Conflict and Harmony in Chan [a] and Buddhism

·期刊原文

Conflict and Harmony in Chan [a] and Buddhism

by Jan Yun-hua

Journal of Chinese Philosophy

V. 4 (1977) pp. 287-302

Copyright 1975 by Jan Yun-hua

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p. 287

The purpose of this paper is to discuss Tsung-mi's [b] understanding of conflict and harmony amongst various schools of the Middle Ch'an, amongst Buddhist philosophies and amongst Ch'an and doctrinal Buddhism at large.

Tsung-mi (780-841) was one of the outstanding and systematic thinkers in mediaeval China though he has been ignored by modern scholarship for a long period of time. He had a good training in the Classical Tradition of China, renounced household life later for Ch'an Buddhism, and subsequently changed his career as a Buddhist philosopher which brought him the honour of becoming the fifth patriarch of Hua-yen [c] school. [1] It was through the change of his intellectual interest and his constant effort that he encountered various philosophies and practices, and, through his active mind, that he was finally able to see the universality in differences on the one hand, and individuality in totality on the other.

The methodology of this broader and higher vision has been termed as ho-hui [d] which might be translated literally as 'Harmonization and Consummation' though it also can be understood as 'A Comparative Understanding' [2] when the term is interchangeable with k'an-hui. [e] The theory is the only known systematic presentation of comparative method in the history of Chinese philosophy; harmony of Buddhism is the goal for the comparative understanding.

In his analysis of Ch'an Buddhism, Tsung-mi has, first, classified the seven schools of the Middle Ch'an into three divisions according to their philosophical foundations; next, he divided Buddhist philosophy into three divisions: the realists who hold that the existent or at least some forms of it are real; the nihilists who insist that both the existent and nonexistent are unreal; and the dialectical absolutists who think that the absolute Mind can be perceived as both existent and nonexistent and as neither. Having analysed these three sets of Buddhist schools, he finally organized them together into a comprehensive system.

Although the religious goal is one, it can be attained or understood

p. 288

differently. Broadly speaking, this is so partly due to the nature of religious questions, partly due to the philosophical nature and partly due to individual capacity. On the religious level, the faith, understanding and attainment of religious men are subjective and experimental; to communicate them exactly and wholly to other people is always a difficult problem. Philosophically, it is impossible to have every man to accept every view simultaneously, furthermore religious philosophy cannot remain merely academic without an acceptance. Individually, most people are limited by their natural and social as well as intellectual endowment.

Because of these manifold difficulties, schools of philosophy or religious sects were formed. As far as the Middle Ch'an is concerned, the classification of the schools is done either through the history of personal relationship or through their philosophical foundations. Though the former gives due consideration to doctrinal basis, yet the principal determination is the personal relationship in transmission of religious tradition. For the latter, philosophy or doctrine is the sole factor for classifications. Tsung-mi prefers the latter framework. According to his analysis, there are three schools of Ch'an: first, "the school which taught the cessation of falsity and the cultivation of Mind". Second, the school of "Absolute Emptiness". And, third, the school of "the direct revelation of Mind-nature". [3]

THE PHILOSOPHICAL DIVISIONS OF CH'AN

The first school considers that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature (buddhataa), though the absolute nature is hindered by ignorance (avidyaa). Because of the hindrance, man is trapped within the bondage of life and death (sa^msaara). Wrongly understanding the nature of worldly phenomena, man has various false thoughts of them. Consequently man has tied himself tightly to phenomena and hence suffers from it. Liberation is the extinguishing of those false thoughts; concentration and contemplation are the best means to achieve it.

The second school considers that everything, both profane and sacred is dreamlike illusion and entirely non-existent. The non-existence is original and constant. Even wisdom (praj~naa), though it leads man to realize emptiness, is not really attainable. 'Absolute' is merely a borrowed name which is useful only for practical purposes. If everything is nonexistent, there is neither a goal to attain nor the means for the attainment. Again, if Buddhas are

p. 289

nonexistent, what is the necessity for religious institutions and practices? So emancipation and religious efforts are both delusive and false. Therefore, one should not attach his mind to anything and do nothing. Religious life is, therefore, nothing but inactivity and spontaneity.

The third school considers that all dharmas, both existent and nonexistent, are nothing else but the absolute Nature (dharmataa) itself. The absolute Nature is free from characteristics (animitta), passionless (anaasrava) and unconditioned (asa^msk.rta). Its substance differs completely from the phenomenal and the undifferentiated, the profane and the sacred, cause and effect, good and evil; yet the substance can manifest itself as profane or sacred, in material forms and with characteristics. The absolute is spontaneous and effortless and it is the Mind itself. It is like emptiness: nothing can be added nor reduced. If Tao is the Mind, cultivation is unnecessary because one cannot use mind to cultivate Mind; evil is also the Mind itself. To cut off evil is impossible because one cannot cut off the Mind from the Mind itself. Although the school taught traditional Buddhistic ideas, such as all existence is dreamlike illusion, at the same time they taught that underneath restless false thoughts, there is quietude; and behind the flux of phenomena, there is the self-knowing Mind. When the Mind is deluded by the ignorance, one is caught by the sufferings in sa^msaara; when awakening through wisdom, one enters into the gate of all wonders.

The author took a luminous pearl as a metaphor: the absolute is the pearl, which is perfect, pure and bright but without a fixed colour of its own, yet capable of reflecting all colours whenever it is confronted with them. Suppose it is surrounded by black coloured objects, it would reflect black colour, though itself still remains unchanged by the black reflections. The pearl is the same but it can be reviewed differently: the followers of the first school of Ch'an took note of the false nature of the black colour as reflected in the pearl and declared that the black is unreal. Henceforth, they advise man to "search for the pearl apart from the black". [4] The second school of the Middle Ch'an has realized that the black colour reflected in the pearl is unreal as it does not have a substance of its own, thus it is subject to change. They therefore came to the conclusion that both the colour and the pearl are nonexistent. The third school recognizes that the pearl is a reflective substance; it is pure, bright, perfect and luminous. Though the reflected colour is false and delusive, the pearl is real. Therefore, the pearl could be obtained only from the reflected colour through analysis, but not apart from it.

p. 290

The third school differs from the first as it had not differentiated the pearl from the colour. It also differs from the second as the latter refuses to accept the existence of both the pearl and the colour reflected by it. While the former accepts the colour as the conditional reflection on the pearl, the pearl and the colour are different in appearance, but do not differ in essence, for without the pearl the colour would become nonexistent.

THE THREE SCHOOLS OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY

After the discussion of the Middle Ch'an Buddhism, Tsung-mi turns his attention to Buddhist philosophies. He said that "the three kinds of teachings are (1) the esoteric teaching on the characteristic dependent on the nature; (2) the esoteric teaching revealing the nature by negation of characteristics; and (3) the exoteric teaching revealing the true mind itself is the Nature of Buddha". [5] The words esoteric and exoteric are defined relative to whether the ultimate truth is expressly revealed or not.

(1) Although there are three sub-schools discussed by Tsung-mi under the heading of the first school, only one of them, namely 'the Consciousness Only' (yij~napti-maatrataa) is relevant to Ch'an. Therefore, the other two will not be discussed in this paper. The school of Consciousness Only has been termed by Tsung-mi "the teaching for destruction of objective phenomena by Consciousness". This philosophy advocates that all existents including birth and death are merely external projections of eight kinds of consciousness. The various forms of consciousness are without beginning; of them, the eighth or 'The Storehouse Consciousness' (aalayavij~naana') is fundamental as it provides all seeds for the manifestation of worldly phenomena: physical body, organs and objects. The arising of seeds from the 'Storehouse' can be done in a single instant of time. The rest of the seven consciousnesses are capable of transforming the seeds into worldly phenomena according to individual or collective conditions. Because of this understanding, the school concludes that apart from consciousness nothing is real.

Due to the influence of the past deeds, consciousness is transformed into a combination of elements and seems to be the self (aatman). And as the sixth and seventh consciousnesses (i.e. the mental (mano-) and contaminated (klista-) consciousness) are hindered by ignorance, one takes the seeming self and all external objects as real. When enlightened, one realizes that originally there existed neither self nor external objects. All of them are external

p. 291

projections of consciousness. Once this is realized one will rely on the wisdom of the twofold emptiness -- the emptiness of Self and the emptiness of external objects; thereafter one will cultivate for the insight of Consciousness Only, the six Perfections (paaramitaas) and the four all-embracing virtues (sa^mgrahavastu). [6] This cultivation would gradually remove the two hindrances: the veil of passions (kle`saavara.na) and the veil of ignorance (j~neyaavara.na). Consequently, Thusness will be realized through the Wisdom of the twofold emptiness, the ten spiritual stages of Bodhisattvas, will be attained completely, and these eight Forms of consciousness will be transformed into the four forms of Buddha's wisdom. [7]

(2) The second teaching listed by the author means the teaching of Maadhyamikas which is known by its philosophy of emptiness (`suunyataa). [8] The teaching argues that if the transformed objects are unreal, how could the transformable consciousness itself be real? As the mind and external world are dependent on each other, their existence cannot be regarded as independent and hence is empty. The mind cannot arise by itself alone, but depends on external objects for arising; the external object cannot produce itself alone but depends on mind for its existence. When the mind is empty, the external world disappears; and when the external world disappears, the mind is empty. "There never was a mind without objects nor an object without the mind". [9] Both the mind and external objects depend on causes and conditions for their arising, there cannot be a single dharma that is produced without causes and conditions (hetupratyaya). Since both of them have no Self-nature by themselves, so they are empty and false, hence their characteristics are unreal. For the same reason, the empirical consciousness, the body and the mind are all empty. Therefore, the eighteen realms of sense (a.s.taada`sadhaatu), the twelve links in the chain of existence (dvaada`saa^nga-pratiityasamutpaada), the four noble truths (catvaari-aarya-satyaani) etc. [10] are all unreal. There is no wisdom to attain, neither deed nor retribution, neither cultivation nor realization, sa^msaara and nirvaa.na are equally illusory. The only possible practice of Tao is not to abide in anything, without any clinging (grabh) nor interestedness (abhinive`sa).

(3) The third teaching is of great interest and controversy. It is interesting because this teaching of the 'embryo of the Thus Gone' (tathaagatagarbha) has been ignored by modern scholarship for a long period of time; and it is only during recent years that research on this theory began to be published. [11] It is controversial because although there seems no doubt the theory

p. 292

originated and flourished in India, it has never been given the status of a school. Tsung-mi not only regarded the teaching as one of the schools but the most perfect school of Mahaayaana Buddhism. Because of this, it requires a few more lines to present its position.

The teaching argues that all sentient beings possess the absolute Mind which is empty and peaceful. Its original nature is pure in itself from the beginningless beginning. It is clear and bright without any hindrance, self-knowing with clarity and distinction. It is imperishable. It is called by the names of 'Buddha-nature' (buddhataa), or 'embryo of Tathaagata', or 'the Mind'. Since the beginningless past, false thoughts have veiled the Mind, making it impossible to realize and to return to its original state, thus it remained within and attached to the flux of birth and death (sa^msaara). Because of his great compassion, the Buddha appeared in the World, explained to men that all dharmas of birth and death are empty; he also indicated and opened the eyes of men, let them see that the Mind which they possess is completely identical with that of Buddhas. This has been well explained in the scripture:

There is not a single sentient being who does not possess the wisdom of Thus Gone. It is simply because false thought and attachment have hindered them from the realization of bodhi. If one is freed from false thought, he would at once confront with the All-knowledge (sarva~jnataa), self-becoming knowledge (svayambhuuj~nataa) and Unimpeded knowledge (aanantaryaj~nataa). [12]

The wisdom of Tathaagata is unlimited, unhindered and universally beneficial to all sentient beings. It is within the body of every sentient being. It is only because of false thoughts and the attachment to the thoughts that man remains without knowledge and enlightenment as well as universal benefit. In order to overcome the situation, the Buddha has instructed all sentient beings to cultivate the holy path so that they will be free from false thoughts and attachment, realize the unlimited wisdom of Tathaagata and achieve all the benefits of peace and joy.

The statement that the absolute Mind exists in every sentient being and that the Mind is self-knowing with clarity and distinction, will raise many questions. For example, if the Mind is bright and self-knowing, what is the need for Buddhas to reveal it? The Buddhist answer is that the word 'self-knowing' is descriptive and is to show that the Mind differs from other object like wood, etc. which is without the power of knowing. But the absolute Mind itself is, however, neither the discriminating perception arising from object or from causes and conditions, nor it is the production of knowledge. It is the

p. 293

nature of true Suchness, it is spontaneous and eternal knowing. Though the essence is there, man might not be aware of it, hence it has to be revealed by Buddhas. When the essence is proved by experience and understood clearly with certainty, it becomes the Proven Knowledge (niitaartha or liao-i). [f]

The wisdom of Buddha has been defined as "self-existent throughout all the three periods of time, free from obstacles" and knowledge has been defined as "neither is it recognizable by consciousness nor is it a mental object." [13] Its nature is originally pure. It cannot be described in terms of existence or nonexistence. If it is described as existing, then it will decay; and if it is described as nonexisting, the wisdom of Buddha is there. The teaching reveals that the supernaturally knowing (ling-chih) [g] of Mind is the true Nature itself, which is not different from that of Buddhas; and the revealing is explicit, so the doctrine is termed as 'exoteric'.

CONFLICT AND HARMONY

When the schools of Ch'an and the Teachings were listed and their conflicting philosophies and practices are presented, Tsung-mi went further to apply his comparative method, thus to point out that in spite of conflicting statements, there is congruence between certain schools of Ch'an and the philosophical schools. He thought the first school of Ch'an as outlined above was actually identical with the philosophy of the First school of Buddhist teachings. He states: the teaching of "the use of Consciousness to destroy objective phenomena" corresponds to the Ch'an school of "the cessation of falsity and the cultivation of Mind". [14] Although most of Ch'an monks are not interested in philosophical problems, yet when one inquires deeper into the root of their religious practices, one finds that their actions are really based on certain theoretical grounds. Taking the Ch'an school as an example, 'the cessation of falsity' means to stop the false notions of the Self and the Dharma; and 'the cultivation of Mind' means to cultivate the matrix of Mind or Consciousness Only. This means that, in their view, the external objects as well as thought are both unreal, hence they have to be negated in religious life. This is what the Ch'an school taught as "to stop falsity and to look for purity"; "to wipe out dust at all times; to congeal the mind and to abide in the mind" [15] so that it will not be influenced by external world and false thoughts; "to concentrate the whole mind on a single point", [16] and "to sit cross-legged and to harmonize body and breath". [17] When all these points are taken into

p. 294

consideration, the practice of Ch'an school and the philosophy of Idealist school of Buddhism are actually two aspects of the same truth: one approached it from a practical and the other from a theoretical viewpoint. If the truth and the goal are identical, the conflict between theory and practice can be resolved harmoniously. Moreover, viewing it from a larger and higher perspective, the monk finds that "all these are the skilful means (upaaya) exhorted and praised by Buddhas", [18] and so they are the accepted teachings and practices of the tradition. Though accepted, yet there are conflicts. This is so because there is only partial understanding of the scriptures and because of the limited capacities of individuals. For example, the Vimalakiirtinirde`sa states that "it is not necessary to sit"; [19] yet it did not say that one must not sit for meditation. Therefore, whether meditative method is necessary or unnecessary is not a question. It should be judged according to its suitability for the individual to whom the question has been brought into focus. Similarly, to congeal or to exercise the mind is not a theoretical question; the question is to whom the instruction is prescribed and what is his natural inclination? To the Buddhist, the principal concern is how to give a suitable treatment to an individual according to his need and capacity; to praise this or to condemn that is unnecessary nor fruitful for any solution.

The second school of Teaching "is completely identical with the Ch'an school of Absolute Emptiness". [20] The doctrine of Emptiness has been taught by the Buddha and has been widely proclaimed by Bodhisattvas. This being the case, why have the followers of those two schools been blamed by others as those who espouse "the denial of cause and effect"? [21] Although the aforementioned schools all base their teachings on the original intention of the Buddha, and these doctrines are originally without hostility, yet what has been transmitted by the scholars of later periods was mostly the letter but not the spirit of the teaching. They held partial views and refuted each other. Seeing the different capacities of human understanding and the problems of their times, Naagaarjuna, AAryadeva and their followers explained the meaning of Emptiness extensively in order to destroy man's clinging for existence, material or spiritual, so that a thorough understanding would be achieved through the wisdom of Emptiness. The wisdom of Emptiness itself, however, does not conflict with existence.

Another school of thinkers led by Asa^nga, Vasubandhu and others, had extensively explained Concepts (naama) and Characteristics (lak.sa.na) on the basis of Consciousness only. They attempted to demonstrate that

p. 295

characteristics are different from Nature, impurity from purity, so that those who cling to Emptiness will be rescued from nihilism, will thus have a religion to follow and have a doctrine of Wonderful Existence (miao-yu). [h] The Wonderful Existence means the Existence which does not conflict with the Emptiness. Although each of these doctrines has transmitted one of the meanings of the truth, yet the substance which they have indicated is the whole. Therefore, they do not actually conflict in the final analysis. In the later history of Buddhism, there are conflicts between the doctrines of existence and emptiness as represented by Dharmapaala and Bhaavaviveka; nevertheless, their conflict is on one aspect, but complementary in other aspects. When the truth is analysed, there are bound to be views, conflicts and disputes with opponents which have to be made to distinguish one's position and to clarify one's meaning. However, once the position is clear and understanding is achieved, two opposites will mutually transcend into a whole: the doctrine of existence cures nihilism and the doctrine of emptiness cures the attachment to existence. A harmony will be attained after the conflict.

The third school of each group are identical, as both of them taught that one's own Mind is the Nature of Buddha. Since the teaching of the truth is straightforward and limited neither by affirming nor negating phenomena, it is a direct revealing without resorting to indirect means. This is what the Awakening of Faith has called the Mind is the original Source; [22] or the Knowledge of Substance as taught by Ma~nju`srii, [23] and the teaching that gave the preference to the Mind rather than to scripture as it has been transmitted by Bodhidharma. [24]

The relationship between the Mind and the dharmas in this teaching is both exclusive and inclusive. It is exclusive when the absolute is declared as the sole real; and the rest are as unreal or false. This is why it has been stated that "it is unrecognizable by Consciousness and it is not a mental object" [25] or that it is neither the Buddha Nature nor the phenomenal Characteristics. It is in that sense that the absolute is described as unrelated to the four propositions, viz., of being or non-being, both or neither. In other words, the absolute is utterly different from the phenomenon.

The inclusiveness refers to the fact that all dharmas, both defiled and undefiled are nothing else but the Mind. Because the Mind is deluded, there arises false and delusive thoughts, from which deeds are produced, thereupon the four modes of the six rebirths [26] and worldly impurities come into existence. However, when the Mind is awakened, various functions will arise from

p. 296

the substance: the four virtues, four eloquences in debate, the ten powers, handsome physical characters and the pure land of Buddha will all appear. [27] All dharmas arise and manifest from the Mind, henceforth, every dharma is the Mind itself. It resembles various instruments made of gold: though they differ in characteristics and in function, yet all of them are nothing but gold. The Awakening of Faith declares that "the Triple World, therefore, is unreal and is of Mind only". [28]

The second schools in the two aforementioned sets are partial as they are exclusive: they cling to emptiness and are interested in negation or destruction of positions. The first schools in the aforementioned two sets are partial in inclusiveness: they too considered the external object as empty, yet they thought that consciousness is not empty. Should one be confined by either of these two positions, conflict becomes a logical conclusion.

The third schools in the two sets are quite different from the others. To view the other two teachings in the light of the third, they can be harmoniously embraced into the latter. However, if the third school of teaching be viewed from the other two positions, the difference between the former and the latter becomes quite clear. Why? Because "the deeper is able to contain the shallower; but it is impossible for the shallower to reach to the deeper". [29] The deeper has directly pointed to the Substance or the Mind. It excludes all dharmas on the one hand; and includes them on the other hand. When this spontaneous process of excluding and including is understood, one will be free from and limited neither by the doctrine of emptiness nor that of consciousness. Only by this way one will not abide in any dharma. Only this is called the Proven truth.

AN ESTIMATION

Tsung-mi's analysis of Ch'an Buddhism and his comparison of Ch'an with doctrinal teachings are very significant in the history of Chinese philosophy. As a philosophy, the doctrine deals with all principal schools of Mahaayana Buddhism: it assigned each of the teachings a proper place, pointed out its usefulness as well as its limitation at the same time. Because of this comprehensive scope and its recognition of conflicting philosophies, the doctrine could be easily labeled as syncretic. If the word syncretism be understood in the sense of Pico Della Mirandola (1463-1494) "that all known philosophical and theological schools and thinkers contained certain valid insights and were

p. 297

compatible", the philosophy of Hua-yen Buddhism including the thought of Tsung-mi is really very close to it. The difficulty of syncretism usually concerns how to ascertain what it is that 'certain valid insights' and, logically, how can conflicting positions be mechanically put together? In other words, the problem is coherence. In Buddhist philosophy, syncretism would be the third of the four alternatives in the Maadhyamika scheme of arguments, viz., 'both Being and Non-Being' (Ubhayasa^mkiir.naatma), The Maadhyamikas rejected this on the ground that the position itself is not a new position from the first two alternatives. Being and Non-Being, hence unable to overcome the difficulties which the Maadhyamikas has already pointed out. Furthermore, the Maadhyamikas considered "The ultimate is strictly Ni.sprapa~nca, nonconceptual; all conceptual formulations belong to the relative and hence to the mundane level." [30] What they tried to say was that to review the philosophical position of 'both is and is not' at the mundane level offers no new position of its own: when the 'is' and 'is not' conceal each other, there is nothing further that remains as the true description of the thing. And when one tries to use it to achieve the ultimate, it is also useless since the ultimate is nonconceptual.

Being a philosopher and familiar with Indian Buddhism, Tsung-mi must be aware of this philosophical difficulty. How did he overcome the objection when he organised his analysis on Ch'an and doctrinal schools of Buddhism? In the first place, he organized the schools into his system, and yet he never put them together mechanically. Second, he introduced a human factor into the consideration. To him the philosophy of existence and emptiness are not merely theories nor absolute in themselves. They are religious means (upaaya) which have to be applied with skill. When the means are applied with skill in a suitable situation, it is good and useful. However, when they are wrongly applied, it could be harmful. They are like medicine, when rightly applied, it cures man's disease, otherwise it could kill the man as well. When religious philosophy is forced upon a wrong situation, "The Law becomes illness to man." [31] Therefore, the conflicting doctrines and practices, or the exclusiveness and the inclusiveness as termed by our thinker, can be accepted simultaneously, but by different persons or by the same person but at different times. The aforementioned logical difficulties and religious objections on syncretism are, therefore, inapplicable to Tsung-mi's interpretation.

This indicates that the thought of Tsung-mi is less speculative and more humanistic. Being less speculative, he did not give much thought to the

p. 298

problem of identity and difference as has been done in Western philosophy, nor was he interested in pure logical enquiry as were the Indian Mahaayaana thinkers. Being humanistic, he is more interested in solving human problems and made man, not theory alone, one of the fundamental criteria of religious philosophy. This is, of course, quite congruent with the main stream of Chinese philosophy which is quite well known for its emphasis on humanity and we need not discuss it here. Similarly, the problem of harmony has never been central in Indian Buddhism. The Pali term samagga and its Sanskrit equivalent saamagrii have been rendered as 'being in unity, harmonious...', 'concord, communion' though what these have referred to are practical descriptions or monastic organizations, [32] and never have been as focused or considered so central as in Chinese philosophy. Concerning the place of harmony in Chinese philosophy, a number of works, notably those by Derk Bodde, Thome H. Fang, especially that by Wang Yu have all demonstrated how central the concept was in Chinese philosophy. [33] Taking all these together, it seems clear that though Tsung-mi is basically a Buddhist thinker, yet at the same time, he is conditioned by the philosophical tradition and practical needs of China and hence views some problems from a perspective different from that of the Indian Buddhist tradition. It is in this respect that he may be regarded as a representative of Chinese Buddhism.

If the Chinese Buddhists at large "knew almost nothing of the splintering of Buddhism into sects in India" [34] as it has been rightly described, Tsung-mi probably was one of few exceptions. His knowledge in Indian Buddhism seems quite adequate when compared with many other Chinese Buddhist scholars. As far as our knowledge goes, his classification of Mahaayaana philosophies is quite different from other classification of Buddhist doctrines done in China; [35] but rather closer to modern researches on the subject. Though the problem of Tathaagatagarbha as an independent and important school seems to be questionable at our present stage of study, yet one cannot brush it aside lightly. Until the study on the development of Tathaagatagarbha theory in Indian Buddhism is conclusive, there is no need to rush to a premature conclusion.

McMaster University
Hamilton, Canada

p. 299

NOTES

* This is part of the author's [i] forthcoming book, Conflict and Harmony of Buddhism, being a study and translations of Tsung-mi's Ch'an-yuan chu-ch'uan-chi tu hsu. Acknowledgement is made for a Fellowship from the Canada Council, 1973-4 for the assistance of this work.

1. For the life of Tsung-mi, see the author's paper, 'Tsung-mi, his analysis of Ch'an Buddhism', T'oung Pao, LVIII (1972), pp. 1-54; especially p. 4, where the term of Middle Ch'an has been discussed.

2. See the author's paper, 'Tsung-mi's Theory of the "Comparative Investigation" (k'an-hui) of Buddhism'. A summary of the paper has been published in Abstracts of Papers, XXIXth International Congress of Orientalists (Paris, 1973) sections 8-10, p. 66; and the revised resume will be published in the Proceedings and Transactions of the Congress.

3. This is summarized from Tsung-mi's statement. The full text of the statement has been translated and published by the author ('Tsung-mi, his analysis of Ch'an Buddhism', op. cit., pp. 36-40).

4. See ibidem, 'A metaphorical description of the Ch'an houses', pp. 51-53.

5. These are summaries from Tsung-mi's Ch'an-yuan chu-ch'uan-chi tu-hsu [j] ('Various Explanations of the Source of Ch'an'). Hereafter, it is referred to as CYC. Page numbers given in this paper refer to S. Kamata's [k] modernized edition, Zen no goroku 9: Zengen-shosenshutojo [l] (Tokyo, 1971), pp. 116ff.

6. The six Perfections are (i) dana or almsgiving, (ii) sila or morality, (iii) ksanti or patience, (iv) virya or zeal, (v) dhyana or meditation, and (vi) prajna or wisdom. The four virtues are (1) dana, (2) priyavacana or affectionate speech, (3) arthakrtya or conduct profitable to others, and (4) samanarthata or cooperation with and adaptation of oneself to others.

7. The First Five kinds of Consciousness will transform into the perfect wisdom of Amoghasiddhi; the sixth transform into the profound observing wisdom of Amitabha; The seventh transform into the universal wisdom of Ratnaketu; and the eighth into the great mirror wisdom of Ak.sobhya. This is the understanding in Sino-Japanese Buddhist tradition. A. K. Chatterjee has a different list on the knowledge of Tathagata as he quotes from Mahayanasutralankara. See The Yogacara Idealism (Banaras, 1962), pp. 288-9. The main difference is that the former related wisdom with specific Buddhas, while the Sanskrit text does not. For the ten stages of Bodhisattvas, see N. Dutt, Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism (London, 1930), pp. 238ff. The basic text of this doctrine, Dasabhumikasutra has been rendered into English, see Megumu Honda, 'Annotated translation of the Dasabhumika-sutra' in Studies in South, East, and Central Asia ed. by D. Sinor (New Delhi, 1968), pp. 115-276.

8. For the Indian development of the doctrine of Emptiness, see T. R. V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (London, 1955); also compare it with R. H. Robinson, Early Madhyamika in India and China (Madison, 1967) and the Emptiness by F. J. Streng (Nashville, 1967).

9. Quoted and translated from CYC op. cit., p. 121.

10. All these are well-known doctrinal formulae of Early Buddhism, see N. Dutt, Early Monastic Buddhism (Calcutta, rep. 1960), chapters 9, 10 and 6.

11. For the Indian development and reference, see D. S. Ruegg, Traite du Tathagata-garbha de Bu ston (Paris, 1973); J. Takasaki, A Study of Ratnagotravibhaga (Rome,

p. 300

1966); and A. & H. Wayman's translation, The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala (New York, 1974).

12. Quoted and translated from the Hua-yen chin, [m] Taisho edition No. 279, vol. X, p. 271c lines 5-7.

13. chu-fo chih tzu-tsai, san-shih wu-so-ai... fei shih-so-neng-shih, i-fei hsin ching-chieh. [n] Quoted by Tsung-mi from Hua-yen-ching, op. cit., p. 69a lines 19, 25.

14. chiang-shih p'o-ching chiao, yu Ch'an-men hsi-wang hsiu-hsin tsung erh-hsiang fu-hui. [o] CYC No.26, p. 116.

15. hsi-wang k'an-ching, shih-shih fo-shih, ning-hsin-chu-hsin. [p] CYC, ibid. These all refer to the teaching of the Northern Ch'an. For Southern Ch'an monks criticism of these doctrines, see P. B. Yampolsky, transl. The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (New York, 1967), pp. 130, 139-40.

16. ch'uan-chu i-ching, [q] CYC, op. cit., p. 116.

17. chia-fu t'iao-shen t'iao-hsi, [r] ibid.

18. Tz'u-teng chung-chung fang-pien, hsi-shih fo-so ch'uan-tsan, [s] ibid.

19. pu-pi tso. [t] An abbreviation of Kumarajiva's Chinese translation which read as pu-pi shih-tso wei yen-tso yeh. [u] Charles Luk has translated the sentence as 'meditation is not necessarily sitting'. The Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra (Berkeley and London, 1972), p. 20.

20. tz'u-chiao yu Ch'an-men min-chueh-wu-chi tsung ch'uan-t'ung, [v] CYC, p. 126.

21. po-wu yin-kuo, [w] ibid.

22. According to the Awakening of Faith attributed to Asvaghosha, that "The dharma is 'the Mind of the sentient beings'..." Hakeda, op. cit., p. 28.

23. See note 14.

24. Ta-mo shan-ch'iao chien-wen ch'uan-hsin. [x] CYC, op. cit., p. 141.

25. See note 14.

26. The four modes (catur-yoni) are births by womb, egg, moisture or transformation. The six conditions of sentient existence mean that of the hells; of hungry ghosts; of animals; of malevolent nature spirit; of human existence; and, of heavenly existence.

27. This is usually referred to the physical marks of the Buddha. See A. Wayman, 'Contributions regarding the Thirty-two Characteristics of the Great Person', in Sino-Indian Studies, V/2-4 (1957). pp. 243ff.

28. From the translation of Hakeda, op. cit., p. 48.

29. shen-pi kai-ch'ien, ch'ien-pu chih-shen. [y] CYC, p. 148.

30. K. Venkata Ramanan, Naagaarjuna's Philosophy As Presented in the Mahaa-Praj~naa-paaramitaa-`saastra (Rutland and Tokyo, 1966), p. 156.

31. fa-wei jen-ping. [z] CYC, p. 30.

32. Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary, ed. by T. W. Rhys Davids, (London, 1959), p. 681b. And Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar & Dictionary by F. Edgerton (Delhi rep. 1970), p. 591b.

33. See Bodde, 'Harmony and Conflict in Chinese Philosophy', in Studies in Chinese Thought, ed. by A. F. Wright (Chicago, 1953), pp. 19-80; Fang, The Chinese View of Life, the Philosophy of Comprehensive Harmony, (Hong Kong, 1957); and Wang Yu, Ju-chia te chung-ho-kuan [aa] ('The Confucian View of Mean, Equilibrium and Harmony'), (Hong Kong, 1967).

34. Sources of Chinese Tradition, compiled by Wm. T. de Bary et al. (New York, 1960), p. 287.

35. See Kenneth K. S. Ch'en, Buddhism in China, A Historical Survey (Princeton, 1964), pp. 181 ff., 305ff., 318ff., though Tsung mi's view on the subject is excluded. A full

p. 301

study of Fa-tsang's [ab] classification of Buddhist doctrines has been done by F. H. Cook, Fa-tsang's treatise on the Five Doctrines, an annotated translation (Madison, 1970).

Glossary of Chinese words

a. 禅
b. 宗密

c. 华严

d. 和会

e. 勘会

f. 了义

g. 灵知

h. 妙有

i. 冉云华

j. 禅源诸诠集都序

k. 鎌田茂雄

l. 禅语录9:禅源诸诠集都序

m. 华严经

n. 诸佛智自在

三世无所碍

非识所能识

亦非心境界

o. 将识破境教与禅门息妄修心宗而相符会

p. 息妄看净

时时拂拭

凝心住心

q. 全注一境

p. 302

r. 跏趺调身调息

s. 此等种种方便

悉是佛所劝赞

t. 不必坐

u. 不必是坐为宴坐也

v. 此教与禅门泯绝无寄宗全同

w. 拨无因果

x. 达磨善巧

拣文传心

y. 深必该浅

浅不至深

z. 法为人病

aa. 王煜

儒家的中和观

ab. 法藏