Tien-Tai Chih-Is Theory of Buddha Nature-A Realistic and Humanistic

·期刊原文
T'ien-T'ai Chih-I's Theory of Buddha Nature-A Realistic and Humanistic
Heng-ching Shih

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

p.153

Among the three main `Mahayana` doctrinal
traditions in Indian Buddhism-- `Madhyamika`,
`Yogacara`,and `Tathagatagarbhavada`(1)--the`Tathaga
tagarbhavada`, which affirms the fundamental nature
of enlightenment in sentient beings, had the
greatest influence on Chinese Buddhism. Such
important schools as the Hua-yen, T'ien-t'ai, Ch'an,
and San-lun not only accept Buddha Nature as a basic
tenet, but also consider it the ultimate teaching.
But they did not simply parrot the Indian teaching
on Buddha Nature; what makes the Chinese doctrine of
tathagatagarbha or Buddha Nature outstanding and
unique is that Chinese Buddhists developed and
reinterpreted it creatively.

A good example of such creative
reinterpretation is the T'ien-t'ai doctrine that
evil inherently exists in Buddha Nature.
Traditionally, the nature of the Buddha represents
absolute goodness and purity. The radical departure
of the theory of inherent evil from this traditional
view caused great controversy in China,
----------------------
(1) Fa-tsang,the most important patriarch of the
Hua-yen school, was the first to identify the
`Tathagatagarbha` as an independent school. See
Minoru Kiyota, "`Tathagatagarbha` Thought: A Basis
of Buddhist Devotionalism in East Asia" Japanese
Journal of Religious Studies 12 (1985), 207-231.

p.154

and elicited criticism not only from other schools,
such as Hua-yen,(2) but also from certain T'ien-t'ai
Buddhists as well,

The theory of inherent evil or impurity in
Buddha Nature was first taught by T'ien-t'ai Chih-i
(538-597 CE) in his Kuan-yin hsuan-i (The Profound
Meaning of the `Sutra` on Kuan-Yin).(3)He maintained
that the icchantika is devoid of empircal good but
endowed with the inherent nature of good, while the
Buddha is devoid of empirical evil but replete with
the inherent nature of evil. In Chih-i's holistic
view of mind and reality, this view of Buddha Nature
is a natural development from the basic T'ien-t'ai
doctrine.

In this essay I will first look into the
doctrinal sources of the theory of inherent evil
which existed before Chih-i, with special reference
to the Ta-ch'eng chih-kuan fa-men (`Mahayana` Method
of Practicing Mental Quiescence and Insight).(4)Then,
in order to contextualize Chih-i's contribution to
the doctrine of Buddha Nature, the second section
will deal with the content and meaning of the theory
in the Kuan-yin hsuan-i. A third section will deal
with the place of Chih-i's theory of inherent evil
in the broader structure of his thought; and the
last section will discuss the problematic and
significance of the theory.

The Source of the Theory of Inherent Evil in
Buddha Nature

The Ta ch'eng chih-kuan fa-men was attributed to
the second patriarch of the T'ien-t'ai school,
Hui-ssu (515-577 CE). It is one of the earliest
T'ien-t'ai works which discusses the dual natures of
purity and impurity of the `tathagatagarbha`. It
explains the `tathagatagarbha` as follows:

The `tathagatagarbha` embraces the natures of
all sentient beings, each of which differs
from the others, thus constituting differen-
ces within what is without difference. Hence
the natures of each and every one of these
sentient beings, for all time, contain
qualities that are immeasurable and
boundless. This statement
--------------------------
(2) For example, Tsu-juei, in his Commentary on
the Awakening of Faith in `Mahayana` proclaimed that
the theory of inherent evil was a heretical view
which could cause one to fall into hell (chuan 16).

(3) The authorship of this work has been
questioned by some scholars. The issue is taken up
later in the paper. Until further evidence
establishes otherwise, we follow the tradition of
acknowledging Chih-i as its author.

(4) The authorship of this work also has been
questioned. A Japanese T'ien-t'ai monk called
Chen-chen, in his Tien-t'ai San-ta-pu Ssu-chi
(Personal Notes on the Three Great Works of
T'ien-t'ai) raises doubts concerning the authorship
of the text No matter who the author may have been,
the thought presented in it clearly predates Chih-i
and can be seen to be the main source of the theory
of inherent evil.

p.155

has reference to all impure things of the
mundane worlds, such as the six modes [of
existence], the four kinds of birth,
suffering and happiness, beauty and ugliness,
ignorance and wisdom; also to all the pure
things that transcend the world, such as the
causes and effects derived from the Three
Vehicles. All these endlessly differentiated
qualities are contained within the natures of
each and every sentient being, all complete
without the slightest diminution. For this
reason the storehouse of the `Tathagata` has
originally, once and for all time, contained
the two natures, the one impure and the other
pure. Because of its impure nature it is
capable of manifesting the impure things
pertaining to all sentient beings. Hence the
storehouse, being in this respect the `dharma-
kaya` as it lies within the barriers, is
called Buddha Nature. But because it also
contains the pure nature, it is capable of
manifesting the pure attributes of all the
Buddhas. Hence the storehouse, being in this
respect the `dharmakaya` as it transcends the
barriers, is also called naturally pure
`dharmakaya`, or naturally pure `nirvana`.(5)

Hui-ssu did not use the term "inherent evil"
(hsing-er) which is used by Chih-i. Rather, he used
the term "inherent impurity" (hsing-jan). Following
the `tathagaragarbha` tradition, the Ta-ch'eng
chih-kuan fa-men takes the `tathagatagarbha` as
possessing two aspects, the "empty tathagatagarbha"
and the "non-empty `tathagatagarbha`." However, the
meaning of the latter term in the Ta-ch'eng chih-
kuan fa-men is different from the traditional
definition found in `tathagatagarbha` texts such as
the Lion's Roar of Queen `Srimala`; the Awakening of
Faith in `Mahayana`, and so forth. In the latter
text the "non-empty `tathagatagarbha`" refers to
immeasurably undefiled and pure virtues, i.e., the
garbha empty of all defilements. By contrast, the
"non-empty `tathagatagarbha`" in the Ta-ch'eng
chih-kuan fa-men includes both purity and impurity.
This text describes the pure aspect of the
`tathagatagarbha`:

Although this pure mind is equal and
substantially undifferentiated, it is
endowed with undefiled virtues as many as the
sands of the Ganges. This is because the
self-nature of the mind possesses great
wisdom and light and is truly knowledgeable,
eternal, blissful, autonomous, and pure.
Immeasurable pure virtues like these are all
one mind, as extensively elucidated in the
Awakening of Faith in `Mahayana`. Because the
pure mind embraces such pure dharmas, it is
said to be non-empty.(6)
--------------------
(5)`Taisho` 46, 647c. The translation is taken,
with some slight modifications, from Fung Yu- lan, A
History of Chinese Philosophy (2 vols., Princeton,
1953), II.362.

(6)`Taisho` 46, 646a.

p.156

There is little controversy over this pure
aspect of the "non-empty `tathagatagarbha`," since
mind is consistently held to be positive in the
`tathagatagarbha` tradition. The defilements of the
mind are held to be "adventitious" (`agantuka`) and
are in no sense inherent in or innate to the
`garbha`. But the Ta-ch'eng chih-kuan fa-men
presents a new interpretation of this impure aspect
of the "non-empty `tathagatagarbha`." The impurity
of the mind, it teaches, contains both the impure
nature and impure things. According to the Ta-ch'eng
chih-kuan fa-men, the impure nature of the mind has
two functions: "to [karmically] produce life and
death" and "to make life and death."(7)The difference
between these two functions lies in the meanings of
the terms "produce" and "make." In the case of
ordinary beings, the impure nature engenders actions
and karmic retributions, resulting in the endless
transmigrations of birth and death. This is what is
meant by the impure nature being able to "produce
life and death." In the case of the Buddhas, the
impure nature can "make" the `dharmakaya` of a
Buddha transmigrate in the five paths of existence
for the sake of sentient beings. This is what is
meant by the impure nature being able to "make life
and death." This interpretation of impure nature
laid the groundwork for Chih-i's theory of inherent
evil.

Two reasons are given for the Buddhas'
retention of the impure nature even after the
achievement of Buddhahood. First, the nature,
whether pure or impure, remains fundamentally
immutable. Second, the impure nature provides a
basis for activating and carrying out the
compassionate actions of Buddha. The Ta-ch'eng
chih-kuan fa-men explains the first reason as
follows:

Question: Regarding the fact that the
storehouse of the `Tathagata` embodies two kinds
of nature, the one impure and the other pure,
does this mean that these natures become
formed as the result of habit, or do they
remain forever unchangeable?

Answer: These natures, both as substance and
function, are [forever] unchangeable and are
not formed as the result of habit. That it is
why it is said that Buddha Nature, the great
ruler, is not something created. How then can
it be formed as the result of habit? And
since Buddha Nature, that is the pure nature,
can not be created, this means that the impure
nature, which is identical in substance even
though it belongs to the world of physical
things, likewise cannot be formed as the result
of habit.(8)

This interpretation of the unchangeable
substance of the mind is in line with the
`tathagatagarbha` tradition; however, it is in
contrast with the doctrine of `anatman` (no-self)
taught in early Buddhism. Although the doctrine of
an innately pure mind, whether called
`tathagatagarbha` or Buddha Nature, is problematic
in Buddhist
------------------------
(7)`Taisho` 46, 646b.
(8)Fung, Hisrory, II.379. The translation has
been slightly amended.

p.157

hermeneutics, it does provide a positive and
optimistic view of human potential for awakening.(9)

The Ta-ch'eng chih-kuan fa-men explains the
second reason why the Buddhas retain the impure
nature:

Question: With the extinguishing of impure
perfuming, the nature in its impure
functioning no longer produces [the cycle of)
life and death. Does this mean that after the
achievement of Buddhahood the nature
completely fails to function?

Answer: This nature, not being perfumed by
pollution, no longer produces [the cycle of]
life and death. And yet, as long as mind is
motivated, it [the nature], being perfumed by
the compassionate wish [of the Buddhas to
save all beings], may still act as an
instrument for conversion.(10)

This passage spells out a very important reason
for the existence of evil in the Buddha. The
important point is that although the Buddha's nature
can no longer be polluted the element of evil in it
can act as an expedient instrument (`upaya`) for
conversion.

As to the mind's embracing impure things, the
Ta-ch'eng chih-kuan fa-men states:

The embracing of impure things by the essence
of the mind means that this impure nature,
being perfumed by impure deeds (`karma`),
creates the condition of ignorance (`avidya`)
and the seeds of all impure things. In
accordance with these seeds, various kinds of
karmic retribution are manifested. This igno-
rance, together with these fruits of karma,
constitute the things of impurity. This
condition of ignorance, however, together
with the karmic retributions induced by the
seeds, although manifested in various forms
that are spoken of as [phenomenal] things,
nevertheless all have the single mind as
their substance and do not lie outside this
mind. This is the reason why the mind is not
[really] 'empty.' The case is like that of
the images reflected in a bright mirror.
These have no substance other than the single
mirror, yet this fact does not prevent them
from being demarcated according to their
differences, and since these differing
images are all reflected in the mirror, the
latter is therefore said not to be empty.(11)
----------------
(9) One of the main arguments about the validity
of tathagatagarbha thought is whether it repre-
sents a form of monism or an expression of
emptiness.
(10) Fung, History, II.382. The translation has
been slightly amended.
(11) Ibid., II.365. The translation has been
slightly amended.

p.158

The quotations given above present two
important doctrines: (1) The mind is endowed with
two innate natures, namely, purity and impurity; (2)
The impure or pure nature of the mind is capable of
manifesting its obverse, i.e., the pure or impure
things pertaining to all sentient beings. Special
attention should be paid here to the word "innate."
Although it is sometimes said that the theory of
`tathagatagarbtha` in The Awakening of Faith in
`Mahayana` is dualistic, in fact the "one mind and
two gates" schema of this text represents solely the
innate purity of mind, and not that impurity which
is described as adventitious or accidental. By
contrast, the dual natures of purity and impurity in
the Ta-ch'eng chih-kuan fa-men are said to exist
inherently in the mind.

In Chinese Buddhist terminology, "nature"
(hsing) is equivalent to t'i, the essence of a
thing, and "thing" (shih) is a phenomenon manifested
as a result of the functioning of"nature." In other
words, "potentiality becomes manifest as actuality."
In the case of the Ta-ch'eng chih-kuan fa-men's
explanation of `tathagatagarbha`, since it
originally and for all time contains two natures, it
is capable of manifesting both impurity and purity.
As the "essence of mind of each and every sentient
being and of each and every Buddha is originally
composed of the two natures without the slightest
distinction between them,"(12) the logical conclusion
is that both sentient beings and the Buddha are
capable of manifesting impure actions. However, the
Ta-ch'eng chih-kuan fa-men does not focus on the
difference between the impure actions of sentient
beings and the Buddha. It was Chih-i who took up
this issue and gave it some theoretical clarity.

The Theory of Inherent Evil in the Kuan-yin
hsuan-i

The Kuan-yin hsuan-i is Chih-i's commentary on
the Kuan-shih-yin pu-sa pu-men-pin, the twenty-fifth
chapter of the Lotus `Sutra`. He expounded the
meaning of Kuan-yin (`Avalokitesvara`) in ten
aspects. It was in the explanation of the ninth
aspect that Chih-i developed his theory of inherent
evil in the Buddha. His explanation can be divided
into four sets of questions and answers. The first
set reads:
------------------
(12) `Taisho` 46, 646c.

p.159

Question: As the conditioned and revealing
causes of Buddha Nature possess inherent
good, do they also possess inherent evil?(13)

Answer: They do.(14)

This question and answer assert a double aspect
of Buddha Nature, which is based on the T'ien-t'ai
philosophy of hsing-chuo, "natural endowment, "
which indicates the possession of full potential and
reality. Chih-li, an able disciple of Chih-i, said
in his Kuan-yin hsuan-i chi (The Commentary on the
Kuan-yin hsuan-i):

Just the word "endowment" (Chu) can truly
reflect the teaching of this [T'ien-t'ai]
school, for all the other schools know the
inherent good, but they cannot fathom the
teaching of inherent evil.(15)

Strictly speaking, the hsing-chu philosophy is
common to other schools that affirm Buddha Nature
(hsing-tsung) such as the Hua-yen, T'ien-t'ai,
Ch'an, and so forth. However, although the concept
of hsing-chu emphasizes absolute and perfect
harmony among all differences and takes the mind as
encompassing both good and evil, in the other
schools it is not attributed to Buddhas. Since
T'ien-t'ai's perfect teaching is concerned more with
chu, or endowment, than with purity, it integrates
evil and accepts its presence in Buddha Nature.

The second question and answer are:

Question: What good and evil have the
icchantika and the Buddha eradicated?

Answer: For the icchantika all empirical good
(hsiu-shan) has been eradicated, but the
innate nature of good exists, while for the
Buddha all empirical evil (hsiu-o) has been
eradicated but the innate nature of evil
exists.(16)

The icchantika is one who has severed the roots
of virtue and does not engender the aspiration for
enlightenment. This being the case, a controversy
arose as to
--------------------
(13) According to the `Mahaparinirvanasutra`
there are three causes of Buddha Nature: the basic
cause, the conditioned cause, and the revealing
cause. The basic cause refers to the `bhutatarhata`
(chen-ju) as the direct cause of attaining perfect
awakening, which is associated with the
`dharmakaya`. The other two function as activating
causes, of which the revealing cause refers to
`prajna`, while the conditioned cause is an
environmental cause, referring to the practice and
merits which result in liberation. The conditioned
cause can enhance the revealing cause which
manifests the basic cause. When the basic cause is
fully manifest, Buddhahood is attained.
(14) `Taisho` 34, 882c.
(15) `Taisho` 35, 905a.
(16) `Taisho` 34, 882c.

p.160

whether the icchantika has Buddha Nature and will
eventually become a Buddha. The key issue lies in
the question of the innate existence of Buddha
Nature or inherent good in the icchantika. All
schools which affirm Buddha Nature teachings hold
that innate Buddha Nature exists universally, and so
the icchantika is eventually certain to become a
Buddha. What then is the difference between a Buddha
and an icchantika? Here Chih-i creatively
reinterprets the issue through a distinction between
"empirical good" and "empirical evil." He divides
both good and evil (or, in the Ta-ch'eng
chih-kuanfa-men's terminology, purity and impurity)
into inherent and experiential aspects. That is,
inherent good and inherent evil are objective and
ontologically existent, while empirical good and
empirical evil are subjective and experientially
existent. A Buddha who has attained perfection in
compassion and wisdom is subjectively devoid of
acquired impurity, but objectively possesses the
innate nature of impurity. On the contrary, the
icchantika who has engaged in nothing but impure
activities is subjectively destitute of acquired
good, but objectively endowed with the nature of
purity.

The third question and answer are:

Question: Why is it that inherent good or
evil cannot be eradicated?

Answer: The nature of good or evil is simply
the entrance into the dharma consisting in
good or evil. This nature cannot be changed.
No one in the past, present, or future can
destroy it, neither can it be eradicated. For
example, even though a demon might burn up
all the Buddhist scriptures, how could the
activities of inherent good come to an end?
Even though the Buddha might burn up all
evils, how could the nature of evil come to
an end? Consider another example: although
Emperor Ch'in had burned books and buried
Confucian scholars alive, how could he ever
destroy the nature of good or evil?(17)

The theoretical basis for the ontological
existence of inherent good and evil lies in the
immutability of the basic nature of good and evil.
Chih-i called this nature an "entrance into the
dharma," indicating symbolically thereby that the
Buddha enters dharma through the accomplishment of
empirical good and the elimination of empirical
evil, while the icchantika enters by the performance
of empirical evil with an absence of empirical good.
Although the entrance serves as both exit and
entrance, it remains itself unchanged. Similarly,
empirical good and evil serve as the entrances to
the states of Buddhahood and icchantika, though the
basic nature of good and evil remain essentially
unchanged.

Since the Buddha has eradicated empirical evil
and at the same time retains inherent evil, there is
a question as to whether the Buddha's inherent evil
will give rise to empirical evil. By the same token,
although the icchantika has not created
------------------------
(17) `Taisho' 34, 882c.

p.161

empirical evil, he or she does possess inherent
good. The question then is whether it is still
possible for the icchantika to create empirical
good. The fourth question and answer deals with this
issue. It reads:

Question: Can the icchantika whose nature of
good is not eliminated still produce
empirical good? Can the Buddha whose nature
of evil is not eliminated still produce
empirical evil?

Answer: The icchantika does not comprehend
the true nature of good. As a result, he is
tainted by good and can produce empirical
good to counteract all evils extensively.
Although the Buddha does not eliminate
inherent evil, he comprehends [the nature of]
evil. As a result he can exercise mastery
over evil and is not defiled by it.
Furthermore, because his empirical evil never
arises, the Buddha will never create evil
again. Due to his control over evil, he can
freely make use of evil in order to teach
sentient beings. He utilizes evil all the
time, and is never contaminated by it.
Because he is not defiled, empirical evil
does not arise. How can the icchantika be
likened to the Buddha? If the icchantika
comprehends [the true nature of] good and
evil, he is no longer an icchantika.(18)

The statement that the icchantika whose nature
of good is not eliminated can still produce
empirical good may be examined from two points of
view: first, why is a person an icchantika? And
second, what is his potential for realizing
Buddhahood? The answer that Chih-i gives to the
first question is that the icchantika does not
understand the true meaning of inherent good.
Because of this it is said that he is "tainted by
good", a statement which requires clarification.
Here, "good" does not refer to inherent good, but
rather to a kind of adventitious good that is only
partially good. The icchantika does not understand
that both inherent good and inherent evil are
originally empty of self-nature; therefore,
attachment to them arises. This attached good is
said to be defiled or "tainted". Nevertheless, even
the defiled good which he experiences, since it is
inevitably imbued with undefiled inherent good, is
capable of counteracting evil. When the icchantika
overcomes evil with experienced good and realizes
that the nature of good and evil are empty and
unsubstantial, he will no longer be an icchantika.
As to the icchantika's possibility of realizing
Buddhahood, it lies in the permanent and innate
presence of inherent good which becomes activated
when stimulated by favorable conditions. As long as
the existence of universal Buddha Nature applies,
the icchantika's future realization of Buddhahood is
guaranteed, although its actualization depends on
various favorable circumstantial factors.

If the icchantika can produce empirical good
from the inherent nature of good, can the Buddha
similarly produce evil from the inherent nature of
evil? The
--------------------
(18) `Taisho` 34, 882c.

p.162

answer is negative, and the reason is that even
though retaining inherent evil, the Buddha will not
commit empirical evil even when producing evil. The
terminology differs here from that reported above on
p. 154. Here, "committing empirical evil" means to
engage personally in evil actions, something which
the Buddha has already abandoned. "Producing evil"
means to manifest empirical evil, which means that
the Buddha's mastery over evil renders it possible
to manifest (i.e., to produce) evil without being
tainted by it. The manifestation of evil motivated
by compassion on the part of the Buddha is necessary
in order to teach and help sentient beings who are
immersed in the defiled world.

As we can see, Chih-i takes the existence of
inherent evil in Buddha Nature as the basis for the
Buddha's compassionate activities. The theory of
inherent evil is intended to bring the Buddha into
touch with the real world of misery and suffering,
that is, it is an attempt to humanize the Buddha
without undermining his supreme qualities. At this
point we may ask an important question: why is it
necessary for the Buddha to possess inherent evil in
order to carry out the work of benefitting
sentient beings? Chih-i responded to this question
in his Kuan-yin hsuan-i:

According to other schools, the [mind of the]
icchantika who is destitute of good is able
to produce good because he or she is perfumed
by the `alayavijnana`. The `alayavijniana` is
neutral by nature and the basis both of all
the seeds of ignorance and of good and evil.
The icchantika has not eradicated ignorance
but is able to produce good. The Buddha, who
has eradicated ignorance, is not subject to
perfuming [from the `alayavijnana`; therefore
for him evil does not arise. If the Buddha,
then, wants to teach and transform sentient
beings by means of evil, he has to manifest
'supernatural power with intention'.(19)

Here "the other schools" are the Northern
Branch of the Ti-lun School and the She-lun School.
They assert that the `alayavijnana` is the
storehouse consciousness containing the seeds of all
good and evil. Since the `alayavijnana` functions in
this way for icchantikas, the seeds of empirical
good can grow through the permeating influence of
inherent good. On the other hand, since the
`alayavijnana` has been transformed into `jnana`
(wisdom) in the case of the Buddha, the seeds of
evil are completely eliminated. In other words,
according to these schools the Buddha is free from
defilement and abides in absolute purity. Although
immune to evil, the Buddha can still perform the
work of helping and saving living beings by
utilizing empirically evil methods; to do this he
has to manifest supernatural power "with intention".
Such activity does not seem culpable to the Ti-lun
or She-lun schools. However, Chih-i criticized this
explanation:
----------------
(19) `Taisho` 34, 882c.

p.163

If evil is completely eliminated at the stage
of Buddhahood, the Buddha has to elicit an
intention in regard to evil in order to help
sentient beings. This is as artificial as a
man painting a picture. However, just as a
mirror without motion can reflect images
spontaneously, the inconceivable principle
should be able to manifest evil. If the
Buddha has to bring forth a conscious in-
tention [in order to help sentient beings],
how then is the Buddha different from a
non-Buddhist?(20)

As this passage indicates, Chih-i does not
question the explanation of the Buddha's ability to
perform good deeds, although he is immune to
inherent evil. His criticism focuses rather on the
necessity of the Buddha's conscious intention in
regard to evil in performing good deeds. In the
Fa-hua hsuan-i ("The Profound Meaning of the Lotus
`Sutra`"), Chih-i distinguishes three kinds of
supernatural powers: (1) the intentional
supernatural powers of the non-Buddhist; (2) the
undefiled supernatural powers of the `Hinayna`; and
(3) the ultimately true supernatural powers of the
`Mahayana`.(21) The Buddha has the greatest
supernatural powers. These differ from those of
others in that thay are completely unintentional and
effortless. According to the `Mahayanasangraha`, the
`dharmakaya` of the Buddha has absolute self-mastery
or freedom in ten respects,(22) and the Buddha devotes
himself in altruistic endeavours spontaneously and
effortlessly. Vasubandhu explains the meaning of
"effortless" by saying:

Intention means making effort, responding to
conditions pertaining to the three worlds,
and having the thought that one has oneself
done, is doing, or will do something. To have
no such thought is to do things effortlessly.
(23)

Only that supernatural power which is exercised
unintentionally and effortlessly can be said to be
masterful. According to T'ien-t'ai, in order to
activate freely the self-mastering supernatural
powers in response to living beings' needs, the
nature of the Buddha must contain latent elements
which correspond to those of living beings, which of
course comprise both good and evil. Since the Buddha
certainly has absolutely free and self-mastering
supernatural power, the logical conclusion is that
the elements of evil must necessarily be innate in
the nature of the Buddha.
------------------------
(20) `Taisho` 34, 882c-883a.
(21) `Taisho` 33, 692b.
(22) The ten aspects of self-mastery are those
regarding the mind, wealth, karma, birth, life,
happiness, vows, knowledge, wisdom, and dharma. See
Paul J. Griffiths et al., The Realm of Awakening: A
Study and Translation of Chapter Ten of Asanga's
`Mahayanasangraha` (New York, 1989), 77-81.
(23) `Taisho` 31, 262a.

p.164

The Doctrinal Context for the Theory of lnherent
Evil.

The fundamental basis for the T'ien-t'ai theory
of inherent evil is the absolute identity of
contrasts which unifies and harmonizes all opposites
or dualistic qualities. The theory of the complete
hairmony and identity of contrast or duality has its
root in the principal T'ien-t'ai teachings: the
"mutual encompassing of the realms," the "hundred
realms and thousand suchnesses;" the "three thousand
worlds immanent in one moment of thought," and the
"three tracks."

For example, we may take the teaching of the
three tracks to explain what the theory of the
identity of opposites signifies in the so-called
"exclusive perfect teaching of T'ien-t'ai." It is in
the Fa-hua hsuan-i that Chih-i set forth the three
tracks and explained their relationship:

The three tracks are: (1) the track of true
nature; (2) the track of contemplation and
illumination; (3) the track of assistance.
Although these are three in name, they are
the Dharma of the `Mahayana`. These three are
not three, for they can be taken
holistically. Yet the one is also not one,
for it can be taken as [distinctively]
three.(24)

In the perfect teaching, the "track of true
nature" refers to the substance of ultimate truth
(`bhuatatathata`). When this is fully revealed, the
`dharmakaya` becomes manifest. The "track of
contemplation and illumination" refers to ultimate
emptiness (`sunyata`), the realization of which
leads to `prajna`: The "track of assistance" refers
to the numerous virtues of the `Tathagata`, the
realization of which is liberation. The relation of
these tracks is one in three and three in one. Taken
separately, the "track of contemplation and
illumination" and the "track of assistance" can be
contracted; that is to say, only through the
contracting force of the "track of assistance" can
the "track of true nature" be realized. Thus it is
said that bodhi without the impetus of `klesa`
cannot be true bodhi. Applying this theory to the
contrasting conceptions of good and evil, Chih-i
thus says in the Fa-hna hsuan-i:

The mind of man encompasses the ten realms,
which in turn innately comprise the nature
and characteristics of good and evil. The
nature and characteristics of evil are simply
the nature and characteristics of good. From
evil comes good; apart from evil
------------------------
(24) `Taisho` 33, 741b.

p.165

good does not exist. To turn evil around good
is accomplished.(25)

Chih-i thought that all defilements are nothing
but the seeds of Buddhahood. The two are mutually
identical and interpenetrating. At the stage of an
ordinary person, evil functions as an assisting
element, since "enlightenment is innately existent
in evil." Objectively speaking, evil is illusory and
subjectively speaking it is controllable. Evil does
not obstruct the way, so `klesa` is bodhi.

In the case of a Buddha, evil functions as a
self-stimulating force, which becomes actual as the
spontaneous flow of the Buddha's compassion. This
concept of the identity of good and evil is closely
connected with the T'ien-t'ai philosophy of the mind
encompassing the ten realms. The ten realms of
existence include those of the hells, hungry ghosts
(preta), animals, asuras, human beings, gods,
`sravakas`, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and
Buddhas. These ten realms are mutually immanent and
inclusive. One realm comprises all the other nine
realms, and in each realm the other nine are
included. Each element of existence is present in
every other. The realm of the Buddha also includes
the elements and nature of the other nine realms. In
other words, hell is not different from the
Buddha-realm, and vice- versa.

When the theory of the identity of the ten
realms is extended, it develops into the theory
of"the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses,"
which states that every one of the ten realms
involves the ten features of suchness.(26)Since each
realm involves the other nine realms, there are one
hundred realms possessing the ten features of
suchness of each, bringing the number up to one
thousand. Each realm further contains three distinct
worlds: (1) the five skandhas; (2) all living
beings; and (3) countries and plants, each again
consisting of the ten features of suchness. Thus we
arrive at a total of three thousand worlds.

What makes the T'ien-t'ai teaching unique is
that it directly acknowledges the identity of the
"three thousand dharmas which exist by nature from
the very beginning" (`li-chu` san-chien) with the
"three thousand dharmas which are created phenomena"
(shih-chu san-chien). When the a priori (li), and
the a posteriori (shih) are considered to be one and
the same, and the three thousand dharmas are
instantaneously immanent in one moment of thought,
the perfectly harmonious T'ien-t'ai philosophy is
established. The T'ien-t'ai considers its doctrine
of perfect harmony and interpenetration superior to
the doctrine of other schools which teach that
"because of the reality [of Buddha Realm] one severs
the other nine [realms]" `yuan`-li tuan-chiu). This
is because in these schools the a priori reality
(li) of the Buddha realm leads to the severance of
the other nine realms of existence. So these schools
maintain that only the realm of the Buddha is a
realm of absolute purity which thus transcends the
other nine realms. The T'ien-t'ai school's critique
of this
--------------------
(25) `Taisho` 33, 743c.
(26) The ten features of suchness are: form,
nature, substance, power, action, cause, condition,
effect, reward, and harmony of the beginning and
end.

p.166

position is that a Buddha in a world isolated from
others is like a perfect person who is incapable of
doing any evil. If such a person does evil it is
only because he is forced to by evil people. By the
same token, the Buddha in the teaching of yuanli
tuan-chiu possesses no other qualities than good.
This being the case, when the Buddha manifests
himself in the other nine realms, it is not out of
spontaneity, but only when he is forced to do so by
external conditions.

The `yuan-li` tuan-chiu theory stands in
contrast to the holistic T'ien-t'ai view of mind and
reality. This view is that "all things are
interrelated in an endless dialectical matrix of
relationship, i.e., all-in-one and one-in-all."(27)
T'ien-t'ai accepts the presence of the Buddha in
hell and the presence of hell (evil) in the Buddha,
because any one realm is present in every other. In
this teaching the Buddha retains his inherent evil,
from which he manifests impure activities for the
sole purpose o f moving freely in the impure realms
to save sentient beings. The T'ien-t'ai concept of
the Buddha is based on a realistic humanism rather
than on an idealistic concept of transcendence.
Therefore, the theory of inherent evil in the Buddha
is not as unorthodox as some other schools have
maintained.

The Problematic and Significance of the Theory
of lnherent Evil in the Buddha

Since the T'ien-t'ai theory of inherent evil in
Buddha Nature is unique and radically different from
the traditional concept of the nature of the Buddha,
it engendered criticism both within the T'ien-t'ai
School itself and from other schools. The most
critical and systematic response comes from Fujaku
Tokumon, a Japanese Pure Land monk-scholar of the
eighteenth century. In his `Shikyogishuchu`-`senyo`
(Essence of the Collected Commentaries on the
Ssu-chiao-yi), Fujaku set forth his criticism in
five points.(28)

First, Fujaku points out that the T'ien-t'ai
doctrine of inherent evil goes against the widely
accepted `Mahayana` doctrine of Buddha Nature and
reality. He says that the `Mahayana` teachings are
divided into the "temporal" and then "real." The
teachings of Hua-yen, T'ien-t'ai, the `Nirvana
Sutra`, etc., belong to the "real teaching" which
holds the `tathagatagarbha` doctrine to be the
essence of `Mahayana`. The `tathagatagarbha`
doctrine teaches an innately pure mind, Buddha
Nature, Buddha seed, etc., and maintains that all
beings possess the pure Buddha Nature. According to
the `sutras` of the `tathagatagarbha` corpus, the
`tathagatagarbha` represents the two aspects--
emptiness and non-emptiness. The `tathagatagarbha`
is
------------------------
(27)See Whalen W. Lai, "The Pure and the Impure:
The Mencian Problematik in Chinese Buddhism," in
Early Ch'an in China and Tibet, ed. Whalen W. Lai
and Lewis Lancaster (Berkeley, 1983), 299-326.

(28) The following arguments are cited from the
Essence of the Collected Commentaries on the
Ssu-chiao-yi, 16-29.

p.167

empty in that it is originally pure and thus
innately empty of impurity (evil), and it is innately
non-empty in that it is intrinsically endowed with
immeasurable virtues Since the `tathagatagarbha` is
totally pure, evil has no independent or permanent
place in either human or Buddha Nature. Exalting the
teaching of the pure mind in `tathagatagarbha`
doctrine as the ultimate reality, Fujaku thus
refutes the doctrine of inherent evil.

Second, as understood by Fujaku, the doctrine
of inherent evil also contradicts the T'ien-t'ai
teaching of "mutual interpenetration of the ten
realms." He reasons that the nine realms belong to
the "temporal" and that only the realm of the Buddha
is "real." As such, the real meaning of the teaching
of mutual interpenetration is to reveal that only
the realm of the Buddha is true reality, while the
other nine realms, arising from ignorance, are
devoid of true nature. To prove his point, Fujaku
quotes Chih-i's Ma-ho chih-kuan: "There is neither
good nor evil in the great emptiness of Dharma
Nature. It is due to people's delusions that they
see good and evil." Thus, he asserts that the theory
of inherent evil cannot be Chih-i's thought.

Third, Fujaku enumerates six points to
challenge the authenticity of the theory of inherent
evil. (1) The theory of inherent evil in Buddha
Nature fundamentally contradicts the Mahayana
teachings in general and the teaching of the
T'ien-t'ai school in particular as explained above.
(2) If the theory of inherent evil were the ultimate
and most unique teaching of Chih-i, then it would
have been elucidated in the most appropriate
sections of his masterpieces, such as the section on
the "wonder of the realm of the phenomenal" in the
Fa-hua hsuan-i, the "ten features of suchness" in
the Fa-hua wen-chu, the "Chapter of the Buddha Way"
in the commentary on the `VimaIakirtisutra`, etc.
The fact that none of Chih-i's major works
explicitly mentions this theory proves that it was
attributed to him rather than being his own idea.
(3) Fujaku points out that the works of Chih-i,
either written by him or recorded by his disciple
Chang-an, are excellent both in language and
thought, yet the Kuan-yin hsuan-i, especially the
section on inherent evil, is poor in literary style
and content. (4) The Kuan-yin hsuan-i quotes
passages on the Buddha's power of universal
manifestation from various `sutras`, using them as
scriptural authority to certify the necessary
existence of inherent evil in the Buddha. However,
Fujaku argues that the Buddhas or bodhisattvas who
manifest themselves in response to the needs of
sentient beings do so not through the working of
inherent evil, but rather out of the virtuous
functioning of their great wisdom and compassion.
Therefore, the existence of innate evil in the
Buddha cannot be justified in this way. (5) Chih-i's
Kuan-yin hsuan-i and Fa-hua hsuan-i contradict one
another in their definitions of the conditioned and
revealing causes of Buddha Nature. The former
defines the conditioned and revealing causes as evil
by nature, while the latter defines the revealing
cause as `prajna` and the conditioned cause as
myriad virtues, both being good by nature. (6)
Fujaku mentions that Chih-i critically refuted
heretical doctrines concerning the concept of
substantial nature, yet the theory of inherent evil
is similar to the `Sankhya` concept of Atman.
According to Fujaku, all of these six points prove
that the Kuan-yin hsuan-i is not Chih-i's work and
that he did not posit the theory.

p.168

Fourth, Fujaku quotes from the Awakening
of Faith in the `Mahayana` which mentions four
misconceptions about the doctrine of the
`tathagatagarbha`. One of these is to hold that evil
or impurity innately exist in the `tathagatagarbha`.
This concept is incorrect because impurity is taken
as a substantial reality, while in actuality
impurity is merely an illusion. Thus the theory of
inherent evil is a deviant view which needs to be
refuted.

Fifth, Fujaku criticizes the theory of inherent
evil in the Buddha as being anti-ethical. Although
he acknowledges that people like Tsin-hsi and
Ssu-ming who promoted this theory in order to
elevate the T'ien-t'ai teaching to a superior
position over other schools were not themselves
morally affected by this theory, he charges that it
may produce ill effects on later generations, for
people could erroneousiy employ the theory to defend
their misconduct.

Examining Fujaku's refutation of the theory of
inherent evil, we find that most of his arguments
are not above criticism. For example, Fujaku
questions the authorship of the Kuan-yin hsuan-i.
Despite his questionable arguments, even if the
Kuan-yin hsuan-i were not Chih-i's work, this cannot
be used as a reason to invalidate the theory itself.
In other words, the authorship of the Kuan-yin
hsuan-i and the theory contained in it are two
different issues. Another weak argument is Fujaku's
attack upon the theory based on his understanding of
traditional `tathagatagarbha` thought, for
T'ien-t'ai postulates the doctrine of evil within
Buddha Nature in full awareness that it differs from
traditional `tathagatagarbha` thought.

Although some of Fujaku's criticisms are not
convincing, he does raise two important points. (1)
The Buddha's universal manifestations in the nine
realms are not activated by inherent evil but by the
spontaneous virtuous functioning of the Buddha as
Dharmakaya.(2) The theory of inherent evil in Buddha
Nature could lead to unethical behavior.
Summary
Doctrinally, the theory of inherent evil is at
the pinnacle of the T'ien-t'ai philosophy of perfect
harmony and identity in which all realities
penetrate one another, each contained in each, and
all opposites are identified and harmonized. A
theory such as this naturally erases all dichotomies
such as good and evil, `klesa` and `nirvana`, Buddha
and sentient beings, and so forth. In this holistic
view, evil, no less than good, is an integral part
of the Buddha. Most significantly, from the per-
spective of the icchantika the theory implies
inherent good within all beings, for if evil is an
integral part of the Buddha good must similarly be
an integral part of the icchantika. Therefore, the
theory affirms the icchantika's Buddhahood and
Buddha's humanity.

From the religious point of view the theory
signifies the interrelatedness of life and points to
an inner dynamic of Buddhahbod. The element of evil
in the Buddha generates feelings of compassion to
view all fellow beings sympathetically, since he and
they have an identical human nature. In the
`Vimalakirtisutra` the

p.169

Buddha says: "Because sentient beings are sick, I am
also sick." We may assume that, motivated similarly
by compassion, the Buddha manifests evil in order to
relate to the nature of sentient beings who commit
evil. In this theory of realistic humanism, a bridge
is thus built between the Buddha and all sentient
beings.