is worth discussing the Fo wei xinwang pusa shuo toutuo jing in some detail. It is a Buddhist scripture written in Chinese, typically categorized as an apocryphal document. This text indicates both the influence of Buddhist culture on Chinese thought, and some of the ways in which Buddhist thought was transformed by Chinese culture. Among the Dunhuang manuscripts, there is an incomplete Sogdian version.21 There are also five Chinese versions are preserved in Dunhuang collections in the British library, the French library, 21   The document number of that manuscript is B.M.Or.8212(160)/Stein Ch00353. “B.M.Or.8212” is the number that the British Museum assigned to Aurel Stein’s collection in his third exploration in central Asia. The “Ch” in the document number refers to the pinyin of Chianfodong 千佛洞, which tells that the manuscript was acquired in the Mogao Caves, Dunhuang. Judging from the number, Aurel Stein found this manuscript at his third exploration of Dunhuang in 1914.  When Stein conducted his third exploration, the rest of the manuscripts have been transported to Beijing. These Dunhuang manuscripts came from Daoist Priest Wang’s private collection, including 500 larger scrolls and about 1000 fragment pieces. In addition, he also excavated some ancient documents in the Xingjiang.  According to the records of Stein and Pelliot, Wang spoke only Chinese, and did not pay attention to manuscripts in other languages. Wang’s collection must be Chinese documents that he regarded valuable. If the above speculation stands, then it is doubtful that the Sogdian version of the Fo wei xinwang pusa shuo toutuo jing was from Wang. Here are two possibilities. Firstly, the manuscript is acquired from other cave in the Mogao

300

Fang

the National Library of China, Tianjin Museum, and the Mitsui Bunko. The Sogdian version preserved in the British Library attracted the attention of researchers, but, for some time, no one was able to determine which scriptural tradition it belonged to. Finally, in 1933, French scholar P. Demieville identified it as Fo wei xinwang pusa shuo toutuo jing according to the fragments of Chinese version in the Taishō Tripitaka Vol. 85. More recently, Japanese scholar Ibuki Atsushi 伊吹敦 translated the Sogdian version into Chinese. According to Chinese catalogues, whatever was written by Chinese authors were regarded “apocryphal,” while anything translated from foreign originals are “authentic.” Those texts which could not be identified were classified as “suspicious” scriptures. Imagine, for example, the following situation. The Fo wei xinwang pusa shuo toutuo jing was not recorded as a apocryphal scripture in any Buddhist catalogues (many cases are like this in the Chinese catalogues), and all of its Chinese originals were lost. And then, imagine Prof. Ibuki Atsushi lived in the ancient period, found the Sogdian version and translated it into Chinese. Then his activity of translation was recorded by the Buddhist catalogues in the ancient times. What can we learn from this thought experiment? Various cultures (including both Indian and Chinese) lived together in the Western Regions. It is impossible that these cultures could have no influence on the Buddhism that existed in the western regions. These Buddhist scriptures were might then be disseminated in China once again and further interact with Chinese culture. This is an important possibility for those in Buddhist Studies to consider. Investigating the confluence of cultures in the western region presents the researcher with a set of complex questions. A single article cannot present comprehensive answers. This is a question worthy of study and I have proposed several stepping-stones here for further academic research. Numerous apocryphal scriptures preserved in the Dunhuang manuscripts are potential resources for those interested in these questions. The Western Regions, in the broadest sense, refer to Central Asia and South Asia. Li Bai 李白, a famous Tang poet was born in Suyab (nowadays Kazakhstan), and it is not difficult to imagine the strong influence of Chinese culture in Central Asia during the Tang period. The limitations of the historical record in India make it difficult to determine the extent to which indigenous Chinese culture may have determined the development of Buddhism in India. However, Chinese sources record the presence of numerous m ­ erchants, ­diplomatic envoys, and monks travelling between India and China. These Caves. Or, the manuscript did not belong to the Dunhuang manuscripts, and the document number is wrong.

Cultural Confluence during the Development of Buddhism

301

f­igures were bearers of their respective cultures and played a vital role in the dissemination of their cultures abroad. We must pay attention to those Indian monks who came to China for the dissemination of Buddhism as well as to those Chinese monks who went to India. A widely circulated poem runs a follows: In the Liu Song, Qi, Liang, and Tang Dynasties, eminent monks left Chang’an to pursue Buddhism. (看宋齊梁唐代間，高僧求法別長安) Hundreds of them departed, less than ten of them returned. The successors knew nothing about the difficulty that their predecessors experienced. (去人成百歸無十，後輩馬（焉）知前者難) The road in the mountains with snow was rough, the cold penetrated to their bones. (雪嶺崎嶇侵骨冷) The waves of sands were so chilling that their hearts almost froze (流 沙波浪徹心寒) The descendants did not understand what happened at that time, and took the acquirement of Buddhist scriptures for granted. (後流不辯當 時事，往往將經容易看)22 Based on the line which states that “hundreds of them departed, less than ten of them returned,” we know that some monks died on the way. However, many of them stayed in India. Yijing’s Da Tang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan 大唐西域 求法高僧傳 preserved important information regarding this phenomenon. Those Chinese monks who returned from India also left the mark of Chinese culture on Indian society. For example, corresponding to the political situation 22  The poem might be written by Yijing. See the Dazang jing zongmu 大藏經總目. The same poem with a little difference in the wording is to be found in Issaikyō no yurai 一切 経の由来 compiled by Murakami Senjō 村上專精: In the Jin, Song, Qi, Liang, and Tang Dynasties, Eminent monks left Chang’an to pursue Buddhism. (晉宋齊梁唐代間，高僧求法離長安) Hundred of them departed, less than ten of them returned. The successors knew nothing about the difficulty their predecessors experienced. (去人成百歸無十，後 者安知前者難) The Destination is far away, accompanied by blue sky and coldness. The sands cover the sun and make people exhausted. (路遠碧天唯冷結，沙河遮日力疲殫) If the descendants did not know what happened at that time, they usually took the acquirement of Buddhist scriptures as an easy task. (後賢如未諳斯旨，往往將經 容易看)  (Dazheng xinxiu dazang jing huiyuan tongxun 大正新修大藏經會員通訊, no. 16, November 1961).

302

Fang

in India, the factions of India Buddhism were never unified. Indian tends to believe that the existence of factions, or the existence of heterodox is normal. An Indian monk during the period of Buddhist schism said that although a golden stick was broken into eighteen pieces, each piece is still made of pure gold. Following this logic, all these factions at that time belonged to orthodoxy and their existence was legitimate—the Indians had no intention to unify these factions. The situation in China was different. Basically, China has been united politically in the history. When China was in the situation of temporary separation, some fragmented parts considered themselves as the orthodoxy, and took the reunification as their goal. The others esteemed the other country as the orthodoxy and treated themselves as the vassal states. As a result, unification is normal and fragmentation is abnormal from the perspective of Chinese. Therefore, within the cultural sphere, Chinese tends to build up a harmonious system by integrating various contradictory elements. The classification of Buddha teachings done by Chinese monks during the Northern and Southern Dynasties was out of this purpose. For example, Xuanzang 玄奘 wrote the Huizong lun 會宗論 to integrate Madyamaka and Yogācāra. In the Da Tang Daci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳, Fascicle 4, it writes: “When Huizong lun was completed and presented to Jiexian 戒賢 and the assemblies, everyone praised it and applauded.”23 Xuanzang’s perspective must have influenced Jiexian and other monks. It is noteworthy that an Indian school that integrated Madyamaka and Yogācāra did emerge in a later period, even if there is no evidence to assert that Xuanzang’s Huizong lun directly influenced this Indian sect. 3 At the end of fascicle 2 of the Golden Light Sūtra, Dunhuang manuscript S.06884, a passage states: Transcribing the Golden Light Sūtra with respect, ten fascicles. On the right part, the above merit of transcribing the sutra is also adornment. The Lord of Mt. Tai, the Great King of Equality, the Deities of Five Realms, the Officials in the Heaven and the Hell, the Deities of Life and the Record-keepers, the Deities of of the Earth and Water, the Ghost King that Spreads Diseases and all attendants, all Lords and Good Friends, Hu envoys, Calendar Officials, my Aunt, Guan Officer, Guarantee Kehan, 23  T 50: 244c.

Cultural Confluence during the Development of Buddhism

303

and two new envoys, Divinities of Wind and Rain, and so on, [I] sincerely beseech for your mercy to grant me merits and longevity. This Golden Light Sūtra was transcribed in the Guiyijun period in Dunghuang, during the 9th or 10th century. If we compare the above passage with the Jingdu sanmei jing that was translated in the Northern and Southern Dynasties, we will see many similarities. These similarities remind us that we have to pay attention not only to the doctrinal elements in culture but also to the devotional elements in culture, when considering the issue of cultural confluence. However, it is a rather complicated question and I shall discuss it in detail in another article. Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Baihu tongyi 白虎通義, Ban Gu 班固, Siku quanshu 四庫全書, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1987. Chang ahan jing 長阿含經, Buddhayaśas and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 trans., T 1, No. 2153. Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏記集, Sengyou 僧祐, T 55, No. 2145. Daji jing 大集經, Dharmakṣema trans., T 13, No. 397. Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論 (Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna), Paramārtha trans., T 32 No. 1666. Da Tang Daci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳, T 50, No. 2053. Da Tang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan 大唐西域求法高僧傳, Yijing 義淨, T 51, No. 2066. Da Zhou kanding zhongjing mulu 大周刊定衆經目錄, Mingquan 明佺, T 55, No. 2153. Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林, Daoshi 道世, T 53, No. 2122. Fo shuo sitianwang jing 佛說四天王經, Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲 trans., T 15, No. 590. Fo wei xinwang pusa shuo toutuo jing 佛為心王菩薩說頭陀經, Dunhuang manuscript, B.M.Or.8212(160)/Stein Ch00353. Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳, Huijiao 慧皎, T 50, No. 2059. Guang hongming ji 廣弘明集, Daoxuan 道宣, T 52, No. 2103. Huichao wang wutianzhu guo zhuan 慧超往五天竺國傳, Dunhuang manuscript. P.3532. Ji shenzhou sanbao gantong lu 集神州三寶感通錄, Daoxuan, T 52, No. 2106. Jin guangming jing 金光明經 (Golden Light Sūtra), Dunhuang manuscript, S.06884. Jingdu sanmei jing 淨度三昧經, Baoyun 寶雲 trans., X. 01, No. 15. Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教錄, Zhisheng 智升, T 55. Liang chao Fu dashi song Jingang jing 梁朝傅大士頌金剛經, T 85, No. 2732.

304

Fang

Liangshu 梁書, Yao Silian 姚思廉, Beijing: Zhonghua shuji, 1998. Lunheng 論衡, Wang Chong 王充, Siku quanshu 四庫全書, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1987. Renwang bore jing 仁王般若經, Kumārajīva trans., T 8, No. 245. Shanshengzi jing 善生子經, Zhi Fadu 支法度 trans., T 1, No. 17. Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方志, Daoxuan 道宣, T 51, No. 2088. Shijialuoyue liufang li jing 屍迦羅越六方禮經, An Shijao 安世高 trans., T 1, No. 16. Xu gaosengzhuan 續高僧傳, Daoxuan, T 50, No. 2060. Za ahan jing 雜阿含經, Guṇabhadra trans., T 2, No. 99. Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經, Saṃghadeva trans., T 2, No. 125. Zhong ahan jing 中阿含經, Saṃghadeva trans., T 1. No. 26.



Secondary Sources

Dazheng xinxiu dazang jing huiyuan tongxun 大正新修大藏經會員通訊, no. 16, November 1961. Fang Guangchang (1996), “Jingdu sanmei jing de muluxue kaocha” 淨度三昧經的目 錄學考察, in Qisi guyi jingdian yanjiu congshu 七寺古逸經典研究叢書, vol. 2. Dadong chuban she. ——— (2003), “Menggu wen ganzhu’er danzhu’er mulu qianyan” 蒙古文甘珠爾丹 珠爾目錄前言 (Foreword in The Catalogue of Mongolia Kangyur and Tengyur), Menggu wen ganzhu’er danzhu’er mulu 蒙古甘珠爾丹珠爾目錄 (The Catalogue of Mongolia Kangyur and Tengyur), Menggu renmin chuban she. Giles, Lionel et al. (1957), eds., Descriptive Catalogue of the Chinese Manuscripts from Tunhuang in the British Museum, London, Trustees of the British Museum. Murakami Senjō 村上專精 (1915), ed. Issaikyō no yurai 一切経の由来 (Chinese title cited by the original author: Yiqie jing zhi youlai 一切經之由來), Tokyo: Jindō kōwakai. Soymié, Michel (1979), “Les dix jours de jeûne de Kṣitigarbha” (Chinese title cited by the original author: Dunhuang xieben zhong de dizang shizhai ri 敦煌寫本中的 地藏十齋日), in Contributions aux études sur Touen-houang, ed. Michel Soymié. Geneva: Droz, pp. 135–59.

chapter 13

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute during the Xianqing and Longshuo Eras of the Tang Dynasty Pan Guiming 潘桂明 During the periods of Wude (618–626) and Zhenguan (627–649), in the new historical context Buddhist and Daoist advocates debated with each other in order to earn imperial support and maximize their social influence. The debates expressed a very strong factional sentiment and to some extent maintained the salience of a distinction between Chinese and barbarian. Furthermore, it shows that the early Tang emperors hesitated about religious policies, but in the end decided to restrain Buddhism. The dispute between Buddhism and Daoism during the periods of Xianqing and Longshuo represents a direct confrontation between these two factions, culminating in their questioning and criticizing each other in the area of categories, concepts, and modes of thinking. Because the debate opened a flourishing period for philosophical circles in the Tang Dynasty and came to fully manifest the status of Buddhism in these philosophical circles, it had profound meaning [in Chinese intellectual history]. 1 The dispute between Buddhism and Daoism during the periods of Wude and Zhenguan in the early Tang Dynasty rarely involved questions about theories and philosophical thought, and the academic debates occurred only within limited parameters. For example, in the eighth year of the Wude period (625), monk Huisheng 慧乘 and Daoist Priest Li Zhongqing 李仲卿 had a debate over the idea in the Laozi 老子 that the Dao follows nature—Dao fa ziran 道 法自然 {Translator’s note: For readability, “nature” will be used here to denote ziran, which in this context has the sense of “that which is of itself,” a self-­ manifest entity}. The debate began with Huisheng’s attack on this idea, yielding an adverse result for Daoism: Huisheng first asked, “Your Honorable holds a prestigious position in the Daoist school, and your wisdom surpasses the universe. When ©

5 | 

/

5

306

Pan

­explaining the Daode jing 道德經, you said that its first fascicle explicates Dao 道, while its second fascicle elucidates De 德. Does this Dao have something greater than itself, or is nothing greater than Dao?” Li Zhongqing answered, “In the heaven and the human world, only Dao is the ultimate and the greatest and nothing is greater than Dao.” Huisheng asked, “[You say that] Dao is the ultimate and the greatest and nothing is greater than Dao. Can we also say that Dao is the ultimate law and Dao follows nothing?” Li Zhongqing answered, “Dao is the ultimate law and Dao follows nothing.” Huisheng asked, “According to the Laozi, human beings follow the earth; the earth follows Heaven; Heaven follows Dao; Dao follows nature. Why did you contradict your own school and say that Dao follows nothing? If Dao is the ultimate law, then there must be something that follows Dao. Why do you say that Dao’s law is the greatest and nothing is greater than Dao?” Li Zhongqing answered, “Dao is merely nature and nature is Dao. Therefore, Dao cannot follow any other law.” Huisheng asked, “[You say that] Dao follows nature; nature is Dao. Can we conclude that nature follows Dao?” Li Zhongqing answered, “Dao follows nature and nature does not follow Dao.” Huisheng asked, “[You say that] Dao follows nature and nature does not follow Dao. Therefore, can we say that Dao is nature and nature is not Dao?” Li Zhongqing answered, “Dao follows nature and nature is Dao. Hence, they do not follow each other.” Huisheng asked, “[You say that] Dao follows nature and nature is Dao. Can we also say that the earth follows Heaven, hence Heaven is the earth? Manifestly, the earth follows Heaven and Heaven is not the earth. Accordingly, we know that Dao follows nature and nature is not Dao. If nature is Dao, then Heaven should be the earth.”1

1  先 問道云：先生廣位道宗，高邁宇宙，向釋《道德》云，上卷明道，下卷明 德。未知此道更有大此道者，為更無大於道者？答曰：天上天下，唯道至極、 最大，更無大於道者。難曰：道是至極、最大，更無大於道者，亦可道是至極 之法，更無法於道者？答曰：道是至極之法，更無法於道者。難曰：《老經》 自云，人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然。何意自違本宗，乃云更無法於道 者？若道是至極之法，遂更有法於道者，何意道法最大，不得更有大於道者？ 答曰：道只是自然，自然即是道，所以更無別法能法於道者。難曰：道法自 然，自然即是道，亦得自然還法道不？答曰：道法自然，自然不法道。難曰： 道法自然，自然不法道，亦可道即自然，自然不即道？答曰：道法自然，自然 即是道，所以不相法。難曰：道法自然，自然即是道，亦可地法於天，天即是 地。然地法於天，天不即地，故知道法自然，自然不即道。若自然即是道，天 應即是地。 See Jigujin Fo Dao lunheng 集古今佛道論衡, Fascicle 3, T 52.

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute

307

The highlight of the debate concerned the relationship between Dao and nature. In the Laozi, Dao is the highest philosophical category, it is the most fundamentally spiritual existence, and it constitutes the most primordial material for everything. This philosophical category refuted the idea that the heavenly Dao has understanding, but later generations could not explicate this category of Dao due to its ambiguous definition, which then invited Buddhist criticisms. Li Zhongqing argued that the Dao in the Laozi is the ultimate law, but when Huisheng asked him how to explain that Dao follows nature, he encountered a theoretical dilemma and answered, Dao is nature and nature is Dao. This answer apparently cannot overcome logical contradiction, because Dao’s following nature and nature’s being Dao have totally different meanings. The former concerns a hierarchical relationship, the latter a relationship of equivalence. That Dao follows nature means that Dao follows the law of nature and subordinates itself to nature, and nature is higher than Dao. In contrast, “nature is Dao” includes not a relationship of subordination but one of equality. Huisheng used logical inference to diagnose Li Zhongqing’s logical contradiction about the relationship between Dao and nature, but Huisheng’s basic theoretical principle was based on the Buddhist theory of substance. From Huisheng’s perspective, if Dao represents the ontological concept of the ultimate (zhiji 至極), then it should be interpreted according to Buddhist theory of reality and be given a clear and exact definition. It is a contradiction to say that, on the one hand, Dao is the ultimate law and, on the other hand, nature follows nature and nature is Dao. Falin’s Bianzheng lun 辯正論 attacked Daoism in a similar manner. He said, Even if Dao exists, it was not self-generated; it emerged from nature. If Dao originates from nature, then Dao is contingent. Since its existence depends on other things, this denotes impermanence. . . . There is no name for nature, even exhausting our vocabulary. Dao is wisdom, the epithet of spiritual knowledge. Application of wisdom cannot compete with non-wisdom, and that with form is inferior to that which is formless. The Dao has meaning, which is inferior to nature’s lack of meaning.2

2  縱使有道，不能自生，從自然出。道本自然，則道有所待。既因他有，即是無 常。. . . . . . 自然無稱，窮極之辭；道是智慧，靈知之號。用智不及無智，有形不 及無形；道是有義，不及自然之無義也。 Bianzheng lun, in the Guang hongming ji 廣弘明集, Fascicle 14, Sibu congkan edition 四部叢刊.

308

Pan

“Dao follows nature and Dao is contingent” means that if Dao originates from nature (following nature as the law) then Dao is not the ultimate, absolute being (the ultimate law), and it still belongs to the physics of contingent being. The Laozi actually treats nature as the highest being. In contrast to Dao, which embraces form and wisdom, nature is formless and without wisdom. That is to say, it is illogical for the Laozi to propose that Dao, being the highest category on the one hand, follows nature on the other hand. In fact, the Tang-Dynasty Buddhist criticism of Laozi’s statement that Dao follows nature provides useful information on the development of Daoist thought, namely, that if Daoists wanted to have a dialogue with Buddhists on equal footing, this would have to begin with a re-expounding the Daode jing. The numerous notes and commentaries on the Daode jing in the Tang Dynasty demonstrate that Daoists had realized this point. 2 During the period of Xianqing and Longshuo under Emperor Gaozong, the Buddhism-Daoism dispute entered a phase of frequent exchange of thought. According to Daoxuan’s 道宣 Jigujin Fo Dao lunheng 集古今佛道論衡, disputes between Buddhism and Daoism during this period occurred six times. The following section attempts to examine the major incidents. In April of 658 CE, Emperor Gaozong ordered seven monks and seven Daoists to discuss the cardinal meanings of Buddhism and Daoism at the inner court of the imperial palace. Buddhist master Huiyin 會隱 advocates the meaning of the five aggregates, and Shentai 神泰 established the nine absolute understandings ( jiuduan zhiyi 九斷知義). On the Daoist side, the priests Huang Ze 黃賾, Li Rong 李榮, Huang Shou 黃壽, and others responded. However, lacking sufficient understanding of Buddhist concepts, the Daoists were overwhelmed and their efforts in engaging back and forth were all in vain ( Ji gujin Fo Dao lunheng, Fascicle 4). Daoxuan did not describe in detail, but apparently Daoists were defeated in this debate. Failing to understand Buddhist doctrines, Daoists could not refute Buddhist theory. This also means that Daoists could hardly compete with Buddhists in philosophical analyses. Subsequently, Emperor Tang Gaozong ordered Daoists to strengthen their doctrine. In reply, Li Rong explicated that Dao creates everything (dao sheng wanwu 道生萬物), while Huili 慧立 from the Daci’en Temple cross-examined Li Rong:

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute

309

Huili asked, “Master, you say that Dao creates everything. I was wondering if this Dao has knowing or not?” Li Rong answered, “According to the Daode jing, humans follow the earth, the earth follows heaven, and heaven follows Dao. Since Dao is the law of heaven and earth, how can we say that it has no knowing?” Huili asked, “Earlier you said that Dao creates everything, but now you say that everything does not originate from Dao. Which one is correct? If Dao has knowing, then it would only create good. Why does it create evil as well? If good and evil rise and fall, and the motley are all created, then Dao has no knowing. . . . As a result, all things are mixed and created, and good and evil are not clear. Hence, Dao has no knowing and cannot create things. How can we say that heaven and earth follow Dao and that Dao is the origin of everything? According to our Great Sage Tathāgata’s teaching of the ultimate principle, all beings in the universe are shaped by their karma. . . . All [beings] are caused by their own karma, which is not contingent on anyone else. You have a foolish mind and do not know [this]. As a result, you claim that Dao creates everything.”3 That Dao creates everything is the foundation of Daoism, expressing the Daoist theory of genesis, which had been surpassed by Wang Bi’s 王弼 ontology of emptiness as essence ( yiwu weiben 以無為本). Therefore, when Li Rong expounded on the idea that Dao creates everything, he immediately encountered Huili’s criticism. Huili’s criticism did not come from philosophical ontology but from the Buddhist theory of karma. From Huili’s perspective, all things in the universe are influenced by karma and there exists no originator or originated. And if Li Rong were to maintain that Dao creates everything, then he would face a paradox regarding whether Dao does or does not have knowing. Li Rong would fall into a dilemma whether answering in the affirmative or negative, because Dao, as the highest spiritual ontology, must be experienced by intuition, not belonging to any epistemological category. Therefore, it

3  先生云‘道生萬物’，未知此道為是有知，為是無知？”答曰：“道經云‘人 法地，地法天，天法道’。既為天地之法，豈曰無知？”難曰：“向敘道為萬 物之母，今度萬物不由道生，何者？若使道是有知，則惟生於善，何故亦生於 惡？據此善惡升沈，叢雜總生，則無知矣。. . . . . . 既而混生萬物，不蠲善惡，則 道是無知，不能生物，何得云天地取法而為萬物之宗始乎？據我如來大聖窮理 盡性之教也，天地萬物是眾生業力所感。. . . . . . 皆自業自作，無人使之。吾子心 愚不識，橫言道生。 Jigujin Fo Dao lunheng, Fascicle 4.

310

Pan

c­ annot be explicated from the position of knowing or not knowing, or good or evil deeds.4 In the eleventh month of the third year of the Xianqing period, Emperor Tang Gaozong ordered Monk Yibao 義褒 from the Daci’en Temple and Daoist Priest Zhang Huiyuan 張惠元 from the Dongming Temple to preach and 4  Buddhist philosophy did not necessarily support the treating of spiritual substance as an object of epistemology. This principle had a traditional meaning, which was mainly to eradicate monks’ stubborn thinking. Huineng’s 惠能 dialogue with his disciple, Shenhui 神會, can illustrate this point. As recorded in the forty-third section of the Dunhuang edition of the Platform Sutra, Monk Shenhui, from Nanyang, went to Mountain Caoxi 漕溪山 for religious worship and asked, “Can a monk see when sitting in mediation?” The Master stood up, hit Shenhui three times, and asked, “Do you feel hurt when I hit you?” Shenhui answered, “Hurt and not hurt.” Huineng said, “You see and do not see.” Shenhui asked again, “Master, why do I see and not see?” The Master said, “I also see, and I often see my own faults. Those which [I] don’t see are the faults of the heaven, the earth, and human beings. Accordingly, [I] see and do not see. Do you feel hurt or not?” Shenhui responded, “If I do not feel hurt, then I resemble emotionless wood and stone. If I feel hurt, I am similar to the ordinary people, grounded in hate.” The Master said, “Come forward, Shenhui. Seeing or not seeing are two sides, and hurting or not hurting is as life and death. You do not see your own nature. How dare you come to make a fool of people!” Shenhui bowed and kept silent. The Master said, “Your mind is lost and cannot be seen. You ask your good [Buddhist] friends for the path. When your mind is enlightened you can see, and you practice according to the Buddhist rules. You yourself are lost and you do not see your own mind, but instead asked Huineng if he can see [your mind]. If I do not know myself, I cannot have your confusion for you. If you see yourself, how on earth can you be confused by my confusion? Why don’t you practice by yourself and then ask me if I can see it?” Shenhui saluted, became Huineng’s disciple, and stayed in Mountain Caoxi, always accompanying Huineng (Pan Guiming 潘桂明, Tanjing Quanyi 壇經全譯, Bashu shushe, p. 167). The subject of this dialogue concerns the awareness of Buddha-nature. When Huineng talked about Buddha-nature, he often used concepts such as one’s self-mind, one’s original mind, one’s self-nature, and one’s original nature, or implied these without revealing them, because everyone possesses Buddha-nature and it cannot be expressed through language or words, only through self-experience or enlightenment. What this section calls seeing-or-not-seeing is concerned with Buddha-nature. The being-hurt-or-not-hurt section is concerned with Buddha-nature as well. From Huineng’s perspective, everyone is essentially possessed of Buddha-nature, and hence only needs to be awakened. Therefore, there is no such thing as seeing-or-not-seeing. But if an answer is required, perhaps we can say either-seeing-or-not-seeing. Another answer is Shenhui’s saying either-hurting-or-nothurting, which inherited Huineng’s thought. But if we pursue further, these answers do not convey the meaning. Huineng then said that seeing or not seeing are two sides, and hurting or not hurting are life and death. These two sides represent discrimination and attachment, and the two sides of life and death fall into samsara; this dichotomy cannot reach an awakening. Real awakening does not lie in discourse but in one’s own personal experience, away from all attachment.

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute

311

debate in the inner court of the imperial palace. At that time, “curfew was enforced in the inner and outer court, as everyone gathered at the ceremony. Ordinary people were searched thoroughly in order to find the best candidates. This sort of flourishing scene had no precedents.” It happened at a magnificent scale. This debate centered around the meaning of the original reality (benji 本際) established by Li Rong. At that time, Li Rong rose up to the high seat and expounded the meaning of original reality. The Emperor called upon Yibao, saying, “Granted that you, Master, are capable of discussing doctrines, please rise up to the high seat, and discuss together name and reason (mingli 名理)” Li Rong then sat and was asked, “As for the doctrine designated the original ­reality—meaning that Dao originates from reality and is named the original r­ eality—because reality originates from Dao, Dao is the original reality?” Li Rong answered, “They advance each other.” Yibao asked, “Dao originates from Dao and reality is the origin of Dao. Can reality originate from Dao and Dao be the origin of reality as well?” Li Rong replied, “Which direction is obstructed?” Yibao said, “If Dao and the original reality link with each other in a circle, then nature and Dao can follow each other.” Li Rong answered, “Dao follows nature, and nature does not follow Dao.” Yibao then said, “If Dao follows nature, and nature does not follow Dao, then Dao can originate from the original reality and the original reality does not originate from Dao.” The Daoist priest was consequently troubled. Afraid of failure, he remained silent and could not make any response. Yibao further challenged him, “Your Dao originates from the original reality, and, hence, Dao and reality are based on each other and Dao can also follow nature. Why cannot Dao and nature follow each other?”5

5  時 道士李榮先升高座，立本際義。敕褒云：“承師能論義，請升高座，共談 名理。”便即登座，問云：“既義標本際，為道本於際，名為本際；為際本 （於）道，名為本際？”答云：“互得進。”難云：“道本於際，際為道本； 亦   可際本於道，道為際元？”答云：“何往不通。”並曰：“若使道將本際互得 相返，亦可自然與道互得相法。”答曰：“道法自然，自然不法道。”又並 曰：“若使道法于自然，自然不法道，亦可道本於本際，本際不本道。”於是 道士著難，恐墜厥宗，但存緘默，不能加報。褒即複結難云：“汝道本於本 際，遂得道、際互相本，亦可道法于自然，何為道、自不得互相法？” Jigujin Fo Dao lunheng, Fascicle 4.

312

Pan

The idea of original reality stems from the Benji jing 本際經 (Skt. Koti Sūtra), in the tenth fascicle of Madhyama-āgama (Ch. Zhong ahan jing 中阿含經), which briefly mentions that “As for the desire for existence, its original reality is unknown. Originally there was not any desire for existence, but since the desire for existence arose it is distinguishable.” (T 1) The sixth fascicle of Saṃyukta-āgama (Ch. Za ahan jing 雜阿含經) also states that sentient beings are covered by [types of] ignorance, among which desire is the major one. They have come a long way in the circles of birth and death. Wandering in this wheel of samsara, they do not go to the original reality. (T 2) In early sutras, original reality, which was not yet a metaphysical concept, refers to an actual situation. In the later classics of Mahāyāna, the meaning of original reality gradually came to involve the connotation of substance. For example, the third fascicle of Guangzan jing 光贊經 states that original reality neither arises nor dies, and cannot be acquired. (T 8) According to the Yuanjue jing 圓覺經, all sentient beings are [in fact] in a state of pure enlightenment; their body and mind are tranquil, matching the original reality. (T 17) The Shengman jing 勝鬘經 states that the living and the dead follow tathāgatagarbha {Translator’s note: “Buddha-embryo,” the essential potential for Buddhahood} and, because of tathāgatagarbha, the original reality cannot be known. (T 12) The second fascicle of Foshuo wuyan tongzi jing 佛說 無言童子經 states that all dharmas and original reality are existing and real. Original reality has no origin; original reality is real; original reality is eternal. (T 13) Li Rong had grounded his theory on original reality, which was apparently inspired by Buddhist thought. From the perspective of the theory of substance, Li Rong had a point in saying that Dao and reality advance each other and are based on each other, because these two concepts point to ultimate existence. But Yibao uses the idea of the Dao following nature in the Laozi to demonstrate the contradiction between substance and original source in Daoism. According to the Laozi, since Dao follows nature, we cannot say that Dao is nature. But Laozi actually employs Dao as the highest philosophical category, which in fact belongs to the ultimate nature. Therefore, Li Rong’s viewpoint in the debate does not conflict with the Daoist theory. Yibao’s questions and refutations were similar to those of Huisheng and Falin in the past, which inferred the mistakes in Li Rong’s view from the contradiction in the Laozi. Yibao’s conclusion was that if [the statement that] Dao follows nature and nature does not follows Dao stands, then we can say that Dao can originate from the original reality and the original reality does not originate from Dao, and this statement conflicts with Li Rong’s argument that Dao and reality advance and are based on each other.

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute

313

This issue concerns the theory of Dao’s substance in the Benji jing (allegedly written by Liu Jinxi 劉進喜 and Li Zhongqing 李仲卿) of the early Tang Dynasty. The basic tenet of the Benji jing was that [Dao] possesses form and shape, but no hindrance in emptiness. The Twofold Mystery will be revealed, so as to open the wonderful gates6 or to illustrate the true and singular original reality, to demonstrate the source of birth and death, to preach on the ultimate fruition, to open the real nature of the Dao, and to elucidate the Great Mystery School.7 What the Benji jing refers to as true and singular original reality is the 6  Taixuan zhenyi benji jing 太玄真一本際經, Fascicle 1, in Kamata Shigeo 鐮田茂雄 (1986), Dōzō nai bukkyō shisō shiryō shūsei 道藏內佛教思想資料集成. Tōkyō Daigaku Tōyō Bunka Kenkyūjo 東京大学東洋文化硏究所，Tokyo: Daizō shuppansha, p. 333. 7  Taixuan zhenyi benji jing, Fascicle 1, ibid., p. 351.  Lu Guolong 盧國龍 argued that the Benji jing mainly elaborated on the issue of Dao’s substance. His argument was that Dao is neither existent nor non-existent; it is active and still, and can be the origin and the traces. Dao is the origin of all living creatures in the universe, but is itself lacking origin. Although all living creatures’ practice is called the return to the origin, there is actually no origin to which to return. Hence, Dao and all living creatures in nature are identical and separate things, which is the meaning of original reality regarding Dao and all living creatures. According to this understanding, Li Rong believed that Dao and the original reality can be the source of each other and this was the basic tenet of the Daoist Twofold Mystery in the early Tang Dynasty. Lu Guolong also argued that Yibao’s understanding that Dao follows nature separates Dao from nature, which misunderstood the scholars of the Twofold Mystery. Heshang Gong 河上公 already argued that Dao is nature, and Dao follows nothing (Lu Guolong 盧國龍 1997, Daojiao Zhexue 道教哲學, Huaxia chubanshe, p. 296). This view is very inspiring for understanding the exchange of ideas between Buddhism and Daoism. When the Benji jing discusses Dao’s substance, it reaches a higher theoretical level, because it absorbed the spirit of critical thinking in Buddhist Madhyamaka. For example, it states that those who today invoke the Dao employ language to reveal it, so that people can be enlightened. Understand that language does not exist. Forget the bamboo fish trap and acquire the point. Do not insist on words. What is called Dao is passed and reached without hindrance, just like emptiness, [which is] neither existent nor non-existent. It is neither outer appearance (Skt. rūpa) nor mind, neither form-embracing nor formless, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither extinguishable nor inextinguishable. Dharma nature and Dao’s nature (daoxing 道性) are both empty. Such emptiness is empty; emptyemptiness is also empty. There is no differentiation in emptiness (Taixuan zhenyi benji jing, Fascicle 9, in Kamata Shigeo, p.374). In these statements, the qualifications on Dao’s substance concurs with the Buddhist [notion of] prajñā. According to the variorum edition of the citations from the Laozi Dodejing Heshang gong zhangju 老子道德經河上公章句, whose punctuation was collated by Wang Ka 王卡, that Dao follows nature was treated as the thesis that Dao permanently gives birth to nature (Zhonghua Shuju, 1993, p.106). Hence, Heshang Gong’s idea that Dao is nature and Dao follows nothing should be re-considered. Daojiao zhexue 道教哲學 also points out that the Buddhism-Daoism debate over [the

314

Pan

definition of Dao’s substance. Li Rong explained the relationship between Dao and original reality on the basis of the Benji jing, but he did not clearly capture the Benji jing’s idea. Indeed, during the process of the Benji jing imitating the philosophical analysis in Buddhist Madhyamaka, the discourse on some basic concepts remained quite unclear.8 issue of] Dao following nature provided a final answer until Emperor Xuanzong noted and commented on the Laozi and proposed the idea of the wonderful origin. Xuanzong further commented as follows: “Human beings follow the earth; the earth follows heaven; heaven follows Dao; Dao follows nature . . . emptiness is the substance of the wonderful origin. Substance is not material, hence it is said to be empty. Nature is the nature of the wonderful origin; nature is not artificial, hence it is said to be natural. Dao is the function of the wonderful origin. The so-called names are nothing but universal being; hence it is called Dao. To simplify the substance and apply a name to it, it is called the empty and natural Dao. In finding its source, that is the wonderful origin. Again, is there anything that obstructs the Dharma?” (Qiang Siqi 強思齊, “Daode zhenjing xuande zuanshu” 道德真經玄德纂疏, Fascicle 7, in Kamata Shigeo 1986, Fascicle 13, p.418). Xuanzong’s argument was that Dao and nature both belong to the wonderful origin and hence he held the idea of an empty and natural Dao. This basis of [his] argument was similar to the Qixin lun’s 起信論 idea that substance and function are the same. The substance of nature and Dao is emptiness and therefore the wonderful origin. This foundation establishes the nature-function relationship between nature and Dao, which is [characterized by notions that] nature is the wonderful origin and Dao is the function of the wonderful origin. In fact, the empty wonderful origin of nature and Dao constitute one pair of substance and function. This parallels the Qixin lun’s ideas regarding one mind with two doors, one to the world of substance and the other to the world of phenomena (yixin ermen 一心二門). Seen in this way, Xuanzong’s theory of one wonderful origin is still connected to contemporary Buddhist thinking. At the same time, Xuanzong apparently saw a logical contradiction in the Laozi, which could not be overcome, and therefore intended to reconcile it by use of the Buddhist theory of substance and function. This effort can be considered progress in the Daoist account. 8  In Cong Weijin Xuanxue dao Chutang Chongxuanxue 從魏晉玄學到初唐重玄學, Qiang Yü 強昱 devotes one section specifically to the Benji jing’s ideas and argues that the goal of the Benji jing is to develop the true Dao and the righteous nature and to affirm that the true Dao and the righteous nature are human nature. The Benji jing is superior to Guo Xiang 郭象 in proposing that humans’ true nature is Dao’s nature, which is the true and uncontaminated thought about the original source of value. Hence it avoids the problems in Zhidun’s 支遁 criticism of Guo Xiang in the Xiaoyaoyou lun 逍遙遊論. At the same time, Qiang Yü pointed out that the Benji jing’s discourse on Dao, nature, and mind is enormous, diverse, disorderly, and full of contradictions. The Benji jing is abstruse and discursive, due to the serious flaw in its analysis of the main concept’s substance, and its author’s attempt to blend together harmoniously and grasp thoroughly the traditional theory of vitality of nature (yuanqi ziran lun 元氣自然論) and the Buddhist theory of dependent origination of the Middle Way (Qiang Yü, Cong Weijin Xuanxue dao Chutang Chongxuanxue, Shanghai Wenhua Chubanshe, 2002, p. 195). These statements show that Buddhists occupied an active position in their debate

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute

315

In April of the third year (663 CE) during the Longshuo period, in the Biyü Hall 碧宇殿 of Penglai Palace 蓬萊宮, Daoist Priest Fang Huizhang 方惠 長 gave a lecture on the topics in the Laozi and Monk Lingbian 靈辯 asked questions. Lingbian first asked a hypothetical question: “Does the idea of Dao’s virtue exclusively belong to Daoism? The Classic of Filial Piety (Xiao jing 孝經) discusses having the ultimate virtue and the most important Dao and The Classic of Change (Zhouyi 周易) also says that Yin and Yang comprise Dao.” Fang Huizhang answered, “The Dao of nature is the root and the rest are the branches, meaning that the Daoist Dao of nature is higher than that of Confucianism.” Thereupon Lingbian further queried, “Given that the Dao of nature is not limited to Yin and Yang, the Laozi may be [its] philosophical foundation. Yet Yin and Yang are part of nature, so how can [we regard] the Classic of Change [as] a secondary branch of thought?” In order to prove that Laozi’s theory is superior to the Classic of Change, Fang Huizhang proposed the idea of vitality (yuanqi 元氣) and answered, “Vitality has come. The great Dao is the foundation. All things on earth originate from Dao, which is the ancestor of all laws, meaning that although Laozi and the Classic of Change all mention Dao, Daoism posits vitality as the medium for Dao to create all things on earth.” Lingbian immediately captured the internal contradiction in Fang Huizhang’s argument, which led to the following questions and answers: Question: “You mentioned that Dao is the ancestor of all things and capable of creating all phenomena. What is the substance of Dao?” Answer: “The Great Dao has no form.” Again a query: “Dao exists when it has a form, and it should not exist when it is formless?” Response: “Although it is formless, why does it bother to have Dao?” Querying statement: “The formless can have its own laws and the formed can have no law, as well. Having a form is not emptiness and the formless does not amount to having Dao.” Response: “The Great Dao creates all things on earth and all laws are exactly Dao. Why do you say that Dao does not exist?” What Lingbian meant was that, since Dao is the ancestor of all things on earth and creates all phenomena, then it does not belong to the category of substance. Fang Huizhang, on the other hand, contended that the Great Dao creates all things on earth, and all laws are exactly Dao. This contention, in fact, with Daoists because of how Madhyamaka defined concepts and categories, and Daoists could not avoid falling into difficulty in their discourse on the relationship between Dao, nature, vitality, and all things on earth, because they tended to maintain the ideas of the Laozi.

316

Pan

did not answer the question and further confused the concept of substance and the concept of original source. From Lingbian’s perspective, the relationship between the Great Dao and all laws can be correctly known only when phenomena are separated from substance, and hence it is said that if phenomena (xiang 象) are not Dao, then there exists Dao outside phenomena. Nevertheless, Fang Huizhang insisted that although the Great Dao is formless, the formless way can create all laws. Since Dao is posited as formless, Lingbian further asked whether, if we refer to phenomena as Dao’s form, Dao can have no ancestor and phenomena can be referred to as the ancestor of all things. Facing this question, Fang Huizhang still answered that Dao is the ancestor of all things and that Dao originally had no name but was called the ancestor of all things when a name was imposed on it ( Jigujin Fo Dao lunheng, Fascicle 4). This shows that during the whole debate Fang Huizhang was always under the influence of a traditional model of Daoist thought represented by the Laozi, not only regarding Dao as a category of substance but also persistently believing that this Dao is the ancestor of all things. Accordingly, in the end Lingbian ridiculed Fang Huizhang, saying, “Lingbian seemingly meddles with Daoism, but actually embraces compassion towards it. However, when I encounter a dead sparrow, I am not willing to shoot again.” In June, the third year of Longshuo, monk Lingbian and Daoist Li Rong debated with each other again in the Biyü Hall of Penglai Palace. Li Rong opened the debate with the Shengxuan jing 升玄經 and said, “Dao is mystical and cannot be interpreted by talk about phenomena.” Lingbian immediately rebutted, “The mystical reason is originally lonely and it cannot be commensurable with contemplation, emotion, and intelligence. Since you reject talk, how is it that you can begin discussion on this topic?” Li Rong answered, “Although the mystical cannot speak, it can be expressed through language; although it is expressed through language, this saying does not say anything.” Lingbian asked, “If the mystical can be interpreted by language, you should say that it can be spoken by language. If it actually cannot be interpreted, you should say that it cannot be interpreted. Why did you say that it cannot be interpreted, while saying again that language can interpret it?” Li Rong answered again, “A request for fish and rabbits must rely on a bamboo fish trap and net, and the search for the purpose of the mystical must be supported by talk about phenomena. The Mystical Dao actually rejects language but uses language to interpret the mystical. The Mystical Dao may have words, or not. In the delicate and utmost Dao, there is no talk or not-talk.” Regarding Li Rong’s response, Lingbian countered, “As Nagarjuna’s verse in the Middle Treatise (Ch. Zhong lun 中論) says, all buddhas sometimes speak about self and sometimes about non-self. In all dharmas and reality, there is no self nor non-self. How could you

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute

317

reflect this authentic verse in your evil speech, stealing bodhisattva’s words for Daoist language?” ( Jigujin Fo Dao lunheng, Fascicle 4). The core of this debate concerns whether or how language can define the substance [of reality]. How to explicate the ontology of the Laozi’s category of Dao had always been a big task for Daoists. Although Li Rong’s thesis that Dao is mystical and cannot be interpreted by talk about phenomena did not make any mistake in principle, it still crossed a line by acting pretentious in front of Buddhists. Li Rong seemed to realize this point, and therefore while he defended himself by way of Dark Learning’s (Xuanxue 玄學) method of catching the meaning and forgetting the words he also adopted Buddhist Madhyamaka’s negatively interpreted definition of the truth of the Middle Way. It is noteworthy that when interpreting the Mystical Dao Li Rong apparently was inspired by Jizang’s 吉藏 theory of Twofold Truth. What he meant by having words and not having words, being utterable and not utterable, and being interpretable and not interpretable in fact resulted from the distinction between truths qua instruction ( jiaodi 教諦, those that can be relied upon, nengyi 能依) and truths qua standpoints ( yüdi 於諦, those that are relied upon, suoyi 所依) in Jizang’s meaning of Twofold Truth.9 Li Rong’s reply— that although the mystical cannot be spoken, it can nonetheless be spoken of with language; although it is spoken of with language, this speaking of does not contain that of which is spoken—compares with Jizang deriving the Middle Way of having nothing to attain through the meaning of Twofold Truth. This illustrates that by establishing the theory that Dao is mystical and cannot be spoken, Li Rong seemingly intended to show Daoists’ approval of Madhyamaka and hence raise the quality of Daoist theory. 3 On the basis of Buddhism in the Southern and Northern Dynasties and the Sui Dynasty, Buddhist scholars in the debates between Buddhists and Daoists during the periods of Xianqing and Longshuo occupied a leading role in the areas of academic theoretical systems, the analysis of categories and concepts, 9  Jizang held that the Twofold Truth is interpretation through words and teachings, denoting inter-dependency. Therefore, the Twofold Truth concerns only doctrines but not circumstances (Dasheng xuanlun 大乘玄論, Fascicle 1, T 45). Through the Twofold Truth, however, one can penetrate the Middle Way, achieve non-attainment, and understand the doctrinal foundation. This means that the cardinal meaning of the Middle Way can be best illustrated through the Twofold Truth.

318

Pan

and the development of modes of thinking. This achievement indicates that, after the propagation of hundreds of years, Buddhism had become mature in its thinking. In particular, Buddhist achievement in Madhyamaka enabled Buddhism to have a better philosophical analysis of the theory of substance (the theory of essence) than Confucianism and Daoism. In the dispute between Buddhism and Daoism, the latter was often defeated. Confucian and Daoist proponents could cooperate with each other to exclude and attack Buddhism through administrative means, but it would be impossible to fundamentally destroy the Buddhist system of thought, let alone eradicate Buddhism’s unique mode of thinking. This means that not only did Daoists need to re-examine themselves, but so did proponents of Confucianism. The habit and intention to blindly reject foreign thinking and different ideas cannot contribute to one’s own theory development. In fact, the level of Daoist thought and theory, as exemplified in the explanation of substance in the Benji jing, Daoti lun 道體論, and Xuanzhu lu 玄珠錄,10 10  The Daoti lun, attributed to Master Tongxuan 通玄, was a Daoist work from the early Tang Dynasty. The whole text employed the Buddhist idea and method of the Middle Way to make an ontological interpretation of the Daoti (Daoist substance). Concerning the nature of Dao, the Daoti lun argued that Dao is the wonderful and absolute substance that neither exists nor is empty; neither begins nor ends, that takes existence and nonexistence as substance, and that takes substance to be both affirmation and negation of existence and non-existence. As far as the relationship between Dao and De is concerned, it argued that they are separate but eternally identical and they are identical but still separate. Regarding the relationship between all things and the Daoti, it argued that affirmation is negation, that negation is affirmation, and that they are eternally identical and different, but that Dao has no beginning and end and all things have birth and death. It also argued that the body of all things is Dao, while all things are the Daoti (Kamata Shigeo, 1986, Fascicle 22). Thus, in many places we face the deep influence of Buddhism. These influences enabled Daoists to better their thinking and to answer important theoretical questions. Laozi’s overemphasis on the difference between Dao and phenomena was modified. Zhuangzi’s argument that Dao is in things—even in urine and excrement—acquired a more satisfactory discourse from Buddhism. This is the result of Daoists learning Buddhist ideas (Li Shen 李申 2001, Daojiao benlun 道教本論, Shanghai: Shanghai wenhua chubanshe, p. 209). The Xuanzhu lu repeatedly expounded and proved the absolute truthfulness of the Daoti by using the Three Treatise School’s method of negative interpretation in Buddhism. In the Xuanzhu lu, Wang Xuanlan 王玄覽 claimed that he mastered and pondered comprehensively the texts of the two teachings, inquiring into their origin, and when his wisdom emerged, knowledge arose. Through an approach similar to śamatha-vipaśyanā (zhiguan 止觀), he demonstrated that all dharmas in the ten directions of space can be attained through language and that all stated dharmas are fabricated—in other words, that all dharmas are fabricated and only the Dao is true.

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute

319

and in the development of the theories of Li Rong, Cheng Xuanying, etc.,11 was clearly raised higher during and after the debate.

Moreover, he used the Madhyamaka method holding that substance blocks hundreds of negations and principle transcends four sentences to elaborate on the unspeakable nature of the Daoti: Once truth and illusion are tranquilized, one enters the circle. In the middle, one does not see the sides and, hence, this middle area is the destiny.” According to Zhongguo daojiao shi 中國道教史, edited by Ren Jiyu 任繼愈, the Twofold Mystery of the Tang and Sui Dynasties agrees with the Tiantai and Three Treatise’s theory that Tathāgata is detached from names, words, thoughts, considerations, and speeches, but the former was more superficial than the latter (Ren Jiyu, 1990, Zhongguo Daojiao Shi, Shanghai renmin chubanshe, p. 255). Ren Jiyu’s argument is reliable. 11  Cheng Xuanying’s main works include the Daode jing yishu 道德經義疏 and Zhuangzi shu 莊子疏. The former was written before the latter. In the Daode jing yishu, Cheng Xuanying stipulated the relationship between Dao and De as one between environment and wisdom, saying that “Dao is an empty and illuminating environment of rationality, and De is the wonderful wisdom of forgetting intention. The environment can enlighten wisdom, and wisdom can overcome the environment. The environment and wisdom complement each other. That is why we say ‘Dao De’.” This explanation is innovative because it was not limited by the earlier arguments. Nevertheless, this theory is apparently inspired by Buddhism. In his commentary on the sentence, “The way that can be spoken is not the constant way,” he said, “Dao has the meaning of being empty and unobstructed and it is often understood as being tranquil.” The usual Dao cannot be spoken with words and names and cannot be known by the mind’s deliberation. Its mystery is illusive. Its principle goes to the depths of the elusive and indistinct. As a result, only when one knows that words and images are superficial can one conceive the unchanging eternal Dao.” Moreover, when clarifying that Dao, as a thing, is impalpable and incommensurable, he said that Dao cannot be detached from things and things cannot be detached from Dao. Nothing exists outside Dao and Dao does not exist outside things. Function refers to things of Dao and substance means the Dao of things. In other words, enlightenment means the Dao of things, while confusion means things of Dao. Dao and things are neither identical nor different, yet they are different and identical. Furthermore, when clarifying that Dao is silent, alone, independent, and unchanging, he said that the Daoti is reported to be obscure and to reject shape and sound, not waiting for causes and not changing. It is solely by itself and is not [subject to] dependent solitude. When clarifying that Dao is nebulous and elusive, he said, “The wonderful origin does not originally exist. Following the trace, it is not non-existent. It is neither existent nor non-existent, but may be existent and non-existent. Hence we say that Dao is nebulous and elusive.” Apparently, throughout the Daode jing yishu Cheng Xuanying attempted to give the meaning of substance to Laozi’s Dao by using Buddhist Madhyamaka’s method of thinking. Hence, when he explained the Twofold Mystery he said, “People with desires are trapped in things, while people without desires are trapped in emptiness. Hence, we say ‘Mystery’ in order to dispel both kinds of persistence. Still, we fear that people who practice will be trapped

320

Pan

With regard to the explanation and development of the theory of substance, Daoism was limited by two basic ideas. The first is that as concerns the in this mystery [used in] dispelling [the two kinds of persistence]. Therefore, we mention another mystery to dismiss the latter problem, so that they are not caught in traps and non-traps and can dispel the dispelled. Thereupon, it is called Twofold Mystery.” This explanation is almost equivalent to the Madhyamaka mode of discourse. Nevertheless, when explicating that Dao follows nature Cheng Xuanying cannot make his own argument consistent. He said, “Since human beings can follow Dao, they then need to follow the principles of nature. This is the so-called realm of the Twofold Mystery. Dao is the trace and nature is the origin. The origin is to be used to retrieve the trace. Doctrinally speaking, it is called the law.” Another explanation is that Dao’s essence is nature and Dao has nothing further to follow. Substance is blocked from any cultivation and consequently follows nature. When explaining a formless mass existing before heaven and earth, Cheng said, “That is Dao.” Dao cannot be defined by existence. The formless mass gave rise to myriad things (Quotes are from Meng Wentong 蒙文通 2001, Jijiao Cheng Xuanying Daode jing yishu 輯校成玄英道德經義疏, Bashu shushe). This explanation shows that he did not make a purely ontological discourse on Dao and in the end could not avoid contradiction on the choice regarding the relationship between Dao and nature. A fundamental problem is that the Laozi does not establish a philosophical system on ontology. In comparison, in a later work Zhuangzi shu, Cheng Xuanying found a harmonious point of view using the thought of the Middle Way more proficiently. The Zhuangzi Qiwulun shu 齊物論疏 states that the Mystical Dao is obscure and the truth has no form nor sound. The wonderful truth is not what is spoken of, but despite the ultimate truth not having language, it cannot be spoken of without language. The Zhuangzi Zaiyou shu 在宥疏 says, “Dao is detached from names and words. The truth rejects mental deliberation. If we inquire of Dao by name and look for the truth by mental deliberation, we are far away!” The Zhuangzi Qiushui shu 秋水疏 states, “Dao is the wonderful truth of being empty and unobstructed. Things are the vulgar matter of obstruction.” The original substance of Dao can be named the Mystical Dao (xuandao 玄道), the Wonderful One (miaoyi 妙一), the Ultimate Principle (zhili 至理), or the Wonderful Principle (miaoli 妙理), equivalent to the Middle Way and reality, which is unspeakable in principle and removed from the idea of names and words. Cheng Xuanying also interpreted Dao from the perspective of the identity of substance and its function. The Zhuangzi Qiwulun shu states, “The Mystical Dao is obscure and the true principle is subtle. Therefore, in its function it is negating non-existence but having non-existence; in the substance of function it is having non-existence but negating non-existence. All dharmas in the world are false and illusory. Inquiring on life and death, substance becomes tranquil. The wonderful substance of the ultimate is the unpredictable function of the spiritual.” Moreover, the Zhuangzi Tiandi shu 天地疏 says, “Function does not differ from substance; mobility does not harm tranquility” (Nanhua zhenjing zhushu 南華真經注疏, Zhonghua shuju). Qiang Yü contends that the Daode jing yishu 道德經義疏 shows that Cheng’s cosmology contains the theory of the Great Dao generating yuanqi. However, in the Zhuangzi shu Cheng Xuanying abandoned this idea, which illustrates his changing thoughts regarding

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute

321

r­ elationship between Dao and nature, the Laozi says that Dao follows nature. Is Dao still the highest philosophical category, the substance of all things in universe? Is it equivalent to the Buddhist concepts of tathāgata, Dharmanature, and nirvana? The second is that the pre-Qin Daoists argued that qi 氣 gives birth to all things. For example, the Laozi states that the myriad things recline on Yin and embrace Yang, while vacuous qi holds them in harmony. The Zhuangzi’s Zhibeiyou 知北遊 contends that all things in the universe are qi. Zhuangzi’s Zhile 至樂 also says that qi changes and hence has a shape, and the shape changes and hence has a life. Afterwards, Confucian and Daoist proponents gradually attached importance to the idea of qi. And the Laozi also says that Dao generates unity; unity generates duality; duality generates trinity; trinity generates the myriad things. What exactly is the relationship between Dao and qi? Is Dao the original source of all things, or is qi the original source of all things? In order to preserve the continuation of indigenous culture, Daoists need to say on the one hand that Dao is the substance and on the other hand that Dao generates all things, and that qi generates all things. Daoists never clarified the relationship between Dao and qi. Although the Benji jing turned to discourse on substance under the influence of Buddhism, when encountering difficulty in theory and thought, it still had to appeal to the theory of the birth and transformation of vitality ( yuanqi shenghua 元氣生化). Because of this Daoists could not achieve a higher level of abstract thinking when they absorbed and digested Buddhism’s theory of the truth of the Middle Way and Madhyamaka. Some Daoist scholars contend that after Daoism absorbed Buddhism’s Madhyamaka its theoretical level of thinking exceeded Buddhism’s and that the Twofold Mystery’s level of abstract thinking and dialectics was higher than the thought of the Middle Way in Madhyamaka. This contention seems insufficiently articulated. In fact, using qi to communicate between the theory of substance and the theory of genesis and to overcome the contradiction between these two the [notion in] cosmology that the Great Dao generates vitality (Cong Weijin Xuanxue dao chutang chongxuan xue, p. 286). From his explanation of the Laozi to his explanation of the Zhuangzi, Cheng Xuanying’s level of theory improved, strengthened by his absorption of Madhyamaka. This also indicates that if Madhyamaka and its mode of thinking are truly grasped, one can be rid of internal logical contradictions in the Laozi and, in acquiring clearer thinking, eventually distinguish plainly between the theory of substance and the theory of an original source (also the theory about the evolution and generation of all things). Illuminating the substance of Dao through clarifying the Zhuangzi can help us avoid falling into the predicament of preserving the Laozi’s idea about the relationship between nature and Dao. The metaphysics in the Wei and Jin Dynasties shifted its focus from Laozi to Zhuangzi. Does this shift indicate that scholars had realized this point?

322

Pan

t­ heories cannot really succeed. A theory of genesis pays attention to sequential order, while the theory of substance only addresses substance and phenomena, regardless of their order in sequence. Daoism, from the time of Laozi, mixed up the theory of substance and the theory of genesis, which led to ambiguities of logic and ideas. Even in the context of Neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties, when discussing the ontology of li 理, scholars had to attend to the relationship of qi to li and to Dao, as to question of which comes first. The rapid rise of the Laozi and increasing emphasis on its teaching were connected to politics of the Tang Dynasty. In order for Daoists to win in the struggle with Buddhists in the debate, the government’s support was quite insufficient and theoretical innovation was called for. Over a long period of time, Daoist thought faced the plight of Buddhist criticism, and if it intended to comprehensively counterbalance Buddhism on the theoretical level, it needed not only the borrowing of Buddhist concepts and categories, the absorbing of methods of critical thinking in Madhyamaka Buddhism, and the elevating of its own capacity in philosophical thinking and the quality of its theory, but also the dredging of resources of its traditional thought. This was the main reason why the Laozi was highly praised in the Tang Dynasty. From the perspective of Daoists in the Tang Dynasty, the Laozi, as a representation of the traditional culture, constituted the best choice to counterbalance Buddhism on the metaphysical level. However, the Laozi in fact could not defeat the opponent in its debate with Madhyamaka and instead revealed its own various weaknesses, due to internal contradictions, ambiguous definitions, and [poor] application of concepts and categories in the Laozi thought system. This shows that although praise of the Laozi in the Tang Dynasty had the practical benefit of strengthening the Li family’s political ruling, the political praise of the Laozi could not guarantee Daoism’s victory over its opponent, because Daoists generated numerous negative outcomes in their elaboration on the Laozi. The debate between Daoism and Buddhism in the early Tang Dynasty demonstrates that even though Madhyamaka’s philosophical thinking had retreated from the mainstream of Buddhist thought, it still constituted a major method in this debate. Its strict definitions and analysis of concepts and the rigorous logic embodied in the analysis were the main conditions for defeating the opponent in the debate. With Daoism’s defeat in this debate, Daoists turned from the theory of substance (Twofold Mystery) to the theory of Dao’s nature and the theory of mental cultivation, in order to adapt their thinking to the new cultural environment. At the same time, Buddhists paid more attention to elaborating ideas about the mind’s nature, on the basis of the theory about nirvana and Buddha-nature, so as to compensate for the officials’ losses in their spiritual life.

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute

323

In general, in the long process of debates between Buddhism and Daoism, the development of Daoism was heavily influenced by Buddhism. Subjects (from the the problem of substance to the nature of mind) discussed by both were generally identical. Daoism came after Buddhism in Chinese history. In addition, it should be pointed out that Buddhism, too, in its elaboration on the theory about mind’s nature, was inspired by Daoism as well. Otherwise, we cannot explain Buddhism’s indigenization in the Tang Dynasty.12 This issue needs further research. (Originally published in Foxue yanjiu 佛學研究, 2005, No. 15). 12  In order to strengthen and purify indigenous culture, Daoists always upheld and exalted Daoist theory. In particular, Daoists propagated the ideas of the Zhuangzi and emphasized the nature of Dao and the true nature. As the Benji jing states, all the true nature of dharmas is a lack of nature; the nature of dharmas and the nature of Dao are empty (Fascicle 9). All beings’ pursuit of Dao’s nature becomes in practice their experiencing the world’s essence of emptiness and this experience ultimately leads to a description of the life realm. This is obviously a new Daoist interpretation of Zhuangzi’s philosophy, after it was influenced by Buddhism, and this new interpretation provided important information for the development and growth of later Chan Buddhist thought. On the basis of the universal characteristics of Dao in the Zhuangzi, the Benji jing also points out that the nature of Dao and the nature of all beings are identical with nature (Fascicle 4) and claims to discover the true Dao and the natural and right essence. Discussing human beings and all beings together is the subject [matter] in the theory of Buddha-nature, as stated in the Nirvana Sutra (Niepan jing 涅槃經). In the history of Buddhist thought, Jizang was the first person who extensively expanded the theory of all beings’ Buddhanature. His Dasheng xuanlun- foxing yi 大乘玄論·佛性義 promoted the idea that grass and trees have Buddha-nature. Later, Niutou Farong 牛頭法融 and Nanyang Huizhong 南陽慧忠 offered new developments, which in the end resulted in the establishment of Zhanran’s 湛然 theory that non-sentient beings also have Buddha-nature. Although we can hardly determine whether these Buddhist masters were directly inspired from Daoist theories such as the Benji jing, Zhuangzi’s idea about the prevalent and true existence of Dao definitely generated its own impacts. The Haikong jing 海空經 formulates the idea that Dao’s nature means that all beings possess good, evil, and natural characteristics, which leads to the possibility of, and necessity for, the harmonious Dao for all beings (See Lu Guorong, Daojiao Zhexue 道教哲學, pp. 310, 312). The Haikong jing also argues that all beings do not lose their Dao’s nature and that Dao’s nature of all beings is neither identical or different but is simply equal, just like emptiness. These understandings are quite similar to Bodhidharma’s theory of Chan. At the same time, the Haikong jing’s argument that one should act according to the Dao so that your acts—living, awakening, sleeping, speaking, silence, eating, and breathing—conform with truth (Kamata Shigeo 1986, Fascicle 1) was quite consistent with Chan Buddhists’ later thought and cultivation. Hence, we can conjecture that perhaps later Chan Buddhism was influenced by the theory of Dao’s nature mentioned above. On the theory of Dao’s nature, Cheng Xuanying

324

Pan

Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Biazheng lun 辯正論, in Guang hongming ji 廣弘明集, Fascicle 14, T 52. Daode zhenjing xuande cuanshu 道德真經玄德纂疏. Qiang Siqi 強思齊, Fascicle 7, in Kamata, Shigeo (1986). contended that human being’s original nature can be named as the righteous nature or the true nature and it results from heaven’s nature and does what comes naturally (Zhuangzi Dasheng shu 達生疏). Hence it is the nature of that provided by heaven (tianran zhi xing 天然之性) or natural righteousness (ziran zhi zhengxin 自然之正性). Cheng Xuanying used this notion of natural righteousness to contend with Buddhist tathāgatagarbha. Starting from the idea that human nature is natural righteousness, Cheng Xuanying advocated a return to this righteousness. In his view, human beings’ loss of righteousness mainly results from the promotion of Confucian ethics and rigid education. His view differed from Buddhist attitudes toward Confucianism in the same period of time and indicated that although Daoism absorbed Buddhist methods of thinking, Daoism was still in opposition to Buddhism regarding their fundamental viewpoints. Cheng Xuanying insisted on the Daoist position that Confucian benevolence, righteousness, and cultivation constituted an archenemy. The starting point of his theory was human beings’ natural essence. Hence, his theory refuted the Buddhist theories of hetu-pratyaya (cause and effect) and of karma. In contrast, Buddhism based its own theory on the notion of karma, hence its view was similar to the Confucian theory of cultivation. With regard to the theory of mind-nature and moral cultivation, the Buddhist leaning towards Confucianism had its own internal theoretical reasoning. Cheng Xuanying’s idea of returning to the original nature ( fuxing 複性) in fact amounted to following what is natural (shuaixing 率性). Meanwhile, in a theorem similar to Emperor Wu of Liang’s idea that the mind governs the use of nature, Cheng Xuanying’s ideas distinguished between the true mind and the delusional mind, meaning that the true mind is the same as nature, true nature, the righteous principle, the principle of the mind, and the non-mind, while the delusional mind is the mind to be removed so as to attain the nonmind status. In other words, the mind that has to be eliminated means qing 情. This distinction of minds, to some extent, influenced disagreements of thought within Chan Buddhism. As Cheng Xuanying said when explaining the concept of nonmind: Heaven has no intention to be pure and is naturally pure and void, and the earth has no intention to be tranquil and is naturally tranquil (Zhuangzi Zhile shu 至樂疏). “Non-mind” means to maintain the natural state of void and tranquility. He also said, “The external wisdom is solidified and silent and the internal mind does not move. The material environment is empty and does not follow any events externally. Then one truly understands the true Dao” (Zhuangzi Dasheng shu). Only the non-mind conforms to Dao. Elsewhere, Cheng Xuanying repeatedly advocated that non-mind conforms to Dao and opposed the ideas of utilizing intelligence and consideration and employing the mind for the Dao. These views likely influenced some sects

The Buddhism-Daoism Dispute

325

Guzunsu yülu 古尊宿語錄, Fascicle 1, Zhonghua shuju dianjiaoben, 1994. Jigujin Fo Dao lunheng 集古今佛道論衡, T52. Nanhua zhenjing zhushu 南華真經注疏. Cheng Xuanying 成玄英, Zhonghua shuju, 1998. Taixuan zhenyi benji jing 太玄真一本際經, Fascicle 1, in Kamata Shigeo 鐮田 茂雄 (1986), Dōzō nai bukkyō shisō shiryō shūsei 道藏內佛教思想資料集成. Tōkyō Daigaku Tōyō Bunka Kenkyūjo 東京大学東洋文化硏究所, Tokyo: Daizō shuppansha.



Secondary Sources

Li Shen 李申 (2001), Daojiao benlun 道教本論, Shanghai: Shanghai wenhua chubanshe. Lu Guolong 盧國龍 (1997), Daojiao zhexue 道教哲學, Huaxia chubanshe. within Chan Buddhism that showed more apparently Daoist tendencies. These sects also emphasized that non-mind conforms to Dao. Nevertheless, most of the Buddhist sects other than Chan Buddhism tended to lean toward Confucianism (from the Song Dynasty, Chan Buddhism rapidly underwent Confucian moralization). This means that, before the rise of Quanzhen 全真 Daoism, Daoist theory of the nature of mind was stylistically different from Confucianism and Buddhism. Cheng Xuanying’s theory that non-sentient beings also have Buddha-nature apparently differed from Jingxi Zhanran’s 荊溪湛然 theories in the Tiantai Sect, but was similar to Baizhang Huaihai’s 百丈懷海 theory in Chan Buddhism. Baizhang Huaihai said, “Non-sentient beings also have Buddha-nature. They are called non-sentient beings only because they do not have the bindings of sentience, which is different from wood, stone, the universe, chrysanthemums and dwarf bamboo’s non-sentience” (Guzunsu yülu 古尊宿語錄, Fascicle 1, Zhonghua shuju dianjiaoben, 1994). He interpreted non-sentient beings as not having the bindings of sentience in order to distinguish this notion from chrysanthemum and dwarf bamboo’s lack of emotions in the Ox-head School (Niutou Chan 牛頭禪). Although he also said that nonsentient beings have a nature, this saying’s meaning was quite the opposite. In this way, Huaihai’s notions that non-sentient beings have Buddha-nature and non-sentient beings can become Buddha was quite the same as Cheng Xuanying’s [idea that] non-sentient beings return to the original nature and that non-sentient beings can be enlightened. This means that Chan Buddhism, which occupied the mainstream position, was closely connected to Zhuangzi studies and the theory of mind-nature. In contrast, Daoists usually did not accept Tiantai philosophy, and the Daoist theory of mind-nature did not share a theoretical ground with Taintai. In the early Tang Dynasty, Daoist achievement in the theory of mind’s nature was impressive, but in general did not transcend the Tiantai theory. Regarding these three schools’ theory of mind-nature, the Tiantai propositions that the mind has good and evil characteristics and that even a flashing ignorant thought [still] possesses the mind of Dharma-nature influenced other schools. Until the rise of Chan Buddhism, all Chan schools extensively absorbed Daoist thought, providing sufficient intellectual resources for the development of naturalism and radical Chan.

326

Pan

Meng Wentong 蒙文通 (2001), Jijiao Cheng Xuanying Daodejing yishu 輯校成玄英道 德經義疏, Bashu shushe. Pan Guiming 潘桂明 (2000), Tanjing quanyi 壇經全譯, Bashu shushe. Qiang Yü 強昱 (2002), Cong weijin xuanxue dao chutang chongxuanxue 從魏晉玄學 到初唐重玄學, Shanghai wenhua chubanshe. Ren Jiyu 任繼愈 (1990), Zhongguo daojiao shi 中國道教史, Shanghai renmin chubanshe. Wang Ka 王卡 (1993), Laozi Daodejing Heshang gong zhangju 老子道德經河上公 章句, Zhonghua shuju.

Appendix

∵

CHAPTER 14

Buddhist Studies in Mainland China after the Year 1978 Huang Xianian 黃夏年 In 1978, the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee (hereafter the Third Plenary Session) was held, and, since this event, the domestic policies for reforms and increased freedom have been enforced in Mainland China. Additionally, policies for guaranteed religious freedom were put into practice, and, therefore, Buddhism regained its vitality. What accompanied this was the active academic study of Buddhism in Mainland China, and, owing to the endeavors by people from both the Buddhist and academic spheres over the next three decades, Buddhist studies have become one of the most thoroughly explored subjects among the humanities, with an annual output of thousands of articles, and more than one thousand ordinary readings and academic works. All of this work has made significant contributions to social science studies in Mainland China. 1

Historical Review of Buddhist Studies in Mainland China

Before the Third Plenary Session, Buddhism in Mainland China had already been existing, but, for most intents and purposes, in name only—for instance, monasteries across the land had been destroyed, shut down, or appropriated for other uses. However, under the sway of the “leftist” ideology in the late twentieth century, Buddhism was deemed as “feudal superstition” ( fengjian mixin 封建迷信); an object of opprobrium. All the clergy had been forced to be laicized, or organized as various working units—for instance, monks in Ningbo city, Zhejiang province, were mobilized to form a coal plant, living by making briquettes; monks of the Guoqing monastery in Mt. Tiantai, Zhejiang province, formed a production team affiliated to the People’s Commune (ren­ min gongshe 人民公社) and undertook the work of agriculture and forestation. These monks were permitted to wear monastic clothing nor to profess their religious belief, nor to led a vegetarian life. In short, within the entire territory, there was not a single Buddhist clergy.

©

5 | 

/

330

Huang

Buddhist culture, as a traditional culture, was also among those to be condemned, and thus was forbidden to be studied. Chairman Mao had made some superficial studies and carried along Platform Sutra by the Sixth Patriarch Huineng 慧能 for reading, and he had also consulted some experts concerning some Buddhist issues; however, the academia, out of fear, kept Buddhism quiet. Aside from the journal Xiandai foxue 現代佛學 sponsored by the Buddhist Association of China (Zhongguo fojiao xiehui 中國佛教協會), academic journals of social science that had published articles on Buddhist studies included only Xin jianshe 新建設, Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究, Wen shi zhe 文史哲, Zhexue yanjiu 哲學研究, and Wenwu 文物. The total of the essays published in these journals are, altogether, less than twenty; together with those published in Xiandai foxue, only 550 pieces were published between 1950 and 1964, equaling only a quarter of those published annually in recent years. The achievements of this period were mainly concerned with Buddhist history, philosophy, canons, Buddhist grotto art, and historical figures. Contributors were mostly accomplished clergy, laypeople, and scholars, and these essays were of highlevel quality, and laid the foundation for the future Buddhist studies. In addition, dozens of academic works were published, most of them being reprints of those by Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 and Chen Yuan 陳垣.1 The original texts of the time were Ren Jiyu’s 任繼愈 Han Tang fojiao sixiang lunji 漢唐佛教思 想論集 (the edition of 1962) (which opened up a new area of research), Tian Guanglie’s 田光烈 Xuanzang jiqi zhexue sixiang zhong zhi bianzhengfa yinsu 玄奘及其哲學思想中之辯證法因素 (the edition of 1958), (as well as other volumes introducing Xuanzang’s story), as well as various reports of Buddhist archaeology. In 1964, the former Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Science, following the instruction of Chairman Mao, established the Institute of World Religions, which contained a Buddhist research office. This is the inception of the development from sporadic, scattered individual research towards organized, systematic collective research in mainland China—to be specific, previously, Buddhist studies had been generated by random, unconnected people who merely had personal interests in this 1  Those books reprinted by Zhonghua Shuju 中華書局 include Han Wei Liangjin Nanbeichao fojiao shi 漢魏兩晉南北朝佛教史 (reprinted in 1955 and 1962), Qingchu sengzheng ji 清初 僧諍記 (reprinted in 1962), Mingji Dian Qian fojiao shi 明季滇黔佛教考 (reprinted in 1962), Zhongguo fojiao shiji gailun 中國佛教史籍概論 (reprinted in 1962), Shishi yinian lu 釋氏 疑年錄 (reprinted in 1964), and Luoyng qielan ji jiao zhu 洛陽伽藍記校注. The Shangwu Yinshuguan press published in 1955 Xiyu fojiao shi 西域佛教史 authored by Hatani Ryōtai 羽 溪了諦 and translated by He Changqun 賀昌群, and Fojiao 佛教 by Soviet Union scholars.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

331

field of study, whereas after the establishment of Institute of World Religions, religious studies were systematically organized into research programs. Under the leftist dominance, however, the programs failed to change from theory to practice; nevertheless, it gathered vitally talented personnel for the future realization of this academic dream. 2

The Revival of Buddhist Studies after 1978

In 1978, with the implementation of the policy on freedom of religious belief, there reappeared the atmosphere of “Hundreds of Flowers Campaign and Hundreds of Schools Contention” in the academic world. The erstwhile prohibited zone for scholastic studies, Buddhism, began to attract people’s attention; however, due to the absence of work in the previous decades, Buddhist studies were difficult to be initiated. Therefore, scholars of Buddhism, at this stage, made substantial efforts to make people familiarized with Buddhism. In 1979, Huang Xinchuan 黃心川 and Dai Kangsheng 戴康生, et al., published their Shijie sanda zongjiao 世界三大宗教, inaugurating a new era of religious readings. This text, in less than one hundred thousand words, introduces the three most influential religions—Buddhism, Islamism, and Christianity—and of these words, thirty thousand were devoted concisely to introduce Buddhism. This text enabled thousands of people to learn rudimentary knowledge about the already estranged Buddhism, and the contribution to spreading Buddhism these words made cannot be underestimated. As was remarked by those who later grew into famous scholars, it was this book that decisively initiated them into the studies of Buddhism. The sign of the revival of Buddhist studies was the achievements in Buddhist history, and, especially, in the history of Buddhist thought. This is owing to the fact that most Buddhist scholars at that time were disciplined in philosophy and history, and their perspectives on Buddhism from these two perspectives gave these scholars serendipitous advantages, which claimed predominance in Mainland Buddhist academia. From 1980 onwards, works of Buddhist studies were increasingly published in Mainland China, and, additionally, many old academic works were republished. Ren Jiyu invoked Marxist theory of historical materialism in Buddhist studies, and became the pioneer in such an approach. Ren wielded great influence on later academic development—his monograph, Han Tang fojiao sixiang lunji 漢唐佛教思想論集,2 is the pioneering work and, in the eyes of 2  Published by Renmin chubanshe in 1962, and reprinted in 1973, 1983, and 1993.

332

Huang

many, the magnum opus in adopting this methodology, in which he systemized Buddhist history and thought into the perspectives of class analysis and dichotomization, and, thus, provided future scholars with a model for analysis. Therefore, Chairman Mao Zedong highly appraised Ren’s scholarship. Also published in the same period were works of some celebrated Buddhists scholars, for example, Lü Cheng 呂澂, was extremely accomplished and prolific in the areas of Indian and Chinese Buddhism and Buddhist logic theory. His Zhongguo foxue yuanliu lüejiang 中國佛學源流略講3 and Yindu foxue yuanliu lüjiang 印度佛學源流略講4 constituted the most celebrated among his scholarship, which were written in his middle age, and represents the climax of his studies—they would become academic classics for future generations. The well-known Buddhologist Guo Peng 郭朋 published a lengthy series of studies on history of Buddhist thought, including, but far from limited to, Han Wei Liangjin Nanbeichao fojiao 漢魏兩晉南北朝佛教, Sui Tang fojiao 隋 唐佛教, Song Yuan fojiao 宋元佛教, Ming Qing fojiao 明清佛教, Zhongguo fojiao jian shi 中國佛教簡史, Tanjing duikan 壇經對勘, Tanjing jiao shi 壇 經校釋, Tanjing daodu 壇經導讀, Zhongguo jindai foxue sixiang shi gao 中 國近代佛學思想史稿 (co-authored by Zhang Xinying 張新鷹 and Liao Zili 廖自力), Yinshun foxue sixiang yanjiu 印順佛學思想研究, and Zhongguo fojiao sixiang shi 中國佛教思想史. His published works are, altogether, 11 items and 13 volumes, which amount to over 450,000 characters—in regard to the sheer size of his body of work, Guo occupies the top position among Chinese Buddhist scholars. However, it is the Wei Jin Nanbeichao fojiao luncong 魏晉南北朝佛教論叢, by Fang Litian 方立天,5 which is regarded as the representative work of Buddhist studies in Mainland China. The Zhongguo fojiao shi 中國佛教史,6 under the general editorship of Ren Jiyu and the co-editorship of Fang Litian and Yang Zengwen 楊曾文, was a gargantuan project in Chinese Buddhist studies; of all planned eight volumes, merely three have been published, but these re-examine all existent materials, and deepen previous explorations. Additionally, the Fojiao shi 佛教史,7 under the chief editorship of Du Jiwen 杜繼文, was written as the textual book for college students, and is noticalby readable from a layman’s point of view. Gao Zhennong’s 高振農 Zhongguo fojiao 中國佛教8 systematically discusses the 3  Zhonghua shuju, 1979. 4  Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1979. 5  Zhonghua shuju, 1983. 6  The series was designed to be of eight volumes, and three have been published by Zhongguo shehui kexue yuan chubanshe. 7  Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1991. 8  Shanghai shehui kexue yuan chubanshe, 1986.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

333

basic characteristics, development, and activities of modern Buddhism, and has been praised by contemporaries, in that it describes Buddhism as a historical phenomenon from the perspective of cultural history, and vividly illustrates much of the outlook of contemporary Chinese Buddhism. With a decade’s worth of academic accumulation, scholarship in Mainland China was continually being refined and deepened—during the 1990s in particular, Buddhist studies became increasingly numerous. Academic publications featured studies of modern times, for instance Shanghai jindai fojiao jianshi 上海近代佛教簡史 by You Youwei 遊有維,9 Zhongguo jindai foxue sixiang shi gao 中國近代佛學思想史稿 by Guo Peng,10 Fojiao wenhua yu jin­ dai zhongguo 佛教文化與近代中國 by Gao Zhennong,11 Wanqing foxue yu jindai shehui sichao 晚清佛學與近代社會思潮 by Ma Tianxiang 麻天祥,12 Jiushi yu jiuxin: Zhongguo jindai fuxing sichao de yanjiu 救世與救心：中國 近代復興思潮的研究 by Li Xiangping 李向平,13 Zhongguo jinxiandai fojiao renwuzhi 中國近現代佛教人物志 by Yu Lingbo 于淩波,14 Chuantong fojiao yu zhongguo jindai hua 傳統佛教與中國近代化 by Deng Zimei 鄧子美,15 Fofa yu zhongguo shehui de tiaoshi 佛法與中國社會的調試 by He Jianmin 何建民,16 and Shiji foyuan 世紀佛緣 by Xu Sunming 徐蓀銘.17 Scholars concerned with the Buddhism of this century owing to the subtle place that the twentieth century occupies in the whole history of Chinese Buddhism. The traditional ideology that had remained constant for two millennia in Chinese society was undermined, at least partially, in the twentieth century, and, accordingly, Buddhism was forced to reorient itself in this turbulent era. Therefore, to examine the Buddhism of this century means not only to pick up the past, but also to look for a direction for future development. Scholars’ work in this area is successful, but, as some suggest, there remain glaring deficiencies.18 Overall, from the early 1980s to 1990s, Buddhist studies in Mainland China resumed developing equally in respects of popularization and academic 9  Shanghai huadong shifan daxue chubanshe, 1988. 10  Sichuan Chengdu bashu shushe 1989. 11  Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1992. 12  Henan zhongzhou chubanshe, 1993. 13  Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1993. 14  Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 1995. 15  Shanghai huadong shifan daxue chubanshe, 1996. 16  Guangdong renmin chubanshe, 1998. 17  Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1998. 18  See Ge Zhaoguang 葛兆光, “Guanyu jin shinian zhongguo jindai fojiao yanjiu zhuzuo de yige pinglun” 關於近十年中國近代佛教研究著作的一個評論, in Si yu yan 思與言, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 259–278. Taiwan, Jun. 1999.

334

Huang

s­tudies. The contribution made by scholars was ineffaceable; without their incessant efforts, we would not see the academic prosperity from this period as we see it today. Also, importantly, the Buddhist sphere also made considerable contributions—for instance, in 1983, The Buddhist Association of China (hereafter BAC) issued new statutes, which stressed that it is a major duty of the BAC “to actively push forward Buddhist education and research, to publish Buddhist books and magazines, and to assist the government to protect cultural relics and historic sites.” Since the late 1980s, the Buddhist sphere has been supporting academic research, and increasingly backing academic publications. Additionally, under the sponsorship of the Buddhist sphere, more than one hundred academic conferences have been held on various themes over the past few decades in Mainland China—indeed, these conferences made their due contribution to cultivating and promoting Buddhist studies. 3

The Climax of Chan Studies

Another feature of Buddhist studies in Mainland China is the resilient zeal for Chan studies, including the exploring and organizing of Chan texts. The enthusiasm for Chan Buddhism can be appreciated via i) its dramatic rising and long-term persistence, ii) the widespread attention from, and influence on, society, iii) the expansion of the field and its continuous productivity. People display intense interest in Chan tradition, including Buddhist scholars (including those interdisciplinary scholars involved in Buddhism). In addition to this, not only scholars of humanities, but also those of various sciences, eventually became drawn to Buddist texts and their academic potential. Due to this (what may be termed) academic diversification, many works on Chan tradition were published, which involved a plethora of varied subjects, such as Buddhology, philosophy, history, literature, psychology, linguistics, ethics, religious studies, and Qigong studies. Also, many foreign works were also introduced and/or translated. The Chan fever in Mainland China has not yet ebbed. The number of scholars involved is massive, the publications numerous, and the influence great. A more important reason for this continued passion lies in the worldwide Chan fever, and another is influence of Chan studies made by Hu Shih 胡適 (and others) in the first half of the twentieth century—these writers advocated Chan studies at home, and have a considerable number of works published. Hu Shih, whose methodology in Chan studies was distinctive, and who called for “to boldly assume but carefully verify,” proposed that “the vanguard of the Southern School, the destroyer of the Northern School, the creator of the new

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

335

Chan, and the author of the Platform Sutra is Shenhui 神會 (670–762). In the history of Chinese Buddhism, there was no one who could claim equal merits and equally perpetual influence.”19 This astounding view undoubtedly constituted a tantalizing challenge to both the Buddhist and academic worlds; even now attitudes to this perspective have not reached a universal agreement, but Hu Shih’s many conclusions have earned esteem from scholars both nationally and internationally. After the 1950s, the journal Xiandai foxue published a large number of articles on Chan Buddhism, and Buddhist studies in other countries also laid emphasis on Chan, for instance the well-known scholar Zhu Qianzhi 朱謙之 translated Nukariya Kaiten’s 忽滑谷快天 Zengaku sisō si 禪宗思 想史 and Chōsen zenkyō si 朝鮮禪教史. According to Zhu’s foreword, this book had been translated for reference for writing his own Chan history.20 That is to say, at that time, there had been people in Mainland China preparing to write a history of Chan tradition. Thanks to the academic accumulation and the interests of the Chan tradition from society, as well as preference of the press for Chan works, the scholarship on Chan excelled those in the entire history of Buddhism and Buddhist thought. Those publications with influence include Chanzong yu Zhongguo wenhua 禪宗與中國文化21 and Zhongguo chan sixiang shi: cong liu shiji dao jiu shiji 中國禪思想史—— 從六世紀到九世紀22 by Ge Zhaoguang 葛兆光, Chanzong: wenhua jiaorong he lishi xuanze 禪宗：文化交融和歷史選擇 by Gu Weikang 顧偉康,23 Zhongguo chanzong tongshi 中國禪宗通史 co-authored by Du Jiwen 杜繼 文 and Wei Daoru 魏道儒,24 Chanzong sixiang de xingcheng yu fazhan 禪宗 思想的形成與發展 by Hong Xiuping 洪修平,25 Chanzong de licheng 禪宗 的歷程 by Pan Guiming 潘桂明,26 Chanwu zhi dao: Nanzong chanxue yanjiu

19  See Jinxiandai zhuming xuezhe foxue wenji: Hu Shi ji 近現代著名學者佛學文集·胡適 集, eds. Huang Xianian 黃夏年, p. 97. 20  Mr. Zhu’s translation of Zen gaku sisō si was published by Shanghai guji chubanshe in May 1994, with the title of “Zhongguo chanxue sixiang shi 中國禪學思想史.” The translation of Chōsen zenkyō si was published as Hangujo chanjiao shi 韓國禪教史, by Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe in March 1993. As for the quotation, see the preface of Hanguo chanjiao shi by Huang Xinchuan 黃心川, p. 17. 21  Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1986. 22  Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 2001. 23  Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1986 and 1990. 24  Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1993. 25  Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1992. 26  Dangdai Zhongguo chubanshe, 1992.

336

Huang

禪悟之道——南宗禪學研究 by Xing Dongfeng 邢東風,27 Chanxue yu dong­ fang wenming 禪學與東方文明 by Chen Bing 陳兵,28 Zhongguo chanzong sixiang fazhan shi 中國禪宗思想發展史 by Ma Tianxiang,29 Tang wudai chanzong shi 唐五代禪宗史30 and Song Yuan chanzong shi 宋元禪宗史31 by Yang Zengwen, Chanzong zongpai yuanliu 禪宗宗派源流32 edited by Wu Limin 吳立民, and some symposia, such as Shaolinsi jiansi 1500 zhounian lunwenji 少林寺建寺 1500 周年論文集,33 Shitou xiqian yu caodong chan 石頭希遷與曹洞禪,34 Dongshan famen yu chanzong 東山法門與禪宗,35 Mazu daoyi yu zhongguo wenhua 馬祖道一與中國文化,36 Chanzong sixiang yuanyuan 禪宗思想淵源, Chanzong zhexue xiangzheng 禪宗哲學象徵, and Chanzong shige jingjie 禪宗詩歌境界37 by Wu Yansheng 吳言生, etc. Additionally, Chanzong dayi 禪宗大意 by the famous Chan monk Zhengguo 正果 is a work that holds considerable influence in the eyes of hundreds of clerical scholars. This book systematically introduces the theories and practices of the Chan patriarchs—specifically, the content regarding the practices is of special importance. Still more monographs on Chan literature, and a great deal of articles, were published. It is scholars’ consensus that Chan Buddhism is the result of sinicization and a Buddhist school with Chinese characteristic. Scholars made a positive appraisal of Chan’s influence on Chinese social life and the development of Chinese Buddhism—for instance, Ren Jiyu stated, “Facing other Buddhist schools, Chan Buddhism professes its ‘special transmission outside the scriptures’,38 and its position in the history of Chinese philosophy is vastly more important than its position in orthodox Buddhism. It’s an important component of Chinese culture.” Most scholars have also reached this consensus: Buddhist studies conducted in the Sui and Tang period focused on the issue of mind and nature, and this greatly enriched the theories of mind and nature in the history of Chinese philosophy, whereas the Chan tradition was 27  Zhongguo renmin daxue chubanshe, 1992. 28  Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1994. 29  Hunan jiaoyu chubanshe, 1997. 30  Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1999. 31  Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 2004. 32  Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1998. 33  Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 1996. 34  Yuelu shushe, 1997. 35  Wuhan chubanshe, 1995. 36  Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 2004. 37  Zhonghua shuju, 2001. 38  See Chanzong yu zhongguo wenhua and Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究, 1998, Vol. 1.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

337

the representative in this respect and constituted a critical link in the chain of the development of Chinese philosophy. For example, Fang Litian says, “Viewing from the content, the structure, and the core of its ideology, the Chan is based on a theory of mind and nature, and it is a teaching about sublimation through spiritual cultivation. It is a cultural ideal to shake off afflictions and pursue self-awakening and spirit of the life. The running essence of the Chan theories of mind and nature and of culture is naturalness-inwardnesstranscendence.”39 What represents the characteristic of modern Chan teaching in the 1990s is the Shenghuo Chan 生活禪 (Living Chan) promoted by master Jinghui 淨慧. “Shenghuo Chan means to integrate the spirit and wisdom into life and to realize the transcendence of Chan and display the ideorealm, spirit, and magnificence of Chan.” Because it is “aimed at modern life, a flexible application of traditional meditation masters’ Chan (chanshi chan 禪師禪) and entire Buddhism, it is a revolution and a cure for longstanding faults and malady in Buddhism, appropriate and opportune. Its implications are profound and immense.”40 Recently, numerous additional works have been published, including Shengming de shijing: Chanzong meixue de xiandai quanshi 生命的詩境——禪宗美學的現代詮釋 by Pan Zhichang 潘知常,41 Chanzong meixue shi gao 禪宗美學史稿 by Pi Chaogang 皮朝綱,42 Zhuang chan meixue 莊禪美學 by Wang Jianjiang 王建疆,43 Shixing qiju de ming­ xiang: Zhongguo chanzong meixue sixiang yanjiu 詩性棲居的冥想——中 國禪宗美學思想研究 by Liu Fang 劉方,44 Chanzong meixue 禪宗美學 by Zhang Jiemo 張節末,45 as well as many others.46 Studies on the textual background of Chan documents have been massively advantagous to Chinese scholarship.47 Aside from the study of the Platform Sutra, in recent years there also appeared studies on records of Shenhui’s 39  See “Chanzong jingshen: Chanzong sixiang de benzhi hexin jiqi tedian” 禪宗精神—— 禪宗思想的本質、核心及其特點, in Zhexue yanjiu 哲學研究, 1995, no 3. 40  Chen Bing, Shenghuo chan qianshi 生活禪淺識. 41  Hangzhou daxue chubanshe, 1993. 42  Dianzi keji daxue chubanshe, 1994. 43  Gansu wenhua chubanshe, 1998. 44  Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 1998. 45  Zhejiang renmin chubanshe, 2001. 46  Cf. Ma Benteng 馬奔騰, “Dangdai chan meixue yanjiu shu ping” 當代禪美學研究述評, in Beijing daxue xuebao 北京大學學報, 2001, No. 3. 47  For the survey of this issue, see Xing Dongfeng, “Dangdai chanzong wenxian yanjiu shu ping” 當代禪宗文獻研究述評, in Zhongguo zongjiao yanjiu nianjian: 1999–2000 中國 宗教研究年鑒 1999—2000, eds. Cao Zhongjian 曹中建, Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2001.

338

Huang

sayings, for instance Shenhui heshang chanhua lu 神會和尚禪話錄, organized by Yang Zengwen,48 could be called an exemplar among kindred fruits. The Zhongguo fojiao sixiang ziliao xuanbian 中國佛教思想資料選編,49 compiled by Shi Jun 石峻, Lou Yulie 樓宇烈, Fang Litian, Xu Kangsheng 許抗生, and Le Shouming 樂壽明, is a medium-sized and comparatively systematic selection of sources of Chinese Buddhist thoughts—it includes Chan texts, and, basically, the major texts from the period from the Northern and Southern Dynasties to the late Tang. It includes not only materials discovered at Dunhuang in the twentieth century, but also those that were circulating throughout history. The texts are all punctuated in modern mark systems, and the Dunhuang materials have been collated. This volume remains the most precise and appropriate (and most modest in size) text on Chan material. The Zhongguo fojiao congshu chanzong juan 中國佛教叢書·禪宗卷,50 chiefedited by Ren Jiyu, is a large selection of Chan materials, embodying Chan researchers’ consciousness and appropriation of textual sources. During the 1990s, the first photocopied edition of Zutang ji 祖堂集 was published51 (in 1996), and the Yuelu shushe press published its collated edition by Wu Fuxiang 吳福祥 and Gu Zhichuan 顧之川. In 2001, the Zhongzhou guji chubanshe press published the collated edition made by Zhang Hua 張華. Additionally, Su Yuanlei 蘇淵雷 collated Wudeng huiyuan 五燈會元,52 Xiao Jianfu 蕭箑父 and Lü Youxiang 呂有祥 collated Gu zunxu yulu 古尊宿語錄,53 Yang Zengwen edited and collated the Linji lu 臨濟錄,54 Su Jun 蘇軍 punctuated and collated the Chanyuan qinggui 禪院清規,55 Zhang Zikai 張子開 punctuated and collated the Zhaozhou lu 趙州錄,56 and the Buddhist and scholastic spheres of Guizhou province jointly punctuated and collated Qian lingshan zhi 黔靈山志,57 Guiyang Gaofeng Liaochen heshang shiji 貴陽高峰了塵和尚事蹟,58 Qian seng yulu 黔僧語錄,59 Xu Qian seng yulu 續黔僧語錄,60 Jinjiang chandeng 48  Zhonghua shuju, 1996. 49  Zhonghua shuju, 1981–1992. 50  Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1997. 51  Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1994. 52  Zhonghua shuju, 1984. 53  Zhonghua shuju, 1994. 54  Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 2001. 55  Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 2001. 56  Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 2001. 57  Printed by Guizhou Hongfu si, 2000. 58  Bashu shushe, 2000. 59  Bashu shushe, 2000. 60  Bashu shushe, 2000.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

339

錦江禪燈,61 and Qiannan huideng lu 黔南會燈錄.62 Wen Yucheng 溫玉成 systematically investigated the inscriptions of the Chan school in Henan and discovered some new material; he also noted the enduring mistakes in understanding a number of facts in Chan history (eg. the date the Northern School perished) and also solved some mysteries (eg. the birth and death years of Shenhui), which constituted significant discoveries in Chan history.63 4

The Continuation of Yogācāra School and Tiantai School

The Yogācāra school was a major subject of Buddhist studies in the first half of the twentieth century. “The introduction of western culture unexpectedly set off the climax in Yogācāra studies. [ . . . ] Hardly anyone who studied Buddhism at this time did not take Yogācāra as the starting point.”64 Most of the studies were conducted at the Zhina Neixue Yuan, Nanjing and at the Sanshi Xuehui, Bejing (the so-called “European scholarship in the south and Korean in the north” (nan’ou beihan 南歐北韓)) swayed Buddhist studies during the Republican period, and Yogācāra studies took the vast majority of Buddhist studies during that time. Yogācāra primarily focused on doctrinal interpretation and textual studies—in terms of doctrine, it gave modern interpretations to ideas and terminologies, making abstruse theories clear and popularized, and it greatly boosted the popularization of Buddhism, and the dialogue between Buddhology and modern western theories; and in regard to scriptures, many were sysyematically organized, especially by the Jinling Kejingchu, which, at the time of Yang Renshan 楊仁山, had already paid considerable attention to studies of version and textual rearrangement. Yang brought many lost and ancient versions from Japan, a considerable portion of which were texts of Yogācāra School. Ouyang Jingwu, Lü Cheng, and Wang Enyang 王恩洋 (among others), made further studies and annotations regarding these texts, which were published in the journals Neixue 內學 and Zhina neixueyuan congkan 支那內學院叢刊. Regarding the achievements of the clergy, besides master Taixu’s 太虛 expounding of Yogācāra theory, the most 61  Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 1998. 62  Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 1998. 63  Cf. “Zhongguo fojiaoshi shang shi’er wenti buzheng” 中國佛教史上十二問題補正, by Wen Yucheng 溫玉成. In Foxue yanjiu 佛學研究, 1997, issued by Zhongguo fojiao wenhua yanjiu suo 中國佛教文化研究所. 64  See “Bianji zhiqu” 編輯旨趣 in Xiandai foxue congkan: weishixue gailun (3) 現代佛學叢 刊·唯識學概論(三) by Zhang Mantao 張曼濤.

340

Huang

important were filling in the gaps in the Chinese translations of Tibetan texts, as done by by Fazun 法尊, Guankong 觀空, and Guo Yuanxing 郭元興. In July 1992, a study centre of Xuanzang was established in Mainland China, which gathered a group of scholars who were studying Yogācāra school. Yogācāra studies became increasingly appreciated; many works by scholars of the old generation, including Ouyang Jingwu, Han Qingjing 韓清淨, Wang Enyang and Han Jingqing, were republished, and many doctoral dissertations discussed Yogācāra Buddhism. Xia Jinhua’s 夏金華 Yuanqi, foxing, chengfo: sui tang foxue sanda hexin lilun de zhengyi zhi yanjiu 緣起 佛性 成佛—— 隋唐佛學三大核心理論的爭議之研究 stresses the shared issues among the theories of conditional causation of the major Buddhist traditions in the Sui and Tang period, such as the Yogācāra doctrine of the conditional causation of ālayavijñāna, the Tiantai doctrine “in one thought to survey the 3,000 worlds” (一念三千), the Huayan doctrine of the conditional causation in the dharma-realm, the Sanlun doctrine of the conditional causation of eight negations, as well as the conditional causation of the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine in the Dasheng qixinlun. Zhou Guihua’s 周貴華 “Weishi yu weiliaobie: ‘weishi xue’ de yige jiben wenti de zai quanshi” 唯識與唯了別——“唯識 學”的一個基本問題的再詮釋,65 made valuable comparisons between Chinese and Tibetan scriptures related to Yogācāra theory, and investigated their Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan meanings. Many studies conducted by clerics were also of paramount importance, such as a series of articles on Yogācāra theory which were published in the journals Minnan foxueyuan xue­ bao 閩南佛學院學報 and Fayin 法音. In 1998, the Zhonghua shuju press published Han Tingjie’s 韓廷傑 Cheng weishi lun jiao shi 成唯識論校釋, which would instigate studies on the Yogācāra school. In later years still, Yogācāra studies have become increasingly appreciated. The authenticity of Dasheng qixin lun constituted yet another important issue in Buddhist studies in the first half of the twentieth century, due to the fact that much of its content is at the centre of the problem of “conditional causation of thusness” (zhenru yuanqi 真如緣起), and this concept’s authority. Discussions concerning them continued after 1978. In the early 1990s, scholars such as Fang Litian, Gao Zhennong, Guo Peng, You Youwei, Wang Zhilong 王智隆, Cai Huiming 蔡惠明, Miaoyou 妙有, Zheng Yaoqiu 鄭耀秋, Ge Zhaoguang, Han Jingqing, Du Jiwen, Xiao Jianfu, Gong Jun 龔雋, et al., all put forward their opinions (or studies) on these issues. In particular, Gao Zhennong collected, analyzed, and summarized the s­ tudies on Qinxin 65  Zhexue yanjiu 哲學研究, Vol. 3, 2004.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

341

lun done in this century—in 1992, he published Dasheng qi xin lun jiaoshi 大乘起信論校釋, which contains a widely-accepted summary of Qi xin lun 起信論. He stated, “The authenticity of Qi xin lun has been examined and debated by scholars for some seventy or eighty years, but still eludes any absolute consensus. Recent publications seem to show that the majority of scholars favored the argument of Chinese authorship. I also agree with them.”66 Han Jingqing believes that Tanyan 曇延, a master of the Ten Stages school in Southern and Northern Dynasties, composed Niepan da shu 涅槃 大疏, and subsequently changed the titled to “Dasheng qixin lun.” According to Tanyan, “only via faith could one attain enlightenment; in order to restore the vision of the blind, one must first arouse their belief. Aiming to show them Buddha-nature or Tathāgatagarbha, I title it ‘awakening of faith.’ ”67 In contemporary acadamia, an increasing number of scholars do not focus on the actual authenticity of Qi xin lun, but, instead, concern themselves with the value and influence of the text. Guo Peng discussed the doctrine of the Qi xin lun—“we think that Qi xin lun could be a fabrication. However, this text advocates the theory of conditional causation of thusness, which has been a consensus among Mahāyāna schools that uphold the doctrine of oneness of the true mind.”68 Studies on Tiantai School in the first half of the twentieth century were mainly conducted by clerical scholars, and the most famous were the Tiantai monks Minyi 敏羲, Dixian 諦閒, and Tanxu 倓虛. They created the founding temple of Tiantai School as their academic base, followed the instructions of the four great masters of the Ming, and promulgated the Three Contemplation and Four Teachings, extending the influence of Tiantai School to Shanghai and Ningbo in the south, and to Heilongjiang and Changchun in the north. However, after 1980, studies on Tiantai were still dominated by scholars of the old generation. Generally speaking, aside from the publication of the revised Han tang fojiao sixiang shi lunji by Ren Jiyu, Lü Cheng also published Zhongguo foxue yuanliu lüejiang, and the posthumous work of Tang Yongtong, Sui tang fojiao shigao 隋唐佛教史稿 was also published. In addition, also published were Guo Peng’s Sui tang fojiao, Yan Beiming’s 嚴北溟 Zhongguo fojiao zhexue jianshi 中國佛教哲學簡史, Zhou Shujia’s 周叔迦 Zhou Shujia foxue 66  See Dasheng qixin lun jiaoshi, Zhonghua shuju, 1992, pp. 21–24. 67  See “Weishixue de liangci yichuan: Dasheng qixin lun wei Tanyan suozao 唯識學的兩次 譯傳——《大乘起信論》為曇延所造 by Han Jingqing 韓鏡清, in Foxue yanjiu 佛學 研究, No. 3, Zhongguo fojiao wenhua yanjiusuo, 1994, p. 68. 68  Han Wei Liangjin Nanbeichao fojiao, Qilu shushe, 1986, pp. 738–739.

342

Huang

lunzhu ji 周叔迦佛學論著集, Fang Litian’s Zhongguo fojiao yu c­ huantong wenhua 中國佛教與傳統文化, and Gao Zhennong’s Zhongguo fojiao 中國佛教. Under the direction of the scholars of the old generation, the younger generation emerged and composed, by and large, usefully insightful essays. Pan Guiming conducted research on “the philosophy of harmony” and subsequently published Zhiyi pingzhuan 智顗評傳. Wang Zhiyuan 王志遠 specialized in Tiantai studies of the Song and published Song chu Tiantai foxue kuibao 宋初天臺佛學窺豹—this work is the first monograph on Tiantai Buddhism after the founding of the New China. Zeng Qihai 曾其海 wrote several works to introduce the Tiantai school, and Zhang Fenglei 張風雷 composed Zhiyi pingzhuan 智顗評傳. Zhu Fengao 朱封鼇 made a collation of Zhiyi’s 智顗 works, and wrote several books related to Tiantai School. Additionally, Dong Ping 董平 had his dissertation on Tiantai School. Many young clerical scholars also devoted themselves to Tiantai studies. In 1988, The Academic Society of Tiantai Culture (Tiantai wenhua yanjiu hui 天 臺文化研究會) was established in Mt. Tiantai in order to promote the Tiantai studies, which also attracted scholars from across the country together for discussion. Thus, Mainland China had its first non-government academic body which devoted itself to Tiantai tradition, and this, in many ways, altered the previous situation of isolated scholars and the clergy, by consolidating and mobilizing the academic forces of the entire country, which was was a major step forward for modern Tiantai studies. Scholars have often noted the founding story of Tiantai School—it originated at Mt. Dasu, and, after its development at Dangyang and Mt. Nanyue, it finally reached Mt. Tiantai. This view proves more reasonable than the more traditional one, and is an important achievement of recent studies. Figures of the Tiantai School that have recently received more scholarly attention include the third patriarch Huisi 慧思, the fourth patriarch Zhiyi, the fifth Guanding 灌頂, the ninth Zhanran 湛然, and master Zhili 知禮. Since these figures were both successors and inaugurators, discussions of them focus on their Buddhist theories and their relationship with society and politics. In short, elements of Yogācāra studies that had been academic hot spots, and Tiantai studies that were championed by clerical scholars, continued to be valued in the 1980s, although not as valued as they were in the past. The books on them are few, but articles on them are many. Studies on Yogācāra and Tiantai schools, at present, are strengthened, especially owing to the fever of Xuanzang studies. Since the Yogācāra School was founded by Xuanzang, studies on him undoubtedly advances studies on Yogācāra—to make a breakthrough, however, required more engagement of scholars.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

5

343

Breakthroughs in the Huayan Studies

For modern scholars, the Huayan School is one of the important fields, for its teachings are intensely philosophical—many ideas, such as si fajie 四法 界 (the four realms of reality), liuxiang 六相 (the six characteristics of conditioned phenomena), and shi xuanmen 十玄門 (the ten subtle approaches), are rather speculative and thus attractive to scholars of metaphysics. During the first half of the twentieth century, Huayan studies remained few; despite a Huayan Buddhist college being founded, there was not initially a large result. Researches of large scales had not started until the latter half of the century. Some laypeople and monks published essays to introduce the Huayan School in the journal Xiandai Foxue 現代佛學, which, judging from the academic criterion, are not profound, but at least they present some historical survey. Among them, Lü Cheng’s studies, in particular, were outstanding. In “Huanyan zong: Tangdai fojia xueshuo lueshu zhi er” 華嚴宗——唐代佛家學說略述之二,69 he examines the history and philosophy of the Huayan School, and, while doing so, presents some distinctive views. For example, he notes the creation of the Huayan School was not the result of mere absorption of the teachings of the Dilun School in the Southern and Northern dynasties—“it also attempted to unify the various contemporary traditions and theories. When structuring the theories of panjiao 判教 (classification of teachings) and guanxing 觀行 (observing the mind during meditation), the Huayan School adopted achievements of the Tiantai School and the Yogācāra School, but, at the same time, accepted the gestures of criticism towards them.”70 Lü’s discussion about the history and theory of the Huanyan School is very inspiring. Having compared the formation and theoretical outlook of the Huayan Sutra with doctrines of the Huayan School, Lü discovered that “in the respect of theory, the Huayan Sutra and the Huayan School have different scopes, and they should not be confused with each other.”71 This became a guideline for future studies. After 1980, one scholar who systematically studies the philosophy of the Huayan School is Fang Litian. His research results are exemplified by the work Huayan jinshizizhang jiaoshi 華嚴金獅子章校釋,72 which, notably, examines the social roots for the appearance of the Huayan School, as well 69  It was originally published in Xiandai foxue and afterwards included into Zhongguo foxue yuanliu luejiang (Zhonghua shuju, 1979). 70  Ibid., p. 353. 71  Ibid., p. 368. 72  Zhonghua shuju, 1983.

344

Huang

as its t­heoretical origins, and indicates its profound social significance. The notion in Huayan philosophy of “non-obstruction among Individual phenomena” (shishi wuai 事事無礙) is a typical proposition in Chinese philosophy, and a result of a Chinese mode of thinking, and this developed the thought in the Qiwu lun 齊物論 chapter in the Zhuangzi 莊子 (a pre-Qin work), and the “Dark Learning” (xuanxue 玄學) of the Wei and Jin period that stressed the discussion about “origin and end” (benmo 本末), and also about “essence and function” (tiyong 體用).73 Wei Daoru’s Huayan zong tongshi 華嚴宗通史74 is a monograph regarding a comprehensive history of the Huayan School published in recent years, and surveys the doctrinal evolution from the learnings of Huayan Sutra to the teachings of the Huayan School, and the reasons for such shift. The author makes many valuable suggestions. Firstly, in the wake of translation of the Huayan Sutra in the Jin dynasty, monks specializing in Huayan studies creatively applied the doctrines in many aspects, such as rituals, meditation, appraising scriptures, doctrinal discussion, and legitimating certain kinds of beliefs. By doing this, they laid the foundation for the learning of Huayan Sutra to develop in the Chinese intellectual world. Secondly, the translation of Shidi lun 十地論 (Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra) provided many fresh perspectives, and broke new ground for the studies of the Huayan Sutra. Inspired by this new source, the Dilun masters who focused on the Huayan Sutra continuously brought forth new ideas, and, in particular, they revealed concepts with connotations of religious philosophy by interpreting figurative descriptions, and advanced the transformation of the Huayan learning from figurative religious literature towards the religious philosophy that was characterized by conceptual analysis. Thus, they charted the course for establishing doctrines of the Huayan School. Thirdly, the scholar-monks in the Tang, inheriting the entire scholastic heritage left by previous periods, established an unprecedented conceptual system of Huanyan studies. The shift from Huanyan learning towards Huayan School is theoretical creation induced by Chinese traditional intellectual culture; a philosophizing process. From its inception to its completion, it relied on many and varied factors, but the most fundamental motive was the spirit in the Chinese indigenous intellectual culture—specifically, the incredulous attitude towards scriptures and the adoration of rationalism and innovation.75 The author writes a meticulous account of the Huayan School in 73  See “Huayan zong de xianxiang yuanrong lun” 華嚴宗的現象圓融論, in Wen shi zhe 文 史哲, pp. 68–75, 1998, No. 5. 74  Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1998. 75  Cf. “Cong huayanjing xue dao huayanzong xue” 從華嚴經學到華嚴宗學 by Huang Xianian, in Zhonghua foxue xuebao 中華佛學學報, No. 12 (1999, Jul.), pp. 365–376. See

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

345

the Northern Song Dynasty, noting that the monk Xingchang 省常 synthesized doctrines of the Huayan and the Pure Land scriptures, adopted theories of the Huanyan School and the Pure Land School, and advocated a novel Pure Land belief (this is similar to the Huayan-Pure Land thought proposed by Yihe 義和 in the early Southern Song). The objects of worship, practices, and goals put forth by these theories, despite the fact that they were not in exact accordance with some scriptures (they were even occasionally at odds with them), were not, in fact, suppressed—on the contrary, they provided a basis for the coexistence of different scriptures and schools. These two hybrid Pure Land doctrines met the demands of various social strata, and received favour especially from the scholar-officials, who showed a strong appeal towards them. The aim of putting forward these Pure Land beliefs by integration, reorganization, and creation, was to persuade the masses to be content with, and diligent in, their own duties, and to harmonize social relationships and maintain social order.76 In addition, some scholars in Mainland China also presented quite profound studies on the Huayan School. During the past two decades, the school has been the subject of a huge number of master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, for example, Xu Shaoqiang’s 徐紹強 thesis on Fazang 法藏,77 Dong Qun’s 董群 thesis on Zongmi 宗密,78 Qiu Gaoxing’s 邱高興 thesis on Fazang and dissertation on Li Tongxuan 李通玄,79 and Hu Minzhong’s 胡民眾 study on the thought of Chengguan 澄觀.80 Essays on the topic have been continuously published, and all these have advanced the studies of the Huayan School. The recent efforts on studies of Huanyan have made by both the Buddhist and academic spheres of Mainland China change in two major aspects—firstly, they adopted the methodologies of the western scholarship (these have made also Zhou Qi’s 周齊 book review “Huayanjing xue yu Huayanzong xue fenji ji lilu de fajue tansuo: Zhongguo Huayanzong tongshi shuping” 華嚴經學與華嚴宗學分際及理路的 發掘探索——〈中國華嚴宗通史〉述評, in Zhongguo foxue, Vol. 2 No. 1, Apr. 1999. 76  “Zongjiao ronghe yu jiaohua gongneng: yi songdai liangzhong huayan jingtu xinyang wei li” 宗教融合與教化功能──以宋代兩種華嚴淨土信仰為例, in Zhonghua foxue xuebao, No. 13, Vol. 1, pp. 299–305, the part of Chinese. 77  “Huayan wujiaozhang zhexue sixiang shu ping” 華嚴五教章哲學思想述評 by Xu Shaoqiang, in Zhongguo fojiao xueshu lundian 中國佛教學術論典, No. 2, included in the collection Fazang wenku 法藏文庫. 78  “Zongmi de huayan chan” 宗密的華嚴禪 by Dong Qun, in Zongmi de ronghelun sixiang yanjiu 宗密的融合論思想研究, included in Zhongguo fojiao xueshu lundian No. 2. 79  “Huayan zongzu fazang jiqi sixiang” 華嚴宗祖法藏及其思想 (master thesis) by Qiu Gaoxing, in zhongguo fojiao xueshu lundian, No. 2. “Li Tongxuan foxue sixiang shuping” 李通玄佛學思想述評 (dissertation), in Zhongguo fojiao xueshu lundian, No. 1. 80  “Chengguan foxue sixiang yanjiu” 澄觀佛學思想研究 by Hu Minzhong, in Zhongguo fojiao xueshu lundian, No. 2.

346

Huang

studies more organized and systematic), and secondly, the scope of research has been expanded, covering figures, texts, thoughts, and schools. 6

The Inadequacy of Studies on the Pure Land School, the Esoteric School, and the Vinaya School

Because the Pure Land School lacks theoretical analysis, there are less academic studies concerning it. As Guo Peng states, “Among the major Buddhist schools, the Pure Land School is another one that lacks theories; unlike other schools (except for Esoteric Buddhism and the Vinaya School), it does not devote itself to the juggling of rhetorics and the play of concepts, and, therefore, it has neither a philosophical, coherent epistemology, nor the penetrating enlightenment (canwu 參悟) or opportune point ( jifeng 機鋒) that characterize Chan Buddhism. What Pure Land Buddhism has is just some vulgar monasticism”.81 By 1978 most studies lacked of depth, being very general and more or less introductory. After 1978, however, the studies of the Pure Land School were strengthened, and papers of better quality appeared; however, the focuses of these studies were primarily the teachings of Daochuo 道綽 and Shandao 善導, (although some were also on Huiyuan 慧遠). Relevant master’s theses and doctoral dissertations were also released, such as Xie Lujun’s 謝路 軍 dissertation.82 After 1986, the BAC and Bukkyo University (Kyoto, Japan) jointly held the first “China-Japan Buddhist Academic Conference” (Zhongri fojiao xueshu huiyi 中日佛教學術會議), and, to date, it has been held several times. The theme of these conferences was the Pure Land schools of China and of Japan, and these conferences significantly advanced Chinese scholarship.83 Weighty works that were recently published were those by Chen Yangjiong 陳揚炯 and by Wei Lei 魏磊. Cheng Yangjiong’s Zhongguo jingtuzong tong­ shi 中國淨土宗通史 argues that, after the introduction of India Pure Land thought into China, the influential beliefs became those of Maitreya and of Amitabha.84 The cult of Maitreya declined soon thereafter, and the belief of Amitabha was transformed by Tanluan 曇鸞 into a Chinese Pure Land Buddhism that differentiated itself from Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna Buddhism. Eminent monks of various periods, such as Tanluan, Daochuo, Shandao, Huiri 慧日, Fazhao 法照, Huaigan 懷感, Feixi 飛錫, Yanshou 延壽, Zhuhong 81  See Sui Tang fojiao 隋唐佛教, Qilu shushe 1980. p. 621. 82  The dissertation has not yet published. 83  Conference papers were published in Fayin (the academic version) and Foxue yanjiu. 84  Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 2000. p. 613.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

347

祩宏, Zhixu 智旭, and Yinguang 印光, eradicated various doubts, corrected various misunderstandings, and refuted various attacks concerning many issues, such as the difficult and the easy approaches (nanxing yixing 難行易行), land of transformation and of enjoyment (huatu baotu 化土 報土), the indicative of a different period (bieshi yishuo 別時意說), the unborn and reborn lives (wusheng wangsheng 無生往生), and the internality and the externality of the Pure Land; they followed the historical trends to accomplished and enriched the Pure Land theory, and finally established the Pure Land School. Thus, the Ming and Qing period saw a great popularity of the Pure Land belief—as the saying goes, “every family has a Amitabha, and every household has a Guanyin” ( jiajia amituofo, huhu guanshiyin 家家阿彌 陀佛，戶戶觀世音), and the school dominated the popular religions. Wei Lei’s Jingtu zong jiaocheng 淨土宗教程 gives many accounts from practical perspectives, and is thus welcomed by many practitioners. Additionally, Liu Changdong’s 劉長東 Jin tang mituo jingtu xinyang yanjiu 晉唐彌陀淨土信仰 研究 shows the panorama of the spreading of the belief of Amitabha’s paradise in the Jin and the Tang periods. Compared to other comprehensive studies of history, this book’s micro perspective seems distinctive and deeper. Because of the discovery of Dunhuang caves and the organization of Dunhuang manuscripts, documents about the fourth patriarch of the Pure Land school, master Fazhao, were brought to light. Using these Dunhuang materials as well as others, many scholars conducted a great deal of researche on Fazhao, and arrived at several noteworthy conclusions.85 In addition, the contemporary monk Yinguang, renowned for his practice of Pure Land Buddhism, is regarded as the thirteenth patriarch. His four-volume Yinguang fashi wenchao 印光法師文鈔 is very popular in the Buddhist sphere, but studies on this figure remain only a few introductory articles. The studies of Esoteric Buddhism were once a highlight in Buddhist studies. In 1990, Lü Jianfu’s 呂建福 Zhongguo mijiao shi 中國密教史 was published, the first monograph on Esoteric Buddhism written in Chinese. Among all subjects, the Esoteric Buddhism of the Tang is a major one—Lü Jianfu seized it and devised a logical account of it. On the 3rd April 1987, the underground palace of Famen monastery in Fufeng district, Shanxi province, was discovered; scholars were gripped by the mandala of the Tang Esoteric Buddhism enshrined there. After years of research, it has been well documented that before it was to be closed off, the palace had been arranged into a mandala 85  Cf. “Ershi shijie de fazhao yanjiu” 二十世紀的法照研究 by Shengkai 聖凱, in Zhongguo zongjiao yanjiu yanjian: 1997–1998 中國宗教研究年鑒·1997–1998, eds. Cao Zhongjian 曹中建. Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2000.

348

Huang

for the veneration of the Buddha’s body relic, which was regarded “the unsurpassed Dharma realm” (wushang fajie 無上法界). Thus, in the underground palace was built a mandala world that signals embracing all and transforming infinitely. However, some scholars disagree with such an interpretation, suggesting instead that the mandala is not the integration of the Diamond Realm ( jingang jie 金剛界) or the Womb Realm (taizang jie 胎藏界).86 Master Hongyi 弘一 was very diligent in organizing materials concerning the Vinaya school. In terms of scholarship, however, there has not, thus far, appeared a monograph regarding this school. In response to the appeal made by the Chinese Buddhist sphere for theoretical and moral construction, recently many clerical scholars have been discussing issues of Vinaya. For example, employing Dunhuang materials Zhanru 湛如 systematizes the development of the precepts from early Buddhism to Dunhuang Buddhism in his doctoral dissertation. Shengkai 聖凱 conducted systematic research on confession rituals. Moreover, for medieval history, many scholars have investigated eminent monks, such as Daoxuan 道宣 and Jianzhen 鑒真. In regards to the subject of precepts of modern Buddhism, scholars have made comparisons and discussions from the perspectives of the compatibility of modern ethic and religions with socialism, so as to demonstrate how Chinese Buddhist precepts fit with socialism. In summary, studies of the above three schools are still insufficient, and not balanced in the face of studies on other schools; there might be various reasons for that. 7

Studies on Tibetan Buddhism

In the early 20th century, Buddhists in China proper, being aware of the decline of Buddhism there, attempted to connect with Tibetan Buddhists, to seek resources and support to revive Chinese Buddhism. Master Fazun 法尊 (1902– 1980) dedicated his entire life to the study and translation of Tibetan Buddhist texts, whose treatises and translations amount to more than two hundred. His work laid the foundation for the studies of Tibetan Buddhism in China, and exerted a massive influence in this field. He published Xizang minzu zhengjiao shi 西藏民族政教史, and, later, a series of essays in the journal Xiandai foxue, including “Xizang qianhongqi fojiao” 西藏前弘期佛教, “Xizang houhongqi 86  See “Famen si fojiao wenhua yanjiu zongshu” 法門寺佛教文化研究綜述, by Liang Zi 梁子, in Zhongguo zongjiao yanjiu nianjian: 1997–1998 中國宗教研究年鑒·1997–1998, eds. Cao Zhongjian 曹中建. Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2000.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

349

fojiao” 西藏後弘期佛教, “Xizang fojiao de xiangba jiajupai” 西藏佛教的 響巴迦舉派, “Xizang fojiao de sajiapai” 西藏佛教的薩嘉派, “Xizang fojiao de ningmapai” 西藏佛教的寧瑪派, “Xizang fojiao de jiadangpai” 西藏佛教 的迦當派, and “Xizang fojiao de jiajupai” 西藏佛教的迦舉派. He took full advantage of primary materials, and adopted modern methodology, and presented detailed accounts for the history of Tibetan Buddhism. He also analyzed the doctrinal traits of each sect and the historical relationship among them, and presented original views concerning many monumental events and historical periodization. His studies are detailed, analytical, objective, comprehensive, and systematic; he created his own research system and academic thought. His influence is unmatched in scale, and many of his views are still widely cited. After 1978, studies of Tibetan Buddhism entered a new phase—a host of specialist institutes and ethnic colleges that undertook Buddhist studies were successively restored or established, a considerable number of researchers and teachers became engaged in studies in this area, and many religious, ethnic, and social science periodicals and academic journals began to publish essays predominantly on this subject. The majority of scholars still hold that the formal commencement of Tibetan Buddhism was in the period of Srong-rtsan-sgam-po, when princesses Wencheng 文成 and Bhrkuti Devi introduced Buddhist scriptures and icons. At that time, however, the dominant ideology was still Bonism, and Buddhism held little influence (scholars with these views are mostly Han people). Wang Sen’s 王森 Guanyu xizang fojiao shi de shipian ziliao 關於 西藏佛教史的十篇資料87 is honoured as an authoritative work in historical studies of Tibetan Buddhism, and, the author stresses, “Reaching the time of Srong-rtsan-sgam-po, Tibetan culture began to see obvious development, and it is at this time that Buddhism was introduced into Tibet.” Fazun’s “Xizang qianhongqi fojiao” divides this development into three stages—the first stage is the period of Songtsen Gampo, when the Tibetan script system was created, and Buddhist texts were translated. The law was created based on the Buddhist “Ten Wholesome Precepts” in order to regulate the people. The second is the period of Khri-srong-lde-btsan, when Buddhism grew significantly. The first monks appeared, and monastic institution was established (Fanzun writes, “The true Buddhist establishment was not completed until this time”). The period of Khr-ral-pa-can is the third—the stage of propagation. The 87  Initially published was a stereotype edition, Zhongguo kexueyuan minzu yanjiusuo, 1965. In 1987, it was formally published by the press Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, in the title of “Xizang fojiao fanzhan shilue” 西藏佛教發展史略.

350

Huang

t­ranslation institution was normalized, Buddhist catalogues compiled, and the system of supporting monks established (Fanzun notes, “Everything was adapted according to Buddhist texts, down to the general scales and weights”). Fazun also listed Buddhist texts, characterized their practices, and sketched a profile of Tibetan Buddhism. In the 1970s, Wang Yao 王堯 published his article, “Tubo fojiao lüeshu” 吐 蕃佛教略述, where he employed Tibetan materials. In this article, he presented many original views, and surveyed the Buddhist introduction into Tibet—its establishment, the construction of the monastery Samye Gompa, the emergence of the group of “the Seven Awakened,” the translation of Buddhist scriptures, the formation of three major catalogues, the contention between Buddhism and Bonism, and the debate regarding sudden and gradual teachings. Xu Decun’s 許得存 “Fojiao zai xizang de sange fazhan jieduan jiqi tedian” 佛教在西藏的三個發展階段及其特點88 divides the development of Tibetan Buddhism into three stages—the initial stage (the so-called Tubo fojiao 吐蕃佛教), the semi-independence period (from the 10th to the 15th century), and the independence period (from the 15th century onwards). Master Miaozhou’s 妙舟 Mengzang fojiao shi 蒙藏佛教史89 (four volumes) is the first comprehensive monograph on the history of Tibetan Buddhism, and it gives a profound examination of the formation, development, its spread into Mongolia, and the great influence of Tibetan Buddhism. This work has been well accepted by academia, and some of its views have adopted by later scholars. However, because of the author’s personal beliefs, the comments on events and figures and the examination of dates are not prudent enough. Wang Furen’s 王輔仁 Xizang fojiao shilue 西藏佛教史略 and Wang Sen’s Xizang fojiao fazhan shilue are both masterpieces. Wang Sen’s work, in particular, is similar to that of Fazun in structure, but differs in methodology; it makes breakthroughs in many aspects. The Zang chuan fojiao shi 藏傳佛教史, compiled by the Institute for Religious Research of Tibetan Academy of Social Science90 is also distinctive. Additionally, there are Zangchuan fojiao yuanliu ji shehui yingxiang 藏傳佛教源流及社會影響, co-authored by Ding Hanru 丁漢儒, Wen Hua 溫華, Tang Jingfu 唐景福, and Sun Erkang 孫爾康, Zang chuan fojiao 藏傳佛教 by Li Jicheng 李冀誠, and Xizang zongjiao gaishuo Zang chuan fojiao de gaju pai 藏傳佛教的噶舉派 by Peng Yingquan 彭英全. Liu Liqian’s 劉立千 Zang chuan fojiao de gaju pai 藏傳佛教的噶舉 派 employs various Tibentan resources, and presents a concise d­ iscussion 88  In Xizang yanjiu 西藏研究, 1984, No. 4. 89  Shanghai foxue shuju, 1934. 90  Xizang renmin chubanshe.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

351

of the history of the Kagyupa. To summarize the school’s characteristics, it categorizes its doctrines into the cause ( yin 因), the truth (dao 道), and the effect (guo 果). Tibetan scholar Troru Tsenam’s (Cuoru Cilang 措如·次朗) Ningma jiaopai shilue 寧瑪教派史略 is a work on the Nyingma Tradition, written in Tibetan, as is Beiwaer Quelie Duojie’s 貝瓦爾·確列多傑 work on the Sakya School, Sajia pai shilüe 薩迦派史略.91 Using Tibetan primary sources, as well as those acquired through fieldwork, Xu Decun published numerous articles, including “Chuan qing liangsheng zangqu juenang pai siyuan diaocha” 川青兩省藏區覺囊派寺院調查,92 “Duobuba jiqi ‘Shanfa liaoyihai lun’ ” 多布巴及其山法了義海論,93 “Juenang pai takong sixiang qianlun” 覺囊派他空思想淺論,94 “Juenang pai sixiang qianxi” 覺囊派思想淺析,95 and “Zang chuan fojiao zikong takong sixiang pingxi” 藏傳佛教自空他空思想評析.96 He also translated, into Chinese, the Juenang pai jiaofa shi 覺囊派教法史, and the Zhongguan takong sixiang shulüe 中觀他空思想述略. He gave an overall and objective view on the Jonang School, and reestablished its status as an important Buddhist tradition. Setshang Lobsang Pelden’s (bSe tshang Blo bzang dpal ldan) Gelu pai shilue 格 鲁派史略 follows the methodology traditionally adopted by Tibetan scholars, presenting comprehensive and systematic discussions which include many historical and doctrinal aspects. Duoshi’s 多識 Zang chuan fojiao yanjiu: aixin zhong baofa de zhihui 藏傳佛 教研究—愛心中爆發的智慧 contains a chapter named “Yu shilun fa xiuchi yigui youguan de wenti” 與時輪法修持儀軌有關的問題, which discusses the traits of Tibetan Buddhism, the essence of Buddhism, the practice methods, the significance of Esoteric Buddhism to the entire Buddhist dharma, Kalachakra Tantra, and rituals. Sönam Tsering’s (Bsod-nams-tshe-riṅ, Suonan Cairang 索南才讓) Xizang mijiao shi 西藏密教史 is a comprehensive and systematic study on Tibetan Esoteric Buddhism which was published in recent years. This book makes full use of Tibetan materials and scholarship, produced abroad and at home, and traces the development of Tibetan Buddhism with a fresh methodology. It closely examines important historical figures, major Esoteric Buddist texts and doctrines, and it also introduces various rituals and institutions, exploring the reasons as to why Tibetan Buddhism was spread 91  Minzu chubanshe, 1989. 92  In Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究, 1991, No. 3. 93  In Zhongguo zangxue 中國藏學, 1992, No. 2. 94  See Xizang yanjiu 1993, No. 1. 95  In Shijie zongjiao yanjiu, 1993, No. 2. 96  In Foxue yanjiu, 1994.

352

Huang

beyond Tibet proper. In his thorough study, threads of discussion are clear, and fresh views are abundant. Overall, it rendered many previous methodologies and perspectives archaic, and lifted Buddhist studies to a higher level. An Xu’s 安旭 Xizang meishu shi yanjiu 西藏美術史研究97 systematically introduced various forms of Buddhist arts, and is widely considered as a magnum opus of this area. Studies on Living Buddha also saw significant advancement—Huofo zhuanshi 活佛轉世 by Cai Zhichun 蔡志純 and Huang Hao 黃顥 both say, “Joining the Buddhist theory about transmigration of the soul and that of the Three Bodies of the Buddha, Tibetan Buddhism created an unique institution of the reincarnation of the living Buddha. It combines the Buddha and the human into one, a great innovation in religious history.” Scholars have made a great progress in textual re-organization and translation from Tibetan into Chinese. A great collection of translations of historical works were published and welcomed by academia, including Hong shi 紅史, Xin hong shi 新紅史, Xizang wang tongji 西藏王統記, Han zang shiji 漢藏史籍, Sajia shixi shi 薩迦世系史, Juenang pai jiaofa shi 覺囊派教 法史, Tuguan zongpai yuanliu 土觀宗派源流, Zhigong fasi 止貢法嗣, Yalong juewo jiaofa shi 雅隆覺沃教法史, Diwu zongjiao yuanliu 弟吳宗教源流, Naiba jiaofa shi 奈巴教法史, Anduo zhengjiao shi 安多政教史, and Ruyi baoshu shi 如意寶樹史. 8

Studies on Yunnan Theravāda Buddhism

The studies of Theravādin Buddhism in Yunnan province were developed simultaneously with those of the studies of borderland history, history of the Dai nationality, and the Dai culture. It has, thus far, a history as long as some seventy or eighty years. As early as the 1950s, the government of the New China organized social investigations concerning nationalities, and scholars collected and published annals of historical sources and investigation reports, in which Buddhism was referred to. In the early 1960s, Buddhist scholars, having investigated the Theravādin Buddhism in Yunnan province, published papers on the origin of Buddhist clerical class of the Dai and Bulang peoples, as well as some introductory articles regarding the Buddhist cannon written in the language of Dai. Following the Third Plenary Session, scholars became increasingly informed of the Theravāda in Yunnan, and conferences were held and papers published. At the same time, some monographs about Dai history and/ or culture also included chapters on Buddhism in Yunnan. 97  Shanghai meishu chubanshe.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

353

The majority of scholars hold the opinion that Buddhism was introduced into Yunnan the Sui and Tang period. Generally speaking, it is believed that Buddhism at Xishuangbanna was influenced by Thai Buddhism, while Buddhism in the Dehong region was influenced by Myanmar Buddhism; thus, from Thailand to Xishuangbanna, and from Myanmar to Dehong, constitute the two chief routes of introduction. In regards to periodization, some scholars hold the belief that the first six centuries of Buddhist Era (ie. from the sixth to twelfth century A.D.) constitute the introductory period, and everything below the thirteenth century is the thriving period. According to Yang Jie’s 楊介 “Xishuangbanna de fota” 西雙版納的佛塔,98 “Theravādin Buddhism in Xishuangbanna roughly arose in mid-Tang period, and developed in the Song; the Yuan, the Ming, and the Qing was its high period.”99 The difference between these two historical divisions is that the former is in a macroscopic perspective, concerning Buddhist activities, whereas the latter is a microscopic perspective of the Buddhist construction. Both views have merit, but it could easily be argued that it would be more significant to strive for a balance in between. Concerning different Theravādin sects in Yunnan, scholars have, to date, generated only simple introductions. There are also some scriptural studies, which are, however, similarly general, few being indepth. The most notable scholarships to appear recently are the collective essays Beiye wenhua 貝葉文化, and Liu Yan’s 劉巖 monograph, Nanchuan fojiao yu daizu wenhua 南傳佛教與傣族文化.100 9

Studies of Buddhism Abroad

After 1978, as researches of Chinese Buddhism advanced, the introduction and study of Buddhism outside China began. These studies were mainly published in the following journals—Shijie zongjiao ziliao 世界宗教資料, Nanya yanjiu 南亞研究, Dongnanya 東南亞, Dongnanya yanjiu 東南亞研究, Dongnanya zongheng 東南亞縱橫, Nanya dongnanya ziliao 南亞東南亞資料, Fayin 法音, Fojiao wenhua 佛教文化, and Foxue yanjiu 佛學研究. Lü Cheng’s Yindu foxue yuanliu lue jiang is the first book in the academia of Mainland China that systematically discusses the history of Indian Buddhism, and Huang Xinchuan’s Yindu fojiao zhexue 印度佛教哲學 proved to be another important achievement in studies of Indian Buddhism. The latter 98  In Beiye wenhua. 99  Ibid., p. 485. 100  Yunnan minzu chubanshe, 1993.

354

Huang

author predominantly employs Chinese scriptural sources kept in China, but also consults with scholarships both at home and abroad. His work focuses on the origin of Indian Buddhism and the development of its doctrines and philosophical thoughts. In particular, it associates the occurrence and development of Indian Buddhism within the framework of social circumstances of the time, and reveals the internal connections and external differences between Buddhism and other Indian religions. Also, it integrates macro and micro investigations, and sketches the basic thread of the development of Indian Buddhist philosophy. Wu Baihui’s 巫白慧 Indian Philosophy and Buddhism, published by The Cultural Research Institution of BAC (Zhongguo fojiao xie­ hui wenhua yanjiusuo 中國佛教協會文化研究所) is another distinguished book, since this is the first book written in English by a Chinese Buddhist scholar. Using Siahan 四阿含 as primary source, Yang Zengwen’s Fojiao de qiyuan 佛教的起源101 discusses the primitive Nikāya Bud­dhism and makes a comparative study of Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism. Adopting the methodology of comparative linguistics, Ji Xianlin 季羨林 compared and analyzed extant ancient scriptures—using the multiple variations in languages within the scriptures, he was able to date and locate the origin of them, as well as their geographic spread. He presented many views regarding the origin of primitive Mahāyāna Buddhism, and proposed that primitive Buddhism took a kind of laissez faire language policy, and that there was a Theravādin tradition amid all Mahāyāna schools. Many publications gathered and organized historical sources concerning India, including Zhang Xun’s 章巽 Faxian zhuan jiao zhu 法顯傳校注,102 Zhou Liankuan’s 周連寬 Datang xiyu ji shi di yanjiu conggao 大唐西域記史地研究 叢稿,103 Datang xiyu ji jiao zhu 大唐西域記校注,104 Wang Bangwei’s 王邦維 Datang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan jiao zhu 大唐西域求法高僧傳校注105 and Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan jiao zhu 南海寄歸內法傳校注, Zhang Xinglang’s 張星烺 Zhongxi jiaotong shiliao huibian 中西交通史料匯編,106 and Geng Yinceng’s 耿引曾 Hanwen nanya shiliao xue 漢文南亞史料學.107 These works were vital to deepen the studies of history, religions, and culture of South and Southeast Asia, and highlight the great contribution made by Chinese Buddhists. 101  Dangdai zhongguo chubanshe, 1990. 102  Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1985. 103  Zhonghua shuju, 1984. 104  Zhonghua shuju, 1985. 105  Zhonghua shuju, 1988. 106  Zhonghua shuju, 1987. 107  Beijing daxue chubanshe, 1990.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

355

Huang Xinchuan wrote “Niboer fojiao” 尼泊爾佛教,108 and Yao Changshou 姚長壽 wrote “Niboer fojiao gaishu” 尼泊爾佛教概述109—these two articles described Buddhism in Nepal. Zhang Xi 張曦, in “Niboer fojiao de xingshuai” 尼泊爾佛教的興衰,110 surveyed Nepalese Buddhism from the aspects of Buddhist activities, monastic organization, and foreign exchange. Huang Xianian’s “Xiandai niboer fojiao” 現代尼泊爾佛教111 reviewed postwar Nepalese Mahāyāna Buddhism and Theravādin Buddhism for the first time, noting that it was an important policy of the Nepalese government to revive Buddhism at that period in time. The BAC published Ye Jun’s 葉均 Chinese translation of the Visuddhimagga, a famous Pāli treatise.112 Ye had studied for many years in Sri Lanka, and had an intimate knowledge of the doctrines and history of Theravādin Buddhism— indeed, he had written many articles to introduce Buddhism in Sri Lanka. To translate the work, Ye consulted the Chinese translation of a homologous text, Jietuo dao lun 解脫道論 (Vimokṣamārga-śāstra, translated in the 6th c.) and the translations in ancient languages of Sri Lanka and Thailand (as well as the English and Japanese translations). The translations and annotations are accurate, fluent, and elegant, and therefore hold great academic value. He also translated Dhammapada (Faju 法句),113 a Pāli collection of moral aphorisms, and Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha (She apidamo yi lun 攝阿毗達磨 義論), the philosophical synopsis of Theravādin Buddhism, and composed introductions for them all. Also included in the book are some of his essays on Theravādin Buddhism. Huang Xianian’s “Jueyin de qingjingdao lun jiqi chanfa” 覺音的清淨道論及其禪法114 was the first attempt to research on the author and content of Qingjing dao lun 清淨道論, interpreting the Theravādin meditation tradition from the both theoretical and practical perspectives. The author also translated an introductory article of Buddhaghoṣa.115 Based on the research of Tang Yongtong, Lü Cheng, Jin Kemu 金克木, as well as those of other scholars both at home and abroad, Huang Xianian made a comparative study on the doctrines of the ‘fourteen defining activities’ (shisi xingxiang 108  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1987, No. 1. 109  Fayin 法音, 1987, No. 2. 110  Nanya yanjiu, 1992, No. 3. 111  Nanya yanjiu jikan 南亞研究季刊, 1991, No. 2. 112  Zhongguo fojiao xiehui, 1985. 113  The edition of 1953. 114  In Nanya yanjiu, 1989, No. 1. 115  “Weida de fojiao xuezhe jueyin yi zhuan” 偉大的佛教學者覺音譯傳, in Fojiao wenhua 佛教文化, 1990, No. 2.

356

Huang

十四行相) in Tharavādin Buddhism, and the ‘nine movements of the mind in prception’ ( jiu xinglun 九心輪), observing that as early as one thousand years ago, Theravādin psychology had already been known to the Chinese, and Jietuo dao lun 解脫道論 was the earliest Chinese work that records Theravādin psychology.116 In “Nan chuan fojiao xinlixue shuping” 南傳佛教心理學述評,117 Huang gives a general introduction of the occurrence, development, and contents of Buddhist psychology, psychological studies in the Southern and Northern branches of Buddhism, and the psychology of Buddhist, Chinese, and western traditions. He notes that in Chinese, Indian, and western cultural systems, Buddhist psychology is, in fact, the earliest established and most advanced. Guo Liangyun 郭良鋆 translated the Pāli scripture Sutta-nipāta ( Jing ji 經集),118 and his study shows that there are only few and scattered texts or chapters that correspond with Sutta-nipāta in extant Chinese Buddhist scriptures; however, his study proves that some editions were translated into local languages instead of the extant Pāli originals. Showing that there are variations among the Pāli and the Chinese versions, he redressed the view held by Japanese and Indian scholars. The publication of this book is, consequently, immensely valuable to Buddhist comparative studies, as well as doctrinal studies of primitive Buddhism. Nanchuan fojiao shi jianbian 南傳佛教史簡 編, by Deng Dianchen 鄧殿臣119 is the first monograph about the history of the Buddhism of the Southern Branch, which surveys the Theravāda in each region in “the cultural sphere of Buddhism of the Southern Branch,” including Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and the region resided by the Dai people in Yunnan province of China. The author had studied in Sri Lanka, and had been conducting the research of Simhala language, and, therefore, could invoke several primary sources, in the attempt to outline the traits of all periods, and to define their integrity in view of a Buddhist cultural sphere. Miandian gailan 緬甸概覽, chief-edited by Yang Changyuan 楊長源 et al.,120 introduces in detail Myanmar Buddhism and, at present, it is viewed as the definitive monograph in the field. Additionally, Jiang Yongren 薑永仁 composed “Fojiao zai Miandian” 佛教在緬甸,121 which is also 116  “Bali fodian shisi xingxiang yu hanyi jiuxin lun de bijiao yanjiu” 巴厘佛典“十四行相” 與漢澤“九心輪”的比較研究, in Yindu zongjiao yu zhongguo fojiao 印度宗教與中 國佛教. 117  Shijie zongjiao yanjiu, 1989, No. 4. 118  Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1990. 119  Fayin zazhi she, 1991. 120  Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1990. 121  Nanya yu Dongnanya ziliao 南亞與東南亞資料, 1988.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

357

viewed as ­academically significant. In “Piao shan zhu guo fojiao jiqi zai shan dai jumin zhong de chuanbo” 驃撣諸國佛教及其在撣傣居民中的傳播,122 Huang Huikun 黃惠昆 employs historical materials from China, and investigates the reality of Buddhism in Southeast Asia. He notes that “by the eighth century or so, all countries in Southeast Asia were already converted to Buddhism, and a Buddhist cultural sphere of Southeast Asia had taken form.” Li Hongbin 李鴻賓 investigated Buddhist pagodas in Bagan, and discovered that there were still 2, 217 pagodas in the present day. Huang Xianian’s “Xiandai Miandian fojiao” 現代緬甸佛教123 and “Xiandai Miandian fojiao fuxing yu fojiao minzu zhuyi” 現代緬甸佛教復興佛教民族主義124 survey the post-war development of Myanmar Buddhism, and discuss the influence of the evolution of a Buddhist nationalist ideology on domestic politics. Scholars also compiled Zhongguo guji zhong youguan Miandian zil­ iao de huibian 中國古籍中有關緬甸資料的匯編,125 which collected many sources from Buddhist texts. Also, in recent years, Li Chenyang 李晨陽 made great contributions to the studies of Myanmar Buddhism—he published many articles regarding the recent situation of Myanmar Buddhism, such as “Xiandai Miandian minzhu yundong zhong de fojiao” 現代緬甸民主運動中 的佛教,126 “Fojiao dui Miandian shehui zhuyi sichao de yingxiang” 佛教對 緬甸社會主義思潮的影響,127 and “Dangdai Miandian gaoseng wuweishala zhuanlüe” 當代緬甸高僧吳威沙拉傳略,128 which enable scholars to quickly learn the development of Buddhism in the modern world. “Xiandai Taiguo de fojiao yanjiu” 現代泰國的佛教研究,129 by Chen Guang 陳光 (published in 1980), is the earliest article that presents Thai Buddhism in Mainland China. It introduces the education, practice, and research of the last one hundred years in the Buddhist sphere of Thailand. Tong Wei’s 童緯 “Taiguo de fojiao” 泰國的佛教130 also briefly introduces the history of Thailand Buddhism. Ma Ning 馬寧 translated a book by the famous and respected Thai scholar Phrayā Anuman Rajadhon, Taiguo chuantong wenhua yu minsu 泰國傳統文化與民俗,131 which gives an account of the s­tatus 122  Dongnanya, 1984, No. 1. 123  Guangdong fojiao 廣東佛教, 1992, No. 5, 6. 124  Dongnanya yanjiu, 1992, No. 6. 125  Zhonghua shuju, 1996. 126  Foxue yanjiu, 1997. 127  Foxue yanjiu, 1999. 128  Shijie zongjiao wenhua 世界宗教文化, 2000, No. 2. 129  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1980, No. 4. 130  Nanya yu dongnanya ziliao, 1981, No. 4. 131  Zhongshan daxue chubanshe, 1987.

358

Huang

and influence of Thai Buddhist culture. “Dangdai Taiguo fojiao de gaige yundong he gaige sichao” 當代泰國佛教的改革運動和改革思潮,132 by Su Jun 蘇軍, mainly remarks on the many ideological trends that appeared in post-war Thailand, the ideas in which prove to be quite innovative in recent scholarship. “Taiguo fojiao de xianzhuang yu lishi yiji fojiao jigou zucheng” 泰國的現狀與歷史以及佛教機構組成,133 by Zhao Wenliu 趙文榴, and “Xiandai Taiguo fojiao de huodong ji sichao” 現代泰國佛教的活動及思潮,134 and “Xiandai Taiguo de fojiao” 現代泰國的佛教135 by Huang Xianian are also essays on Thai Buddhism. Taiguo zhongshi simiao 泰國中式寺廟136 by Duan Lisheng 段立生 explores the situation regarding Chinese Buddhism in Thailand. Yuenan Laowo jianpuzhai shouce 越南老撾柬埔寨手冊,137 chief-edited by Du Dunxin 杜敦信 and Zhao Heman 趙和曼, assigns chapters to Buddhism in the three countries of “Indo-China,” and these chapters are comprehensive and critical. Huang Yiqiu 黃軼球 partially translated Vietnamese scholar Tran Van Giap’s 陳文甲 Yuenan fojiao shi lue 越南佛教史略,138 a history of Vietnamese Chan tradition based mainly on Chinese sources. The same could be said of “Yuenan fojiao shi gaishu” 越南佛教史概述,139 which was a selective translation of Japanese scholar Ogawa Hiroshi’s 小 川宏 work by Luo Huangchao 羅晃潮. Liang Zhiming 梁志明 also composed “Lue lun Yuenan fojiao yuanliu he Lichen shiqi yuedi fojiao de fazhan” 略論越南佛教源流和李陳時期越地佛教的發展,140 and Xu Shaoli 徐 紹麗 et al translated “Li Changjie yu fojiao” 李常傑與佛教.141 In short, the studies of Vietnamese Buddhism in this period were based mainly on Chinese primary sources. Generally, it is believed that Buddhism was introduced into Vietnam during Mouzi’s 牟子 time during the Eastern Han dynasty, and thrived in the dynasties of Nhà Trần and Nhà Lý. “Xiandai Yuenan fojiao” 現代越南佛教,142 by Huang Xianian, is a detailed introduction of post-war Vietnamese Buddhism, and this volume especially adds development of 132  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1991, No. 4. 133  Nanyang wenti 南洋問題, 1982, No. 1. 134  Dongnanya zongheng 東南亞縱橫, 1992, No. 4. 135  Guangdong fojiao 廣東佛教, 1993, No. 4, 5, 6; 1994, No. 1. 136  Taiguo datong she chuban youxian gongsi, 1996. 137  Guangxi shekeyuan chubanshe, 1988. 138  Dongnanya yanjiu ziliao, 1985, No. 1. 139  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1982, No. 2. 140  Yinzhi yanjiu 印支研究, 1984, No. 2. 141  Nanya yu Dongnanya ziliao, 1986, No. 2. 142  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1993, No. 2.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

359

Theravādin Buddhism in Vietnam. Additionally, Li Guo 利國 and Xu Shaoli composed Yuenan minzu 越南民族,143 which also contains discussions about Buddhist beliefs in Vietnam. The studies on Buddhism in Laos also stays at an introductory stage. Cai Wencong 蔡文欉 wrote several articles, such as “Laowo fojiao qiantan” 老撾佛教淺談,144 “Laowo fojiao de chulajie” 老撾佛教的出臘節,145 “Laowo fojiao de tidu fengsu” 老撾佛教的剃度風俗,146 and “Laowo ren yu simiao” 老撾人與寺廟.147 He also translated a Thai scholar’s article, “Laowo fojiao yishu” 老撾佛教藝術148 and introduced in detail Buddhism in Laos, a contribution that would be difficult for future scholars to ignore. Huang Xianian’s “Xiandai laowo de fojiao” 現代老撾的佛教149 sketches the development of Buddhism in post-war Laos, remarking that the characteristics of the Buddhism of this period was “being small at both ends and big in the middle,” a situation which was determined by the domestic circumstances and political climate. He rectified the views of western countries’ propaganda that Buddhism ceased to be in Laos after 1975. Additionally, Xu Shaoli translated Nguyễn Lệ Thi’s 阮麗詩 “Laowo lishi guocheng zhong de fojiao” 老撾歷史過程中的佛教,150 which included the discussion of modern Buddhism. Chen Yulong’s 陳玉龍 “Wuge jianzhu yishu fawei: jianyu zhongguo chengshi shiku simiao jianzhu jinxing duibi” 吳哥建築藝術發微—— 兼與中國城市石窟寺廟建築進行對比151 is a distinctive essay, one which reflects the major concerns of Chinese scholars regarding Angkor Wat. “Xiandai Jianpuzhai fojiao” 現代柬埔寨佛教,152 by Huang Xianian, gives an overview of the development of Buddhism in post-war Cambodia, and divides historical periods into clearly recognizable sections. Xihanuke: huiyilu 西哈努克——回憶錄, translated by Chen Guang 晨光, et al.153 is a documentary work, and its observations on the Buddhist socialism of Khmer are extremely noteworthy. Also, Zhenla fentuji jiao zhu 真臘風土記校注, by

143  Beijing daxue chubanshe, 1989. 144  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1981, No. 1. 145  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1981, No. 3. 146  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1982, No. 4. 147  Nanya yu Nanya ziliao, 1986, No. 2. 148  Dongnanya yanjiu ziliao, 1985, No. 1. 149  Dongnanya, 1992, No. 3. 150  Nanya yu Dongnanya ziliao, 1983, No. 5. 151  Dongnanya, 1988, No. 1. 152  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1991, No. 3. 153  Heilongjiang renmin chubanshe, 1987.

360

Huang

Xia Nai 夏鼐,154 and Zhongguo guji zhong youguan jianpuzhai ziliao huibian 中國古籍中有關柬埔寨資料匯編,155 edited by Lu Junling 陸峻嶺 and Zhou Shaoquan 周紹泉, contain many useful sources on Buddhism in Funan and Chenla. In regards to Buddhism in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, scholars have presented little information. “Xinjiapo fojio” 新加坡佛教,156 “Malaixiya de fojiao zuzhi” 馬來西亞的佛教組織,157 and “Malaixiya de fosi” 馬來西亞的佛寺,158 all by Huang Xianian, basically provide detailed accounts of the history and current situation of Buddhism in Malaysia. Studies of Japanese Buddhism, however, far surpass those on Indian Buddhism. Many Japanese Buddhist works have been partially or entirely translated into Chinese, such as the works of Ui Hakuju 宇井伯壽, Kimura Taiken 木村泰賢, Tokiwa Daijō 常磐大定, and Nukariya Kaiten. Yang Zengwen tackled many vital issues when commenting on Japanese Buddhism in his Riben fojiao shi 日本佛教史159—his appraisal proves to be objective and impartial, and, in contrast, some Japanese scholars subject their academic studies to a nationalist complex, sectarianism, and/or personal religious beliefs, and expose the tendency of dramatization or nihilism. Riben jin­ xiandai fojiao shi 日本近現代佛教史 chief-edited by Yang Zengwen,160 gives an relatively comprehensive account of modern Japanese Buddhism. Rilian lun 日蓮論161 and Riben chuangjia xuehui de linian yu shijian 日本創價學會的理念與實踐162 are He Jinsong’s 何勁松 studies on Soga Gakkai, which discuss the past and present of this new religious organization. Riben dangdai fojiao yu zhengzhi 日本當代佛教與政治, by Gao Hong 高洪,163 is, essentially, a chronological narrative, and investigates the post-war development of Japanese Buddhist schools (both traditional and new), their social engagements, the influence of Buddhism in reality, and channels and media available to them in terms of politics.

154  Zhonghua shuju, 1981. 155  Zhonghua shuju, 1986. 156  Fayin, 1991, No. 9. 157  Co-authored with Xu Hua 徐華. In Guangdong fojiao 廣東佛教, 1992, No. 2, 3. 158  Co-authored with Xu Hua. In Fojiao zhishi 佛教知識, 1994, Vol. 3 (summer). 159  Zhejiang renmin chubanshe, 1995. 160  Zhejiang renmin chubanshe, 1996. 161  Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1995. 162  Dongfang chubanshe, 1997. 163  Dongfang chubanshe, 1995.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

361

Liang Rongruo 梁容若 wrote Zhongri wenhua jiaoliu shi lun 中日文化交流史論,164 and translated Zhongri liangqian nian jiaoliu shi 中日兩千年交流史.165 The work Tang daheshang dongzheng zhuan 唐大 和尚東征傳, collated and annotated by Wang Xiangrong 汪向榮,166 was published. Ru Tang qiufa xunli xing ji 入唐求法巡禮行記, by Ennin 円仁 (a Japanese monk in the Tang period), was collated and punctuated by Ge Chengfu 顧承甫 and He Quanda 何泉達,167 and, later, a new annotated edition was produced by Bai Huawen 白化文 and Li Dingxia 李鼎霞, based on Dr. Ono’s 小野 critical version. “Sui Tang shiqi zhongguo yu Chaoxian fojiao de jiaoliu: Xinluo lai hua fojiao senglü kao” 隋唐時期中國與朝鮮佛教的交流——新羅來華佛教 僧侶考,168 by Huang Xinchuan, utilizes various Chinese historical sources, and traces Sillan monks relocated to study in Sui and Tang China. The author concludes that there were one hundred and seventeen monks who had been to China, which vastly outnumbers the result reached by the Korean scholar Yi Neunghwa 李能和 (he claimed only sixty-four persons), and that by the Japanese scholar Nakagiri Isao 中吉功 (sixty-six).This article attracted praise from Chinese, Japanese, and Korean scholars. On the eighteenth December 1994, at the award ceremony of the fourth International Buddhist Scholastic Prize was held in Beijing, it was awarded by the curator of National Library of China and famous scholar Ren Jiyu. The Dean of the Academy of Korean Traditional Buddhism, Professor Gim Jigyeon 金知見, traveled to China solely to award the prize. Zhong chao fojiao wenhua jiaoliu shi 中朝佛教文化交流史, by Huang Wanfu 黃萬福 and Chen Jingfu 陳景福,169 is the first monograph in the academia of China on the Buddhist connections between China and Korea. In this book, the author uses mainly Chinese sources preserved in China; since these sources are reasonably reliable, these discussions are well-grounded. He Jinsong wrote Hanguo fojiao shi 韓國佛教史 (two volumes), which were published by the press Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe.

164  Shangwu yinshuguan, 1985. 165  Shangwu yinshuguan, 1998. 166  Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1979. 167  Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1986. 168  Shijie zongjiao yanjiu, 1989, No. 1. Sui Tang fojiao lunwen ji 隋唐佛教論文集, published by Sanqin chubanshe. 169  Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1993.

362

Huang

Chen Zhenhui 陳貞輝 published “Ou Mei de fojiao yanjiu” 歐美的佛教 研究170 in 1980, which introduced the studies of the Pāli, Sanskrit, and Tibetan canons in China, North America, and Europe after World War ii. Huang Xinchuan’s “Ou Mei de fojiao yu foxue yanjiu” 歐美的佛教與佛學研究171 introduced, in detail, Buddhist studies in Europe and North America. Zheng Tianxing’s 鄭天星 “Chanzong zai Ou Mei” 禪宗在歐美 analyzed the Chan/ Zen fever that appeared in many countries, remarking that its rise was closely connected to the crisis inherent in Capitalist society. Wang Leiquan 王雷泉 and Zhang Rulun 張汝倫 translated Mosao Abe’s Zen and Western Thought (Chan yu xifang sixiang 禪與西方思想).172 More recently, Li Silong 李四龍 wrote several essays that systematically traced Buddhist studies in Europe and North America. Li Jicheng’s “Guowai xizang fojiao yanjiu zongshu” 國外西藏佛教研究綜述173 and “Zang chuan fojiao gajupai zai guowai de chuanbo” 藏傳佛教噶舉派在國外的傳播,174 as well as Fang Jianchang’s 房建昌 “Zang chuan fojiao zai meiguo de xingsheng jiqi fazhan” 藏傳佛教在美國的興盛及其發展,175 surveyed the history of the studies of Tibetan Buddhism in foreign countries, including the major publishing institutes and well-known Tibetologists. 10 Epilogue At the present time, studies on Chinese Buddhism are the largest in number, with those on Tibetan Buddhism taking second place, Indian Buddhism the third, and those on Theravādin Buddhism in Yunnan the fourth. The hot issues in the studies of Chinese Buddhism are those regarding the Chan school; issues in the studies of Tibetan Buddhism are concerned with the Gelug school; and in the studies of Indian Buddhism, the Madyamaka (being gradually replaced by Yogācāra). Studies of Yunan Theravāda are still insufficient. These fields are noteworthy. Judging from the studies so far published, the current studies of Chinese Buddhism have still many deficiencies. Those issues that have little to do with market economy become problematic. Among the studies closely ­relevant to the Buddhist reality, few show high quality, however, as the training of Buddhist 170  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1980, No. 2. 171  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1987, No. 3. 172  Shanghai yiwen chubanshe, 1989. 173  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1981, No. 2. 174  Shijie zongjiao ziliao, 1988, No. 3. 175  Xizang minzu xueyuan xuebao 西藏民族學院學報, 1989, No. 1.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

363

academic personnel proceeds and increases, distribution of scholars will become more reasonable. In this environment, Buddhist studies in the future would also become multi-layered, wide-scoped, profound, and sophisticated. Being multi-layered means there are not only popularizing and generalizing Buddhist studies, but also advanced, thematic monographs; being widescoped means that Buddhist studies would involve more varied subjects, and part of them would be on relative and marginal issues (or even comparative studies); being profound means that some works of Buddhist studies would be purely academic work which would require laborious research, and these works would display a very high scholastic merit, and would quite probably take the leading position in the world of academics. Bibliography

Primary Sources by Title

Chanyuan qinggui 禪院清規 punctuated and collated by Su Jun 蘇軍, Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 2001. Gu zunxu yulu 古尊宿語錄, collated by Xiao Jianfu 蕭箑父 and Lü Youxiang 呂有祥, Zhonghua shuju, 1994. Guiyang Gaofeng Liaochen heshang shiji 貴陽高峰了塵和尚事蹟, collated and punctuated by Zhang Xinmin 張新民, Chen Futong 陳福桐, and Le Guangyan 樂光彥. Bashu shushe, 2000. Jietuo dao lun 解脫道論, T32. Jing ji 經集 (Sutta-nipāta), trans. by Guo Liangyun 郭良鋆, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1990. Jinjiang chandeng 錦江禪燈, Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 1998. Linji lu 臨濟錄, collated and edited by Yang Zengwen 楊曾文, Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 2001. Luoyng qielan ji jiao zhu 洛陽伽藍記校注, Yang Xuanzhi 楊衒之, Shanghai: Xinhua shudian, 1958. Qian lingshan zhi 黔靈山志, edited by Guizhou sheng lishi wenxian yanjiu hui 貴州 省歷史文獻硏究會, and Hongfusi qianling congshu bianweihui 弘福寺黔靈叢 書編委會. Guizhou Hongfu si, 2000. Qiannan huideng lu 黔南會燈錄, Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 1998. Qian seng yulu 黔僧語錄, eds. Zhang Xinmin 張新民 et al. Bashu shushe, 2000. Qingjing dao lun 清淨道論, Buddhaghosa, trans. into Chinese by Ye Jun 葉均. Taibei xianzhong heshi: Hua yu, 1987. Ru Tang qiufa xunli xing ji 入唐求法巡禮行記, Ennin 円仁, collated and punctuated by Gu Chengfu 顧承甫 and He Quanda 何泉達, Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1986.

364

Huang

Ru Tang qiufa xunli xing ji jiaozhu 入唐求法巡禮行記校注, Ennin 円仁, annotated by Ono Katsutoshi 小野勝年, Bai Huawen 白化文 and Li Dingxia 李鼎霞. Baihua wenyi chubanshe, 1992. Shenhui heshang chanhua lu 神會和尚禪話錄, edited by Yang Zengwen 楊曾文. Zhonghua shuju, 1996. Tang daheshang dongzheng zhuan 唐大和尚東征傳, collated and annotated by Wang Xiangrong 汪向榮, Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1979. Wudeng huiyuan 五燈會元, collated by Su Yuanlei 蘇淵雷, Zhonghua shuju, 1984. Xu Qian seng yulu 續黔僧語錄, edited by Zhang Xinmin 張新民, et al. Bashu shushe, 2000. Zhaozhou lu 趙州錄, punctuated and collated by Zhang Zikai 張子開. Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 2001. Zhongguo fojiao congshu chanzong juan 中國佛教叢書·禪宗卷, edited by Ren Jiyu 任繼愈. Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1997. Zhongguo fojiao sixiang ziliao xuanbian 中國佛教思想資料選編, edited by Shi Jun 石峻, Lou Yulie 樓宇烈, Fang Litian 方立天, Xu Kangsheng 許抗生, and Le Shouming 樂壽明. Zhonghua shuju, 1981–1992. Zhongguo guji zhong youguan jianpuzhai ziliao huibian 中國古籍中有關柬埔寨資 料匯編, Zhonghua shuju, 1986. Zhongguo guji zhong youguan Miandian ziliao de huibian 中國古籍中有關緬甸資料 的匯編, Zhonghua shuju, 1996. Zutang ji 祖堂集, Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1994. Zutang ji 祖堂集, collated by Wu Fuxiang 吳福祥 and Gu Zhichuan 顧之川, Yuelu shushe, 1996. Zutang ji 祖堂集, collated by Zhang Hua 張華, Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 2001.



Secondary Sources

Abe Mosao (1989), Chan yu xifang sixiang 禪與西方思想 (Zen and Western Thought), trans. by Wang Leiquan 王雷泉 and Zhang Rulun 張汝倫, Shanghai yiwen chubanshe. An Xu 安旭 (1988), Xizang meishu shi yanjiu 西藏美術史研究, Shanghai renmin meishu chubanshe. Beiwaer Quelie Duojie 貝瓦爾·確列多傑 (1989), Sajia pai shilüe 薩迦派史略, Minzu chubanshe. Cai Wencong 蔡文欉 (1981), “Laowo fojiao qiantan” 老撾佛教淺談, Shijie zongjiao ziliao, No. 1. ——— (1981), “Laowo fojiao de chulajie” 老撾佛教的出臘節, Shijie zongjiao ziliao, No. 3. ——— (1982), “Laowo fojiao de tidu fengsu” 老撾佛教的剃度風俗, Shijie zongjiao ziliao, No. 4.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

365

——— (1985), trans., “Laowo fojiao yishu” 老撾佛教藝術, Dongnanya yanjiu ziliao, 1985, No. 1. ——— (1986), “Laowo ren yu simiao” 老撾人與寺廟, Nanya yu Nanya ziliao, 1986, No. 2. Cai Zhichun 蔡志純 and Huang Hao 黃顥 (1992), Huofo zhuanshi 活佛轉世, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Chen Bing 陳兵 (1994), Chanxue yu dongfang wenming 禪學與東方文明, Shanghai renmin chubanshe. ——— (1996), “Shenghuo chan qianshi” 生活禪淺識, in Fayin No. 8, pp. 7–11. Chen Guang 陳光 (1980), “Xiandai Taiguo de fojiao yanjiu” 現代泰國的佛教研究, Shijie zongjiao ziliao 世界宗教資料, No. 4. Chen Guang 晨光 et al. (1987), trans., Xihanuke: huiyilu 西哈努克——回憶錄, Heilongjiang renmin chubanshe. Chen Yangjiong 陳揚炯 (2000), Zhongguo jingtuzong tongshi 中國淨土宗通史, Jiangsu guji chubanshe. Chen Yuan 陳垣 (1962), Qingchu sengzheng ji 清初僧諍記, Zhonghua shuju. ——— (1962), Mingji Dian Qian fojiao shi 明季滇黔佛教考, Zhonghua shuju. ——— (1962), Zhongguo fojiao shiji gailun 中國佛教史籍概論, Zhonghua shuju. ——— (1964), Shishi yinian lu 釋氏疑年錄, Zhonghua shuju. Chen Yulong 陳玉龍 (1988), “Wuge jianzhu yishu fawei: jianyu zhongguo chengshi shiku simiao jianzhu jinxing duibi” 吳哥建築藝術發微——兼與中國城市石窟 寺廟建築進行對比, Dongnanya 東南亞, No. 1. Chen Zhenhui 陳貞輝 (1980), “Ou Mei de fojiao yanjiu” 歐美的佛教研究, Shijie zongjiao ziliao, No. 2. Deng Dianchen 鄧殿臣 (1991), Nanchuan fojiao shi jianbian 南傳佛教史簡編, Fayin zazhi she. Deng Zimei 鄧子美 (1996), Chuantong fojiao yu zhongguo jindai hua 傳統佛教與中 國近代化, Shanghai huadong shifan daxue chubanshe. Ding Hanru 丁漢儒, Wen Hua 溫華, Tang Jingfu 唐景福, and Sun Erkang 孫爾康 (1991), eds., Zangchuan fojiao yuanliu ji shehui yingxiang 藏傳佛教源流及社會影 響, Minzu chubanshe. Dong Qun 董群 (2001), “Zongmi de huayan chan” 宗密的華嚴禪, Zongmi de ronghe­ lun sixiang yanjiu 宗密的融合論思想研究, Foguangshan wenjiao jijinhui. Du Dunxin 杜敦信 and Zhao Heman 趙和曼 eds. (1988) Yuenan Laowo jianpuzhai shouce 越南老撾柬埔寨手冊, Guangxi shekeyuan chubanshe. Du Jiwen 杜繼文 (1991), ed., Fojiao shi 佛教史, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Du Jiwen 杜繼文 and Wei Daoru 魏道儒 (1993), eds., Zhongguo chanzong tongshi 中國禪宗通史, Jiangsu guji chubanshe. Duan Lisheng 段立生 (1996), Taiguo zhongshi simiao 泰國中式寺廟, Taiguo datong she chuban youxian gongsi.

366

Huang

Duoshi 多識 (1996), Zang chuan fojiao yanjiu: aixin zhong baofa de zhihui 藏傳佛教 研究—愛心中爆發的智慧, Minzu chubanshe. Fang Jianchang 房建昌 (1989), “Zang chuan fojiao zai meiguo de xingsheng jiqi fazhan” 藏傳佛教在美國的興盛及其發展, Xizang minzu xueyuan xuebao 西藏 民族學院學報, No. 1. Fang Litian 方立天 (1983), Huayan jinshizizhang jiaoshi 華嚴金獅子章校釋, Zhonghua shuju. ——— (1983), Wei Jin Nanbeichao fojiao luncong 魏晉南北朝佛教論叢, Zhonghua shuju. ——— (1995), “Chanzong jingshen: Chanzong sixiang de benzhi hexin jiqi tedian” 禪 宗精神——禪宗思想的本質、核心及其特點, Zhexue yanjiu 哲學研究, No. 3. ——— (1988), Zhongguo fojiao yu chuantong wenhua 中國佛教與傳統文化, Shanghai renmin chubanshe. ——— (1998), “Huayan zong de xianxiang yuanrong lun” 華嚴宗的現象圓融論, Wen shi zhe 文史哲, No. 5, pp. 68–75. Gao Hong 高洪 (1995), Riben dangdai fojiao yu zhengzhi 日本當代佛教與政治, Dongfang chubanshe. Gao Zhennong 高振農 (1986), Zhongguo fojiao 中國佛教, Shanghai shehui kexue yuan chubanshe. ——— (1992), Dasheng qixin lun jiaoshi 大乘起信論校釋, Zhonghua shuju. ——— (1992), Fojiao wenhua yü jindai zhongguo 佛教文化與近代中國, Shanghai renmin chubanshe. Ge Zhaoguang 葛兆光 (1986), Chanzong yu zhongguo wenhua 禪宗與中國文化, Shanghai renmin chubanshe. ——— (1999), “Guanyu jin shinian zhongguo jindai fojiao yanjiu zhuzuo de yige ping­ lun” 關於近十年中國近代佛教研究著作的一個評論, Si yü yan 思與言, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 259–278. ——— (2001), Zhongguo chan sixiang shi: cong liu shiji dao jiu shiji 中國禪思想 史——從六世紀到九世紀, Shanghai renmin chubanshe. Geng Yinceng 耿引曾 (1990), Hanwen Nanya shiliao xue 漢文南亞史料學, Beijing daxue chubanshe. Gu Weikang 顧偉康 (1986, 1990), Chanzong: wenhua jiaorong he lishi xuanze 禪宗：文化交融和歷史選擇, Shanghai renmin chubanshe. Guo Peng 郭朋 (1980), Sui Tang fojiao 隋唐佛教, Qilu shushe. ——— (1981), Song Yuan fojiao 宋元佛教, Fujian renmin chubanshe. ——— (1981), Tanjing duikan 壇經對勘, Qilu shushe. ——— (1982), Ming Qing fojiao 明清佛教, Fujian renmin chubanshe. ——— (1983), Tanjing jiao shi 壇經校釋, Zhonghua shuju. ——— (1986), Han Wei Liangjin Nanbeichao fojiao 漢魏兩晉南北朝佛教, Qilu shushe.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

367

——— (1987), Tanjing daodu 壇經導讀, Bashu shushe. ——— (1989), Zhongguo jindai foxue sixiang shi gao 中國近代佛學思想史稿, Bashu shushe. ——— (1990), Zhongguo fojiao jian shi 中國佛教簡史, Fujian chubanshe. ——— (1991), Yinshun foxue sixiang yanjiu 印順佛學思想研究, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. ——— (1994–95), Zhongguo fojiao sixiang shi 中國佛教思想史, Fujian renmin chubanshe. Guo Peng, Zhang Xinying 張新鷹 and Liao Zili 廖自力 (1989), Zhongguo jindai foxue sixiang shi gao 中國近代佛學思想史稿, Bashu shushe. Han Jingqing 韓鏡清 (1994), “Weishixue de liangci yichuan: Dasheng qi xin lun wei Tanyan suozao 唯識學的兩次譯傳——《大乘起信論》為曇延所造, Foxue yanjiu 佛學研究, No. 3 (1994), Zhongguo fojiao wenhua yanjiusuo. Han Tingjie 韓廷傑 (1998), Cheng weishi lun jiao shi 成唯識論校釋, Zhonghua shuju. Hatani Ryōtai 羽溪了諦 (1955), Xiyu fojiao shi 西域佛教史, trans. to Chinese by He Changqun 賀昌群, Shangwu yinshuguan. He Jianmin 何建民 (1998), Fofa yu zhongguo shehui de tiaoshi 佛法與中國社會的調 試, Guangdong renmin chubanshe. He Jinsong 何勁松 (1995), Rilian lun 日蓮論, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. ——— (1997), Riben chuangjia xuehui de linian yu shijian 日本創價學會的理念與 實踐, Dongfang chubanshe. ———, Hanguo fojiao shi 韓國佛教史, Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe. Hong Xiuping 洪修平 (1992), Chanzong sixiang de xingcheng yu fazhan 禪宗思想的 形成與發展, Jiangsu guji chubanshe. Hu Minzhong 胡民眾 (2001), “Chengguan foxue sixiang yanjiu” 澄觀佛學思想研究, in Zhongguo fojiao xueshu lundian 中國佛教學術論典, Vol. 18 (2001), Foguangshan wenjiao jijinhui. Huang Huikun 黃惠昆 (1984), “Piao shan zhu guo fojiao jiqi zai shan dai jumin zhong de chuanbo” 驃撣諸國佛教及其在撣傣居民中的傳播, Dongnanya 東南亞, No. 1. Huang Wanfu 黃萬福 and Chen Jingfu 陳景福 (1993), Zhong chao fojiao wenhua jiaoliu shi 中朝佛教文化交流史, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Huang Xianian 黃夏年 (1988), “Bali fodian shisi xingxiang yu hanyi jiuxin lun de bijiao yanjiu” 巴厘佛典“十四行相”與漢澤“九心輪”的比較研究, Yindu zongjiao yu zhongguo 印度宗教與中國佛教, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. ——— (1989), “Jueyin de qingjingdao lun jiqi chanfa” 覺音的清淨道論及其禪法, Nanya yanjiu 南亞研究, No. 1. ——— (1989), “Nan chuan fojiao xinlixue shuping” 南傳佛教心理學述評, Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究, No. 4. ——— (1990), “Weida de fojiao xuezhe jueyin yi zhuan” 偉大的佛教學者覺音譯傳, in Fojiao wenhua 佛教文化, No. 2.

368

Huang

——— (1991), “Xiandai niboer fojiao” 現代尼泊爾佛教, Nanya yanjiu jikan 南亞研 究季刊, No. 2. ——— (1991), “Xiandai jianpuzhai fojiao” 現代柬埔寨佛教, Shijie zongjiao ziliao, No. 3. ——— (1991), “Xinjiapo fojio” 新加坡佛教, Fayin, No. 9. ——— (1992), “Xiandai Miandian fojiao” 現代緬甸佛教, Guangdong fojiao 廣東佛 教, Nos. 5, 6. ——— (1992), “Xiandai Miandian fojiao fuxing yu fojiao minzu zhuyi” 現代緬甸佛教 復興佛教民族主義, Dongnanya yanjiu 東南亞研究, No. 6. ——— (1992), “Xiandai laowo de fojiao” 現代老撾的佛教, Dongnanya 東南亞, No. 3. ——— (1993), “Xiandai Yuenan fojiao” 現代越南佛教, Shijie zongjiao ziliao, No. 2. ——— (1993–4), “Xiandai Taiguo de fojiao” 現代泰國的佛教, Guangdong fojiao 廣東 佛教, Nos. 4, 5, 6 (1993); No. 1 (1994). ———(1995), ed. Jinxiandai zhuming xuezhe foxue wenji: Hu Shi ji 近現代著名學者 佛學文集·胡適集, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. ——— (1999), “Cong huayanjing xue dao huayanzong xue” 從華嚴經學到華嚴宗學, Zhonghua foxue xuebao 中華佛學學報, No. 12 (1999, Jul.), pp. 365–376. Huang Xianian and Xu Hua 徐華 (1992), “Malaixiya de fojiao zuzhi” 馬來西亞的佛教 組織, Guangdong fojiao 廣東佛教, Nos. 2, 3. ——— (1994), “Malaixiya de fosi” 馬來西亞的佛寺, Fojiao zhishi 佛教知識, Vol. 3. Huang Xinchuan 黃心川 (1979), Yindu fojiao zhexue 印度佛教哲學, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan chubanshe. ——— (1987), “Niboer fojiao” 尼泊爾佛教, Shijie zongjiao ziliao 世界宗教資料, 1987, No. 1. ——— (1987), “Ou Mei de fojiao yu foxue yanjiu” 歐美的佛教與佛學研究, Shijie zongjiao ziliao, No.3. ——— (1989), “Sui Tang shiqi zhongguo yu Chaoxian fojiao de jiaoliu: Xinluo lai hua fojiao senglü kao” 隋唐時期中國與朝鮮佛教的交流——新羅來華佛教僧侶 考, Shijie zongjiao yanjiu, No. 1. Huang Xinchuan 黃心川 and Dai Kangsheng 戴康生, et al. (1979), Shijie sanda zongjiao 世界三大宗教, Shenghuo dushu xinzhi sanlian shudian. Ji Xianlin 季羨林, et al. (1985), Datang xiyu ji jiao zhu 大唐西域記校注, Zhonghua shuju. Jiang Yongren 薑永仁 (1988), “Fojiao zai Miandian” 佛教在緬甸, Nanya yü Dongnanya ziliao 南亞與東南亞資料. Li Chenyang 李晨陽 (1997), “Xiandai Miandian minzhu yundong zhong de fojiao” 現代緬甸民主運動中的佛教, Foxue yanjiu 佛學研究, 1997. ——— (1999), “Fojiao dui Miandian shehui zhuyi sichao de yingxiang” 佛教對緬甸 社會主義思潮的影響, Foxue yanjiu, 1999.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

369

——— (2000), “Dangdai Miandian gaoseng wuweishala zhuanlüe” 當代緬甸高僧吳 威沙拉傳略, Shijie zongjiao wenhua 世界宗教文化, No. 2. Li Guo 利國 and Xu Shaoli 徐紹麗 (1989), Yuenan minzu 越南民族, Beijing daxue chubanshe. Li Jicheng 李冀誠 (1991), Zang chuan fojiao 藏傳佛教, Xinhua chubanshe. ——— (1981), “Guowai xizang fojiao yanjiu zongshu” 國外西藏佛教研究綜述, Shijie zongjiao ziliao, No. 2. ——— (1988), “Zang chuan fojiao gajupai zai guowai de chuanbo” 藏傳佛教噶舉派 在國外的傳播, Shijie zongjiao ziliao, No. 3. Li Xiangping 李向平 (1993), Jiushi yu jiuxin: Zhongguo jindai fuxing sichao de yanjiu 救世與救心：中國近代復興思潮的研究, Shanghai renmin chubanshe. Liang Rongruo 梁容若 (1985), Zhongri wenhua jiaoliu shi lun 中日文化交流史論, Shangwu yinshuguan. ——— (1998), Zhongri liangqian nian jiaoliu shi 中日兩千年交流史, Shangwu yinshuguan. Liang Zhiming 梁志明 (1984), “Lüe lun Yuenan fojiao yuanliu he Lichen shiqi yuedi fojiao de fazhan” 略論越南佛教源流和李陳時期越地佛教的發展, Yinzhi yan­ jiu 印支研究, No. 2. Liang Zi 梁子 (2000), “Famen si fojiao wenhua yanjiu zongshu” 法門寺佛教文化 研究綜述, in Zhongguo zongjiao yanjiu nianjian: 1997–1998 中國宗教研究年 鑒·1997–1998, edited by Cao Zhongjian 曹中建, Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe. Liu Changdong 劉長東 (2000), Jin Tang mituo jingtu xinyang yanjiu 晉唐彌陀淨土信 仰研究, Bashu shushe. Liu Fang 劉方 (1998), Shixing qiju de mingxiang: Zhongguo chanzong meixue sixi­ ang yanjiu 詩性棲居的冥想——中國禪宗美學思想研究, Sichuan daxue chubanshe. Liu Liqian 劉立千 (1995), Zang chuan fojiao de gaju pai 藏傳佛教的噶舉派, Zhongguo zangxue 中國藏學, No. 4. Liu Yan 劉巖 (1993), Nanchuan fojiao yu daizu wenhua 南傳佛教與傣族文化, Yunnan minzu chubanshe. Lü Cheng 呂澂 (1954), “Huanyan zong: Tangdai fojiao xueshuo lüeshu zhi er” 華嚴 宗——唐代佛家學說略述之二, Xiandai foxue 現代佛學, No. 8. ——— (1979), Zhongguo foxue yuanliu lüejiang 中國佛學源流略講, Zhonghua shuju. ——— (1979), Yindu foxue yuanliu lüjiang 印度佛學源流略講, Shanghai renmin chubanshe. Ma Benteng 馬奔騰 (2001), “Dangdai chan meixue yanjiu shu ping” 當代禪美學研究 述評, in Beijing daxue xuebao 北京大學學報, No. 3). Ma Tianxiang 麻天祥 (1993), Wanqing foxue yu jindai shehui sichao 晚清佛學與近代 社會思潮, Henan zhongzhou chubanshe.

370

Huang

——— (1997), Zhongguo chanzong sixiang fazhan shi 中國禪宗思想發展史, Hunan jiaoyu chubanshe. Nguyễn Lệ Thi’s 阮麗詩 (1983), “Laowo lishi guocheng zhong de fojiao” 老撾歷史過 程中的佛教, trans. Xu Shaoli 徐紹麗, Nanya yu Dongnanya ziliao, No. 5). Nukariya Kaiten 忽滑谷快天 (1993), Hangujo chanjiao shi 韓國禪教史 (translated from Chōsen zenkyō si 朝鮮禪教史 into Chinese by Zhu Qianzhi 朱謙之), Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. ——— (1994), Zhongguo chanxue sixiang shi 中國禪學思想史 (translated from Zengaku sisō si 禪宗思想史 into Chinese by Zhu Qianzhi 朱謙之), Shanghai guji chubanshe. Ogawa Hiroshi 小川宏 (1982), “Yuenan fojiao shi gaishu” 越南佛教史概述, trans. Luo Huangchao 羅晃潮, Shijie zongjiao ziliao, No. 2. Pan Guiming 潘桂明 (1992), Chanzong de licheng 禪宗的歷程, Dangdai Zhongguo chubanshe. ——— (1996), Zhiyi pingzhuan 智顗評傳, Nanjing daxue chubanshe. Pan Zhichang 潘知常 (1993), Shengming de shijing: Chanzong meixue de xiandai quan­ shi 生命的詩境——禪宗美學的現代詮釋, Hangzhou daxue chubanshe. Peng Yingquan 彭英全 (1983), Xizang zongjiao gaishuo 西藏宗教概說, Xizang renmin chubanshe. Phrayā Anuman Rajadhon (1987), Taiguo chuantong wenhua yu minsu 泰國傳統文化 與民俗, trans. by Ma Ning 馬寧, Zhongshan daxue chubanshe. Pi Chaogang 皮朝綱 (1994), Chanzong meixue shi gao 禪宗美學史稿, Dianzi keji daxue chubanshe. Qiu Gaoxing 邱高興 (1990), “Huayan zongzu Fazang jiqi sixiang” 華嚴宗祖法藏及其 思想 (Master thesis), Zhongguo fojiao xueshu lundian, No. 2). ——— (2006), “Li Tongxuan foxue sixiang shu ping” 李通玄佛學思想述評, Zhongguo fojiao xueshu lundian, No. 1. Ren Jiyu 任繼愈 (1962), Han Tang fojiao sixiang lunji 漢唐佛教思想論集, Renmin chubanshe. Ren Jiyu, Fang Litian 方立天, and Yang Zengwen 楊曾文 (1981), Zhongguo fojiao shi 中國佛教史, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Shaolin si 少林寺 (1996), eds., Shaolin si jiansi 1500 zhounian lunwenji 少林寺建寺 1500 周年論文集, Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe. Shi Miaozhou 釋妙舟 (1934), Mengzang fojiao shi 蒙藏佛教史, Shanghai foxue shuju. Shi Shengkai 釋聖凱 (2000), “Ershi shijie de fazhao yanjiu” 二十世紀的法照研究, in Zhongguo zongjiao yanjiu yanjian: 1997–1998 中國宗教研究年鑒·1997–1998, edited by Cao Zhongjian 曹中建, Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe. Shi Zhengguo 釋正果 (1989), Chanzong dayi 禪宗大意, Taipei: Qianhua. Sönam Tsering’s (Bsod-nams-tshe-riṅ, Suonan Cairang) 索南才讓 (1998), Xizang mijiao shi 西藏密教史, Zhongguo shehuikexue chubanshe.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

371

Su Jun 蘇軍 (1991), “Dangdai Taiguo fojiao de gaige yundong he gaige sichao” 當代泰 國佛教的改革運動和改革思潮, Shijie zongjiao ziliao, No. 4). Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1955, 1962), Han Wei Liangjin Nanbeichao fojiao shi 漢魏兩晉 南北朝佛教史, Zhonghua shuju. ——— (1982), Sui Tang fojiao shigao 隋唐佛教史稿, Zhonghua shuju. Tian Guanglie 田光烈 (1958), Xuanzang jiqi zhexue sixiang zhong zhi bianzhengfa yinsu 玄奘及其哲學思想中之辯證法因素, Yunnan renmin chubanshe. Tong Wei 童緯 (1981), “Taiguo de fojiao” 泰國的佛教, Nanya yü Dongnanya ziliao 南 亞與東南亞資料, No. 4). Tran Van Giap’s 陳文甲 (1985), “Yuenan fojiao shi lüe” 越南佛教史略, trans. Huang Yiqiu 黃軼球, Dongnanya yanjiu ziliao, No. 1. Wang Bangwei 王邦維 (1988), Datang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan jiao zhu 大唐西域求 法高僧傳校注, Zhonghua shuju. ——— (1995), Yijing nanhai jigui neifa zhuan jiao zhu 南海寄歸內法傳校注, Zhonghua shuju. Wang Furen 王輔仁 (1982), Xizang fojiao shilüe 西藏佛教史略, Qinghai renmin chubanshe. Wang Jianjiang 王建疆 (1998), Zhuang chan meixue 莊禪美學, Gansu wenhua chubanshe. Wang Seng 王森 (1965), Guanyu xizang fojiao shi de shipian ziliao 關於西藏佛教史的 十篇資料, unpublished. ——— (1987), Xizang fojiao fanzhan shilüe 西藏佛教發展史略, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Wang Xingguo 王興國, Xu Sunming 徐蓀銘, et al. (1997), eds., Shitou xiqian yu caodong chan 石頭希遷與曹洞禪, Yuelu shushe. Wang Yao 王堯 (1987), “Tubo fojiao lüeshu” 吐蕃佛教略述, unpublished. Wang Zhiyuan 王志遠 (1989), Song chu Tiantai foxue kuibao 宋初天臺佛學窺豹, Zhongguo jianshe chubanshe. Wei Daoru 魏道儒 (1998), Huayan zong tongshi 華嚴宗通史, Jiangsu guji chubanshe. ——— (2000), “Zongjiao ronghe yu jiaohua gongneng: yi songdai liangzhong huayan jingtu xinyang wei li” 宗教融合與教化功能──以宋代兩種華嚴淨土信仰為 例, Zhonghua foxue xuebao 中華佛學學報, No. 13, Vol. 1, pp. 299–305. Wen Yucheng 溫玉成 (1997), “Zhongguo fojiaoshi shang shi’er wenti buzheng” 中國 佛教史上十二問題補正, Foxue yanjiu 佛學研究, Zhongguo fojiao wenhua yanjiu suo 中國佛教文化研究所. Wu Limin 吳立民 (1998), ed., Chanzong zongpai yuanliu 禪宗宗派源流, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Wu Yansheng 吳言生 (2001), Chanzong sixiang yuanyuan 禪宗思想淵源, Zhonghua shuju. ——— (2001), Chanzong zhexue xiangzheng 禪宗哲學象徵, Zhonghua shuju.

372

Huang

——— (2001), Chanzong shige jingjie 禪宗詩歌境界, Zhonghua shuju. Xia Jinhua 夏金華 (2003), Yuanqi, foxing, chengfo: Sui Tang foxue sanda hexin lilun de zhengyi zhi yanjiu 緣起 佛性 成佛——隋唐佛學三大核心理論的爭議之研究, Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe. Xia Nai 夏鼐 (1981), Zhenla fentuji jiao zhu 真臘風土記校注, Zhonghua shuju. Xiao Jianfu 萧萐父, Huang Zhao 黄钊, et al. (1995), eds., Dongshan famen yu chanzong 東山法門與禪宗, Wuhan chubanshe. Xing Dongfeng 邢東風 (1992), Chanwu zhi dao: Nanzong chanxue yanjiu 禪悟之 道——南宗禪學研究, Zhongguo renmin daxue chubanshe. ——— (2001), “Dangdai chanzong wenxian yanjiu shu ping” 當代禪宗文獻研究述 評, Zhongguo zongjiao yanjiu nianjian: 1999–2000 中國宗教研究年鑒 1999—2000, ed. by Cao Zhongjian 曹中建, Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe. Xu Decun 許得存 (1984), “Fojiao zai xizang de sange fazhan jieduan jiqi tedian” 佛教 在西藏的三個發展階段及其特點, Xizang yanjiu 西藏研究, No. 4. ——— (1991), “Chuan qing liangsheng zangqu juenang pai siyuan diaocha” 川青兩省 藏區覺囊派寺院調查, Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究, 1991, No. 3. ——— (1992), “Duobuba jiqi ‘Shanfa liaoyihai lun’ ” 多布巴及其山法了義海論, Zhongguo zangxue 中國藏學, No. 2. ——— (1993), “Juenang pai takong sixiang qianlun” 覺囊派他空思想淺論, Xizang yanjiu 西藏研究, No. 1. ——— (1993), “Juenang pai sixiang qianxi” 覺囊派思想淺析, Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究, No. 2. ——— (1994), “Zang chuan fojiao zikong takong sixiang pingxi” 藏傳佛教自空他空 思想評析, Foxue yanjiu, 1994. Xu Shaoli 徐紹麗 et al. (1986), trans., “Li Changjie yu fojiao” 李常傑與佛教, Nanya yu Dongnanya ziliao, No. 2. Xu Shaoqiang 徐紹強 (2001), “Huayan wujiaozhang zhexue sixiang shu ping” 華嚴五 教章哲學思想述評, Zhongguo fojiao xueshu lundian 中國佛教學術論典, No. 2. Xu Sunming 徐蓀銘 (1998), Shiji foyuan 世紀佛緣, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Yan Beiming 嚴北溟 (1985), Zhongguo fojiao zhexue jianshi 中國佛教哲學簡史, Shanghai renmin chubanshe. Yang Changyuan 楊長源 et al (1990), eds., Miandian gailan 緬甸概覽, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Yang Jie 楊介 (1990) “Xishuangbanna de fota” 西雙版納的佛塔, Beiye wenhua lun 貝葉文化論. Yang Zengwen 楊曾文 (1990), Fojiao de qiyuan 佛教的起源, Dangdai zhongguo chubanshe. ——— (1995), Riben fojiao shi 日本佛教史, Zhejiang renmin chubanshe.

Buddhist Studies In Mainland China After The Year 1978

373

——— (1996), ed., Riben jinxiandai fojiao shi 日本近現代佛教史, Zhejiang renmin chubanshe. ——— (1999), Tang wudai chanzong shi 唐五代禪宗史, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. ——— (2004), Song yuan chanzong shi 宋元禪宗史, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. Yao Changshou 姚長壽 (1987), “Niboer fojiao gaishu” 尼泊爾佛教概述, Fayin 法音, No. 2. You Youwei 遊有維 (1988), Shanghai jindai fojiao jianshi 上海近代佛教簡史, Shanghai huadong shifan daxue chubanshe. Yu Lingbo 于淩波 (1995), Zhongguo jinxiandai fojiao renwuzhi 中國近現代佛教人物 志, Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe. Zhang Fenglei 張風雷 (1995), Zhiyi pingzhuan 智顗評傳, Jinghua chubanshe. Zhang Jiemo 張節末 (2001), Chanzong meixue 禪宗美學, Zhejiang renmin chubanshe. Zhang Mantao 張曼濤 (1978), ed., Xiandai foxue congkan: weishixue gailun (3) 現代佛 學叢刊·唯識學概論(三), Dasheng wenhua. Zhang Xi 張曦 (1992), “Niboer fojiao de xingshuai” 尼泊爾佛教的興衰, Nanya yanjiu 南亞研究, 1992, No. 3. Zhang Xinglang 張星烺 (1987), Zhongxi jiaotong shiliao huibian 中西交通史料匯編, Zhonghua shuju. Zhang Xun 章巽 (1985), Faxian zhuan jiao zhu 法顯傳校注, Shanghai guji chubanshe. Zhao Wenliu 趙文榴 (1982),“Taiguo fojiao de xianzhuang yu lishi yiji fojiao jigou zucheng” 泰國的現狀與歷史以及佛教機構組成, Nanyang wenti 南洋問題, No. 1. Zhou Guihua 周貴華 (2004), “Weishi yu weiliaobie: ‘weishi xue’ de yige jiben wenti de zai quanshi” 唯識與唯了別——“唯識學”的一個基本問題的再詮釋, Zhexue yanjiu 哲學研究, Vol. 3. Zhou Liankuan 周連寬 (1984), Datang xiyu ji shi di yanjiu conggao 大唐西域記史地 研究叢稿, Zhonghua shuju. Zhou Qi 周齊 (1999), “Huayanjing xue yu Huayanzong xue fenji ji lilu de fajue tansuo: Zhongguo Huayanzong tongshi shuping” 華嚴經學與華嚴宗學分際及理路的發 掘探索——〈中國華嚴宗通史〉述評, Zhongguo foxue, Vol. 2 No. 1. Zhou Shujia 周叔迦 (1991), Zhou Shujia foxue lunzhu ji 周叔迦佛學論著集, Zhonghua shuju.

Index A chiliocosm in a single thought ( yinian sanqian 一念三千) 141 A day without labor is a day without food. ( yiri buzuo, yiri bushi 一日不作, 一日 不食) 49 A separate transmission outside the teachings ( jiaowai biechan 教外別傳) 23–25, 29,  31, 33 Amoghavajra (705–774) 129, 220, 248 Baizhang, Huaihai 百丈懷海 (749–814) 16, 32, 49, 325 n. 12 Baolin zhuan 寶林傳 (Biographies of the Precious Forest) 39 n. 1, 55 Baoyun 寶雲 (376–449) 295–296 Bianzheng lun 辯正論 307 Biyan lu 碧巖錄 (Blue Cliff Record) 24 Bodhidharma (fl. 5th century) 1, 3, 11, 13–14,  22, 26, 28–31, 34, 37–40, 42, 45, 48–50, 53, 55–56, 63, 65, 78–79, 81–82, 92, 99–102 Caodong 曹洞 2, 31, 33, 75 Caotang Chuyuan 草堂處元 (1030–1119) 71 Caoxi dashi biezhuan 曹溪大師別傳 72,  76, 80–81 Chan yuan zhuquanji duxu 禪源諸詮集都序 (Comprehensive Preface to the Collection on the Origins of Chan) 12 Chajang 慈藏 (c. 576–656) 210, 218–219,  247, 250, 252 Changqing Huiling 長慶慧棱 (854–932) 27 Chengguan 澄觀 (738–839) 72, 230, 251,  345 China-Japan Buddhist Academic Conference (Zhongri fojiao xueshu huiyi 中日佛教學 術會議) 346 Chuan fabao ji 傳法寶記 (Record of Transmission of Dharma-Jewel) 48, 50 Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏記集 58, 128, 141,  292 Chuji 處寂 (648–734) 45 Cosmic resonance (tianren ganying 天人 感應) 295

Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki 鈴木大拙 (1870–1966) 75 n. 9, 76, 82 Daoan 道安 (314–385) 193 Daochuo 道綽 (562–645) 346 Daoqian 道謙 (c. 1093–1185) 71 Daoxin 道信 (580–651) 3, 11, 22, 37, 39–50,  102–103, 250 Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667) 81, 92, 109, 262,  271–272, 274, 284–285, 291–292, 308, 348 Daoyi (See Mazu Daoyi) Dazhu Huihai 大珠慧海 (d.u.) 30 Directly pointing at the human mind (zhizhi renxin 直指人心) 25, 29–32, 79, 138, 141 Dongjing Da Jing’ai si yiqie jingmu 東京大敬 愛寺一切經目 195 Dugu Ji 獨孤及 (726–777) 41, 83 Ennin 圓仁 (794–864) 208, 361 Erru sixing lun 二入四行論 (Treatise on Two Entries and Four Practices) 42 Fachong 法沖 (c. 595–687) 50 n. 8 Falin 法琳 (571–639) 78 n. 12 Fangshan shijing 房山石經 135 Faxian 法顯 (338–423) 48, 58, 262 Fayan 法眼 (885–958) 31, 75 Fayan 法演 (?–1104) 17, 71 Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 98, 159, 176, 261,  292 Feudal superstition ( fengjian mixin 封建 迷信) 329 Foguo Yuanwu 佛果圓悟 (1063–1135) 24 Fu Jian 符堅 (338–385) 208 Fufazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳   53–57, 62–63 Gen’ei 玄叡 (d.u.) 130 Gong’an 公案 (question for meditation) 17 Guangxiaosi zhi 光孝寺志 133 Guanxin lun 觀心論 (Treatise on Observing the Mind) 87 Guiyang 溈仰 16, 31, 75 Guo Xiang 郭象 (252–312) 314 n. 8

376 Hanshan Deqing 憨山德清 (1546–1623) 126 Hanyue Fazang 漢月法藏 (1573–1635)  27–28, 345 He Chengtian 何承天 (370–447) 284, 287 Hongren 弘忍 (601–674) 37, 75 Hu Shih 胡適 (1891–1962) 69 n. 1, 70 n. 4, 71–77, 79–84, 334 Huainanzi 淮南子 258 Huairang 懷讓 (677–744) 82–83, 228 Huang Shou 黃壽 (d.u.) 308 Huang Tingjian 黃庭堅 (1045–1105) 32 Huang Ze 黃賾 (d.u.) 308 Huangbo, Xiyun 黃檗希運 (?–850) 16, 19,  32 Huatou 話頭 2 Huiguang 慧觀 (468–538) 97, 99 Huike 慧可 (487–593) 11, 22, 39, 50, 92,  100–101 Huili 慧立 (615–665) 308 Huineng 慧能 (638–713) 39, 330 Huisi 慧思 (515–577) 106, 342 Huitang Zuxin 晦堂祖心 (1025–1100) 71 Huiyuan 慧遠 (334–416) 53, 283, 346 Hyech’o 慧超 (704–787) 232 Jakushō 寂照 (d. 1034) 117 n. 33 Ji shenzhou sanbao gantong lu 集神州三 寶感通錄 (Collected Records of the Efficacy of the Three Treasures in Divine Continent) 97, 292 Jiang Zhiqi 蔣之奇 (1031–1104) 133 Jinghui 淨慧 (1933–2013) 337 Jingjue 淨覺 (683–750) 41, 75 Jizang 吉藏 (549–623) 317

Index Lidai fabao ji 歷代法寶記 (Record of the Dharma-Jewel through the Generations) 11, 55 Lihuo lun 理惑論 154 Lingbian 靈辯 (477–522) 315 Lingyu 靈裕 (518–605) 91 Linji 臨濟 31, 75 Living Chan (Shenghuo Chan 生活禪) 1,  337 Lokakṣema (Zhilou jiachen支婁迦讖 or Zhiqian支讖, b. 147) 162 Lu Xinyuan 陸心源 (1838–1894) 181 Mao Fengzhi 毛鳳枝 (1835–1895) 181 Mazu, Daoyi 馬祖道一 (709–788) 14, 16,  22, 29, 32, 46, 82–83, 336 Mohe Zhiguan 摩訶止觀 54, 67, 106, 121 Musang 無相 (684–762) 210, 227 Not relying on words (buli wenzi 不立 文字) 22–24, 29–31 Nukariya Kaiten 忽滑谷快天 (1867–1934) 335, 360 Omniscience ( yiqie zhi 一切智) 11 Opportune point ( jifeng 機鋒) 346 Original reality (benji 本際) 6, 311–314 Ouyi Zhixu 蕅益智旭 (1599–1655) 126,  134, 347 Pei Xiu 裴休 (797–870) 82 Perfect harmony of phenomena and principle (lishi yuanrong 理事圓融) 33 Pŏmnang 法朗 (d.u.) 249

Kaimyō 戒明 (d. 806?) 131 Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 125, 296 Kanhua Chan 看話禪 33 Kang Sengyuan 康僧淵 (276–343) 161 Kanishka (Kanishka the Great, r. 127–151) 5,  156–157, 161, 166 Kim Kuro 金九經 (1906–1950) 75

Qiao Zhou 譙周 (c. 201–270) 256 Qisong 契嵩 (1007–1072) 80

Li Daoyuan 酈道元 (466?–527) 262, 268–271, 274 Li Rong 李榮 (c. 614–671) 308–309, 311–312,  313 n. 7, 314, 316–317, 319 Lianchi Zhuhong 蓮池祩宏 (1536–1615)   126, 134, 346–347 Liang Qichao 梁啟超 (1873–1929) 131, 134,  148

Saichō 最澄 (767–822) 80 Sarvāstivādin 2, 53–54, 57–58, 61,  63, 66 Seeing one’s own nature, Buddhahood is achieved ( jianxing changfo 見性 成佛) 29–32, 79, 141 Self-awakened holy omniscience (zijue shengzhi 自覺聖智) 10–11, 38

Rudao anxin yao fangbian famen 入道安 心要方便法門 (Expedient Method for Entering the Way and Calming the Mind) 42–44, 49

Index Sengcan 僧燦 (?–606) 11 Sengchou 僧稠 (480–560) 90 Sengyou 僧佑 (445–518) 193 Shandao 善導 (613–681) 346 Shanghai jing 山海經 (Classic of Mountains and Seas) 259 Shengxuan jing 升玄經 316 Shenhui 神會 (670–762) 335 Shentai 神泰 (601–658) 308 Shenxiu 神秀 (606–706) 12, 39 Shenyi jing 神異經 (Classic on Divine Marvels) 155, 259 Shishuang, Chuyuan 石霜楚圓 (986– 1039) 17–18, 20 Shitou Xiqian 石頭希遷 (701–791) 83 Simultaneous vision of past, present, and future ( yixin sanguan 一心三觀) 108 Sinin School 神印宗 218, 248 Sou shen ji 搜神記 (In Search of the Supernatural) 259 Su Dongpo 蘇東坡 (1037–1101) vii, 32 Śubhakarasiṃha (637–735) 128–129, 248 Taixu 太虛 (1889–1947) 28, 125 Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 (1866–1945)  75 Tang huiyao 唐會要 208 Tanluan 曇鸞 (476–542) 346 Theory of vitality of nature ( yuanqi ziran lun 元氣自然論) 314 n. 8 Tokiwa Daijō 長盤大定 (1870–1945) 75, 360 Transmission from mind to mind ( yixin chuanxin 以心傳心) 22–23, 25, 31 Ŭiyŏn 義淵 (d.u.) 209 Understanding the school through teachings ( jiejiao wuzong 藉教悟宗) 24, 32 Vajrabodhi (671–741) 129, 232, 246, 248 Wang Anshi 王安石 (1021–1086) 131 Wang Bi 王弼 (226–249) 309 Wang Chong 王充 (27–c. 97) 293 Wang Xuanlan 王玄覽 (626–697) 318 n. 10 Wŏn’gwang 圓光 (c. 532–630) 210–211 Wuwei chan 五味禪 23 Wumen guan 無門關 (The Gateless Gate) 21 Wuzhu 無住 (714–774) 11, 45 Xiangyan 香嚴 (?–898) 17

377 Xinxin ming 信心銘 (Inscription on the Mind of Faith) 41, 42 Xitang Zhizang 西堂智藏 (735–814) 232, 234, 238, 250 Xuanjue 玄覺 (665–713) 27 Xuanshuang 玄爽 (579–658) 48 Xuanzang 玄奘 (602–664) 68, 261, 302 Xuanze 玄賾 (622–709) 41 Yabuki Keiki 矢吹慶輝 (1879–1939) 75 Yang Wenhui 楊文會 (1837–1911) 134 Yangshan, Huiji 仰山慧寂 (841–890) 2, 16–17, 19–20, 22, 27, 29, 240 Yi Xia lun 夷夏論 (On Yi and Xia) 281 Yibao 義褒 (619–664) 310 Yijing 義淨 (635–713) 57, 298 Yinshun 印順 (1906–2005) 140 Yiwei chan 一味禪 23 Yuezang zhijin 閱藏知津 134 Yuezhi 月氏 161 Yunju Qingxi 雲居清錫 (d.u.) 27 Yunmen 雲門 31, 75 Zhang Huiyuan 張惠元 (d.u.) 310 Zhang Qian 張騫 (c. 164–114 BCE) 272, 298 Zhang Shangying 張商英 (1043–1121) 131 Zhang’an, Guanding 章安灌頂 (561–632)   87–88, 104–106, 107 n. 4, 115–116, 130,  133, 342 Zhanran, Jingxi 荊溪湛然 (711–782) 88–89, 99–101, 107, 115–116, 323, 342 Zhenjian 真鑒 (d.u.) 134 Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋 教目錄 125 Zhidun 支遁 (314–366) 314 n. 8 Zhiqian 支謙 (c. 197–253) 162 Zhishen 智侁 (609–702) 45 Zhiyan 智嚴 (671–722) 295 Zhiyao 支曜 (c. 136–186) 162 Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597) 54, 68, 106 Zhu Qianzhi 朱謙之 (1899–1972) 335 Zibai Zhenke 紫柏真可 (1544–1604) 126 Zonghua chuan xindi chanmen shizi chengxitu 中華傳心地禪門師資承襲圖 (Chart of the Transmission of Masters of the Mind-sphere Chan Gate in China) 14 Zongmen wuku 宗門武庫 71 Zongmi 宗密 (780–841) 45, 68, 345 Zou Yan 鄒衍 (c. 305–240 BCE) 257, 277 Zutang ji 祖堂集 338