The work presented here advances a hypothetical reconstruction of the planning and programming of the building site, the executive process, the construction and decoration, and ultimately the deconsecration and abandonment of an ancient Buddhist stupa. The chronological context is that of the mid-first to the early fourth century CE. The geographical context is the fertile and rich Swat valley, at the foot of the Karakoram-Hindukush, to the north of the ancient region of Gandhara (today in Pakistan). The study is based on archaeological excavation data conducted over several seasons, including the most recent seasons from 2011 to 2014. During the latter excavations, conducted by the Author, new data that allowed additions to be made to Domenico Faccenna’s previous studies were brought to light. Among these new insights, there are some of great importance that indicate the existence of a large central niche at the top of the stupa’s upper staircase, the key to the stupa’s figurative frieze. This frieze, which represents one of the highest moments of Gandharan Buddhist art, still imitated centuries later by celebrated artists in inner Asia (at Miran), is the product of a sculptural school guided with a sure hand by an anonymous Master, to whom the responsibility for the entire project should be attributed, architect, master builder and workshop master all in one. The existence of this so-called ‘Master of Saidu’, admirably intuited and elaborated by Faccenna, finds in this volume, if possible, further support, demonstrating the capacity of the archaeological school inaugurated by Faccenna himself to answer with ongoing excavation data the many questions that the enigma of Gandhara art still poses to scholars all over the world.
This book is the first volume of a new book series, Marco Polo: Studies in Global Europe-Asia Connections.
The book series, sponsored by the Department of Asian and North African Studies through the Marco Polo Research Centre for Global Europe-Asia Connections, is designed to publish up-to-date research that is supported by the Centre. In dialogue with the intellectual tradition of the Centre, our research interests are vast, spanning manifold spaces (from Japan to the Mediterranean Sea), times (from Neolithic times to today, and possibly the future), and themes (from modern geopolitics to religious identities to climate change to archaeological sites), with particular attention to trans-Eurasian interactions. This emphasis on intercultural contact and exchange, especially at the crossroads of the ostensible European-Asian divide, is evoked through the title of the series: indeed, Marco Polo travelled all the way from Venice to Beijing at the end of the 13th century, engaging with many different political contexts, nations, and civilisations along the land and sea routes later jointly known as the Silk Road (or, better, Silk Roads). This concept, with its underlying reference to the exchange of things and ideas across societies, is a historical phenomenon of great significance associated with a distant past; however, the spectre of the Silk Road(s) has never rested. The People’s Republic of China announced the ‘Silk Road Economic Belt’ (now known as the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’) in 2013. In other words, the distant historical traditions of the Silk Road(s) continue to penetrate discursive reality in our own day and age. Globalisation – with its various and contradictory connotations – is an overarching motif that links the Silk Roads of the past and the present. Inspired by the famous Venetian merchant, our book series prioritises studies that are inquisitive, bold, and dynamic, with a preference for transcultural and interdisciplinary studies. We welcome manuscripts that are grounded in rigorous scholarship and speak to international academic conversations within and across diverse disciplines, including history, international relations, economics, environmental studies, literature, languages, archaeology, art history, philosophy, religion, anthropology, geography, music, social sciences, and the digital humanities. The books in this series will focus on specific research topics but will range from single-authored monographs to edited volumes with multiple authors, each contributing a chapter to an organically conceived whole.
Buddhist Architecture in the Swat Valley, Pakistan. Stupas, Viharas, a Dwelling Unit Domenico Faccenna, Piero Spagnesi
(BraDypUS Communicating Cultural Heritage, Bologna 2015)
The volume reports an accurate survey of the sacred Buddhist Gandharan architecture in the Swat Valley, carryed out by one of the main experts in the past culture of that territory, Domenico Faccenna, in association with Piero Spagnesi.
The work presents typological classification (stupas, viharas, columns, minor complementary structures) and accurate description of the monuments, and the various complexes to which they belong (sacred areas, monasteries, groups of dwelling units for monks, water supply and defence systems). The analysis is intended to touch upon numerous aspects: construction techniques, materials, measures, plasters, proportions, pictorial decorations and gilding, taking into consideration the architecture as a whole, in its spaces, volumes and relative design themes.
Buddhist Architecture in the Swat Valley, Pakistan. Stupas, Viharas, a Dwelling Unit, by Domenico Faccenna and Piero Spagnesi, with the collaboration of Luca M. Olivieri and foreword by Marco Mancini and Adriano Rossi. ACT-FIELD SCHOOL PROJECT Reports and Memoirs (series), special volume.
2nd digital edition, originally published in 2014 in Pakistan (Sang e-Meel). The content remains unvaried.
This stupa was located in Saidu Sharif, Pakistan and is among a unique group of Gandharan stupas that boasts an impressive visual arts programme. Given the wealthy Greco-Bactrian artistic tradition in the region, it is important to note that this stupa represents one of the earliest attestations of the stupa with columns (Filigenzi, 130). This canonical type was amalgamated into Buddhist architectural forms through the “mandalic concept of ritual space” (Filigenzi,130). Overall, this stupa superstructure consisted of “five tiers with the first a square plinth, the second a circular plinth, the third and four the two circular drums, and the fifth a dome; it is surmounted by a solid harmika and an exceedingly tall multi-tiered yasti-chattra.” (Le, 175) Attuned to the Hellenistic connection, it is likely that the two circular drums were decorated with both Corinthian pilasters and narrative reliefs panels that depicted scenes from the Buddha’s life (Filigenzi, 113). In contrast to traditional Indian stupas, it appears that here the Gandharan architects have “consciously proportioned their harmikas to be of an equal height as the stupa body” (Le, 175). All together the stupa’s total height measured approximately 27m. The building material are believed to be soapstone ashlar and in line with Gandharan building practice, the stupa was coated in fine plaster to “shield it from water penetration and give it a smooth appearance” (Le, 175) What is noticeable at Saidu Sharif is the emergence of the square-based stupa. This type was originally remarked upon at Piprahwa, as we have seen earlier, however the additions of columns, the emphasis on verticality and the reduction in size of the dome are all indicative of Asokan, Mathuran and Greco-Roman architectural features. (Le, 176). Overall, Saidu Sharif is an example of the early Gandharan stupa type.
Le, Huu Phuoc. Buddhist architecture. Lakeville, MN: Grafikol, 2010. Print.
“Orientalised Hellenism versus Hellenised Orient:Reversing the Perspective on Gandharan Art Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia,”
The cultural context in which the term “Gandhāra” is used initially refers to Vedic geography and then to the administrative limits of the homonymous Achaemenid satrapy.
The most reliable information referring to the Middle Holocene period, in which the Gandhāran region must have met a climatically optimal phase during which domesticated rice was introduced to Kashmir and Swat through the trans-Himalayan corridors (early 2nd millennium BCE or earlier). Toward the end of the 2nd millennium, northern Gandhāra features a rather coherent settlement phenomenon marked by large graveyards, mainly with inhumations, which were labeled by previous scholarship as the “Gandhāra Grave Culture” (1200–900 BCE). In this phase among the major cultural markers, the introduction of iron technology is noteworthy.
The historic phases in Gandhāra are marked by an initial urban phase in Gandhāra (500–150 BCE), sometimes referred to as a “second urbanization,” on the evidence mainly from Peshawar, Charsadda I, Barikot, and Bhir Mound (Taxila I). Mature urban phases (150 BCE–350 CE) are defined based on the restructuring of old cities, and new urban foundations during the phases of contact historically defined by the Indo-Greek and Śaka dynasties, followed by the Kushans (Peshawar, Charsadda II, Barikot, Sirkap, or Taxila III). The artistic phenomenon known as the Buddhist “art of Gandhāra” started toward the end of the 1st century BCE and lasted until the 4th century CE. The beginning of this art is best attested in that period in Swat, where schist of exceptional quality is largely available. At the beginning of the 1st century CE, the iconic and figurative symbols of Indian Buddhism acquire a narrative form, which is the major feature of the Buddhist art of Gandhāra. The subsequent art and architecture of Buddhist Gandhāra feature large sanctuaries richly decorated, and monasteries, documented in several “provinces” of Gandhāra throughout the Kushan period, from the late 1st century CE to mid/end-3rd century CE. In this period Buddhist sanctuaries and urban centers developed together, as proved both in Peshawar valley, in Swat, and at Taxila.
After the urban crisis (post-300 CE)—which went hand in hand with the crisis of the centralized Kushan rule—stratigraphic excavations have so far registered a significant thinning of the archaeological deposits, with a few exceptions. Besides coins deposited in coeval phases of Buddhist sanctuaries and literary and epigraphic sources, archaeological evidence for the so-called Hunnic or “Huna” phases (c. 5th–7th century CE) are very scarce.
Around the mid-6th century, Buddhist monasteries entered a period of crisis, the effects of which were dramatically visible in the first half of the 7th century, especially in the northern regions of Gandhāra. It is after this phase (early 7th century) that literary sources and archaeology report the existence of several Brahmanical temples in and around Gandhāra. These temples were first supported by the Turki-Śāhi (whose capital was in Kabulistan; end-7th/early 8th century) and then by the Hindu-Śāhi (9th–10th century).
The Spatial Composition of Buddhist Temples in Central Asia, Part 1: The Transformation of Stupas
Yuuka Nakamura1 and Shigeyuki Okazaki1
1 Department of Architecture, Mukogawa Women’s University, Nishinomiya, Japan Corresponding author: Yuuka Nakamura, Department of Architecture, Mukogawa Women’s University, 1-13 Tozaki-cho,
Garab Dorje (1st century), founder of Dzogchen (Great Perfection) tradition.
Kumāralāta (3rd century), Kumāralāta was the founder of Sautrāntika school of Buddhism.
Vasubandhu (4th century), Vasubandhu is considered one of the most influential thinkers in the Gandharan Buddhist philosophical tradition. In Jōdo Shinshū, he is considered the Second Patriarch; in Chan Buddhism, he is the 21st Patriarch. His Abhidharmakośakārikā(“Commentary on the Treasury of the Abhidharma”) is widely used in Tibetan and East Asian Buddhism.
Asaṅga (4th century), he was “one of the most important spiritual figures” of Mahayana Buddhism and the “founder of the Yogacharaschool”.
Padmasambhāva (8th century), he is considered the Second Buddha by the Nyingma school, the oldest Buddhist school in Tibet known as “the ancient one”.
This revelatory exhibition of Buddhist art from Gandhara—an ancient kingdom whose center was the present-day Peshawar valley in northwest Pakistan—nearly didn’t happen. Slated to open at New York’s Asia Society last spring, the show was delayed for six months when loans from museums in Karachi and Lahore were jeopardized by (among other things) a flood, the dissolution of the Pakistani Ministry of Culture by constitutional amendment, and deteriorating diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Pakistan. That it opened at all was a testament to the persistence and vision of Asia Society’s director, Melissa Chiu, and her counterparts and associates in Pakistan.
Gandhara, which is was first mentioned as a geographic region in the Rig Veda, around the ninth century B.C.E. was of considerable strategic and commercial importance in the ancient world. Its fertile valleys, warm climate, and above all, its central position on the busy trade routes between Asia and the Mediterranean made it valuable property. As a consequence, it suffered numerous conquests, coming under the rule of the Persians with the reign of Darius I in the sixth century B.C.E., the Greeks under Alexander the Great, and the Indian Mauryans, who introduced Buddhism to the region in the middle of the third century B.C.E. Subsequent invaders included Graeco-Bactrians from Afghanistan, Scythians from central Asia, and Parthians from Iran. Each conqueror left an imprint on the culture; the result was a cosmopolitan, multiethnic society with a sculptural tradition that mixed local styles and subjects with borrowings from Indian, Persian, and Hellenistic art.
In the mid-first century C.E., the Kushans, a nomadic tribe from Central Asia, gained control of Gandhara. Kanishka I, the third emperor of the Kushan dynasty, was a strong supporter of Buddhism who ruled from centers in Gandhara and Mathura in northern India. Buddhist art flourished in both places for the next several centuries—in Mathura, as streamlined, Indian-influenced carvings in pink sandstone; in Gandhara, as cruder, but more stylistically varied sculptures in hard gray schist or terracotta.
The first part of the exhibition traced some of the cultural influences at work in Gandharan art through a selection of sculptures incorporating Indian and Greco-Roman motifs. The earliest of these are marked by startling disjunctions and surprise appearances. The curling acanthus leaves on a Roman-style Corinthian capital shelter a tiny, seated buddha. Along the edge of a stele—pillar—carved with chapters from the Buddha’s career (including an episode in which he sternly reminds a barking dog of its previous life) are numerous pairs of cavorting Greek erotes—love gods. And a half column, used to demarcate a scene on a narrative relief, is similar to a type found in Iran, while the buxom female figure leaning against it is an Indianyakshini, or tree spirit.
The Kushan period saw several extraordinary developments in Buddhist iconography, including the depiction of the Buddha in human form (before that he was represented by symbols such as a footprint), as well as a renewed interest in stories of his life and the appearance of an ever-expanding cast of buddhas, bodhisattvas, and celestial deities. These artistic innovations coincided with, and reflected, the evolution of Mahayana Buddhist ideas, among them the emphasis on forging an individual relationship with the deity, the concept of the bodhisattva who reaches enlightenment but foregoes nirvana in order to help others, and the notion of multiple here-and now buddhas accessible to the practitioner through meditation and visualization.
As in India, the earliest figural images of the Buddha in Gandharan art most often appeared as part of the carved decorations on stupas—Buddhist reliquaries—and the next section of the show features a variety of architectural details from such monuments. Here, in lively reliefs depicting popular scenes from the life of the Buddha, the Gandharan artists can be seen beginning to consolidate their various influences.
In one particularly charming image Maya, Prince Siddhartha’s mother, smiles as she dreams of her unborn son in the form of an elephant encircled by a halo. Another relief depicts a phalanx of hair-raisingly realistic demons sent by Mara to distract Siddhartha from his meditations. Through such pictures, practitioners could follow the story of the Buddha and his spiritual journey and, by adhering to the same path of renunciation, meditation, and wisdom, likewise achieve enlightenment.
A range of types populates the show’s third section, which is devoted to images of buddhas and bodhisattvas. A muscular second-century bodhisattva in one corner conforms to western ideals of masculine beauty, while across the room, a less buff but dashingly bejeweled and mustached Maitreya, the future Buddha, represents the full flowering of the Gandharan figural style, in which idealized, film starlooks are allied with a naturalistic treatment of the body and its enveloping draperies.
A highlight of the show is the so-called Mohammed Nari stele, which depicts a buddha sitting on a huge lotus surrounded by smaller bodhisattvas and worshippers. It may represent the Sukhavati paradise of Amitabha Buddha, or an unidentified buddha giving a teaching. In either case, as a representation of an enlightened being and his sphere of influence, it reflects a growing emphasis on the Mahayana doctrine of a transcendent buddhanature.
In Gandharan Buddhist art, dating is uncertain, messages are mixed, influences come and go, and works range from clumsy to sublime and from suave to kitschy. Looking at this show, which is full of gaps and cross-pollination, can be a little like trying to listen to a garbled radio transmission. But the overall impression is of vivid life and of a system of thought in development—one that would demand new visual languages and find one of them in Gandhara’s syncretic art.
Anne Doran is a writer and editor for the visual arts. She lives in New York City.
Early Gandhāran art: artists and working processes at Saidu Sharif I
Luca M. Olivieri
DOI: 10.32028/9781803274737-05
In Gandhāran Art in Its Buddhist Context (Archaeopress 2023): 60–76
Gandhara: Tecnologia, produzione e conservazione. Indagini preliminari su sculture in pietra e in stucco del Museo Nazionale d’Arte Orientale ‘Giuseppe Tucci’.
Authors Simona Pannuzi, Paola Biocca, Maurizio Coladonato, Barbara Di Odoardo, Stefano Ferrari, Laura Giuliano, Giuseppe Guida, Giovanna Iacono, Tommaso Leti Messina, Edoardo Loliva, Bruno Mazzone, Luca Maria Olivieri, Maria Gigliola Patrizi, Maurizio Pellegrini, Maurizio Piersanti, Paolo Salonia, Giancarlo Sidoti, Fabio Talarico, Mauro Torre, Massimo Vidale, Gianluca Vignaroli
THE DEVELOPMENT OF BUDDHIST STUPA ARCHITECTURE: RITUAL AND REPRESENTATION
This online exhibition seeks to showcase the development of the stupa throughout India, Gandhara and Indonesia. Historically, the stupa was a “Buddhist monument…generally of a pyramidal or dome-like form and [was] erected over sacred relics of the great Buddha or on spots consecrated as the scene of his acts” (Goswamy, 1) The purpose of the structure itself was twofold: it was meant to express metaphysical notions and perform a votive function. As such, the combination of the architectural form in addition to the stupa’s decorative programme was meant to work in tandem to satisfy physical and metaphysical indigence (Snodgrass, 2-3). This came from the traditional Indian conceptualization of architecture and formed the basis from which the stupa began to embody symbolic meaning (Snodgrass,1) Although the stupa took its canonical shape in India, many stupas in neighbouring countries borrowed from its classical form. Yet, instead of repeating what had been established in India, they each adapted a unique and nuanced style that reflected their singular conceptualizations of Buddhist stylistic traditions. Overall, scholars have noticed that the “architectural evolution of the Buddhist stupa in India and Asian countries…reflected the sectarian development in Buddhism itself” (Le, 141). As such, in this exhibition I have aimed to analyze a myriad of stupas and contextualize their plan and architectural features within the larger corpus of Buddhist stupa architecture.
This exhibition is comprised of five Indian stupas, one Indonesian stupa and four Gandharan Stupas. Piphrawa, Sanchi and Bharhut act as the foundational blocks of the exhibition as they provide a traditional overview of the early Indian stupa. This is followed by an analysis of Amaravati and Kesariya. By showcasing the origins and the architectural developments produced under various phases of Buddhism, a clearer picture begins to emerge that underlines the stylistic tendencies that punctuated the construction of later stupas. Overall, it is notable that Piprahwa, Sanchi, Bharhut and Amaravati seemed to have originally existed as tumuli and were later enlarged with bricks or slabs of stone (Pant, 85). These four Indian stupas were all “built on a solid stone base” (Pant,84) and “possessed a hemispherical dome of moderate height having a truncated top with a harmika and a parasol fitted in a post in the middle of the Harmika.” (Pant, 84). However, as I aim to showcase, it is evident that the format of the “stupa itself was in a process of structural evolution” (Pant, 86). Although these structures share an indissoluble lineage, each architect based their work off of the foundation of his predecessors in order to develop and refine their own structural creations. Yet, this was not the only factor that contributed to the development of the structure. Scholars have noticed that particular phases of Buddhism had a large amount of influence on the stylistic and architectural tendencies of these structures. Whereas the Hinayana phase of Buddhism (circa 300 BCE to circa 100 CE) was overtly interested in the “eight-fold path for the laity” and the subsequent “achievement of Nirvana” (Pant, 81) it was nevertheless characterized by a staunch opposition to image worship. As such, Indian stupas erected or renovated amidst this period (Piphrawa, Sanchi, Bharhut) were salient indications of this phenomenon. Conversely, stupas such as Amaravati became embodiments of the Mahayanist influence. This type of Buddhism emerged in the 1st century CE and became popular as a result of its greater appeal to common people (Pant,83). Under Mahayana Buddhism, Buddhist art and ornamentation developed significantly (Pant, 83). As such “sculptural technique and forms bec[ame] more pronounced.” (Pant, 81) and this played an important role in assessing the difference between earlier and later stupas.
Between the 4th Century BCE and the 7th Century CE “the circular base [of the stupa] became square in plan, the drum was elongated and the low hemisphere of the age of Asoka was transformed into a lofty ornamental tower, decorated with mouldings and figures” (Pant, 86-87). This was sustained until Buddhism noticed a considerable decline in the 7th century CE. From this point on, the stupa shared striking resemblance and architectural proportion to the later temple. (Pant, 87). This exhibition has worked to highlight the notable steps of this gradual transition. Whereas Piphrawa has been described as rather archaic, Bhamala and Kanishka are overt indications of the movement towards elongation that has been punctuated by the presence of the four cardinal points. More than this, the Gandharan stupas highlighted in this exhibition work together to showcase the fascinating cross-cultural influences that manifested themselves as stylistic features on the stupas at Taxila and Saidu Sharif. The architectural proportions showcased in Gandhara were informed by both the Indian architectural tradition and Greco-Persian stylistic practices. At Gandhara, we notice acanthus leaf carvings, narrative relief panels along with Bodhisattva and the Buddha figures. (Pant, 91).
Although the gradual development of the stupa appears throughout this project as a rather linear process, we cannot neglect the degree of nuance that ran its course in each construction. The specific architectural detailings and stylistic programmes that showcase the development of stupa architecture over this period was likely the result of “social, economic, political, religious, philosophical and external influences” (Pant, 160). Buddhist philosophy was paramount to the observable stylistic nuances seen on these structures and this was likely compounded by regional and folk traditions. (Pant, 92). In one of the most poignant summations of this process, S. K. Saraswai contends that stupas were “driven by a tendency towards height and elongation, the Stupa ultimately attained a spire-like shape, in which the original hemispherical dome loses its importance, being reduced to insignificance between the lofty basement and the drum on the one hand, and on the other, the tapering series of the Chatravali transformed into a high and conical architecture motif” (Pant, 92). As this exhibition aims to show, the stupas at Kesariya, Dharmarajika, Borobodur, Saidu Sharif, Kanishka and others outlined in this exhibition, are salient exemplars of the gradual evolution from the architectural structures erected at Piphrawa and Sanchi. This was informed by an array of sectarian and social influences.
Works Cited
Goswamy, Brijinder Nath. “The Stupa – Some Uninformed Questions about Terminological Equivalents.” The Stupa: Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Significance . Wiesbaden: Frank Steiner Verlag, 1980. 1-12. Print.
Le, Huu Phuoc. Buddhist architecture. Lakeville: Grafikol, 2010.
Pant, Sushila. The Origins and Development of Stupa Architecture in India. Varanasi: harata Manisha, 1976.
Snodgrass, Adrian. The symbolism of the stupa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1992. Print.
Further Reading
Faccenna, Domenico. “Columns at Dharmarajika (Taxila).” East and West, vol. 57, no. 1/4, 2007, pp. 127–173., http://www.jstor.org/stable/29757726.
Filigenzi, Anna, “Orientalised Hellenism versus Hellenised Orient:Reversing the Perspective on Gandharan Art Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia,” 18, 111-141 (2012), DOI:https://doi.org/10.1163/157005712X638663
FOGELIN, LARS. “Ritual and Presentation in Early Buddhist Religious Architecture.” Asian Perspectives, vol. 42, no. 1, 2003, pp. 129–154., http://www.jstor.org/stable/42929208.
Lawler, A. “Huge statue suggests early rise for Buddhism.” Science Vol 353.No. 6297 (2016): 336. JSTOR. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
Macdonell, A. A. “THE BUDDHIST AND HINDU ARCHITECTURE OF INDIA.” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, vol. 57, no. 2938, 1909, pp. 363–364., http://www.jstor.org/stable/41338530.
Srivastava, K. M. ” Archaeological Excavations at Piprahwa and Ganwaria and the Identification of Kapilavastu,.” The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Vol. 3.No.1 (1980): 103-11. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
Stratton, Eric. The Evolution of Indian Stupa Architecture in East Asia. New Delhi: Vedams, 2002. Print.
Trainor, Kevin. Relics, ritual, and representation in Buddhism: rematerialising the Sri Lankan Theravada tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 2007. Print.
The Saidu Sharif Stupa, known as Saidu Sharif I during excavations, holds great significance as a Buddhist sacred site situated near the city of Saidu Sharif in the Swat District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. It is nestled at the foothills that separate the Saidu River valley from the Jambil River valley. The sacred area encompasses two terraces constructed on the hill’s slope, accessed through a rock cut on the northern side. These terraces include a prominent stupa, surrounded by smaller monuments, as well as a monastery.
The Italian Archaeological Mission initiated excavations at the site in 1963, with the project spanning until 1982, interrupted between 1966 and 1977. The initial excavation campaign focused on the lower terrace, uncovering the main stupa, while the second campaign revealed the upper terrace, housing the monastery.
The lower terrace, referred to as the “Terrace of the Stupas,” features a larger main stupa, encompassed by various minor monuments such as stupas, viharas, and columns. The structure of the main stupa, with its square base and a stairway on the northern side, has been preserved up to the first cylindrical body. Fragments of the harmikā (the square railing around the stupa’s dome) and the umbrellas that once adorned the stupa have been found near the site. One of the cylindrical bodies of the stupa was adorned with a frieze carved in green schist, while the top corners of the rectangular body were adorned with four columns on pedestals, each topped with a crouched lion figure.
Archaeologists have divided the lifespan of the Saidu Sharif I sanctuary into three periods. In the first period, from approximately 25 BCE to the end of the 1st century CE, the monuments were arranged symmetrically. Over time, the Terrace of the Stupas became more crowded, leading to its expansion during the second and third periods, which occurred between the 2nd-3rd century CE and 4th-5th century CE, respectively. These three construction periods are also evident on the upper terrace, where the monastery underwent expansions followed by a reduction to its original dimensions during the third period, indicating the decline of the entire sacred area.
2,000-Year-Old Buddhist Temple Unearthed in Pakistan The structure is one of the oldest of its kind in the Gandhara region
Ruins of a 2,000-year-old Buddhist temple, one of the oldest discovered in Pakistan’s Gandhara region.Missione Archeologica italiana in Pakistan ISMEO/UNIVERSITA’ CA’ FOSCARI VENEZIA
Archaeologists in northwest Pakistan’s Swat Valley have unearthed a roughly 2,000-year-old Buddhist temple that could be one of the oldest in the country, reports the Hindustan Times.
Located in the town of Barikot, the structure likely dates to the second century B.C.E., according to a statement. It was built atop an earlier Buddhist temple dated to as early as the third century B.C.E.—within a few hundred years of the death of Buddhism’s founder, Siddhartha Gautama, between 563 and 483B.C.E., reports Tom Metcalfe for Live Science.
Luca Maria Olivieri, an archaeologist at Ca’ Foscari University in Venice, led the dig in partnership with the International Association for Mediterranean and Oriental Studies (ISMEO). The excavation site is in the historical region of Gandhara, which Encyclopedia Britannica describes as “a trade crossroads and cultural meeting place between India, Central Asia and the Middle East.” Hindu, Buddhist and Indo-Greek rulers seized control of Gandhara at different points throughout the first millennium B.C.E., notes Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA).
The temple’s ruins stand around ten feet tall; they consist of a ceremonial platform that was once topped by a stupa, or dome often found on Buddhist shrines. At its peak, the temple boasted a smaller stupa at the front, a room or cell for monks, the podium of a column or pillar, a staircase, vestibule rooms, and a public courtyard that overlooked a road.
“The discovery of a great religious monument created at the time of the Indo-Greek kingdom testifies that this was an important and ancient center for cult and pilgrimage,” says Olivieri in the statement. “At that time, Swat already was a sacred land for Buddhism.”
The acropolis in Barikot, Pakistan, where archaeologists began digging last year. Missione Archeologica italiana in Pakistan ISMEO/UNIVERSITA’ CA’ FOSCARI VENEZIA
In addition to the temple, the team unearthed coins, jewelry, statues, seals, pottery fragments and other ancient artifacts. Per the statement, the temple was likely abandoned in the third century C.E. following an earthquake.
Barikot appears in classical Greek and Latin texts as “Bazira” or “Beira.” Previous research suggests the town was active as early as 327 B.C.E., around the time that Alexander the Greatinvaded modern-day Pakistan and India. Because Barikot’s microclimate supports the harvest of grain and rice twice each year, the Macedonian leader relied on the town as a “breadbasket” of sorts, according to the statement.
Shortly after his death in 323, Alexander’s conquered territories were divided up among his generals. Around this time, Gandhara reverted back to Indian rule under the Mauryan Empire, which lasted from about 321 to 185 B.C.E.
Italian archaeologists have been digging in the Swat Valley since 1955. Since then, excavations in Barikot have revealed two other Buddhist sanctuaries along a road that connected the city center to the gates. The finds led the researchers to speculate that that they’d found a “street of temples,” the statement notes.
According to Live Science, Buddhism had gained traction in Gandhara by the reign of Menander I, around 150 B.C.E., but may have been practiced solely by the elite. Swat eventually emerged as a sacred Buddhist center under the Kushan Empire (30 to 400 C.E.), which stretched from Afghanistan to Pakistan and into northern India. At the time, Gandhara was known for its Greco-Buddhiststyle of art, which rendered Buddhist subjects with Greek techniques.
Shingardar Stupa Swat — A Buddhist Marvel of the Ancient Gandhara Civilization
Once rising almost as high as the Pantheon in Rome, the large stupa of Amluk Dara in the Swat valley, Pakistan, is still an imposing building. Yet it is was only one among many such Buddhist structures built in Udyāna, a garden kingdom of the Silk Road.
Owing to its position connecting North India through mountainous Central Asia with the kingdoms and empires beyond, this was a strategic area. It often formed the borders of larger empires, with rulers based in India failing to expand north from here over the mountains and rulers from north of the mountains failing to expand further south from here into the Indian plains. However, one of the early invaders came from much further afield. Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 BC) fought famous battles here during his central Asian campaigns. His army marched east from Alexander on the Caucasus (Bagram)—the city he had founded in the kingdom of Kapisa—and fought many battles to gain control of the region. Some of these were in the Swat valley and culminated with Alexander’s successful siege of Aornos, a seemingly impregnable steep-sided mountain with a flat top watered by a spring where locals had taken refuge. Identifying the site of this ancient battle has occupied scholars for well over a century, but two places stand out as the most probable candidates. Pir Sar, a mountain rising west of the Indus valley, was selected by the archaeologist Aurel Stein (1862–1943) after his survey of the region in 1926. However, although this is not rejected by all, the consensus now veers toward Mount Ilam, the summit of which is a day’s walk from the Amluk Dara Stupa (Stein 1929; Rienjang 2012; Olivieri 2015).
Legend tells of a serpent king, the Apalala, who lived in a lake high in the peaks of the Hindu Kush. Every year he demanded an annual offering of grain from the people living in the valley of the Swat river, which flowed from the lake. The valley was fertile, hence its name — Udyāna, the garden. But one year the people refused to give the offering and Apalala flooded their lands in revenge. The people duly asked help of Buddha. He came to the valley, converted Apalala and left his footprint on a rock as a sign of his visit.
The footprint survives (now in the local museum), the Swat River still floods, and for many centuries the valley kingdom remained a centre of Buddhism. The location of Amluk Dara and its central stupa was dependent on the landscape. The fecundity of the Swat valley is well captured by the description of the Aurel Stein: “The deep-cut lane along which we travelled was lined with fine hedges showing primrose-like flowers in full bloom, and the trees hanging low with their branches, though still bare of leaves, helped someone to recall Devon lanes. Bluebell-like flowers and other messengers of spring, spread brightness over the little terraced fields.” (Stein 1919: 32-5) And the Italian archaeologists working there since 1956 have noted that “the entire complex blended in with the surrounding nature. From this it drew its charm, importance and beauty—all elements that are believed to have been taken into consideration both in the original plans and subsequent extension.” (Faccenna and Spagnesi 2014: 550)
Gregory Schopen has argued that monasteries were very closely linked to the Indian ideal of a garden containing an arbor or pleasure grove, evidenced by the shared lexicon in the first century AD. He writes that “Buddhist monks . . . attempted to assimilate their establishments to the garden, or actually saw them as belonging to that cultural category.” (Schopen 2006: 489). The framing of views from within the garden or monastery was an important element in its siting, a point noted by many later travelers. So Stein writes of another site in the Lower Swat that it “proved a pleasing example of the care in which these old Buddhist monks knew how to select sacred spots and place their monastic establishments by them. A glorious view down the fertile valley to Thāna, picturesque rocky spurs around, clumps of firs and cedars higher up, and the rare boon of a spring close by—all combined to give charm to the spot. Even those who do not seek future bliss in Nirvāṇa could fully enjoy it.” (Stein 1929: 17-18). Rock-cut or other seats were often placed at points giving a particular view.
During its heyday, monks and merchants carried news of Udyāna’s Buddhist sights and temples along the Silk Road to China and the mountain valley became part of the itinerary for pilgrim monks en route to India. The first to leave a record was Faxian, who arrived in about 403. He stayed for several months visiting the Buddha footprint along with the rock on which he dried his clothes, and the place where he converted ‘the wicked serpent.’ He noted that there were 400 Buddhist monasteries.
Other pilgrims followed, including Xuanzang in 630 and the Korean monk, Hyecho, around 727. By their time Buddhism was in decline in the plains below Swat, but the valley provided an enclave. Indeed, recent archaeological work by Dr Luca Olivieri and his colleagues of the Italian Archaeological Mission has shown that rebuilding of Buddhist shrines and temples continued into the tenth centuries, long after Buddhism had disappeared in its Indian homeland.
Thanks to Luca Olivieri for his generous responses to my many queries and ready supply of excellent photographs for the book.
References and Further Reading Faccenna, Domenico, and Piero Spagnesi. 2014. Buddhist Architecture in the Swat Valley, Pakistan: Stupas, Viharas, a Dwelling Unit. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications. Olivieri, Luca M. 1996. “Notes on the Problematic Sequence of Alexander’s Itinerary in Swat. A Geo-Historical Approach.” East and West 46.1-2:45–78. ———. 2014. The Last Phases of the Urban Site of bir-Kot-Ghwandai (Barikot): The Buddhist Sites of Gumbat and Amluk-Dara (Barikot). Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications. ———. 2015. “‘Frontier Archaeology’: Sir Aurel Stein, Swat and the Indian Aornus.” South Asian Studies 31 (1): 58–70. Olivieri, L. M. and Vidale, M. 2006. “Archaeology and Settlement History in a Test Area of the Swat Valley. Preliminary Report on the AMSV Project (1st Phase). East and West 54.1–3”73–150. Rienjang, Wannaporn. 2012. “Aurel Stein’s Work in the North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan.” In H. Wang ed. Sir Aurel Stein: Colleagues and Collections.British Museum Research Publication 194. London: British Museum: 1–10. . Schopen, Gregory. 2006. “The Buddhist ‘Monastery’ and the Indian Garden: Aesthetics, Assimilations, and the Siting of Monastic Establishments.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 126 (4): 487–505. Stein, M. Aurel. 1929. On Alexander’s Track to the Indus: Personal Narrative of Explorations on the North-West Frontier of India. London: Macmillan. http://archive.org/stream/onalexanderstrac035425mbp/onalexanderstrac035425mbp_djvu.txt.
“Aspects of the Architecture of the Buddhist Sacred Areas in Swat.”
Jambil River, a tributary of the Swat River, meanders through a picturesque valley rich in natural landscapes. This valley is not only a treat for the eyes but also holds significant historical importance, with numerous Buddhist remains and carvings discovered in the past. On the eastern side of the Jambil River, an excavation at Panr has unveiled a stupa and monastery dating back to the 1st to 5th century AD.
Brief Description of the Structure:
The site at Panr spans three distinct terraces, each offering a unique glimpse into the past.
On the lower terrace, the remnants of a monastery have been found. This area was divided into a dining hall and living quarters, though only the foundations of the base platforms remain visible today.
The middle terrace, often referred to as the “Sacred Area,” is home to the remains of the main stupa. This stupa, with its square base and a mound that once topped the drum, stands as a testament to the architectural prowess of its time. On all four sides of the main stupa, one can observe the foundations of standalone columns. Additionally, scattered throughout this terrace, one can find the foundations of small votive stupas.
Unfortunately, the main stupa has suffered significant damage due to the illegal excavations carried out by treasure hunters. Despite the damage, the site still exudes a sense of grandeur and provides valuable insights into ancient Buddhist architecture.
Moving to the upper terrace, one encounters the remains of the monks’ cells. These cells, constructed with walls made of small diaper masonry, offer a glimpse into the early Kushan period, dating back to the 1st to 2nd century AD.
List of Architectural Spatial Components:
The monastery and stupa at Panr showcase various architectural spatial components that highlight the ingenuity of the builders:
Square Base: The main stupa sits atop a square base, providing a stable foundation for the structure.
Mound: The stupa features a mound on top of the drum, adding height and prominence to the monument.
Drum: The drum of the stupa serves as a transition between the base and the mound, often adorned with intricate carvings or designs.
Stairway: A stairway, leading to the top of the podium or the base of the stupa, allows access for religious rituals and circumambulation.
Free-standing Columns: Standalone columns, positioned around the main stupa, serve as decorative elements and symbolize architectural elegance.
Bastion: A bastion, strategically placed within the structure, offers additional support and stability to the stupa.
Square Pillar: Square pillars can be seen within the monastery and stupa complex, providing architectural variety.
Octagonal Plan: Some elements of the structure, such as the base or the drum, may follow an octagonal plan, adding geometric beauty to the design.
Corridor and Double Corridor: Corridors, both single and double, create pathways within the monastery complex, facilitating movement and providing a tranquil ambiance.
Overall, the stupa and monastery at Panr offer a captivating glimpse into the architectural brilliance and spiritual heritage of the region, inviting visitors and scholars to delve deeper into its history and cultural significance.
On the front remains of Main Stupa, on a lower terrace monastery in the background Jumbail Valley
Google Earth Image
Religious Architecture of Gandhara – Pakistan, Buddhist Stupas and Monasteries
Khan, Ansar Zahid. Pakistan Historical Society.
Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society; Karachi Vol. 62, Iss. 4, (Oct-Dec 2014): 111-112.
The Global Connections of Gandhāran Art: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop of the Gandhāra Connections Project, University of Oxford, 18th-19th March, 2019
Archaeopress archaeology
Editors Wannaporn Rienjang, Peter Stewart Edition illustrated Publisher Classical Art Research Centre, 2020 ISBN 1789696968, 9781789696967 Length 264 pages
De-fragmenting Gandhāran art: advancing analysis through digital imaging and visualization
Ian Haynes, Iwan Peverett, Wannaporn Rienjang with contributions by Luca M. Olivieri
Buddhism in Pakistan took root some 2,300 years ago under the Mauryan king Ashoka who sent missionaries to the Kashmira-Gandhara region of North West Pakistan extending into Afghanistan, following the Third Buddhist council in Pataliputra (modern India).
Majjhantika, a monk from Varanasi was the first Buddhist to preach in Kashmir and Gandhara.
Buddhist sites in Sindh are numerous but ill preserved in various stages of deterioration.
Sites at Brahmanabad (Mansura Sanghar district) include a Buddhist stupa at Mohenjo-daro; Sirah-ji-takri near Rohri, Sukkur, Kahu-Jo-Daro at Mirpur Khas, Nawabshah, Sudheran-Jo-Thul near Hyderabad, Thul Mir Rukan stupa, Thul Hairo Khan Stupa, Bhaleel-Shah-Thul square stupas (5th-7th century A.D) at Dadu, and Kot-Bambhan-Thul buddhist tower near Tando Muhammad Khan.
List of Buddhist Stupas in Pakistan
This is a list of historical Buddhist Stupas in Pakistan.
Sikri stupa
The Sikri stupa is a work of Buddhist art dated to 3rd-4th century from the Kushan period in Gandahara, consisting of 13 narrative panels that tell the story of Buddha. Modern restoration accounts for their order in the Lahore Museum. The restoration began while Harold Arthur Deane was still assigned to the North-West Frontier Province in what was then British India. Three photos taken around 1890 show the order of the panels in the earliest restoration.
Amluk-Dara stupa
Amluk-Dara stupa is located in Swat valley of Pakistan. It is a part of Gandhara civilization at Amluk-Dara. The stupa is believed to have been built in the third century. The stupa was first discovered by a Hungarian-British archaeologist Sir Aurel Stein in 1926. It was later studied by Domenico Faccena in the 60s and 70s.
Mohra Muradu
Mohra Muradu is the place of an ancient Buddhist stupa and monastery near the ruins of Taxila built by the Kushans. The ancient monastery is located in a valley and has views of the surrounding mountains. The monks could meditate in all stillness at this place but were near enough to the city of Sirsukh to go for begging as it is only around 1.5 km away.
Thul Hairo Khan
The Thul Hairo Khan is a Buddhist Stupa, built possibly between the 5th to 7th century CE near the modern-day town of Johi, in Sindh, Pakistan. It is constructed with baked and unbaked bricks fixed with a material made from mud mixed water. The stupa is 50 feet high and 30 feet wide in size. The stair from the north side of stupa leads to its top. The stupa has an arched tunnel at ground level which crosses from north to south. It is believed that stupas like Hairo Khan were built in Sindh between 5th to 7th centuries CE. Thul of Hairo Khan appears to be series of discovered in other regions of Sindh.
Sudheran-Jo-Thul
Sudheran-Jo-Thul is a Buddhist stupa which is situated near Tando Muhammad Khan city of Tando Muhammad Khan District, Sindh, Pakistan. The stupa is close to Badin city as well. This Buddhist monument in Sindh is located at the mound which shows the remains of an ancient big city. It is located towards South of Hyderabad city. Locally it is famous as Tower of Sudheran. According to some accounts this stupa is believed to be cinerary.
Sphola Stupa
Sphola Stupa is a Buddhist monument located in the Khyber Pass, Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. The monument located about 25 kilometers from Jamrūd is on a high rocky ledge and consists of a stone mound supported by a tiered base. Large sections of the stone have fallen away, particularly to the right of the mound. A man is standing on the top of the mound, and another man is standing on a pile of rubble to the right. There is a valley beyond with steep mountains rising behind it.
Nemogram stupa is located 45 km west of Saidu Sharif and 22 km from Birkot, on the right bank of Swat river in Pakistan.This site was discovered in 1966 and excavated in 1967–68.Swat is rich in historical landmarks as well as natural beauty. In every direction, these are tangled in the wide valley. Aurel Stein, a British archaeologist, and Tucci, who was followed by other Italians, worked tirelessly to document and preserve these monuments.
Mankiala stupa
The Mankiala Stupa is a 2nd-century Buddhist stupa near the village of Tope Mankiala, in Pakistan’s Punjab province. The stupa was built by the Kushans and is said to commemorate the spot, where according to the Jataka tales, an incarnation of the Buddha called Prince Sattva sacrificed himself to feed seven hungry tiger cubs.
Barikot
Barikot is a town located in the middle course of the Swat River in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. It is located about 20 km (12 mi) away from Mingora and the Butkara Stupa. It is the entrance town to the central Swat Valley with a population of approximately 25,000 people. Barikot is the location of an ancient citadel captured by Alexander the Great, with Chalcolithic remains dating back to c. 1700 BCE, and an early-historic period town dating back to c. 500 BCE. The Italian Archaeological Mission founded by Giuseppe Tucci has been excavating ruins of the ancient town of Bazira under Barikot since 1984.
Mankiala
Mankiala is a village in the Potohar plateau, Punjab near Rawalpindi, Pakistan, known for the nearby Mankiala stupa – a Buddhist stupa located at the site where, according to legend, Buddha sacrificed some of his body parts to feed seven hungry tiger cubs.
Kunala Stupa
Kunala Stupa is a Kushan-era Buddhist stupa and monastery complex to the south-east of Taxila, on a hill about 200 meters just south of Sirkap, Punjab, Pakistan, thought to date to the 2nd century CE. It is located on a hill overlooking the ancient Indo-Greek city of Sirkap.
Kanishka Stupa
The Kanishka Stupa was a monumental stupa established by the Kushan king Kanishka during the 2nd century CE in today’s Shaji-ki-Dheri on the outskirts of Peshawar, Pakistan.
Kalawan
Kalawan is the name of an archaeological site in the area of Taxila in Pakistan, where it is one of the largest Buddhist establishment. It is located about 2 km from the Dharmarajika stupa.
Gumbat Stupa
Gumbat Stupa is a 2nd-century Buddhist stupa located in Swat valley in Pakistan. It is situated about 9 kilometres south of Birkot in the Kandag Valley of Gandhara.
Dharmarajika Stupa
The Dharmarajika Stupa, also referred to as the Great Stupa of Taxila, is a Buddhist stupa near Taxila, Pakistan. It dates from the 2nd century CE, and was built by the Kushans to house small bone fragments of the Buddha. The stupa, along with the large monastic complex that later developed around it, forms part of the Ruins of Taxila – which were inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1980.
Butkara Stupa
The Butkara Stupa is an important Buddhist stupa near Mingora, in the area of Swat, Pakistan. It may have been built by the Mauryan emperor Ashoka, but it is generally dated slightly later to the 2nd century BCE.
Thul Mir Rukan
The Thul Mir Rukan is a Buddhist stupa, built possibly between the 6th to 11th century CE, near the modern cities of Kazi Ahmed and Daulatpur in the Sindh province of Pakistan. This monument has domed ceiling and it is 60 feet high, constructed with baked bricks. Details indicate the site being a religious Buddhist center since antiquity. Many evidences were explored from this site are related to Gautama Buddha.
The Origin and Development of Cross-planned Stupa: New Perceptions based on Recent Discoveries from Bhamala
December 2017 Authors: Shakirullah Khan Hazara University Abdul Hameed Hazara University Abdul Samad Veterinary Research Institute, Pakistan Jonathan Mark Kenoyer University of Wisconsin–Madison
The term Nichiren school (Nichirenshū) broadly denotes the entire Buddhist tradition deriving from the medieval Japanese teacher Nichiren (1222–1282). It comprises more than forty independent religious institutions, including traditional temple denominations, lay associations, and new religious movements. Originally a monk of the Tendai tradition, Nichiren did not regard himself as the founder of a new sect, nor did he designate his following by any particular sectarian name. Because he taught exclusive faith in the Lotus SŪtra (SaddharmapuṆḌarika-sŪtra), after his death, his following became known as the Lotus sect (Hokkeshū). The name Nichirenshu came into broad usage from around the late sixteenth century.
Present organization and observances
The largest of the Nichiren Buddhist temple denominations takes Nichirenshū as its legal name and has its head temple at Kuonji at Mount Minobu in Yamanashi Prefecture, where Nichiren spent his last years. Other Nichiren Buddhist denominations include, for example, Hokkeshū (Shinmon, Honmon, and Jinmon branches), Honmon Butsuryūshū, Honmon Hokkeshū, Kenpon Hokkeshū, Nichiren Honshū, Nichiren Komonshū, Nichiren Shōshū, and Nichirenshū Fuju Fuse-ha. Many of these temple organizations trace their history back to the original monastic lineages established by Nichiren’s immediate disciples, which underwent repeated schisms during the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries due to geographic separation, institutional rivalry, and differences of doctrinal interpretation. The nineteenth century saw the flourishing of Nichiren Buddhist lay associations (kōchū or kō), sometimes independent of priestly guidance, which were the predecessors of today’s Nichiren- or Lotus Sūtra-based lay organizations. Of these latter groups, the most prominent are Reiyūkai, Risshō Kōseikai, and SŌka Gakkai, which number among
Japan’s largest “new religions.” To an extent not seen in other Buddhist sects, the religious energy of modern Nichiren Buddhism has shifted to lay movements.
Despite considerable differences of interpretation and ritual observance, all these various groups revere Nichiren and the Lotus Sūtra and recite the title or daimoku of the Lotus in the formula “Namu Myōhō-renge-kyō,” as Nichiren taught. (The actual pronunciation of the daimoku may vary slightly according to the particular group.) This practice, deemed especially suited to the present era, known as the “Final Dharma age” (mappō), is said to manifest individuals’ innate potential for buddhahood and lead to positive transformation of the world. Reciting portions of the Lotus Sūtra and chanting the daimoku are performed at all formal ceremonies and constitute the basic practice of both clergy and laity. In addition to annual rites conducted by temples of all Buddhist sects, such as New Year‘s observances and memorial services for the dead at the equinoxes and during the summer Obon festival, Nichiren Buddhist temples and lay societies perform ritual observances on dates sacred to their tradition, usually transposed from the lunar to the Western calendar. These include Nichiren’s birthday (celebrated February 16); the date of his first sermon, said to mark the founding of the Nichiren school (April 28); commemorations of various persecutions that Nichiren faced in propagating his teachings; and the day of his death or nirvaṆĀ (October 13).
The founder Nichiren
Nichiren is often counted as one of the founders of the “new Buddhism” of the Kamakura period (1185–1333). He was born in Kominato in Awa Province (Chiba prefecture) in humble circumstances. At age twelve he entered a nearby temple, Seichōji or Kiyosumidera, for study and was ordained four years later, in 1237. Driven by a desire to understand the truth of the Buddha’s teachings, he spent the next sixteen years studying at major monasteries, including the great Tendai Buddhist center at Mount Hiei near Kyoto, the imperial capital. Later he based himself in Kamakura, seat of the newly established shogunate or military government, where he proselytized among warriors of middle and lower rank. Nichiren’s early teachings draw heavily on Tiantai/Tendai thought grounded in the Lotus Sūtra and its commentaries, as well as on esoteric Buddhism. His early teachings also championed traditional Buddhist institutions over and against the growing influence of the new Pure Land sect founded by HŌnen (1133–1212). Over time, however, Nichiren increasingly stressed that only the Lotus Sūtraleads to liberation during this Final Dharma age, and he began to dissociate himself from the Tendai Buddhist establishment, which he saw as having adulterated devotion to the Lotus with the practice of provisional teachings no longer suited to the times. Based on Tendai doctrines of the nonduality of persons and their environment, Nichiren interpreted the disasters of his day—including famine, epidemics, and Mongol invasion attempts—as karmic retribution for people having abandoned the Lotus Sūtra in favor of lesser teachings; conversely, he held, the spread of faith in the Lotus would transform this world into the Buddha land. This theme informs his famous admonitory treatise, Risshō ankoku ron (On Establishing the Right [Dharma] and Bringing Peace to the Land), delivered to the shogunate in 1260, as well as his later writings.
Convinced of the pressing need to communicate his message, Nichiren adopted shakubuku, a confrontational method of teaching the dharma by directly rebuking attachment to provisional teachings, whether through writing, preaching, or religious debate. Nichiren’s mounting criticism of other forms of Buddhism, and of government officials for supporting them, soon incurred the anger of the authorities. He was exiled twice, to the Izu peninsula (1261–1263) and to Sado island (1271–1274), and was once nearly beheaded during the so-called Ryūkō or Tatsunokuchi persecution of the twelfth day, ninth month, 1271. Several of his followers were imprisoned or had their lands confiscated. Nichiren considered these trials a proof of the righteousness of his convictions and asserted the need to uphold the Lotus Sūtra in the face of opposition, even at the cost of one’s life. His mature teachings were developed during his exile to Sado and his subsequent reclusion on Mount Minobu (1274–1282), where he devoted his last years to writing and to training successors. More than a hundred of his writings, including personal letters and doctrinal essays, survive in his own hand.
Nichiren’s teachings
Nichiren adopted the Tiantai school doctrine of reality as “three thousand realms in a single-thought moment” (ichinen sanzen) to explain the theoretical basis upon which ordinary people can realize buddhahood, and their surroundings become the buddha land. In terms of practice for the Final Dharma age, however, Nichiren understood “the single thought-moment being three thousand realms,” not as a formless principle to be discerned within one’s own mind, as in Tiantai meditation, but as manifested in concrete form as the “three great secret dharmas” (sandai hihō). Derived from the “origin teaching” (honmon) or latter half of the Lotus Sūtra, regarded as the preaching of the original or primordially enlightened Buddha, these three constitute the core of Nichiren’s teaching. They are:
(1) The daimoku. For Nichiren, the five characters Myō-hō-ren-ge-kyō (in Japanese pronunciation) that comprise the Lotus Sūtra‘s title are not merely a name but embody the essence of all Buddhist teachings and are the seed of buddhahood for all beings. All the practices and resulting virtues of the primordial Buddha are encompassed in these five characters and are “naturally transferred” to the practitioner in the moment of faith and practice. That is, the practitioner and the original Buddha are identified in the act of chanting the daimoku.
(2) The honzon, or object of worship. Nichiren’s honzon has the two inseparable aspects of the “Buddha,” the primordial Śākyamuni of the origin teaching, enlightened since the beginningless past, and the “dharma,” the truth of “Myōhō-renge-kyō,” to which this Buddha is awakened. Nichiren gave this object of worship iconic form as a calligraphic maṆḌala of his own devising. “Namu Myōhō-renge-kyō” is inscribed down its center, while to the left and right are written the characters for the names of the two buddhas, Śākyamuni and Prabhūtaratna, along with the names of other representatives of those present at the assembly of the Lotus Sūtra. This maṇḍala depicts the realm of the primordial Buddha, which, Nichiren taught, ordinary persons can enter through faith. More than 120 of these maṇḍalas, inscribed for individual followers and their families, survive in Nichiren’s handwriting. Various configurations of sculpted images representing the original Buddha and his Lotus assembly were also used by later Nichiren followers.
(3) The kaidan, or ordination platform. This designates the place of practice. Nichiren’s own writings do not explain it in detail, and considerable controversy has surrounded its interpretation. Nichiren himself may well have envisioned the kaidan as an actual physical structure, supplanting the other, court-sponsored ordination platforms of his day, to be erected by imperial authority at some future time when people had widely embraced faith in the Lotus Sūtra. At the same time, the kaidan has often been interpreted metaphorically, to mean that wherever one embraces faith in the Lotus Sūtra is the buddha land.
Although he taught devotion to the Lotus as a self-contained, exclusive practice, Nichiren understood that practice as encompassing all possible benefits: realization of buddhahood, assurance for one’s next life, eradication of sin, cultivation of merit, and protection and blessings in this world.
Contributions to Japanese culture
A key element of Nichiren’s legacy is his doctrine of risshō ankoku (establishing the right [dharma] and bringing peace to the land), which holds that faith in the Lotus Sūtra can manifest the buddha land in this present world. This ideal supports the value of positive engagement with society and may have contributed to the growth of mercantile culture in Japan’s medieval cities. In the mid-fifteenth century, half the population of Kyoto—the majority of them manufacturers, tradespeople, and moneylenders—is said to have belonged to the Nichiren school. Since the late nineteenth century, Nichiren’s goal of transforming this world into a buddha land has been assimilated to a range of political and social goals. During Japan’s modern imperial period (1868–1945), some Nichirenist lay societies, such as the Kokuchūkai (Pillar of the Nation Society), established in 1914 by Tanaka Chigaku (1861–1939), interpreted Nichiren’s risshō ankoku ideal in terms of Japanese nationalism and deployed it to legitimize the armed expansion of empire. In the post–World War II period, especially among the new religious movements, it has been interpreted as a spiritual basis for the antinuclear movement, efforts for global peace, and a range of humanitarian endeavors. Nipponzan Myōhōji, a small Nichiren Buddhist monastic order, embraces absolute pacificism and engages in peace marches and civil protest, while Nichiren- or Lotus-based lay organizations, notably Sōka Gakkai and Risshō Kōseikai, support the United Nations as NGO (nongovernmental organization) members and engage in relief work and civic projects. This side of Nichiren Buddhism lends itself to contemporary emphasis on Buddhist social engagement.
Another, less well-recognized contribution of the Nichiren school lies in its history of committed individuals, beginning with Nichiren himself, who risked official displeasure for the dharma’s sake. Once well established, most Nichiren Buddhist institutions, both past and present—like religious institutions more generally—have tended to take a conciliatory stance toward existing authority and support the status quo. Nonetheless, Nichiren’s teaching that one must uphold the Lotus Sūtra even in the face of persecution from the country’s ruler created a moral space exterior to worldly authority, from which that authority could be criticized and, if necessary, opposed. This attitude of defiance has periodically resurfaced, often on the part of those who saw themselves as reformers within the Nichiren school, seeking to revive the founder’s spirit. Medieval hagiographies celebrate the stories of those monks of the tradition who, in imitation of Nichiren, admonished high officials to take faith in the Lotus Sūtra for the country’s welfare and were imprisoned or tortured as a result. A later example is the Nichiren fuju fuse (neither receiving nor giving) movement of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, whose monks—until driven underground—resisted official controls imposed on religious institutions, refusing to accept alms from rulers who were not Lotus devotees or to participate in public religious ceremonies for their benefit. Similarly, during the 1940s, leaders of both Honmon Hokkeshū and Sōka Gakkai were imprisoned for their defiance of wartime government religious policy, which mandated displays of reverence for state Shintō. Nichiren’s intransigent spirit and his example of unwavering loyalty to a transcendent truth have also inspired individuals, linked only tenuously to the Nichiren tradition or even outside it altogether, who have faced official sanctions for their beliefs. These include the Christian leader Uchimura Kanzō (1861–1930) and the socialist activist Senoo Girō (1890–1961).
Dolce, Lucia Dora. “Esoteric Patterns in Nichiren’s Interpretation of the Lotus Sutra.” Ph.D. diss. University of Leiden, 2002.
Habito, Ruben L. F. “Lotus Buddhism and Its Liberational Thrust: A Rereading of the Lotus Sutra by Way of Nichiren.” Ching feng 35, no. 2 (1992): 85–112.
Habito, Ruben L. F., and Stone, Jacqueline I., eds. Revisiting Nichiren. Special issue of Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26, nos. 3–4 (1999).
Lamont, H. G. “Nichiren Sect.” In Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, Vol. 5. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1983.
Murano, Senchū. “Nichirenshū.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 10, ed. Mircea Eliade. New York: Macmillan, 1987.
Petzold, Bruno. Buddhist Prophet Nichiren: A Lotus in the Sun, ed. Shotaro Iida and Wendy Simmons. Tokyo: Hokke Janaru, 1978.
Rodd, Laurel Rasplica. Nichiren: Selected Writings. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1980.
Stone, Jacqueline I. “Rebuking the Enemies of the Lotus: Nichirenist Exclusivism in Historical Perspective.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 21, nos. 2–3 (1994): 231–259.
Stone, Jacqueline I. Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999.
Tanabe, George J., and Hori, Kyōtsū, eds. Writings of Nichiren Shōnin: Doctrine 2. Tokyo: Nichirenshu Overseas Promotion Association, 2002.
Watanabe Hōyō. “Nichiren.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 10, ed. Mircea Eliade. New York: Macmillan, 1987.
Yampolsky, Philip B., ed. Selected Writings of Nichiren, tr. Burton Watson and others. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990.
Yampolsky, Philip B., ed. Letters of Nichiren, tr. Burton Watson and others. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
THE present volume includes the English translations of 172 works, including both doctrinal theses and letters, written by Nichiren Daishonin (1222–1282). Before proceeding to the translations themselves, a word or two about the historical and cultural background of the period in which Nichiren Daishonin lived may be helpful.
In addition, we have included a brief biography of the Daishonin and a summary of his thought, and we conclude with a general description of his writings. We have also provided a glossary and other explanatory material at the back of the book. Furthermore, a short essay and supplementary notes concerning background and content follow each translation.
Historical Background
Thirteenth-century Japan was ruled by a warrior government whose headquarters was in Kamakura, a seacoast city southwest of present-day Tokyo. The Kamakura shogunate, as the government is commonly known, lasted from 1185 to 1333, and thus this span of time is referred to as the Kamakura period.
The Kamakura shogunate, a government organization created and wholly dominated by members of the warrior class, represented a new phenomenon in Japanese history. In the earliest period of Japanese history, if traditional accounts are to be trusted, the emperors exercised military power in person when the occasion demanded. But in the succeeding centuries the duties of the emperor became increasingly confined to religious and ceremonial functions. An elaborate central and provincial bureaucracy modeled after that of China carried out the administration of the affairs of the land, and a conscript army kept order and guarded the frontiers.
At the end of the eighth century, the emperor bestowed the title of Seii-taishōgun, or Great General Who Subdues the Barbarians, on a court official and sent him to conquer the indigenous tribes of the north. The title, abbreviated to “shogun,” was to figure prominently in later Japanese history, when it came to designate the military ruler of the nation. But at this time there was as yet nothing like a distinct warrior class or profession.
During the long centuries of the Heian period (794–1185), when the capital was located at Heiankyō, or present-day Kyoto, the situation began to change. The court aristocrats, who headed the Chinese-style bureaucracy mentioned earlier, tended increasingly to pursue artistic and cultural interests in the capital and to neglect the actual administration of government affairs, particularly in the outlying provinces. As a result, a new class of farmer-warriors emerged, who were commonly referred to as samurai. By reclaiming or opening up new lands for cultivation in the remoter regions, they succeeded in creating small estates for themselves. To avoid taxation from the central government, their lands were nominally entrusted to powerful aristocratic families or Buddhist temples, but in effect these constituted private holdings protected by the military prowess of individual samurai.
To strengthen their position, the samurai rapidly grouped together or placed themselves in the service of one of the more powerful local clans. Soon they came to constitute a new class of professional warriors, leaving the actual cultivation of their estates to the peasants under their direction and concentrating on the improvement of the military arts and on the ideals of fortitude and daring that supported them.
At first these powerful provincial clans were content for the most part to remain aloof from affairs in the capital. There, the imperial institution had come under the absolute domination of the great courtier family known as the Fujiwara. The Fujiwara monopolized the highest offices, married their daughters to the emperors, and, placing child rulers on the throne, managed affairs in their name. As a consequence, most Japanese emperors at this time reigned for only a brief time, after which they were obliged to yield the throne to an infant heir and retire to a life of relative seclusion.
In such a complex political situation, in which one or more retired emperors lived contemporaneously with a reigning emperor, and various branches of the Fujiwara family vied for supremacy, power clashes were inevitable. When these occurred, the rivals not surprisingly attempted to bolster their position by seeking support from the warrior clans of the provinces, some of whom were related to the court aristocracy. Thus the warriors came to play a part in the affairs of the court and the capital, at first only infrequently, but later with increasing regularity.
The branches of the Fujiwara family living in northeastern Japan were among the first to take up such a role. In time they were overshadowed by two other warrior clans, the Minamoto, or Genji, whose holdings were centered in the Kanto region of eastern Japan, and the Taira, or Heike, who had their base of power in the Inland Sea region.
Eventually, the leader of the Taira clan, Taira no Kiyomori (1118–1181), through his intervention in two successive struggles for power at court, succeeded in becoming the virtual dictator of the nation. He proceeded to install himself in the highest government position, and for the first time in history, reigning and retired emperors and Fujiwara lords alike all found themselves at the mercy of a military leader and his followers.
The Taira, however, proved to be no real enemies to the aristocracy, instead taking enthusiastically to the ways of the capital. Before long, they had abandoned their warrior manners and ideals, and become indistinguishable from the courtier class. But they had shown to others the way to power, and with the death of Kiyomori in 1181, their position of dominance was swiftly challenged by other warrior clans headed by the Minamoto family of the east. The Taira were forced to abandon Kyoto and flee west, and suffered a final crushing defeat in 1185 at the naval battle of Dannoura.
Minamoto no Yoritomo (1147–1199), the leader of the Minamoto forces, was careful not to repeat the mistakes made by the Taira. Instead, he established his military government in Kamakura, where it would be safely removed from the influence of the court and its debilitating ways. He made no attempt to dismantle the government machinery already in existence in Kyoto. On the contrary, he deliberately sought acknowledgment of his actions from the emperor and the court, and in 1192 succeeded in obtaining the prestigious military title of shogun.
It soon became evident, however, that the administrative functions previously carried out by the court would in the future be increasingly taken over by warrior families under the direction of the Kamakura shogunate. In 1185, Minamoto no Yoritomo appointed shugo, or constables, to keep order in the various provinces, and jitō, or stewards, to oversee public and private estates, and although these functionaries were ostensibly only handling affairs connected with the warrior class, they soon became the de facto governors of their region.
Yoritomo had been assisted in his rise to power by his wife’s relatives, members of the Hōjō family, a powerful military clan of the Izu region. When Yoritomo died in 1199, he was succeeded as shogun by his eighteen-year-old son, Yoriie. But actual power was wielded by Yoriie’s maternal grandfather, Hōjō Tokimasa (1138–1215), who acted as shikken, or regent, for the boy and eventually had him done away with. Yoriie’s younger brother, Sanetomo, replaced him as shogun in 1203, but was assassinated in 1219, thus bringing to an end the line of Yoritomo’s direct descendants.
For the remainder of the Kamakura period, the position of shogun was occupied by an infant or child chosen at first from the Fujiwara family and later from the imperial family. All real authority was exercised by the members of the Hōjō family who held the office of regent for these puppet rulers.
The supremacy of the Hōjō regents did not go entirely unchallenged. In 1221 the Retired Emperor Gotoba, along with two other retired emperors, attempted to break free of the shogunate’s domination. But though orders were sent out to the provinces to levy troops and raise support for the imperial cause, the number of warriors that responded was pitifully small. The imperial forces were easily defeated, and the Kamakura government deposed the reigning emperor and exiled the retired emperors to distant islands. This incident is known as the Jōkyū Disturbance, from the name of the era in which it took place. To ensure that nothing like it would occur again, the Hōjō family set up a military headquarters in Kyoto to keep watch on the court.
The second serious threat to Hōjō power was in fact a threat to all Japan that came from abroad. In the past, mainly because of the distance that separated Japan from the continent, the country had seldom had to fear the grim possibility of invasion. But in the thirteenth century a new and ruthless race of conquerors, the Mongols, became active in Asia. In addition to their victories in Central Asia and Europe, they overran northern China and Korea, and were in the process of subjugating southern China as well when Japan engaged their attention. In 1268 the Mongol ruler Khubilai Khan sent the first of a succession of envoys to Japan to demand that it acknowledge fealty to him. Hōjō Tokimune, who headed the shogunate, vehemently rejected the demands and ignored all the subsequent Mongol envoys. In 1274 a Mongol force arrived in the waters off southern Japan to punish the Japanese for their recalcitrance. They overran several small islands and made a landing in Kyushu, but with the onslaught of a severe storm, soon withdrew.
The leaders in Kamakura, knowing well that they had not seen the end of the matter, began hurriedly constructing walls and taking other precautions to guard against a second invasion. The Mongols appeared once again in 1281 at the head of a huge fleet of Chinese and Korean vessels. Again the Japanese put up a fierce resistance, though they suffered terrible losses. Before the Mongols could move the bulk of their forces into action, however, a great storm struck the area, sinking or crippling the ships of the invaders and bringing their expedition to a disastrous conclusion.
Although the Mongols contemplated yet another invasion attempt, they eventually abandoned their ambitions and in 1299 made peace overtures to Japan. But the losses suffered by the Japanese warriors in the conflict had seriously weakened the confidence they placed in the Kamakura shogunate. At the same time, the heavy cost of the defense measures threatened the government’s stability. Both these factors hastened the process of the Kamakura shogunate’s decline. In the early years of the fourteenth century, a strong-willed emperor named Godaigo came to the throne. Resolved to rule alone and to rid himself of the dominance of the Hōjō regents, he made several attempts to overthrow the Kamakura shogunate. His efforts eventually proved successful in 1333 when the warrior leaders supporting him seized the military headquarters in Kyoto and Kamakura, and put an end to Hōjō rule.
Cultural and Religious Background
Japan at an early stage of its history was affected by the strong cultural influence of China and Korea. The Japanese adopted the Chinese written language for use in keeping government records and writing works of history and philosophy, and utilized the Chinese characters to devise a writing system for their own language. They also, as was noted earlier, introduced much of the Chinese bureaucratic system, setting up a centralized system of government under the supreme authority of the emperor. In such fields as philosophy, art, architecture, medicine, and engineering, the Japanese likewise borrowed heavily from the continent.
About the middle of the sixth century, according to traditional accounts, Buddhism was introduced to Japan from Korea. At first it met with sharp resistance from supporters of the native Shinto faith, but in time gained a foothold among the upper classes. Soon the government was taking an active role in encouraging the new religion, founding temples, welcoming priests from abroad, and sending Japanese priests to the mainland for study. The great city of Nara, capital of the nation from 710 to 784, was famed for its imposing array of temples and the gigantic bronze image of the Buddha Vairochana that was erected by the government in 749.
But the type of Buddhism brought to Japan at this time, though mainly Mahayana in thought, was largely concerned with abstruse doctrine or the observance of complex rules of monastic discipline. Beyond the outward majesty and beauty of the buildings and images associated with it, there was little in this sort of Buddhism that appealed to or was understood by ordinary people of limited education. The aristocracy patronized the religion because they believed it would help insure their personal safety and well-being and that of the state. But it is unlikely that the Buddhist influence penetrated very deeply at the lower levels of Japanese society.
In the early Heian period, two new schools of Buddhism were introduced from China. The first was T’ien-t’ai Buddhism, which was introduced by Saichō (767–822), better known by his posthumous title, the Great Teacher Dengyō. This Buddhism spread in Japan under the name Tendai Buddhism, Tendai being the Japanese rendering of the Chinese T’ien-t’ai. The T’ien-t’ai doctrines, which are based on the Lotus Sutra, form one of the chief elements in the teaching of Nichiren Daishonin. The second school was True Word, or esoteric Buddhism, introduced by Kūkai (774–835), or the Great Teacher Kōbō. It emphasized the role of music and the arts in assisting one to gain religious understanding, and advocated various mystic rituals to ward off evil and attain salvation.
While both of these new schools of Buddhism enjoyed the support of the government, they preferred to establish their headquarters on mountaintop retreats somewhat removed from the court. The head temple of the Tendai school was situated on Mount Hiei northeast of Kyoto, and that of the True Word school on Mount Kōya far to the south. Both mountain monasteries played a vital role in later centuries as centers of Buddhist learning, the former in particular serving as a training ground for many of the most famous leaders of Japanese Buddhism, including Nichiren Daishonin.
However, although both schools emphasized that all beings are capable of attaining Buddhahood, they appear to have done little to spread that message among the people. Instead, True Word, and in time the Tendai as well, became increasingly concerned with the performance of elaborate rituals and mystic incantations, or caught up in sordid struggles for power with rival schools or among the warring factions within their own schools.
Turning to literature for a moment, it is important to note that The Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves, the great anthology of ancient Japanese poetry compiled toward the close of the Nara period (710–794), is outstanding for its relative simplicity, directness of expression, and sunniness of outlook, as well as for the fact that it includes poems from all classes of society.
In the succeeding Heian period, however, poetry became almost exclusively the possession of the courtly class, and grew increasingly contrived in expression and intellectual in tone. At the same time both poetry and other literary forms became imbued with an air of melancholy. The beginnings of this pessimistic attitude are already to be glimpsed in Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves and are characteristically associated with the Buddhist emphasis upon the impermanent and ever-changing nature of life, a quality known in Japanese as mujō. Buddhism, of course, stresses the element of change in human life in order to rouse people to think seriously about their salvation. Fundamentally, Mahayana Buddhism is anything but pessimistic in outlook. But to the Japanese of the Heian period, particularly in its later trouble-filled years, the great hope held out by the Buddhist religion seemed less real than the inevitability of change, which to them invariably meant change for the worse. Thus, the greatest literary work of the period, The Tale of Genji, which dates from the eleventh century, is suffused with a sense of the briefness, uncertainly, and inherent sadness of life.
The Japanese of this period had a particular reason for believing that life was fated to be sorrowful and that hopes for salvation were uncertain. Buddhism taught that, after the passing of Shakyamuni Buddha, the Buddhist teachings would go through three major periods of change: an age when the Law, or doctrine, would flourish, an age when it would begin to decline, and finally an age known as the Latter Day of the Law, when the Law, or doctrine, would decline even further and ultimately lose its power of salvation.
Although there are different methods of calculating the duration of the three periods, the Japanese believed that they would enter the age of the Latter Day around the middle of the eleventh century. Their expectations seemed to be confirmed at this time by the declining power of the court, unrest in the outlying areas, and other signs of decay in the social order.
In earlier times Japanese Buddhism, particularly the Tendai school, had stressed that it is possible for a person to achieve enlightenment, or Buddhahood, in this life through his or her own efforts. But there was a widespread feeling that, with the arrival of the Latter Day of the Law, such hopes would become unrealistic. In the Tendai monastery at Mount Hiei a belief arose that, in an age of degeneracy, one must look to some outside power as the means of obtaining enlightenment. This belief made faith in the saving power of the Buddha Amida look increasingly attractive. Amida is a Buddha who is said to preside over a paradise known as the Pure Land of Perfect Bliss. As a bodhisattva, he took a vow to save all people who call upon his name and to see that, after death, they are reborn to a life of bliss in the far-off Pure Land.
The practice of offering prayers to Amida was very popular in Chinese Buddhism and was introduced to Japan at an early date. But it was not until Heian times that it became widespread. One may easily see why its appeal was so great. It did not demand that the believer undertake any strenuous religious exercises or abide by strict rules of discipline. All one had to do was to recite the simple formula of praise known as the Nembutsu with sincere faith in order to be assured of salvation. The aristocrats, notably the members of the Fujiwara family, demonstrated their enthusiasm for the worship of Amida by erecting magnificent temples adorned with splendid golden statues of him. At the same time, priests went about among the common people to preach the message of Amida’s salvation and to sing hymns of praise. As a result, Buddhism spread more widely than ever before among the lower classes and came to take a deep hold upon the spiritual life of the nation.
At first, this devotion to Amida remained simply one element among the religious practices of the Tendai school, the dominant school in the Heian period. But in the closing years of that period, two vigorous religious leaders appeared who established a separate form of Buddhism based solely on devotion to Amida. The first was Honen (1133–1212), the founder of the Pure Land school. The other was Shinran (1173–1262), whose followers in time came to be known as the True Pure Land school. Both men received religious training at Mount Hiei, but were later forced to leave the capital area because of opposition from the older schools of Buddhism. Their teachings in time won a wide following, particularly in rural areas.
If the masterpiece of Heian literature is The Tale of Genji, that of the Kamakura period is the historical romance known as The Tale of the Heike. The Tale of Genji was written by a woman, Murasaki Shikibu, and deals almost entirely with the lives and romantic intrigues of the court aristocracy. The Tale of the Heike,an anonymous work, was probably compiled in the thirteenth century on the basis of narratives that had been circulated earlier in oral form by storytellers. It describes in detail the phenomenal rise to power of the Heike, or Taira, family, and its overthrow by the Minamoto family. In marked contrast to The Tale of Genji, the work abounds in scenes of conflict and military prowess, is written in a sonorous masculine style, and reflects the interests and ideals of the newly emergent warrior class. There is one way, however, in which it resembles the earlier masterpiece. The Tale of Genji, as we have seen, is dominated by a mood of sadness over the brevity of human life. This same note of melancholy informs The Tale of the Heike, sounding in the very first sentences of the work. Indeed, to the Japanese of the time, the dramatic rise and fall of the Taira family was the ultimate symbol of mujō, the unavoidable transience of worldly glory.
As this similarity suggests, the culture of the Kamakura period in one sense marked a sharp break with the past, but in another, a continuation of it. The samurai, as was suitable for a member of a warrior class in a feudal society, attached great importance to simple living, personal daring, and unswerving loyalty to one’s lord. As we shall see when we come to the life of Nichiren Daishonin, there was a harshness and violence to life in the Kamakura period that reflected the warrior ethic. It was a time when even Buddhist temples armed themselves to defend their property and prerogatives, and the necessity to resort to arms seemed a possibility that was never far away.
At the same time the warriors, having little distinct culture of their own, were obliged to look to the members of the old court aristocracy for leadership in matters of higher culture, no matter how they might despise them for their effete way of life. The attitude of Kamakura toward Kyoto was thus one of ambiguity. Military leaders wished to remain aloof from the enfeebling and intrigue-filled atmosphere of the capital, but they envied the courtiers their knowledgeability in matters of music, poetry, and artistic taste. It is not surprising to find, therefore, that the heads of the Kamakura shogunate and their wives frequently turned to Kyoto for guidance in questions of art and learning, or welcomed to their city religious and cultural leaders from the capital who could act as mentors in such matters.
One of the ways the shogunate officials sought to lend prestige to their city and government was by patronizing a new form of Buddhism known as Zen. Zen was the dominant school of Buddhism in China at this time, and Japanese priests traveled to the mainland to study it and bring its teachings back with them. They attempted to introduce these teachings in Kyoto around the beginning of the thirteenth century, but met with strong opposition from the established schools of Buddhism.
It was natural, therefore, that they should journey to Kamakura, where the older schools exercised less influence, and try to interest the leaders of the military government in their doctrines. The members of the Hōjō family and their followers responded with enthusiasm, founding temples for the new school and inviting Chinese Zen masters to come to Kamakura. Dōryū (1213–1278), or Tao-lung, whom Nichiren Daishonin refers to frequently, was one such Chinese priest who enjoyed great favor with the Hōjō regime.
In its basic doctrines, Zen does not differ much from other Mahayana schools of Buddhism. But in contrast to those schools that stress study of the sutras and other sacred writings, or the saving power of some particular Buddha or bodhisattva, Zen urges the individual to gain enlightenment the way Shakyamuni Buddha gained it—by spending hours in meditation in the lotus posture. Zen thus minimized the importance of learning and called instead for discipline, untiring personal effort, and obedience to the Zen master. It is easy to see why such a doctrine would appeal to members of the warrior class. It assured them they need cope with no difficult doctrinal writings or philosophical subtleties to gain enlightenment. All they needed was the determination and patience to endure long and often painful hours of meditation. This was something any soldier could understand.
This, then, was the state of religious affairs when Nichiren Daishonin began his activities. The older schools of Buddhism centered in Nara and Kyoto enjoyed great power and prestige, though they were morally weakened by factionalism and worldliness. The Pure Land Buddhists, or Nembutsu believers as Nichiren Daishonin calls them, continued to grow in number, constituting a very important religious element, particularly in the countryside. Zen, though enjoying the patronage of the shogunate in Kamakura, and later of the court in Kyoto, was confined mainly to those two cities. One final Buddhist group mentioned by Nichiren Daishonin is the priests of the Precepts school. This school, which enjoins the observance of elaborate precepts, or rules of monastic discipline, had been introduced to Japan in the Nara period and enjoyed something of a revival in Kamakura times.
The period of Nichiren Daishonin’s lifetime was an age when the Japanese, troubled by rapid social changes they could not fully comprehend, as well as by natural catastrophes and the threat of foreign invasion, were searching for spiritual satisfaction. They attached great importance to religious matters, and were prepared to argue vehemently and even to resort to physical force to defend what they regarded as the truth. It was an age far different from the one of religious tolerance or indifference in which we live today, and in order to understand it, we must make a sincere effort to see into the minds and motives of its inhabitants.
The Life of Nichiren Daishonin
Nichiren Daishonin was born on the sixteenth day of the second month, 1222, in the village of Kataumi on the eastern coast of Awa Province in present-day Chiba Prefecture. His family made their living by fishing. As Nichiren Daishonin said in Letter from Sado, he was “the son of a chandāla family.” The chandāla are the lowest group in the Indian class system, comprising such professions as fisherman, jailer, and butcher. Nichiren Daishonin is acknowledging that his origins were of the humblest kind. He lived in the fishing village until the age of twelve, when he left home to study at a nearby temple called Seichō-ji. In those days temples were the only place where common people could learn reading and writing.
Young Nichiren became interested in and studied Buddhism at Seichō-ji, which belonged to the Tendai school. There he was placed under Dōzen-bō, a senior priest of Seichō-ji, and received instruction not only in Tendai doctrines but in True Word and Pure Land ones as well. He was particularly concerned about the bewildering multiplicity of Buddhist schools and the doctrinal contradictions within the Buddhist canon. He was convinced that one sutra among the many that existed must represent the ultimate truth. He began to wonder where he could find that truth. Another concern was the fundamental problem of life and death, which he had wished to solve since his early years. He came to realize that the answer could only be found in the Buddha’s enlightenment.
In the temple’s hall of worship, there was a statue of Bodhisattva Space Treasury. Nichiren prayed before the statue to become the wisest man in Japan, and his prayer was answered when, as he wrote later, the “living” Bodhisattva Space Treasury bestowed on him “a great jewel” of wisdom. At that moment he awakened to the ultimate reality of life and the universe. But in order to reveal this enlightenment to the people of the Latter Day of the Law, he had to systematize his ideas in relation to the whole spectrum of the Buddha’s teachings.
At the age of sixteen, he resolved to be ordained and took the religious name Zeshō-bō. Some time later he took leave of his teacher Dōzen-bō and went to Kamakura to further his studies. There he delved into the teachings of the Pure Land and Zen schools. Then he left for western Japan, where he went to Mount Hiei, the center of the Tendai school and of Buddhism in general, and later to Mount Kōya, the headquarters of the True Word school, and to other important temples in the Kyoto and Nara areas. After some ten years of study at Mount Hiei and elsewhere, he concluded that the true teachings of Buddhism are to be found in the Lotus Sutra. The Lotus represents the heart of Shakyamuni Buddha’s enlightenment; all other sutras are mere expedients leading up to the Lotus.
He returned to Seichō-ji in 1253. By that time he had chanted Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, which he regarded as the key for all people to unlock the treasure of enlightenment hidden in their hearts.
At noon on the twenty-eighth day of the fourth month, he propounded his doctrine at the temple in the presence of his teacher and other priests. Then he declared that none of the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings reveals the Buddha’s enlightenment, and that all the schools based on those teachings are misguided. He stated that the Lotus Sutra is supreme, and that Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, the essence of the Lotus Sutra, is the only teaching that can lead the people of the Latter Day of the Law to enlightenment.
Few in the audience understood the meaning of Nichiren Daishonin’s first sermon, and some responded negatively, since it appeared to be an attack upon their own religious beliefs. The steward of the region, Tōjō Kagenobu, a fanatic follower of the Pure Land school, took steps to harm the Daishonin. When the Daishonin managed to escape, he resolved to go to Kamakura to preach. He changed his name to Nichiren (Sun Lotus).
In the eighth month of 1253, he settled in a small dwelling at Nagoe, the southeast section of Kamakura. At his dwelling and at the homes of supporters, he began to tell people about the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. On occasion, he visited temples in the city to debate with their chief priests. He denounced the beliefs of the Pure Land school, which teaches that salvation can be gained merely by invoking the name of Amida Buddha, and also attacked Zen for its rejection of the sutras.
His attacks angered not only religious leaders, but government authorities as well, since the latter were in many cases ardent patrons of the Pure Land and Zen schools. Soon he faced fierce opposition, though he continued his efforts to win converts. It was in those early years of propagation that such major disciples as Shijō Kingo, Toki Jōnin, and Ikegami Munenaka were converted.
Beginning in 1256, Japan suffered a series of calamities. Storms, floods, droughts, earthquakes, and epidemics inflicted great hardship upon the nation. In 1257, a particularly severe earthquake destroyed many temples, government buildings, and homes in Kamakura, while in 1259 and 1260 severe famine and plague ravaged the populace.
Nichiren Daishonin believed that the time had come for him to explain the basic cause of these catastrophes. He consulted the Buddhist canon to assemble incontrovertible proof of that cause and wrote a treatise titled On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land. Around that time he met an acolyte called Hōki-bō, who was so impressed by the Daishonin that he became his disciple. Later, the Daishonin named him Nikkō and Nikkō became his successor.
The most powerful man in the country was Hōjō Tokiyori, a former regent of the Kamakura shogunate who had retired to Saimyō-ji, a Zen temple, but still held power. On the sixteenth day of the seventh month, 1260, Nichiren Daishonin presented to Tokiyori the treatise he had completed. In it, he attributes the cause of the recent calamities to the people’s slander of the correct teaching of Buddhism, and their reliance on false doctrines. The worship of Amida Buddha, he asserts, is the source of such slander. The nation will know no relief from suffering unless the people renounce their mistaken beliefs and accept the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. Quotes from the Golden Light, Medicine Master, Benevolent Kings, and Great Collection sutras are included to substantiate these assertions. These sutras mention various calamities that will befall any nation hostile to the correct teaching. Of the seven mentioned in the Medicine Master Sutra, five had already struck Japan. The Daishonin predicts that, if the authorities persist in turning their backs on the correct teaching, the two remaining calamities, foreign invasion and internal strife, will strike the nation as well.
Tokiyori and the government officials appear to have taken no notice of the treatise. However, when word of its contents reached the followers of the Pure Land school, they were incensed. A band of them swarmed the Daishonin’s dwelling intent on taking his life. This is known as the Matsubagayatsu Persecution. The Daishonin narrowly escaped with a few disciples, but his sense of mission would not allow him to stay away from Kamakura for long. In less than a year he was back in Kamakura to resume his preaching.
The priests of the Pure Land school, alarmed at his success in attracting followers, contrived to have charges brought against him by the Kamakura government. The regent at the time was Hōjō Nagatoki, whose father was Shigetoki, a lay priest who built Gokuraku-ji temple and a confirmed enemy of the Daishonin. Without investigation or trial, Nagatoki accepted the charges and on the twelfth day of the fifth month, 1261, ordered Nichiren Daishonin banished to the desolate coast along the Izu Peninsula. This was the first government persecution suffered by the Daishonin.
Izu was a stronghold of the Pure Land school, and exile there clearly placed the Daishonin in great personal danger. Fortunately, however, he was taken in by Funamori no Yasaburō, a local fisherman, and his wife, who treated him with great kindness. Later he won the favor of Ito Sukemitsu, the steward of the area, who became a believer in his teaching when he successfully prayed for the steward’s recovery from illness. In time the government, apparently at the instigation of the former regent, Hōjō Tokiyori, issued a pardon, and Nichiren Daishonin returned to Kamakura in the second month of 1263.
In the autumn of 1264, Nichiren Daishonin, concerned about his aged mother, returned to his home in Awa. He found his mother critically ill—his father had died earlier—but he prayed for her recovery and she was able to overcome her illness and live nearly four years longer. Unfortunately, word of his return reached the steward, Tōjō Kagenobu. When the Daishonin and a group of followers set out to visit Kudō, a supporter in the area, they were attacked by Tōjō and his men at a place called Matsubara in Tōjō. Although the Daishonin escaped death, he received a sword wound on his forehead, and his left hand was broken. This is known as the Komatsubara Persecution.
In 1268, the foreign invasion that Nichiren Daishonin had predicted seemed about to materialize. That year, as mentioned earlier, a letter from the Mongols arrived in Kamakura demanding that Japan acknowledge fealty to Khubilai Khan. The Japanese leaders realized that the nation faced grave danger. Construction of defensive fortifications was immediately undertaken in Kyushu on the coasts facing Korea, and every temple and shrine in the country was ordered to offer prayers for the defeat of the enemy.
Nichiren Daishonin, who had returned to Kamakura, was convinced that it was time for him to act. He sent eleven letters of remonstration to top-ranking officials, including the regent, Hōjō Tokimune; the deputy chief of military and police affairs, Hei no Saemon-no-jō; and the two most influential priests in Kamakura at the time, Dōryū of the Zen school and Ryōkan of the True Word Precepts school. These letters briefly restated the declaration made in On Establishing the Correct Teaching—that unless the government embraced the correct teaching, the country would suffer the final two disasters predicted in the sutras. All eleven men chose to ignore the warnings.
In 1271, the country was troubled by persistent drought. The government, fearful of famine, ordered Ryōkan, the well-known and respected chief priest of Gokuraku-ji temple, to pray for rain. When Nichiren Daishonin learned of this, he sent a written challenge to Ryōkan offering to become his disciple if the latter succeeded in bringing on rain. If he failed, however, Ryōkan was to become the Daishonin’s follower. Ryōkan accepted the challenge, but in spite of his prayers and those of hundreds of assistant priests, no rain fell. Instead, Kamakura was struck by fierce gales. Ryōkan not only did not become a disciple of the Daishonin, but actually began to plot against him in collusion with Hei no Saemon-no-jō.
Ryōkan and the Zen priest Dōryū both headed temples that had been founded by high officials of the Hōjō family. Though the founders had died, their wives still exercised strong influence within the government. Ryōkan and Dōryū aroused the anger of these women by telling them that the Daishonin, in his letters of remonstrance, had spoken disrespectfully of their deceased husbands. Eventually, as a result of the machinations of the priests, a list of charges against the Daishonin was submitted to the government.
On the tenth day of the ninth month, 1271, Hei no Saemon-no-jō summoned Nichiren Daishonin to appear in court to answer the charges. This marked the beginning of the second phase of official persecution. The Daishonin refuted false charges and repeated his predictions of foreign invasion and strife within the ruling clan. Two days after the investigation, Hei no Saemon-no-jō and his soldiers burst into the Daishonin’s dwelling. Though innocent of any wrongdoing, the Daishonin was arrested and it was decided to banish him to the island of Sado.
However, some high-ranking officials planned to have him beheaded at Tatsunokuchi on the outskirts of Kamakura. Nichiren Daishonin and his followers believed that his death was at hand, but at the last moment the sudden appearance of a luminous object in the sky so terrified the soldiers that they could not kill him. Thereafter the Daishonin began to behave as the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law. A detailed description of these dramatic events in the Daishonin’s own words can be found in the letter entitled The Actions of the Votary of the Lotus Sutra.
In the tenth month of 1271, Nichiren Daishonin, accompanied by warrior escorts, sailed across the Sea of Japan to Sado, his place of exile, along with Nikkō and a few other disciples. They were quartered in a dilapidated hut in an area where corpses of paupers and criminals were abandoned. They were short of food and clothing, and had no fire to keep them warm. Huddling in skins and straw mantles, they somehow managed to survive the first winter.
In the first month of 1272, in response to a challenge from priests in the area, Nichiren Daishonin engaged in a religious debate with representatives of other Buddhist schools, who had gathered from around Sado and from as far away as the mainland. During what has become known as the Tsukahara Debate, he completely refuted their doctrines and demolished their positions.
The situation on Sado improved somewhat for the Daishonin as he began to receive offerings of food and clothing from local people who had converted to his teachings. However, he faced constant hostility from the priests and lay believers of other schools. His time was devoted mainly to preaching and writing. Many of his most important works, including The Object of Devotion for Observing the Mind and The Opening of the Eyes, date from this period.
On the eighteenth day of the second month, 1272, a ship reached Sado Island bringing news that fighting had broken out in Kamakura and Kyoto. It was a power struggle within the Hōjō family. The Daishonin’s prophecy of dissension within the ruling clan had come true. And before long, the second disaster he had prophesied, foreign invasion, became more likely as the Mongols repeatedly sent envoys demanding submission. In the second month of 1274, the regent, Hōjō Tokimune, who had never completely agreed with the severe treatment accorded to the Daishonin, revoked the edict of banishment. And on the twenty-sixth day of the third month, two years and five months after he was exiled, Nichiren Daishonin returned to Kamakura.
On the eighth day of the fourth month, Nichiren Daishonin was asked to appear before the military tribunal. Hei no Saemon-no-jō was the presiding official, as he had been three years earlier when charges were brought against the Daishonin. But this time he behaved with reserve and politeness. In reply to questioning concerning the possibility of a Mongol attack, the Daishonin stated that he feared an invasion within the year. He added that the government should not ask the True Word priests to pray for the destruction of the Mongols, since their prayers would only aggravate the situation.
An old Chinese text says that, if a sage warns his sovereign three times and still is not heeded, he should leave the country. Nichiren Daishonin had three times remonstrated with the rulers, predicting crises—once when he presented On Establishing the Correct Teaching, again at the time of his arrest and near execution at Tatsunokuchi, and once more on his return from Sado. Convinced that the government would never heed his warnings, he left Kamakura on the twelfth day of the fifth month, 1274. He settled in a small dwelling at the foot of Mount Minobu in the province of Kai (present-day Yamanashi Prefecture).
Because of the remoteness of the region, his life in Minobu was far from easy. His followers in Kamakura sent him money, food, and clothing, and occasionally went in groups to receive instruction from him. He devoted much of his time to writing, and nearly half of his extant works date from this period. He also spent much time lecturing and training his disciples.
In the tenth month of 1274, five months after Nichiren Daishonin moved to Minobu, the Mongols launched the attack described earlier. In a letter to one of his followers, the Daishonin expressed his bitter disappointment that his advice had been ignored, for he was convinced that, had it been heeded, the nation would have been spared much suffering.
During this period, Nikkō was successful in making a number of converts among the priests and lay people of Atsuhara Village. The priests of a Tendai temple in the area, angered at his success, began harassing the converts. Eventually, they arranged for a band of warriors to attack a number of unarmed farmers of the convert group and arrest them on false charges of thievery. Twenty of the farmers were arrested and tortured, and three were eventually beheaded.
The incident, known as the Atsuhara Persecution, was significant because, whereas earlier persecutions had been aimed mainly at the Daishonin, this time it was his followers who were targeted. In spite of the threats of the authorities, however, the farmers persisted in their faith. Nichiren Daishonin was thus convinced that his disciples and lay followers were now strong enough in faith to risk their lives for the Mystic Law.
By his sixty-first year, the Daishonin was in failing health. Feeling that death was near, on the eighth day of the ninth month, 1282, he left Minobu for Hitachi. When he reached the residence of Ikegami Munenaka in what is today a part of the city of Tokyo, he found he was too ill to continue. Many of his followers, hearing of his arrival, gathered at Ikegami to see him. On the morning of the thirteenth day of the tenth month, 1282, surrounded by disciples and lay believers reverently chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, he peacefully passed away.
Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism
Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism begins with the belief that all living beings have the potential to achieve enlightenment. That idea is the epitome of Mahayana Buddhism, one of the two principal divisions of Buddhism that arose in India after the passing of Shakyamuni Buddha. The followers of Mahayana Buddhism did not shut themselves off from society, as some other Buddhist groups did, but instead worked to spread Buddhism throughout the population and to assist others on the path to enlightenment. Mahayana is thus characterized by a spirit of compassion and altruism.
Mahayana Buddhism was in time introduced to China, where it in turn gave rise to various schools. One of the most important of these was founded by Chih-i (538–597), also referred to as the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai, and is known as the T’ien-t’ai school. It teaches that the Lotus Sutra is the highest of all the Mahayana sutras, and that all things, both animate and inanimate, possess a dormant potential for enlightenment. This doctrine is summarized in the theory known as three thousand realms in a single moment of life. The doctrines of the school were further clarified by Miao-lo (711–782), the sixth patriarch of the school.
T’ien-t’ai Buddhism was introduced to Japan as Tendai Buddhism in the early ninth century by the Great Teacher Dengyō, a Japanese priest who had gained a profound understanding of its doctrines in China. Later, in the thirteenth century, when Nichiren Daishonin studied at Mount Hiei, the headquarters of the Tendai school in Japan, he was able to confirm his conviction that the Lotus Sutra constitutes the heart of all Buddhism. Soon after, he began to teach the substance of his realization. According to his teachings, the workings of the universe are all subject to a single principle, or Law. By understanding that Law, one can unlock the hidden potential in one’s life and achieve perfect harmony with one’s environment.
Nichiren Daishonin defined the universal Law as Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, a formula that represents the essence of the Lotus Sutra and is known as the daimoku. Furthermore, he gave it concrete form by inscribing it upon the mandala known as the Gohonzon so that people could manifest Buddha wisdom and attain enlightenment. In his treatise entitled The Object of Devotion for Observing the Mind, he declares that chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo with faith in the Gohonzon, the crystallization of the universal Law, reveals one’s Buddha nature.
All phenomena are subject to the strict principle of cause and effect. Consequently, the present state of one’s life is the summation of all the previous causes one has made. By chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, one is creating the most fundamental cause, a cause that will offset negative effects from the past and lead to absolute happiness.
Enlightenment is not a mystical or transcendental state. Rather it is a condition in which one enjoys the highest wisdom, vitality, good fortune, confidence, and other positive qualities, and in which one finds fulfillment in one’s daily activities, and come to understand one’s purpose in being alive.
The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin
The extraordinary fact that so many of the works of Nichiren Daishonin still exist today, seven hundred years after they were written, is due largely to the earnest struggles of Nikkō (1246–1333), the Daishonin’s closest disciple. He was the first to use the honorific term Gosho (“go” is an honorific prefix, and “sho” means writings) to refer to these works, and he fought hard to collect, copy, and preserve his teacher’s writings. Because of his indefatigable efforts against great odds, most of the Daishonin’s important works have been passed down to us today.
On April 28, 1952, to commemorate the seven hundredth anniversary of the founding of Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism, Nichiren Daishonin’s writings were published by the Soka Gakkai in one volume entitled Nichiren Daishonin gosho zenshū (The Complete Works of Nichiren Daishonin). The publication project was initiated by Jōsei Toda, the second president of the Soka Gakkai, and carried out under the editorial supervision of the scholar Nichikō Hori. Nichikō Hori (1867–1957) began his career as the librarian of Taiseki-ji temple, where, from the age of seventeen, he undertook a thorough study of the originals and copies of the Daishonin’s writings and related documents. Over the years he visited a number of temples, many of which were the main temples of other schools, in order to study their archives. His work also took him to the island of Sado, in search of materials on Abutsu-bō, and to the birthplace of Nikkō. Between the years 1925 and 1927, he served as fifty-ninth high priest of Taiseki-ji, but retired in order to devote himself entirely to his research.
A total of 426 documents, including fragmentary writings, are collected in that volume. Of these, 172 exist in Nichiren Daishonin’s own handwriting. The Daishonin’s works fall into several categories. Some are formal treatises on Buddhism with many quotations from sutras and doctrinal texts. Examples of such treatises are On Establishing the Correct Teaching and The Object of Devotion for Observing the Mind. The treatises are written in classical Chinese, which, like Latin in Europe until recent centuries, was widely used in Japan for works of history, philosophy, and religion. Nichiren Daishonin’s writings in classical Chinese are distinguished by great power and fluency.
Other writings by the Daishonin take the form of letters to his lay followers. Some of these are lengthy and detailed, giving us much valuable information about the Daishonin’s activities and thinking. Others are short communications written to advise or encourage his followers. These works are written in the ordinary Japanese epistolary style of the Kamakura period. Like the works in Chinese, they show Nichiren Daishonin to have been a master of prose style, and contain passages of great warmth and beauty.
The treatises, since they are carefully constructed and logical in presentation, pose relatively few problems of interpretation, though occasionally there are quotations whose sources have yet to be identified. But because classical Chinese is very concise in expression, and because much of the language of the treatises is highly specialized, it has at times been deemed advisable to expand the wording of the original in translation in order to make the meaning clear in English.
The letters, written in a more intimate and personal style, present greater difficulties of interpretation. Whereas the treatises were intended as formal documents to be handed down to posterity, the letters are in most cases private communications between the Daishonin and his followers and disciples. They take for granted a familiarity with certain background information that was known to the writer and the recipient, but that in many cases remains something of a mystery to us today. Thus, without a thorough knowledge of the circumstances under which the letter was written, and the identity of the recipient, we must often guess at the exact meaning of the text. In addition, epistolary styles tend as a rule to be challenging in any language, since they rely heavily upon politenesses and conventional phrases to convey subtle shades of meaning. The Japanese epistolary style of the Kamakura period is no exception, and in addition, it shares with other types of classical Japanese a tendency toward ambiguity of expression and is very sparing in its use of pronouns. All these factors contribute to making the letters of Nichiren Daishonin difficult to interpret at many points. Specific problems of interpretation are discussed in the notes to the individual translations.
As the reader will notice, Nichiren Daishonin in his letters and other writings frequently alludes to various anecdotes drawn from Buddhist texts or works of Chinese history. One should not suppose that he includes these allusions to show off his learning. Such allusions may seem pedantic to readers who are unfamiliar with the cultural background and must turn to the notes for assistance, but it should be kept in mind that the Japanese readers whom Nichiren Daishonin was addressing would have encountered no such difficulty. The anecdotes he refers to would have been as familiar to them as the stories of the Bible or Greek mythology are to Western readers, and thus they would have immediately grasped the significance of the allusion and appreciated its aptness. It may also be noted that quotations from the sutras and other Buddhist writings may very rarely appear in slightly different form from place to place in the Daishonin’s writings. The English translation renders these differences exactly as the Daishonin does.
THIS letter is addressed to Toki. It should also be shown to Saburō Saemon, the lay priest Ōkuratōnotsuji Jūrō, the lay nun of Sajiki, and my other followers. Send me the names of those killed in the battles at Kyoto and Kamakura. Also, please have those who are coming here bring me the anthology of non-Buddhist texts, volume two of The Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra, volume four of The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra and the commentary on this volume, and the collected official opinion papers and collected imperial edicts.
The most dreadful things in the world are the pain of fire, the flashing of swords, and the shadow of death. Even horses and cattle fear being killed; no wonder human beings are afraid of death. Even a leper clings to life; how much more so a healthy person. The Buddha teaches that even filling the entire major world system with the seven kinds of treasures does not match offering one’s little finger to the Buddha and the [Lotus] sutra.1 The boy Snow Mountains gave his own body, and the ascetic Aspiration for the Law peeled off his own skin [in order to record the Buddha’s teachings]. Since nothing is more precious than life itself, one who dedicates one’s life to Buddhist practice is certain to attain Buddhahood. If one is prepared to offer one’s life, why should one begrudge any other treasure for the sake of Buddhism? On the other hand, if one is loath to part with one’s wealth, how can one possibly offer one’s life, which is far more valuable?
The way of the world dictates that one should repay a great obligation to another, even at the cost of one’s life. Many warriors die for their lords, perhaps many more than one would imagine. A man will die to defend his honor; a woman will die for a man. Fish want to survive; they deplore their pond’s shallowness and dig holes in the bottom to hide in, yet tricked by bait, they take the hook. Birds in a tree fear that they are too low and perch in the top branches, yet bewitched by bait, they too are caught in snares. Human beings are equally vulnerable. They give their lives for shallow, worldly matters but rarely for the Buddha’s precious teachings. Small wonder they do not attain Buddhahood.
Buddhism should be spread by the method of either shōju or shakubuku, depending on the age. These are analogous to the two worldly ways of the literary and the military. The great sages of old practiced the Buddhist teachings as befitted the times. The boy Snow Mountains and Prince Sattva offered their bodies when urged that by doing so they would hear the p.302teaching in return, and that giving one’s life constitutes bodhisattva practice. But should one sacrifice one’s life at a time when it is not required? In an age when there is no paper, one should use one’s own skin. In an age when there are no writing brushes, one should use one’s own bones. In an age when people honor the observers of the precepts and the practitioners of the correct teaching while they denounce those who break or ignore the precepts, one should strictly follow the precepts. In an age when Confucianism or Taoism is used to suppress Shakyamuni’s teachings, one should risk one’s life to remonstrate with the emperor, as did the Dharma teachers Tao-an and Hui-yüan and the Tripitaka Master Fa-tao. In an age when people confuse Hinayana and Mahayanateachings, provisional and true teachings, or exoteric and esoteric doctrines, as though unable to distinguish gems from tiles and stones or cow’s milk from donkey’s milk,2 one should strictly differentiate between them, following the example of the great teachers T’ien-t’ai and Dengyō.
It is the nature of beasts to threaten the weak and fear the strong. Our contemporary scholars of the various schools are just like them. They despise a wise man without power, but fear evil rulers. They are no more than fawning retainers. Only by defeating a powerful enemy can one prove one’s real strength. When an evil ruler in consort with priests of erroneous teachings tries to destroy the correct teaching and do away with a man of wisdom, those with the heart of a lion king are sure to attain Buddhahood. Like Nichiren, for example. I say this not out of arrogance, but because I am deeply committed to the correct teaching. An arrogant person will always be overcome with fear when meeting a strong enemy, as was the haughty asura who shrank in size and hid himself in a lotus blossom in Heat-Free Lake when reproached by Shakra. Even a word or a phrase of the correct teaching will enable one to gain the way, if it suits the time and the capacity of the people. But though one studies a thousand sutras and ten thousand treatises, one will not attain Buddhahood if these teachings are unsuitable for the time and the people’s capacity.
Twenty-six years have passed since the battle of Hōji,3 and fighting4 has already broken out twice, on the eleventh and the seventeenth days of the second month of this year. Neither non-Buddhists nor the enemies of Buddhism can destroy the correct teaching of the Thus Come One, but the Buddha’s disciples definitely can. As a sutra says, only worms born of the lion’s body feed on the lion.5 A person of great fortune will never be ruined by enemies, but may be ruined by those who are close. The current battle is what the Medicine Master Sutra means by “the calamity of revolt within one’s own domain.” The Benevolent Kings Sutra states, “Once the sages have departed, then the seven disasters are certain to arise.” The Golden Light Sutra states, “The thirty-three heavenly godsbecome furious because the king permits evil to run rampant and fails to subdue it.” Although I, Nichiren, am not a sage, I am equal to one, for I uphold the Lotus Sutra exactly as it teaches. Furthermore, since I have long understood the ways of the world, the prophecies I have made in this life have all come true. Therefore, you must never doubt what I have told you concerning future existences.
On the twelfth day of the ninth month of last year, when I was arrested, I called out in a loud voice, “I, Nichiren, am the pillar, sun, moon, mirror, and eyes of the ruling clan of Kanto.6 If the country abandons me, the seven disasters will occur without fail.” Did not this prophecy come true just 60 days and then 150 days later? And those battles were only the first p.303signs. What lamenting there will be when the full effect appears!
Ignorant people wonder why Nichiren is persecuted by the rulers if he is truly a wise man. Yet it is all just as I expected. King Ajātashatru tormented his father and mother, for which he was hailed by the six royal ministers. When Devadattakilled an arhat and caused the Buddha to bleed, Kokālika and others were delighted. Nichiren is father and mother to the ruling house and is like a Buddha or an arhat to this age. The sovereign and his subjects who rejoice at my exile are truly the most shameless and pitiable of all. Those slanderous priests who have been bewailing the exposure of their errors may be overjoyed for the moment, but eventually they will suffer no less than myself and my followers. Their joy is like Yasuhira’s when he killed his younger brother and Kurō Hōgan.7The demon who will destroy the ruling clan has already entered the country. This is the meaning of the passage from the Lotus Sutra that reads, “Evil demons will take possession of others.”8
The persecutions Nichiren has faced are the result of karma formed in previous lifetimes. The “Never Disparaging” chapter reads, “when his offenses had been wiped out,” indicating that Bodhisattva Never Disparaging was vilified and beaten by countless slanderers of the correct teaching because of his past karma. How much more true this is of Nichiren, who in this life was born poor and lowly to a chandāla family. In my heart I cherish some faith in the Lotus Sutra, but my body, while outwardly human, is fundamentally that of an animal. It was conceived of the two fluids, one white and one red, of a father and mother who subsisted on fish and fowl. My spirit dwells in this body as the moon is reflected in muddy water, or as gold is wrapped in a filthy bag. Since my heart believes in the Lotus Sutra, I do not fear even Brahmā or Shakra, but my body is still that of an animal. With such disparity between my body and my mind, no wonder the foolish despise me. Without doubt, when compared to my body, my mind shines like the moon or like gold. Who knows what slander I may have committed in the past? I may possess the soul of the monk Superior Intent or the spirit of Mahādeva. Perhaps I am descended from those who contemptuously persecuted Bodhisattva Never Disparaging, or am among those who forgot the seeds of enlightenment sown in their lives.9 I may even be related to the five thousand arrogant people,10 or belong to the third group [who failed to take faith in the Lotus Sutra] in the days of the Buddha Great Universal Wisdom Excellence.11 It is impossible to fathom one’s karma.
Iron, when heated in the flames and pounded, becomes a fine sword. Worthies and sages are tested by abuse. My present exile is not because of any secular crime. It is solely so that I may expiate in this lifetime my past grave offenses and be freed in the next from the three evil paths.
The Parinirvāna Sutra states: “Those who enter the monastic order, don clerical garments, and make a show of studying my teachings will exist in ages to come. Being lazy and remiss, they will slander the correct and equal sutras. You should be aware that all these people are followers of the non-Buddhist doctrines of today.” Those who read this passage should reflect deeply on their own practice. The Buddha is saying that those of our contemporary priests who wear clerical garments, but are idle and negligent, were disciples of the six non-Buddhist teachers in his day.
The followers of Hōnen, who call themselves the Nembutsu school, not only turn people away from the Lotus Sutra, telling them to “discard, close, ignore, and abandon”12 it, but also p.304advocate chanting only the name of the Buddha Amida, a Buddha described in the provisional teachings. The followers of Dainichi, known as the Zen school, claim that the Buddha’s true teachings have been transmitted apart from the sutras. They ridicule the Lotus Sutra as nothing more than a finger pointing at the moon or a meaningless string of words. Those priests must both have been followers of the six non-Buddhist teachers, who only now have entered the stream of Buddhism.
According to the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha emitted a radiant light that illuminated the 136 hells underground and revealed that not a single offender remained there. This was because they had all achieved Buddhahood through the “Life Span” chapter of the Lotus Sutra. What a pity, however, that the icchantikas, or persons of incorrigible disbelief, who had slandered the correct teaching, were found to have been detained there by the wardens of hell. They proliferated until they became the people of Japan today.
Since Nichiren himself committed slander in the past, he became a Nembutsupriest in this lifetime, and for several years he also laughed at those who practiced the Lotus Sutra, saying that “not a single person has ever attained Buddhahood”13 through that sutra, or that “not even one person in a thousand”14can be saved by it. Awakening from my intoxicated state of slander, I felt like a drunken son who, on becoming sober, laments at having delighted in striking his parents. He regrets it bitterly, but to no avail. His offense is extremely difficult to erase. Even more so are the past slanders of the correct teaching that stain the depths of one’s heart. A sutra states that both the crow’s blackness and the heron’s whiteness are actually the deep stains of their past karma.15 The non-Buddhists failed to recognize this and claimed it was the work of nature. Today, when I expose people’s slanders in an effort to save them, they deny it with every excuse possible and argue back with Hōnen’s words about barring the gates to the Lotus Sutra. From Nembutsu believers this is hardly surprising, but even priests of the Tendai and True Word schools actively support them.
On the sixteenth and seventeenth days of the first month of this year, hundreds of priests and lay believers from the Nembutsu and other schools here in the province of Sado came to debate with me. A leader of the Nembutsu school, Inshō-bō, said: “The Honorable Hōnen did not instruct us to abandon the Lotus Sutra. He simply wrote that all people should chant the Nembutsu, and that its great blessings assure their rebirth in the Pure Land. Even the priests of Mount Hiei and Onjō-ji temple who have been exiled to this island praise him, saying how excellent his teaching is. How dare you try to refute it?” The local priests are even more ignorant than the Nembutsu priests in Kamakura. They are absolutely pitiful.
How terrible are the slanders Nichiren has committed in his past and present existences! Since you have been born into this evil country and become the disciples of such a man, there is no telling what will happen to you. The Parinirvāna Sutra states: “Good man, because people committed countless offenses and accumulated much evil karma in the past, they must expect to suffer retribution for everything they have done. They may be despised, cursed with an ugly appearance, be poorly clad and poorly fed, seek wealth in vain, be born to an impoverished and lowly family or one with erroneous views, or be persecuted by their sovereign.” It continues: “They may be subjected to various other sufferings and retributions. It is due to the blessings obtained by protecting the Law p.305that they can diminish in this lifetime their suffering and retribution.” Were it not for Nichiren, these passages from the sutra would virtually make the Buddha a liar. The sutra says, first, “They may be despised”; second, “They may be cursed with an ugly appearance”; third, “They may be poorly clad”; fourth, “They may be poorly fed”; fifth, “They may seek wealth in vain”; sixth, “They may be born to an impoverished and lowly family”; seventh, “They may be born to a family with erroneous views”; and eighth, “They may be persecuted by their sovereign.” These eight phrases apply only to me, Nichiren.
One who climbs a high mountain must eventually descend. One who slights another will in turn be despised. One who deprecates those of handsome appearance will be born ugly. One who robs another of food and clothing is sure to fall into the world of hungry spirits. One who mocks a person who observes the precepts and is worthy of respect will be born to an impoverished and lowly family. One who slanders a family that embraces the correct teaching will be born to a family that holds erroneous views. One who laughs at those who cherish the precepts faithfully will be born a commoner and meet with persecution from one’s sovereign. This is the general law of cause and effect.
My sufferings, however, are not ascribable to this causal law. In the past I despised the votaries of the Lotus Sutra. I also ridiculed the sutra itself, sometimes with exaggerated praise and other times with contempt—that sutra as magnificent as two moons shining side by side, two stars conjoined, one Mount Hua16 placed atop another, or two jewels combined. This is why I have experienced the aforementioned eight kinds of sufferings. Usually these sufferings appear one at a time, on into the boundless future, but Nichiren has denounced the enemies of the Lotus Sutra so severely that all eight have descended at once. This is like the case of a peasant heavily in debt to the steward of his village and to other authorities. As long as he remains in his village or district, rather than mercilessly hounding him, they are likely to defer his debts from one year to the next. But when he tries to leave, they rush over and demand that he repay everything at once. This is what the sutra means when it states, “It is due to the blessings obtained by protecting the Law.”
The Lotus Sutra says: “There will be many ignorant people who will curse and speak ill of us and will attack us with swords and staves, with rocks and tiles . . . they will address the rulers, high ministers, Brahmans, and householders, [as well as the other monks, slandering and speaking evil of us] . . . again and again we will be banished.”17 If the offenders are not tormented by the wardens of hell, they will never be able to [pay for their offenses and] escape from hell. Were it not for the rulers and ministers who now persecute me, I would be unable to expiate my past sins of slandering the correct teaching.
Nichiren is like Bodhisattva Never Disparaging of old, and the people of this day are like the four categories of Buddhists who disparaged and cursed him. Though the people are different, the cause is the same. Though different people kill their parents, they all fall into the same hell of incessant suffering. Since Nichiren is making the same cause as Never Disparaging, how could it be that he would not become a Buddha equal to Shakyamuni? Moreover, those who now slander him are like Bhadrapala18 and the others [who cursed Never Disparaging]. They will be tortured in the Avīchi hell for a thousand kalpas. I therefore pity them deeply and wonder what can be done p.306for them. Those who belittled and cursed Never Disparaging acted that way at first, but later they took faith in his teachings and willingly became his followers. The greater part of the fault of their slander was thus expiated, but even the small part that remained caused them to suffer as terribly as one who had killed one’s parents a thousand times. The people of this age refuse to repent at all; therefore, as the “Simile and Parable” chapter states, they must suffer in hell for a countless number of kalpas; they may even suffer there for a duration of major world system dust particle kalpas or of numberless major world system dust particle kalpas.
Aside from these people, there are also those who appeared to believe in me, but began doubting when they saw me persecuted. They not only have forsaken the Lotus Sutra, but also actually think themselves wise enough to instruct me. The pitiful thing is that these perverse people must suffer in the Avīchi hell even longer than the Nembutsu believers.
An asura contended that the Buddha taught only eighteen elements,19 but that he himself expounded nineteen. The non-Buddhist teachers claimed that the Buddha offered only one way to enlightenment, but that they had ninety-five.20In the same way, the renegade disciples say, “Though the priest Nichiren is our teacher, he is too forceful. We will spread the Lotus Sutra in a more peaceful way.” In so asserting, they are being as ridiculous as fireflies laughing at the sun and moon, an anthill belittling Mount Hua, wells and brooks despising the river and the ocean, or a magpie mocking a phoenix. Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.
Nichiren
The twentieth day of the third month in the ninth year of Bun’ei (1272), cyclical sign mizunoe-saru
To Nichiren’s disciples and lay supporters
There is very little writing paper here in the province of Sado, and to write to you individually would take too long. Nevertheless, if even one person fails to hear from me, it will cause resentment. Therefore, I want people with seeking minds to meet and read this letter together for encouragement. When great trouble occurs in the world, minor troubles become insignificant. I do not know how accurate the reports reaching me are, but there must surely be intense grieving over those killed in the recent battles. What has become of the lay priests Izawa and Sakabe? Send me news of Kawanobe, Yamashiro, Tokugyō-ji,21 and the others. Also, please be kind enough to send me The Essentials of Government in the Chen-kuan Era,22 the collection of tales from the non-Buddhist classics, and the record of the teachings transmitted within the eight schools. Without these, I cannot even write letters.
Background
This letter was written on the twentieth day of the third month, 1272, some five months after Nichiren Daishonin had arrived on the island of Sado to begin his exile there. He addressed it to Toki Jōnin, a samurai serving as a leading retainer to Lord Chiba, the constable of Shimōsa Province, to Saburō Saemon (Shijō Kingo) in Kamakura, and to other staunch followers.
p.307Nichiren Daishonin had been banished on the tenth day of the tenth month, 1271. Charges of treason had been brought against him by Ryōkan, the chief priest of Gokuraku-ji temple in Kamakura, and by Hei no Saemon, deputy chief of the Office of Military and Police Affairs. Hei no Saemon was resolved to execute the Daishonin at Tatsunokuchi before he was to be delivered to the custody of Homma Shigetsura, the deputy constable of Sado. The attempt at execution was unsuccessful, however, and after a delay of almost a month Homma’s warriors escorted the Daishonin to the coast of the Sea of Japan. After a delay there caused by bad weather, the Daishonin finally arrived on Sado on the twenty-eighth day of the tenth month.
Nichiren Daishonin was housed at first in a dilapidated structure known as Sammai-dō, where he lived exposed to the wind and snow that blew in through gaps in the roof and walls. After five months he was able to move to more comfortable quarters at Ichinosawa. The Daishonin engaged in debates with Pure Land and other priests and actively propagated his own teachings. While on Sado he wrote two major treatises, The Opening of the Eyes and The Object of Devotion for Observing the Mind. In the second month, 1274, the Daishonin was pardoned and returned to Kamakura on the twenty-sixth day of the third month.
In this writing the Daishonin first states that the only way to attain Buddhahood is to be willing to offer one’s life, one’s most precious possession, to Buddhism. Next, he says that the method of propagation known as shakubuku is appropriate to this age, and that one can attain Buddhahood only by dedicating oneself to it. He then declares that he is the “pillar, sun, moon, mirror, and eyes” of and “father and mother” to the country; these are symbolic references to the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law, who is perfectly endowed with the three virtues of parent, teacher, and sovereign. He also mentions his earlier prophecies in On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land concerning political upheaval and violent feuds within the country.
Lastly, he gives an elaborate explanation of karma or destiny, stating that his present difficulties arise from the fact that he slandered the Lotus Sutra in a past existence. Using himself as an example, he elucidates to his disciples the kind of spirit and practice by which they can alter their karma. He adds that persons who try to propagate the correct teaching of Buddhism vigorously will invariably face opposition, and that such opposition in reality presents an opportunity for them to change their karma. Those who have given up their faith and instead criticize are admonished that their actions bear the heaviest consequences. He compares their lack of vision to fireflies who laugh at the sun.
Though written in the context of thirteenth-century Japan, the Daishonin’s works shed universally valid light upon the sanctity of life and its boundless potentiality, while rejecting anyone or anything that undervalues or imposes harm upon life. They stress the view that all human beings are potential Buddhas. The Daishonin directs severe criticism at various Buddhist schools that, in his view, pursue some external authority that tends to control people or make them submissive.
The Daishonin affirms the equality of all people, women and men alike. For example, he writes, “These Ten Worlds are born from the mind of the individual and constitute the eighty-four thousand teachings. Here a single individual has been used as an example, but the same thing applies equally to all living beings” (p. 844). He also states, “There should be no discrimination among those who propagate the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo in the Latter Day of the Law, be they men or women. Were they not Bodhisattvas of the Earth, they could not chant the daimoku” (I, p. 385).
A spirit of all-embracing compassion characterizes the life of the Buddha. In his work entitled On Reprimanding Hachiman, the Daishonin states, “The Nirvana Sutra says, ‘The varied sufferings that all living beings undergo—all these are the Thus Come One’s own sufferings.’ And Nichiren declares that the sufferings that all living beings undergo, all springing from this one cause—all these are Nichiren’s own sufferings” (p. 934). In The Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings, after citing the same passage from the Nirvana Sutra, the Daishonin is quoted as saying, “Nichiren declares that the varied sufferings that all living beings undergo—all these are Nichiren’s own sufferings” (The Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings, p. 138).
As explained in the preface to volume 1, in terms of content, the Daishonin’s works may be classified into four categories: (1) treatises on doctrines, (2) writings remonstrating with government and religious authorities, (3) letters offering advice, encouragement, or consolation to believers, or those answering questions, and (4) writings conveying the Daishonin’s oral teachings. Many of his writings belong to categories (1) and (3), and the present volume contains eleven letters of remonstrance that may be classified under category (2). None of the writings of category (4) are included in this volume. This volume also contains several writings that are in chart or diagram form, such as Diagram of the Five Periods of the Buddha’s Lifetime Teachings and Rooster Diagram of the Five Periods of the Buddha’s Lifetime Teachings. The charts and diagrams employ outline form to provide a quick understanding of the teachings.
Prior to the publication of the present volume, the Soka Gakkai in 2004 published an English translation by Burton Watson of the Ongi kuden under the title The Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings. The Ongi kuden was not written by the Daishonin himself, but was completed by Nikkō on the basis of notes on the Daishonin’s lectures on the Lotus Sutra. The translation has therefore not been included in the present volume. This does not imply, however, that it is not of great importance in making clear the Daishonin’s ideas. The Complete Works of Nichiren Daishonin contains four other records of a similar nature that have yet to be translated into English.
For readers who have not read volume 1, we recommend that they read the foreword by Daisaku Ikeda, president of the Soka Gakkai International, and the preface, introduction, and translators’ note that appear at the beginning of that volume.
The appendixes at the back of this volume will provide knowledge that is helpful in understanding the writings. The glossary explains the meanings of Buddhist terms and concepts found in this volume.
In closing, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to Dr. Burton Watson, the translator of The Lotus Sutra and works of Chinese literature, for his continued contribution to the translations in this volume.
The Gosho Translation Committee
My Related Posts
You can search for these posts using Search Posts feature in the right sidebar.
Pure Land School of Buddhist Philosophy
Shingon (Esoteric) School of Buddhist Philosophy
Three Treatise School (Sanlun) of Chinese Buddhist Philosophy
Hua Yan Buddhism : Reflecting Mirrors of Reality
What is Yogacara Buddhism (Consciousness Only School)?
Dhyan, Chan, Son and Zen Buddhism: Journey from India to China, Korea and Japan
Chinese Tiantai and Japanese Tendai Buddhism
Intersubjectivity in Buddhism
Schools of Buddhist Philosophy
Meditations on Emptiness and Fullness
Self and Other: Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity
Law of Dependent Origination
The Fifth Corner of Four: Catuskoti in Buddhist Logic
Key Sources of Research
Awakening to the Lotus: An introduction to Nichiren Shu
The practical, soteriological nature of Buddhism makes it wary of what Wittgenstein called the bewitchment of the mind by language. Yet the view that Buddhism disregards language is an oversimplification, especially in Japan. Japanese Buddhism has a positive appreciation of language, particularly of its non-referential usage. Buddhist thought first came to Japan in the form of sūtras and commentaries written in Chinese characters. Written language was still so novel, and categories of thought so limited, that the content of these texts could be read as manifestations of new realities rather than as ideas referring to Buddhism. Some of the earliest literature composed in Japan, such as the poetry collection Man’yōshū, mentions kotodama, the spiritual power of words that makes things present. Although scholars articulated this theory of language only much later and aligned it with Shintō (see Motoori Norinaga), it may apply to the early understanding of Chinese Buddhist as well as indigenous words. Words had the power not only to manifest things in the world but also to change them; before Buddhist texts represented a doctrinal and ethical system, they provided incantations to heal illness and bring prosperity to the land.
The ritualistic use of language continued through the centuries and was often central to the expression of doctrine. Practitioners often used single words or phrases as the condensed form of a doctrine or lengthy sūtra. Kūkai, for example, recited the Sanskrit formulas for the Womb and Diamond Mandalas to better envision these pictorial representations of the cosmic order. He proposed that intoning mantras could make the basic sounds of the cosmos audible. He used dhāraṇī or magical formulae not only as a means of purifying body and mind and allowing him to understand the point of every Buddhist scripture, but also as the means by which his patron bodhisattva could fulfill all wishes. Even when later Pure Land School teachers such as Shinran suspected discursive language and discouraged belief in worldly benefit through magical transformation, they taught that the sincere invocation of Amida Buddha’s name has the power to actualize the salvation of all sentient beings. Buddhists of the Nichiren schools chanted the name of the Wondrous Lotus Sutra, namu myōhōrenge kyō, as a condensation and realization of all doctrines contained in it. Rinzai Zen teachers advocated the practice of kanna or ‘contemplating the [crucial] phrase’ of a dialogue, or of compressing the already condensed Heart Sutra into a single word. As long as the words are ‘live’ and not dead repetitions, Zen teachers conceived such practices as shortcuts to enlightenment that immediately put the practitioner in a frame of mind to realize the point of Buddhist doctrines.
The transformative as well as expressive nature of language is evident in perhaps the most important collection of premodern Japanese philosophical literature, the Shōbōgenzō(Treasury of the True Dharma Eye), by the thirteenth-century Zen master Dōgen. One chapter begins: ‘As for the Buddha Way, not to voice it is impossible.’ This statement does not command one to proclaim the teachings of Buddhism, but rather connects one’s attainment of truth with its expression in the world. Such expression includes but is not limited to language. Another chapter of the Shōbōgenzō states, ‘All buddhas and patriarchs are able to voice the Way’, that is, to express truth in all their words and actions. By virtue of their realization of non-duality or no ultimate opposition, they can directly express the Way and not merely refer to it. They can also experience as the words of the Buddha ‘the preaching of non-sentient beings’, the ‘sounds of the valley streams and the forms of the mountains’. This idea, explained further below (see §5), seems to collapse any ultimate distinction between sign and signified. Words express themselves, as do valley streams and the forms of mountains. This ‘expressing’ or ‘voicing of the Way’ does not stand for or represent something other than itself, and language used representationally is not privileged to express reality. The limitation placed on the power of representational language here is accompanied by an expanded meaning of ‘expression’ or ‘voicing of the Way’ that includes both linguistic and nonlinguistic forms.
Nichiren Buddhism is a branch of Mahayana Buddhism that began in medieval Japan in the 13th century and has since spread across the globe to millions of practitioners. It is named after the Japanese Buddhist priest Nichiren (1222–1282), whose teachings remain central to the school’s institutions.
Like many of his contemporaries, Nichiren believed that the Lotus Sutra contained all other Buddhist teachings. Unlike his peers, he also believed that the Japanese title of the sutra, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, contained all of the dharma—and that it is possible for anyone to attain Buddhahood through the practice of chanting the scripture’s name. Nichiren Buddhists recite this chant, called the daimoku, along with other recitations and prayers as part of the twice daily gongyo (“assiduous practice”) ritual.
Nichiren Buddhism arose during the Kamakura Period (1185–1333), an era marked by civil war and natural disasters in Japan, in addition to vast disparities of wealth. The suffering was so great that Japanese Buddhists came to believe that the “Latter Day of the Law”—a period of moral and intellectual decline, as foretold in the sutras—had arrived. Newer schools, including Zen, Pure Land, and Nichiren started to spread. While Pure Land favored a tariki, or faith in “other-power,” approach and Zen stressed jiriki, or “self-power,” practice of meditation, Nichiren took the middle way, empowering individual change through religious faith to empower individuals to change. “Faith in action” became the theme for his life of spiritual and political activism.
Nichiren’s practices, such as chanting the daimoku, reflect a spirit of egalitarianism, which asserts that the dharma and enlightenment are available to everyone—be they rich or poor, educated or uneducated, lay or ordained, male or female. For many Nichiren Buddhists today, social activism and engagement is a vital part of their practice.
After Nichiren’s death, the school of Buddhism he founded experienced a period of fragmentation as his followers struggled to codify the teachings he had left behind. This process led to the founding of 37 different schools of Nichiren Buddhism. The largest of these groups include Nichiren Shu, Soka Gakkai International (SGI), and Nichiren Shoshu. Nichiren Shu is the oldest of the three. It contains several smaller Nichiren orders, and its main temple, Kuon-ji, is located near Nichiren’s burial site on Mount Minobu in Japan. SGI, a lay organization, is the most influential, boasting more than 12 million members. SGI was originally a branch of Nichiren Shoshu, which holds the belief that Nichiren is a divine figure (as opposed to the Nichiren Shu view that he was just a priest). In the late 20th century Nichiren Shoshu and SGI came into conflict over authority and doctrinal differences, culminating in 1991, when Nichiren Shoshu excommunicated SGI.
Nichiren’s Legacy: Three principle practices of Nichiren Buddhism — meditation on the Gohonzon and Namu Myoho Renge Kyo –
Buddha Weekly: Buddhist Practices, Mindfulness, Meditation
The path to enlightenment is not a single straight line. Buddhism is a religion with many different branches, all of which have their own interpretation and practice of the teachings. Nichiren Buddhism is a branch of Mahayana Buddhism that emphasizes the Lotus Sutra and the teachings of Nichiren. If you’re curious about this branch of Buddhism and would like to learn more, this guide is for you. We’ll discuss the basics of Nichiren Buddhism, including its history, teachings, and three principle practices.
By Dave Lang
Beautiful grounds of the sacred temple Minobusan Kuonji, the head temple of Nichiren tradition found in Minobu, Japan.
The History of Nichiren Buddhism
We must go back to his roots if we want to understand Nichiren and his teachings.
13th-century Japan is in the midst of great turmoil caused by the political shift from the feudal system to a more militarized government: the Kamakura Shogunate. Nichiren, born into a peasant family, had a deep understanding of the suffering that people were going through during this time.[1]
For 20 years, he traveled throughout the country, studying various Buddhist scriptures in an attempt to find a way to ease the people’s suffering. He eventually concluded that the only way to do this was to revive Buddhism and make it relevant to the Japanese people again.
During his lifetime, Nichiren was seen as a controversial figure due to his criticisms of other branches of Buddhism and his belief that the Lotus Sutra was the only way to achieve enlightenment. However, his teachings began to gain popularity after his death, and today Nichiren Buddhism is practiced by more than 12 million people in 188 countries worldwide.[2]
Beautiful Buddha statue at Minobu Japan on the grounds of Monobusan Kuonji.
The Lotus Sutra
The Lotus Sutra is a Mahayana Buddhist scripture written in India during the 4th or 5th century CE. It’s seen as one of the most important texts in Buddhism, and its teachings are at the heart of Nichiren Buddhism.
In fact, it is believed that Nichiren kept a copy of The Lotus Sutra with him at all times for further study and reflection.
The Lotus Sutra in Japanese, here from 17th century Edo period.
The Lotus Sutra teaches that all beings have the potential to reach ‘Buddhahood’ within them and that anyone can achieve enlightenment. It’s this message of hope and possibility that Nichiren felt would resonate with the people of his time.
At its core, Nichiren Buddhism is about making the whole of society better by empowering each individual to take control of their own lives. The result is a nation of’ Bodhisattvas,’ or Buddha-like beings, who are spreading the teachings of Buddhism and helping others to achieve enlightenment.
A statue of Nichiren at Myoren-ji Temple in Kamigyo.
Nichiren’s writing
Nichiren’s road to enlightenment can be split into three phases. The first phase was his study of various Buddhist scriptures. The second stage begins when Nichiren is exiled to Sado Island for speaking against the government, during which time he focuses on writing.
He publishes two books: ‘On the Opening of the Eyes and ‘The Object of Devotion for Observing the Mind in the Fifth Five-Hundred Year Period.’ He shares harrowing details about his near-execution by beheading and how he saw it as a rebirth. He continues to argue that reading the Lotus Sutra is the only way to achieve enlightenment and that it is more important than any other Buddhist scripture. [2]
The third and final phase of Nichiren’s life and teachings was spent on Mount Minobu. Here, he began training disciples in his teachings and spreading the word of Buddhism to the masses. Although his followers faced a constant threat of persecution, they managed to keep the religion alive, and eventually, it began to take root in society.
Beautiful pagoda on the grounds of Minbusan Kuonji.
The three principle practices of Nichiren Buddhism
Now that we’ve set the stage let’s dive into the three principle practices of Nichiren Buddhism. Nichiren believed these practices were essential for achieving nirvana and improving Japan’s social and political landscape.
1. The Faith in Nichiren’s Gohonzon
The first practice is to have faith in Nichiren’s Gohonzon. The Gohonzon is a mandala that Nichiren created as a tool for meditation and spiritual growth. It contains the names of the Buddha and his followers, as well as symbols that represent different aspects of Buddhist teachings.
A Gohonzon that was inscribed by Nichiren just before his death in 1280. The central logographs depict the official title of the Lotus Sūtra
When you meditate on the Gohonzon, you align yourself with the Buddha’s enlightened mind and open yourself up to receive his wisdom and guidance. The Gohonzon is not just a physical object but a powerful tool that can help you to connect with your higher self.
The Gohonzon uses Chinese calligraphy to represent the Buddha’s teachings. It is hung on a scroll or placed on an altar in a place of honor in your home. It’s usually accompanied by a candle and incense, used as offerings to the Buddha.
2. The Chanting of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo
The act of meditating on the Gohonzon is called Daimoku, and it’s an essential part of Nichiren Buddhism. When you chant Daimoku, you are reciting the phrase
Namu 南無 “devoted to”, a transliteration of Sanskrit námas lit. ’a bow’.
Myōhō 妙法 “exquisite law”
Myō 妙, from Middle Chinese mièw, “strange, mystery, miracle, cleverness” (cf. Mandarin miào)
Hō 法, from Middle Chinese pjap, “law, principle, doctrine” (cf. Mand. fǎ)
Renge-kyō 蓮華經 “Lotus Sutra”
Renge 蓮華 “padma (Lotus)”
Ren 蓮, from Middle Chinese len, “lotus” (cf. Mand. lián)
Ge 華, from Middle Chinese xwæ, “flower” (cf. Mand. huā)
Kyō 経, from Middle Chinese kjeng, “sutra” (cf. Mand. jīng)
Here is an easy-going version of the mantra chanting:
Here is a faster style of chanting (15 minutes):
This phrase encapsulates the core teachings of Nichiren Buddhism, which is that all beings have the potential to achieve Buddhahood. By chanting Daimoku, you affirm your faith in this principle and open yourself up to its power.
There are many ways to chant Daimoku, but the most common is to recite it slowly and with feeling. You can also chant it along with a group of people, which is said to be even more powerful.
Another thing to keep in mind is that you don’t need to be a Buddhist to chant Daimoku. Anyone can benefit from its power, regardless of their religious beliefs.
3. The study of Nichiren’s scriptural writings
The third and final practice of Nichiren Buddhism is the study of Nichiren’s scriptural writings, which are known as the Gosho. These various texts contain Nichiren’s thoughts on different topics, such as the nature of reality, the importance of taking action, and the relationship between Buddha and humanity. The Gosho texts, letters, and stories are an essential part of Nichiren Buddhism because they provide guidance for how we should live our lives. By studying them, we can gain a deeper understanding of religion and the world around us.
One of the most famous texts in the Gosho is The Letter from Sado, which Nichiren wrote during his exile on the island of Sado. In this letter, Nichiren reinforces the importance of the Lotus Sutra, comparing it to a healthy dose of cow’s milk. He goes on to compare other sutras to donkey’s milk, which was thought to be poisonous.
The other texts in the Gosho are equally as powerful and provide insights into a variety of topics.
A leaf of a Japanese translation of the Lotus Sutra showing the grand assembly from chapter 1.
Differences and similarities: Nichiren and other traditions
Now that we’ve gone over the three principle practices of Nichiren Buddhism let’s take a look at how it differs from other schools of Buddhism.
The most notable difference is that Nichiren Buddhism revolves entirely around the Lotus Sutra, whereas other schools of Buddhism focus on a variety of different sutras, like the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra.
Another difference is that Nichiren Buddhists believe that all beings have the potential to achieve Buddhahood, regardless of their karma or past actions. This is in contrast to other schools of Buddhism, which teach that only those with good karma can achieve enlightenment.
As for similarities, Nichiren Buddhism shares many of the same core beliefs as other schools of Buddhism. For example, they both believe in karma and reincarnation. They also both teach that the path to enlightenment is through meditation and mindfulness.
So, while there are some minor differences between Nichiren Buddhism and other schools of Buddhism, the two paths are more similar than they are different.
Nichiren’s Legacy and Contributions
Nichiren died in 1282, but his teachings live on to this day. His followers continue to practice the three principle practices of Nichiren Buddhism, and his writings continue to inspire new generations of Buddhists.
Nichiren was a controversial figure during his lifetime, but his legacy is undeniable. He was an influential proponent of social and political change, and his teachings have helped shape the modern world of Buddhism.
He was also the first Buddhist teacher to emphasize the importance of chanting Daimoku as a way to connect with the Buddha and receive his wisdom and guidance.
His legacy is one of hope and possibility. He showed us that we have the power to change our lives and the world around us.
Who should consider learning about Nichiren Buddhism?
Nichiren’s teachings are for everyone and anyone. However, some people may be particularly interested in his teachings. Opposing schools of thought see Nichiren Buddhism as very individualist because of its hyperfocus on the Lotus Sutra. This may appeal to people looking for a more personalized spiritual path. If you’re interested in social and political change, then Nichiren Buddhism is also for you. His
Nichiren: unique and powerful practices
Nichiren Buddhism is a unique and powerful form of Buddhism that has much to offer its followers. The three principle practices of Nichiren Buddhism provide a solid foundation for those seeking guidance and wisdom.
If you’re looking for a tradition within Buddhism that is simple yet profound, Nichiren Buddhism may be right for you. There’s a certain optimism to be had when reinforcing the belief that anyone can achieve Buddhahood. And the study of Nichiren’s 700+ texts can provide valuable insights into how we should live our lives.
the esoteric Shingon school on Mount Koya and Nara
Nara Buddhism
Honen’s community in Yoshimizu in Kyoto
Honen Shonin (1133-1212)
Jōdo Shū: Pure Land Buddhism
Shinran (1173-1263)
Jodo Shinshu (“true pure land school”)
Ippen
Ji-shu, the “time school
Ryōnin (1072–1132)
Yūzūnenbutsu school of Japan
Wonhyo (617-686) introduced Pure Land to Korea, where it is called Jeongto
Shokobo Bencho (1162-1238), also called Shoko. Shoko also stressed many recitations of the Nembutsu but believed the Nembutsu did not have to be one’s only practice. Shokobo is considered to be the Second Patriarch of Jodo Shu.
Nembutsu
Buddhism, Pure Land Jìngtǔ 淨 土
Source: Buddhism, Pure Land / Jìngtǔ 淨 土
Source: Buddhism, Pure Land / Jìngtǔ 淨 土
Source: Buddhism, Pure Land / Jìngtǔ 淨 土
Introduction to Pure Land Tradition
Source: Introduction to Pure Land Tradition
Source: Introduction to Pure Land Tradition
Source: Introduction to Pure Land Tradition
My Related Posts
You can search for these posts using Search Posts feature in the right sidebar.
Shingon (Esoteric) School of Buddhist Philosophy
Three Treatise School (Sanlun) of Chinese Buddhist Philosophy
Hua Yan Buddhism : Reflecting Mirrors of Reality
What is Yogacara Buddhism (Consciousness Only School)?
Dhyan, Chan, Son and Zen Buddhism: Journey from India to China, Korea and Japan
Chinese Tiantai and Japanese Tendai Buddhism
Intersubjectivity in Buddhism
Schools of Buddhist Philosophy
Meditations on Emptiness and Fullness
Self and Other: Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity
Law of Dependent Origination
The Fifth Corner of Four: Catuskoti in Buddhist Logic
Aaron P. Proffitt Series: Pure Land Buddhist Studies Paperback: $35.00 ISBN-13: 9780824893712 Published: January 2024 ADD TO CART Hardback: $70.00 ISBN-13: 9780824893613
Chinese Pure Land Buddhism: Understanding a Tradition of Practice
Pure Land Buddhist Studies Author Charles B. Jones Contributor Richard K. Payne Publisher University of Hawaii Press, 2019 ISBN 082488101X, 9780824881016 Length 222 pages
A Study of Vasubandhu’s Treatise on Pure Land : with special reference to his theory of salvation in the light of the development of the bodhisattva ideal
“Chapter 3. The Development of the Concept of the Pure Land”.
Jones, Charles B..
Chinese Pure Land Buddhism: Understanding a Tradition of Practice, edited by Richard K. Payne, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2019, pp. 33-60. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824881016-006
Chinese Pure Land Buddhism: Understanding a Tradition of Practice is the first book in any western language to provide a comprehensive overview of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism. Even though Pure Land Buddhism was born in China and currently constitutes the dominant form of Buddhist practice there, it has previously received very little attention from western scholars. In this book, Charles B. Jones examines the reasons for the lack of scholarly attention and why the few past treatments of the topic missed many of its distinctive features. He argues that the Chinese Pure Land tradition, with its characteristic promise of rebirth in the Pure Land to even non-elite or undeserving practitioners, should not be viewed from the perspective of the Japanese Pure Land tradition, which differs greatly. More accurately contextualizing Chinese Pure Land Buddhism within the landscape of Chinese Buddhism and the broader global Buddhist tradition, this work celebrates Chinese Pure Land, not as a school or sect, but as a unique and inherently valuable “tradition of practice.”
This volume is organized thematically, clearly presenting topics such as the nature of the Pure Land, the relationship between “self-power” and “other-power,” the practice of nianfo (buddha-recollection), and the formation of the line of “patriarchs” that keep the tradition grounded. It guides us in understanding the vigorous debates that Chinese Pure Land Buddhism evoked and delves into the rich apologetic literature that it produced in its own defense. Drawing upon a wealth of previously unexamined primary source materials, as well as modern texts by contemporary Chinese Pure Land masters, the author provides lucid translations of resources previously unavailable in English. He also shares his lifetime of experience in this field, enlivening the narrative with personal anecdotes of his visits to sites of Pure Land practice in China and Taiwan.
The straightforward and nontechnical prose makes this book a standby resource for anyone interested in pursuing research in this lively, sophisticated, and still-evolving religious tradition. Scholars—including undergraduates—specializing in East Asian Buddhism, as well as those interested in Buddhism or Chinese religion and history in general, will find this book invaluable.
Author / Editor information
Jones Charles B. :
Charles B. Jones is associate professor and director of the Religion and Culture graduate program in the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
Payne Richard K. :
Richard K. Payne is Yehan Numata Professor of Japanese Buddhist Studies at the Institute of Buddhist Studies, Berkeley.
The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism: Insights from the Oldest Chinese Versions of the Larger Sukhåvativyuha
by Shinko Mochizuki Translated by Leo M Pruden This e-book is based on the articles published on Pacific World Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies http://www.shin-ibs.edu/academics/_pwj/ For the class on Pure Land The International Buddhist College, Thailand, 2011 http://ibc.ac.th
A Study of Zhida’s Play Guiyuan jing and a Translation of its Three Paratexts
Mengxiao Wang Sheng Yen Postdoctoral Fellow in Chinese Buddhism, Institute of East Asian Studies (Center for Buddhist Studies), University of California, Berkeley
MYSTERIES OF SPEECH AND BREATH: DŌHAN’S 道範 (1179-1252) HIMITSU NENBUTSU SHŌ 祕密念佛抄 AND ESOTERIC PURE LAND BUDDHISM
by Aaron P. Proffitt
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Asian Languages and Cultures) in the University of Michigan 2015
Pure Land is both a distinct school of Buddhism that developed in Japan and, says Aaron Proffitt, a cornerstone of the whole Mahayana tradition.
Early Orientalist scholars of Buddhism working under colonialism had little interest in the diversity and vitality of living Buddhist cultures. Instead, they cherry-picked the Buddhist teachings to fit their own modernist, Protestant worldview.
This ahistorical perspective on Buddhism—a “Buddhism” created by and for European intellectuals—was then used to criticize living Buddhist cultures. These scholars believed that Mahayana Buddhism in general, but especially the Pure Land teachings, were a perverse distortion of the buddhadharma (as they defined it).
Sadly, this attitude is still widely seen. Pure Land Buddhism is arguably the most commonly practiced form of Buddhism in the world. Yet in English-language academic and popular writing it is largely ignored, or wholly misunderstood.
The Pure Land teachings are fundamental to Mahayana philosophy, ritual, meditation, art, and scripture. Generally, we could think of Mahayana Buddhism itself as a “Buddhism of the Pure Lands.” More specifically, the term “Pure Land Buddhism” also refers to a distinct form or school of Buddhism that developed in Japan. While drawing on the general Pure Land teachings in Mahayana Buddhism, this school focuses particularly on contemplation of the Pure Land named Sukhavati (Land of Bliss) and the Buddha of that land, Amitabha.
While some Mahayana Buddhists may aspire to be reborn in the Pure Land in the next life, others conceive of the Pure Land as a symbol for nirvana that is in some sense present within this world. Others may hold both positions at the same time. As the Contemplation Sutra says, “the mind that creates the Buddha is the Buddha.”
Pure Land Teachings in India
Today we divide the Buddhist world into Theravada and Mahayana, yet this division wasn’t always so clear-cut. Many elements we now identify as Mahayanaor Theravada or tantra developed gradually within diverse early Indian cultural contexts in the period 500 BCE–100 CE, before the sutras we now have access to were written down.
For the most part, the texts written in the literary language known as Pali, which today we associate with Theravada Buddhism, preserve a worldview that suggests only one buddha may exist at a time. But the body of sutras we now label as Mahayana offer diverse perspectives on the nature of buddhahood and the path to awakening.
Buddhists of all schools agree that Shakyamuni Buddha taught about buddhas of the past and future, but within Mahayana sutras and tantras, it’s believed the Buddha also taught about other buddhas of this age, such as Akshobhya, Vairocana, and Amitabha.
Sukhavati and Amitabha appear to have been very popular when Mahayana texts were written down, as they’re mentioned in literally hundreds of Mahayana sutras and tantras. Later treatises dealing with the Pure Land teachings are attributed to great Indian masters such as Nagarjuna (circa 150–250 CE) and Vasubandhu (fourth–fifth century CE).
Pure Land Buddhism in China
Buddhism was transmitted along trade routes throughout South and Central Asia, and by the first century of the Common Era it began taking root in China. Mahayana Buddhism was particularly embraced, and as the Pure Land teachings are a fundamental aspect of Mahayana philosophy and practice, diverse perspectives on the pure lands flourished in China early on.
Born in Gandhara in 147 CE, the monk Lokaksema translated Sanskrit Mahayana texts into Chinese, including the Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra (the Sutra on the Samadhi for Encountering Face-Face the Buddhas of the Present). The Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra was particularly influential upon the monk Huiyuan (334–416), whom later generations recognized as the first Pure Land patriarch.
Huiyuan organized Pure Land practice societies, referred to as White Lotus Societies, whose practitioners contemplated Amitabha Buddha in order to receive mystical visions of him. This inspired later forms of communal Pure Land practice. Like most other Chinese Buddhist masters, Huiyuan was also conversant in Daoist and Confucian thought. He’s famous for rebuking a local warlord by declaring “monks do not revere kings.”
Zhiyi (538–597) of Mount Tiantai in Zhejiang, China, is regarded as the founder of the Tiantai tradition, which offered an indigenous Chinese approach to Indian Buddhism. Zhiyi revered Nagarjuna’s teachings on emptiness, and offered a comprehensive understanding of Buddhist doctrine and meditation that ended up influencing the whole of East Asian Buddhism.
Zhiyi’s perspective on Pure Land practice also drew upon the Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra, recommending recitation of the name of Amitabha as a way of staying focused during meditation. Some of the most influential Pure Land teachers in East Asian history were associated with the Tiantai lineage, known as Cheontae in Korea and Tendai in Japan.
The works of Shandao (613–681) represent another important strand of East Asian Pure Land Buddhist thought. Shandao was revered for his visionary experiences and meditative prowess. What distinguishes Shandao was his revolutionary teaching that Pure Land practices can help even ordinary beings attain rebirth in the Pure Land, and thus awakening. This was in contrast to the elite view that Pure Land rebirth was only possible for highly accomplished bodhisattvas.
Throughout Chinese history, Chan (Zen) masters, as well as systematizers of East Asian Esoteric (tantric) Buddhism, have promoted Pure Land practices. The Chan scholar–monk Yongming Yanshou (904–975) drew on the long history of Chan–Pure Land practice and argued that when Pure Land practices are integrated with Chan meditation, it’s more effective than when Chan meditation is practiced alone. To this day, Chan meditation, esoteric practices, and Pure Land practices function together within Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, and Japanese Buddhism.
Pure Land Buddhism in Tibet
Tibetan Buddhism developed later than East Asian Buddhism, so it was able to draw upon the full range of Indian Buddhist texts. Eventually the tantras were emphasized. While we may often associate the tantras with the rapid attainment of buddhahood in this body and world, many tantras are said to lead to rebirth in the pure lands, especially Sukhavati.
The Pure Land tradition has manifested in myriad ways in Tibetan Buddhism. Padmasambhava (circa eighth–ninth century) was a great tantric teacher in Tibet who came to be recognized as an incarnation of Amitabha Buddha; the Tibetan lineage of reincarnated tulkus known as the Panchen Lamas are said to be emanations of Amitabha. A Tibetan ritual known as phowa involves practitioners ejecting their consciousness out the top of their heads and into Sukhavati. One of the most important mantras in Tibetan Buddhism is that of Avalokiteshvara, “Om Mani Padme Hum,” which is said to lead to rebirth in Sukhavati.
In Tibet, as in India and most of Asia, Pure Land Buddhism has not functioned as a distinct sect or school. Instead, Pure Land philosophy and practices have been integral to diverse Mahayana traditions. In Japan, Pure Land Buddhism emerged as a distinct approach to Buddhism.
Japanese Pure Land Buddhism
The Japanese monk Eon was a scholar of Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka (Middle Way) philosophy who traveled to China in 608 CE. Upon his return to Japan over thirty years later, he chose the Pure Land teachings as the subject of his first lecture.
Devotion to Amitabha became a major feature of Japanese Buddhism. Initially, Japanese Buddhists practiced the dedication of merit to help their ancestors attain rebirth in the Pure Land, but over time, aspiring to one’s own rebirth in the Pure Land became popular.
Japanese monks associated with the Mount Hiei Tendai tradition, such as Ennin (794–864) and Genshin (942–1017), promoted Tendai philosophy, esoteric ritual, and the practice of nembutsu (Pure Land contemplation and the recitation of Amitabha Buddha’s name). Wandering ascetics such as Kuya (903–972) traveled between mountain monastic centers and the marketplace to share Pure Land teachings with the common people.
Kakuban (1095–1143), and later Dohan (1179–1252), drew upon the esoteric understanding of mantra and promoted the idea that Amitabha Buddha is best understood as the breath of life of all beings and that Pure Land “rebirth” is the same as attaining buddhahood in this very body.
In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the rising power of the samurai class sent Japan into chaos. In response to this social upheaval, an egalitarian approach to Buddhism emerged that emphasized the Pure Land path as open to ordinary people, not just those engaged in elite monastic practice. The medieval Japanese Pure Land schools tended to emphasize the Pure Land path almost to the exclusion of practices such as scholasticism, Zen meditation, and esoteric ritual, while at the same time drawing upon the philosophical insights that arose from those traditions.
Honen (1133–1212) is the great revolutionary of Japanese Pure Land history. Drawing on his broad erudition in Mahayana philosophy and practice, and the works of Shandao in particular, Honen sought the teaching that would be most effective for people living in this age of chaos and anxiety. Eventually, Honen came to see the recitation of the name of Amitabha, “Namu Amida Butsu,” as the essential practice.
Because this simple practice is possible for all people, regardless of gender or social station, it exemplifies the universal compassion and wisdom of Amitabha Buddha. Honen inspired a movement that, though persecuted by the powers that be, ended up transforming Japanese Buddhism by creating a “Buddhism of the Pure Land.” Honen’s disciple Shinran (1173–1263) referred to himself as a “stubble headed dummy,” and claimed to not even have one student. Yet the Jodo Shinshu lineage that looks to him as its founder is the largest school of Buddhism in Japan and one of the oldest and largest in the Americas as well, making him one of the most influential Buddhist thinkers in world history.
Shinran argued that progress along the path, Pure Land rebirth, and the attainment of awakening occur not through one’s own efforts alone. Rather, Amitabha Buddha is the dynamic force to which beings spontaneously awaken through a radical letting go—an experience known as shinjin, “the mind of confidence” or “awakening.”
Women have played an important role in Pure Land Buddhism, and Shinran owed his success in many ways to the women in his life. Without his wife, Eshinni, who supported his ministry, and his daughter Kakushinni, who built a mausoleum dedicated to him, Shinran likely would have been little more than an historical footnote.
Although Pure Land Buddhism remains understudied and poorly understood in the English-speaking world, scholars and practitioners today are building new bridges with other Buddhist schools and helping people understand what Pure Land Buddhism really is. In time, the profundity and diversity of the Pure Land tradition will become apparent.
Aaron Proffitt is an Associate Professor of Japanese Studies at The University at Albany-SUNY. He earned his PhD in Buddhist Studies at the University of Michigan in 2015, and his first book, Esoteric Pure Land Buddhism (University of Hawaii Press, 2023), explores the ways that Buddhists in East Asia employed tantric thought and practice to attain rebirth in the Pure Land, and contains the first translation of Dōhan’s (1179–1252) Himitsu nenbutsu shō into a modern language. His research and publications have explored Esoteric Buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism, and the Lotus Sutra, and his current research explores the way that emptiness has been understood and employed within the Pure Land tradition.His book Esoteric Pure Land Buddhism will be published in September by University of Hawaii Press.
In One Lifetime: Pure Land Buddhism Paperback – January 1, 2007
Ching-ying Hui-yuan’s Commentary on the Visualization Sutra
By Kenneth K. Tanaka
Subjects: Buddhism, Philosophy Series: SUNY series in Buddhist Studies Paperback : 9780791402986, 336 pages, August 1990 Hardcover : 9780791402979, 336 pages, August 1990
Pure Land in the Making
Vietnamese Buddhism in the US Gulf South
By Allison J. Truitt
PUBLISHED: February 2021 SUBJECT LISTING: Asian American Studies, Anthropology, Asian Studies / Southeast Asia BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: 226 Pages, 6 x 9 in, 16 b&w illus. ISBN: 9780295748474 Publisher: University of Washington Press
ASPIRING TO ENLIGHTENMENT: PURE LAND BUDDHISM IN SILLA KOREA
Richard D. McBride II Series: Pure Land Buddhist Studies Hardback: $68.00 ISBN-13: 9780824882600 Published: August 2020 ADD TO CART Paperback: $28.00 ISBN-13: 9780824897864 Published: October 2023
‘Pure Land Buddhism in America’,
Lee, Jesse J.,
in Ann Gleig, and Scott A. Mitchell (eds), The Oxford Handbook of American Buddhism, Oxford Handbooks (2024; online edn, Oxford Academic, 22 May 2024), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197539033.013.6, accessed 28 May 2024.
Critical Readings on Pure Land Buddhism in Japan
3 Volume
Editor: Galen Amstutz Copyright Year: 2020
Hardback Availability: Published ISBN: 978-90-04-40137-2 Publication: 04 Jun 2020
Hiraizumi – Temples, Gardens and Archaeological Sites Representing the Buddhist Pure Land comprises five sites, including the sacred Mount Kinkeisan. It features vestiges of government offices dating from the 11th and 12th centuries when Hiraizumi was the administrative centre of the northern realm of Japan and rivalled Kyoto. The realm was based on the cosmology of Pure Land Buddhism, which spread to Japan in the 8th century. It represented the pure land of Buddha that people aspire to after death, as well as peace of mind in this life. In combination with indigenous Japanese nature worship and Shintoism, Pure Land Buddhism developed a concept of planning and garden design that was unique to Japan.
In Japan, a total of thirteen schools of Buddhism coexist and have their own temples. Here are the main ones:
Tendai, a school created in 805 by the monk Saicho and which stands out for its rigorous ascetic practice.
Shingon, or “True Word”, a school of esoteric Buddhism which emphasizes the recitation of mantras, formulations made up of repeated syllables for meditative purposes.
Jodo, the Pure Land School, and Jodo Shinshu, a new school of Pure Land, which are the two most popular schools in Japan. They encourage the practitioner to chant Sutras, which are Buddhist writings.
Soto and Rinzai, which are the two main schools of Zen Buddhism and insist respectively on meditation (zazen) and on koan, which are enigmas that the practitioner must solve to reach enlightenment.
According to the major sutras of Pure Land Buddhism, the Larger Sukhavativyuha and the Smaller Sukhavativyuha, Amitabha Buddha’s Pure Land (Skt. Sukhavati) lies beyond 10 billion Buddha-lands west of our World of Endurance. Having been fully developed from the mid-6th to the early 9th centuries, the belief in rebirth in such a place and the recitation of Amitabha’s name to achieve this goal became central to Pure Land Buddhism, serving as an expedient for the meditative path to enlightenment or even as a method of equal importance since the Ming dynasty (1368–1644). To better understand the nature of the Pure Land and how it is related to the world in which we sentient beings live, I visited one of the birthplaces of Pure Land Buddhism—Xuanzhong Monastery (玄中寺) in Jiaocheng County, Shanxi Province, China.
Since its establishment in 472, Xuanzhong Monastery has stood on the same site in the Shibi Mountains, remote and secluded. Three patriarchs of the Pure Land school, Tan Luan (曇鸞, 476–542), Dao Chuo (道綽, 562–645), and Shan Dao (善導, 613–81), resided and spread the teachings there. For this reason, Xuanzhong Monastery received continuous imperial patronage during the Tang dynasty (618–907). When Kublai Khan ruled China, he also granted the monastery imperial protection. Khan’s edict, inscribed in stone in both Chinese and the ‘Phags-pa script,* has been well preserved in the monastery’s stele collection. Today, Xuanzhong Monastery is lauded as an ancestral court by Pure Land Buddhists in China, as well as by followers of Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu—two Pure Land sects in Japan.
Important Cultural Property The Pure Land of Amida (Skt. Amitābha)
There are three types of Amida’s Pure Land paintings in Japan: Taima Mandara, Seikai Mandara, and Chikō Mandara. The Taima Mandara is based on the description of the Kanmuryōju-kyō (Amitāyur-buddha-dhyāna sūtra) and illustrates the story of Ajase the saint, thirteen virtues, and nine styles of going to the Pure Land. In the Seikai Mandara, the painting is surrounded by sixteen verses. The Amida’s (Amitābha’s) Pure Land introduced in this article belongs to neither the Taima nor Seikai types of mandaras. The concept in this picture is similar to that of the Chikō Mandara, which is based on the description in the Muryōju-kyō (Sukhāvatī-vyuha sūtra). Priest Chikō in Gangō-ji temple established the Chikō mandara style during the late Nara period. Not only the concept but also the composition of this picture is similar to that of the Chikō Mandara; the scene is divided horizontally into three or four layers. Beginning with the top layer, sky, palaces, Buddhist deities, sacred trees, the sacred pond, and a dance performance were painted. Bright red and whitish-green are the major colors in the painting, and shu-vermilion and tan-red are used for the gradation in the shading of the costume. This picture is notable for its Japanese style. Masterpieces of Nara National Museum. Nara National Museum, 1993, p.42, no.27.
The Shingon sect of Buddhism follows the doctrine of esoteric Shingon teachings compiled by Kobo Daishi (Kukai) in the Heian period. “Shingon” refers to the truth revealed by Buddhism. These teachings tell us that words and existence are inseparable, and that the true essence of Buddhism cannot be explained in human language. Instead, the words used in scripture embody the deep meaning and teachings found in phenomena around the world; they are signposts to true reality of all things. Kobo Daishi tells us that it is these esoteric teachings that are truth, and that esoteric Buddhism is the path to understanding them. By contrast, exoteric teachings are concerned with discerning meaning from the surface of things in the world. Exoteric teachings include the Mahayana teachings found in Hosso, Sanron, and Shomon and Engaku practices.
A few differences can be pointed out between esoteric “Mikkyou” Buddhism and exoteric “Kengyo,” but the very basic distinction is the method of practicing the knowledge of the meaning of a hidden secret. In Shingon, the Sanmitsukaji (Three secret healings) and the Sanmitsuyuga (three secret yuga) are spoken of, but it means the practice of meditation to focus on one point of the spirit (Sanmaji). As for its characteristics, the secret workings of the Buddha, body, mouth and thoughts and the workings of the Buddha, body, mouth, and thoughts of the devotee inspire each other reciprocally, and the distinction between the Buddha and the devotee disappears and the follower makes living peaceably essential. Kobo Daishi calls this way of things the “Nyuga Ganyu,” meaning that “the Buddha enters me and I enter the Buddha.” Kobo Daishi expressed that with Mikkyou Buddhism, enlightenment can be better realized, as compared to Kengyo, and says that there exist these incantations, Nyuga Ganyu, and practice (meditation). But then, from the late Heian period until the Kamakura period, the new kind of Buddhism entering the stage took influence from Shingon sect education and prayer, introduced the Mikkyou essence and value in one part, and as a rule, has meditation, for which it can not be said is lacking in Kengyo Buddhism. If another difference between the faiths can be brought up, it is the appreciation of the Buddha and bodhisattva.The Buddha and bodhisattva in Kengyou is a “person” who found enlightenment, and a “person” searching for enlightenment, but the Buddha and bodhisattva in Mikkyou are the truth of the universe themselves (dharma). The ones grasping this ”dharma” as a physical image are the Buddha and the bodhisattva. For that reason, the Buddha and bodhisattva in Mikkyou are called the “Hosshinbutsu (dharmic body).”
Kobo Daishi expresses that this Hosshinbutsu, or truth of the universe, being taught directly to us as an insight of truth is called the “Hosshin Seppo.” This space-time listening to the wisdom of this teaching will be the circumstance of the three mysteries incantation (Nyuga Ganyu). By that meaning, in the Shingon sect, the Buddha and the universe are a gift to the people, and also, is a basis for a prayer as a condition for the mysterious ability of the people to react, and according to that, understanding the insight of the Buddha, naturally accumulating pious acts, helping the people, and making them happy are regarded as the most important, so it can be said that it is a practical Buddhist sect.
SHINGON BUDDHISM is a religion that was established by Kôbô Daishi (Kûkai) at the beginning of the Heian period (9th century), and its teachings are known as Shingon Esoteric Buddhism (Shingon Buddhism).
This form of Buddhism is also known in Japanese as mikkyô, meaning “secret teaching”. Mikkyô is one of several streams of practice within the Mahâyana Buddhist tradition. Mikkyô blends many doctrines, philosophies, deities, religious rituals, and meditation techniques from a wide variety of sources. Assimilation of Hindu and local deities and rituals was especially marked in the Buddhism that became Mikkyô. Such diverse elements came together over time and, combining with Mahâyåna philosophical teachings, formed a comprehensive Buddhist system of doctrine and practice.
The teachings of Shingon are based on the Mahâvairocana Sutra (J: Dainichi-kyô) and the Vajrasekhara sutra (J: Kongôchô-kyô) , the fundamental sutras of Shingon. These sutras were probably written during the last half of the seventh century in India. They contain the first systematic presentation of Mikkyô doctrine and practice.
Shingon represents the middle period of esoteric Buddhist development in India. This, extending from the seventh into the eighth century, was the time when the Mahâvairocana Sutra and Vajra Sekhara Sutra were compiled. Esoteric Buddhist history was practiced from India to Central Asia, Ceylon, China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Nepal, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, and Tibet. The Mikkyô tradition continues in Japan today, but in other lands where the Indian source tradition developed in varying ways, the esoteric Buddhist teachings have mostly declined, some to the point of extinction.
Kūkai in China, What He Studied and Brought Back to Japan
Source: Kūkai in China, What He Studied and Brought Back to Japan
Source: Kūkai in China, What He Studied and Brought Back to Japan
Source: Kūkai in China, What He Studied and Brought Back to Japan
Source: Kūkai in China, What He Studied and Brought Back to Japan
Source: Kūkai in China, What He Studied and Brought Back to Japan
Source: Kūkai in China, What He Studied and Brought Back to Japan
Chinese Esoteric Buddhism
Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Source: Chinese Esoteric Buddhism/ Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition
Kukai’s Shingon Philosophy: Embodiment
Source: Kukai’s Shingon Philosophy: Embodiment
Source: Kukai’s Shingon Philosophy: Embodiment
Source: Kukai’s Shingon Philosophy: Embodiment
Source: Kukai’s Shingon Philosophy: Embodiment
Source: Kukai’s Shingon Philosophy: Embodiment
Source: Kukai’s Shingon Philosophy: Embodiment
Source: Kukai’s Shingon Philosophy: Embodiment
Source: Kukai’s Shingon Philosophy: Embodiment
Source: Kukai’s Shingon Philosophy: Embodiment
My Related Posts
You can search for these posts using Search Posts feature in the right sidebar.
Three Treatise School (Sanlun) of Chinese Buddhist Philosophy
Hua Yan Buddhism : Reflecting Mirrors of Reality
What is Yogacara Buddhism (Consciousness Only School)?
Dhyan, Chan, Son and Zen Buddhism: Journey from India to China, Korea and Japan
Chinese Tiantai and Japanese Tendai Buddhism
Intersubjectivity in Buddhism
Schools of Buddhist Philosophy
Meditations on Emptiness and Fullness
Self and Other: Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity
Law of Dependent Origination
The Fifth Corner of Four: Catuskoti in Buddhist Logic
A Brilliant Exploration of Kukai and the Pan-Asian Travels of Esoteric Buddhism at Nara National Museum: KUKAI: The Worlds of Mandalas and the Transcultural Origins of Esoteric Buddhism
Kukai, 9th century founder of esoteric Shingon Buddhism (Shingon Mikkyo) in Japan, was a peripatetic and socially heroic figure who roved far and wide assisting with infrastructure projects, excelling in the divining of water, and sculpting and painting icons… Or so the mythology that surrounds him would have us believe. He may not have accomplished all the social and artistic projects that are attributed to him, though the attributions are testament to the effect he had on Japan’s historical imagination, but he did indeed travel, as did the type of Buddhism he adopted and introduced to Japan, and the Kukai exhibition at Nara National Museum does a wonderful job of producing a map of Mikkyo, tracing the complex journey of esoteric Buddhism from India to Japan, and then some of its trajectory throughout various regions of Japan under the custodianship of Kukai. Kukai’s life involved monastic training in Xi’an, China, residency at Takaosanji temple and tenure at Toji temple (both in Kyoto) and life at mountain-based Koyasan in Wakayama where he founded his own community. The exhibition traces the stages of his career within the broader Asian context. One place represented where he did not play a role is Indonesia, but the revelation provided by a large number of astonishing artefacts excavated from a site there – and never before displayed in Japan – suggests an impersonal yet significant link.
One magnificent piece (of the many historically important, visually striking, and physically huge works on display) is the twelfth century “Blood Mandala”, the earliest extant polychrome copy of the mandala Kukai brought back from T’ang China with him to Japan in the 9th century. Mandalas, the information panel explains, “convey how the worlds of the universe are conceived within the esoteric Buddhist tradition”. These mysterious diagrammatic paintings are used in complex visualizations by initiated practitioners as a means of accomplishing a state called “Buddhahood [or enlightenment] in this very Body” which is why, while the paintings are crammed with information, they present prescribed iconography and can be decoded. The esoteric psycho-physical cosmos is understood as having a “Diamond” aspect and a “Womb” aspect, which make up a non-dual whole.
On the other hand, there are some striking decorative elements, which demonstrate how these diagrams – which are made and used throughout the Buddhist world – exhibit cultural tastes, such as the delicate, brightly coloured blossoms flowering in the outermost margins. And this reminds us too that these are works of art as much as they are ritual implements. Before each mandala is set an altar equipped with implements for the rituals for each mandala, and nearby is a late 9th century statue of a seated blue-haired and gold skinned Dainichi Nyorai, the principal deity in Japan’s esoteric Buddhism who appears in prime places in both mandalas. Keeping as close to Kukai’s time as possible, a set of Five Wisdom Buddhas (also from the 9th century) represent a key section of the mandalas. All of this together creates a display of the key pieces of esoteric Buddhist ritual: icons, instructive diagrams, and altar. The only element missing is Kukai the ritualist, but his presence is felt throughout the show, and not only as practitioner but as intellect, writer, traveler, community-builder, and religious leader as well.
This leads us into another of the major exhibits: the East Javanese Nganjuk mandala of the 10th century which was made up of numerous small bronze figures of buddhas and bodhisattvas excavated in the early 20th century. These are arranged inside a circular room with walls marked with the stars, presumably to press home the point that what we are dealing with is an esoteric cosmos. The identities and arrangement of the icons that make up this unusual 3D mandala show that the esoteric practices in Java were essentially the same as those brought to Japan by Kukai (there are varieties of esoteric Buddhism). There are also some striking differences. The Javanese icons all display Hindu characteristics, a reminder that esoteric Buddhism developed from Indian traditions, which contrast with the icons that Japan created. Drawing heavily on Indian prototypes, the headdresses, facial features, and the curvaceous female deities distinguish the entire set from its Japanese counterparts.
Of the many notable artefacts, works of painted and sculpted art, and ritual tools on display, the magnificent Takao Mandala is also a must-see. Kukai was based at Takaosanji temple (after which the mandalas are named) in Kyoto for a short period. This is another piece from the 9th century, and it is being exhibited for the first time since its six-year long conservation. This beautiful, delicate (and gigantic) pair of mandalas are painted with thin gold line on black backgrounds – simple yet stunning.
A highly recommended show, excellently curated, and overflowing with masterpieces that include works rarely seen in Japan.
Admission: Adults 2000 yen, University and High School Students 1500 yen, Junior High School Students and Under: free
Nara National Museum. Location here. 50 Noboriojicho, Nara, 630-8212
Directions: Take Exit 2 from Kintetsu-Nara Station on the Kintetsu line and walk 15 minutes or from the East Exit of Nara Station on the JR Kansai Main line, take the Nara Kotsu bus and alight at Himurojinja-Kokuritsuhakubutsukan bus stop.
A Cultural History of Japanese Buddhism
Wiley-Blackwell Guides to Buddhism Authors William E. Deal, Brian Ruppert Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher John Wiley & Sons, 2015 ISBN 1405167017, 9781405167017 Length 320 pages
The Mountain as Mandala: Kūkai’s Founding of Mt. Kōya
Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 47(1) December 2020 47(1) DOI:10.18874/jjrs.47.1.2020.43-83 Authors: Ethan Bushelle Western Washington University
Shingon Buddhism originated in ancient Indian Tantric thought and developed as a distinctive form of Buddhism before arriving in Japan in the early 9th century CE. The religion moved across countries, from India through the Silk Road countries into China and finally into Japan, before it took shape as a distinctively Japanese form of esoteric Buddhism. In order to understand this branch of Buddhism it is important to study its path from India to China, and then finally to Japan. Along every stop on its path the religion adapted to the culture around it, constantly changing until arriving in Japan. Although extensive documents and archaeological evidence from this journey no longer exist, there are a few highlights along the Silk Road that shed light on esoteric Buddhism’s path. Specifically in India and China Buddhism went though severe religious persecution causing relics and temples to be destroyed. However many cave temples in China have been spared, although they have endured some damage. Another important factor affecting the preservation of evidence concerns the secret nature of esoteric Buddhism. Because Shingon and other esoteric sects were always restricted to those who were initiated into the sects, Shingon was able to fossilize the religion in secret chambers, some of which are being discovered today.
Icons and Iconoclasm in Japanese Buddhism: Kukai and Dogen on the Art of Enlightenment
Author Pamela Winfield Edition illustrated Publisher OUP USA, 2013 ISBN 0199945551, 9780199945559 Length 207 pages
Kukai and the beginnings of Shingon Buddhism in Japan
Jingo-ji Temple, a famous autumn foliage spot in northern Kyoto, traces its origins to Takaoyama Temple, established by Wake no Kiyomaro. When Kukai returned from Tang China, he made Jingo-ji his base of operations, making it a starting point for Shingon Esoteric Buddhism. This exhibition commemorates the 1200th anniversary of Jingo-ji becoming an official esoteric Buddhist temple in 824 and the 1250th anniversary of Kukai’s birth. It features treasures associated with Kukai, such as the National Treasure “Standing Yakushi Nyorai,” a masterpiece of early Heian period sculpture, and the National Treasure “Ryokai Mandala (Takao Mandala),” which has been restored for the first time in approximately 230 years. Additionally, other precious cultural properties inherited by Jingo-ji will be on display.
Hardcover – Illustrated, May 31, 2006 by Rolf W. Giebel (Translator), Dale A. Todaro (Translator)
The Matrix and Diamond World Mandalas in Shingon Buddhism (2 Vol)
Author(s): Adrian Snodgrass ISBN: 8185179271 Year of Publication: 1998 Bibliographic Information: xli + 881p. 382 illus. Format: Hardcover Series Information: Satapitaka Series No. 354-55 Language: English
From the early 9th century a new orientation emerged in Japanese Buddhism that emphasized specific Tantric, or Vajrayāna characteristics of both doctrine and practice. While elements of the Vajrayāna (vehicle of the diamond/thunderbolt) Buddhist traditions of mature Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism were present in Japan in the 8th century, it was only in the new Buddhist schools of Tendai and Shingon that related practices recently imported from China were specifically identified as “esoteric” in nature and as different from the other schools of Buddhism that were newly designated as “exoteric” by these schools. The first to promote this distinction was the monk Kūkai, founder of the Shingon school. His contemporary Saichō, who founded the Tendai school, placed himself and several of his disciples under Kūkai’s tutelage to learn what the latter had brought back from an intensive study period in China. Yet Saichō’s approach was to place the esoteric teachings and practices on a par with his Tendai teachings, derived primarily from the Chinese Tiantai school. His difference from Kūkai on this matter drove both an eventual end to their cooperative relationship and, after Saichō’s death, innovations by Tendai school exegetes that aimed to reconcile the differences. The combined force of Tendai esotericism (Taimitsu) and Shingon esotericism (Tōmitsu) impacted greatly the development of subsequent centuries of Japanese Buddhism. The three major schools of Buddhism that dominated during the Nara period (710–794)—Sanron, Hossō, and Kegon—all incorporated esoteric elements into their practice during the Heian period (794–1185). By the time of the Kamakura period (1185–1333), when the new forms of Zen, pure land, and Nichiren Buddhism emerged, the esoteric paradigm was so ingrained in Japanese Buddhist thought that even though esoteric practice was at times explicitly criticized by the new schools, much of its worldview was implicitly affirmed.
Central to Japanese esoteric Buddhism is the understanding that through engaging in the ritual practices of reciting mantra, practicing symbolic hand gestures known as mudra, and imagining one’s self and all beings as being intrinsically awakened (one meaning of the term mandala), one can achieve the enlightened stage of buddhahood within one lifetime. These three are called the “practices of the three mysteries” (sanmitsu gyō三密業), through which a practitioner is able to unite with the enlightened energy of the cosmic buddha’s body, speech, and mind. More than anything else, it was this cosmological framework that influenced the development of many later Buddhist practices. Fundamental to this model was the affirmation that every living being is intrinsically endowed with the latent qualities of buddhahood. This concept of “original enlightenment” (hongaku本覚) framed an immanental, holistic vision that recognized the real presence of nirvāṇa (freedom, liberation) in the midst of one’s experience of saṃsāra (the cyclic world of ignorant suffering). The unfolding of various doctrinal and ritual means of articulating and verifying a practitioner’s intrinsic state of enlightenment spurred novel theological systems, artistic creativity of many forms, as well as sociopolitical opportunities for aristocrats who sought to invoke the buddha’s power for various mundane needs. Tendai and Shingon monks alike contributed to this growth in a myriad of ways.
ronze statues of Kukai, left, and Huiguo are shown at the Qinglong Temple in Xian, China, where Japanese monk Kukai learned the teachings of esoteric Buddhism from Chinese Master Huiguo more than 1,200 years ago.
Ayoung Buddhist monk crossed the sea to China as a member of a Japanese mission sent there during the Tang Dynasty (618-907). That monk was Kukai (774-835), also known posthumously as Kobo-Daishi.
In China, he studied esoteric Buddhism, which had been brought from India, and later brought the teachings back to Japan and founded the Shingon School of Buddhism.
His name has been passed down from generation to generation in Xian, the capital of Shaanxi Province, then the Tang capital of Changan, and garners respect among local people even today.
Surrounded by walls built during the Ming Dynasty, the streets of Xian are laid out as a grid. The streets of Kyoto, an ancient capital of Japan, were modeled after those of Xian. While the city is now lined with four-star hotels and designer boutiques, many old temples and pagodas still remain here and there, recalling bygone days.
On a hill southeast of the city”s south gate is Qinglong Temple, Kukai received the ultimate teachings of esoteric Buddhism under Master Huiguo (746-805). At Huiguo-Kukai Memorial Hall, the temple”s main hall, wooden statues of Kukai and Huiguo are now worshiped.
“The sight of Huiguo, a Chinese master, and Kukai, a Japanese master, side by side is an eternal symbol of friendship between China and Japan,” Kuan Xu, the temple”s 43-year-old head priest, said quietly.
Near the hall stands the Kukai Monument. It was built by four prefectures in Shikoku, including Kagawa, where Kukai was born, and the city government of Xian. Four decorative stones at the monument”s four corners symbolize the four prefectures.
The temple was once packed with Japanese tourists, but due to soured relations between the two countries, the number of visitors has declined markedly.
“I chatted with Japanese visitors on a few occasions here … Master Kukai would feel sorry about the current state of bilateral relations,” said a 77-year-old woman who was sitting on a bench near the monument.
A gateway to the Silk Road and the center of esoteric Buddhism, Changan was one of the world”s most prosperous cities during the Tang Dynasty.
Kukai came across esoteric teachings while studying Buddhism in Japan and joined the official mission overseas, hoping to plumb their depths in Changan.
Upon his arrival in Changan in 804, Kukai took up the study of Sanskrit to read the sacred texts. Later he went to see Huiguo at the Qinglong Temple, then considered to be the headquarters of esoteric Buddhism in China.
Huiguo had probably been informed that Kukai was a man of great ability as well as a genius at calligraphy and languages. When Kukai visited him and was given an audience, Huiguo said with delight: “Since learning of your arrival, I”ve been waiting anxiously. How excellent it is that we now meet at last!”
Huiguo reportedly bestowed upon Kukai all the esoteric teachings.
Esoteric Buddhism, after experiencing a golden age, gradually fell into decline due to Tang Dynasty policies that oppressed Buddhism while patronizing Taoism, and the outbreak of war at the end of the dynasty.
Qinglong Temple was allegedly destroyed, like other ancient temples there, in the 11th century. The temple in its present form, including the monument and the memorial hall, was reconstructed in the 1980s with the cooperation and financial support of the Shingon School of esoteric Buddhism in Japan and community organizations from Shikoku.
At the memorial hall, a 49-year-old local man was ardently saying a prayer. When I told him that I was from Japan, he said with a smile: “So, you”re from the fatherland of Master Kukai! I hope to visit Mt. Koya someday.”
More than 1,200 years ago, a young Kukai built a bridge between Japan and China. Countless years have passed, and though there have been times when the winds of adversity have blown, there are still some who would cross that bridge even today.
Visible Mantra: Visualising & Writing Buddhist Mantras
The Development of Esoteric Buddhist Scholasticism in Early Medieval Japan
By
Matthew Don McMullen
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements of Doctor of Philosophy in Buddhist Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley
THE FIVE GREAT SPACE REPOSITORY BODHISATTVAS: LINEAGE, PROTECTION AND CELESTIAL AUTHORITY IN NINTH-CENTURY JAPAN
by Copyright 2010 Hillary Eve Pedersen Submitted to the graduate degree program in Art History and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
From the fourteenth through the nineteenth centuries Japanese monks created hundreds of maps to construct and locate their place in a Buddhist world. This expansively illustrated volume is the first to explore the largely unknown archive of Japanese Buddhist world maps and analyze their production, reproduction, and reception. In examining these fascinating sources of visual and material culture, author D. Max Moerman argues for an alternative history of Japanese Buddhism—one that compels us to recognize the role of the Buddhist geographic imaginary in a culture that encompassed multiple cartographic and cosmological world views.
The contents and contexts of Japanese Buddhist world maps reveal the ambivalent and shifting position of Japan in the Buddhist world, its encounter and negotiation with foreign ideas and technologies, and the possibilities for a global history of Buddhism and science. Moerman’s visual and intellectual history traces the multiple trajectories of Japanese Buddhist world maps, beginning with the earliest extant Japanese map of the world: a painting by a fourteenth-century Japanese monk charting the cosmology and geography of India and Central Asia based on an account written by a seventh-century Chinese pilgrim-monk. He goes on to discuss the cartographic inclusion and marginal position of Japan, the culture of the copy and the power of replication in Japanese Buddhism, and the transcultural processes of engagement and response to new visions of the world produced by Iberian Christians, Chinese Buddhists, and the Japanese maritime trade. Later chapters explore the transformations in the media and messages of Buddhist cartography in the age of print culture and in intellectual debates during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries over cosmology and epistemology and the polemics of Buddhist science.
The Japanese Buddhist World Map offers a wholly innovative picture of Japanese Buddhism that acknowledges the possibility of multiple and heterogeneous modernities and alternative visions of Japan and the world.
Esoteric Buddhism within the Framework of the Lotus Sutra Buddhism of Nichiren
Daigoji, located in the Yamashina area of Kyoto, is a celebrated Buddhist temple that has played an important role in Japanese history ever since its founding in 874 (Jōgan 16) by the monk Shōbō, who was later known by the honorific title Rigen Daishi. Within the Shingon tradition of Esoteric Buddhism, the temple is known as a sacred site that places great emphasis on conducting prayers for spiritual empowerment and esoteric rites in particular. The sculpture and paintings used as the chief objects of worship in those rituals along with the ritual implements have been preserved as treasures at the temple since the period of its founding in the ninth century. The Documents and Sacred Writings of Daigoji, numbering 69,378 items, has been designated a National Treasure. These items, which include records of the ritual programs, procedures and methods as well as the iconography of the objects of veneration in addition to documents demonstrating the faith of various powerful political figures, recount for us the glorious history of Daigoji. Among these National Treasures and Important Cultural Properties are found many cherished works, including documents, calligraphy and Buddhist sculpture and paintings that were sent overseas in 2016 (Heisei 28) to be displayed in China for the first time. Those exhibitions, which traced the history and art of the temple from the Heian period through modern times, were extremely well received and were viewed by so many visitors in the cities of Shanghai and Xi’an. To commemorate the exhibitions in China, exhibitions are now to be held at two venues in Japan, one in Tokyo and the other in Fukuoka, with the aim of introducing the treasures of Esoteric Buddhist art from Daigoji. The exhibitions chiefly feature Buddhist sculpture and paintings as well as valuable written works and calligraphy that have been designated National Treasures or Important Cultural Properties. These will allow visitor to trace the vicissitudes of Daigoji from the Heian through the early-modern period. In addition to the profound art that represents the Esoteric Buddhist worldview, the exhibition will also provide a precious opportunity for visitors to experience the magnificent art of Daigoji from early-modern times. On view are items associated with the famous cherry-blossoming viewing hosted by Toyotomi Hideyoshi at the temple during the Azuchi-Momoyama period, the mural-like fusuma slidingdoor paintings of the Sanbō-in cloister and the paintings of Tawaraya Sōtatsu.
A Spiritual Trip to Koyasan, The Centre of Shingon Esoteric Buddhism
The Three-Treatise (or Sanlun) school is an orthodox Chinese Mādhyamika tradition, which was pioneered by Kumārajīva (344?−413?), a prestigious thinker and translator of Indian extraction, and his distinguished disciple Sengzhao (Seng-chao; 374?−414), and later vigorously revived by Jizang (Chi-tsang; 549−623). The school derives its name “three-treatise” from its emphasis on the three translation texts of early Indian Madhyamaka, the Middle Treatise (Zhong lun), the Twelve Gate Treatise (Shiermen lun), and the Hundred Treatise (Bai lun). Both Sengzhao and Jizang, the two leading philosophers of the school, uphold the view that all things are indeterminate and empty. Sengzhao affirms the nonduality of motion and rest, the myriad things and emptiness, and also the subject and the object. Jizang highlights the notion of nonacquisition (or nonattachment) and famously reinterprets and reconstructs the Mādhyamika doctrine of two truths.
Key works
Liebenthal 1968 contains a complete, though often inaccurate, English translation of Sengzhao’s main work, the Zhaolun; a few essays in the work are available in English in Chan 1963 and Robinson 1967. Jizang’s main writings include the Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises (Sanlun xuanyi), the Meaning of the Two Truths (Erdi yi), and A Commentary on the Middle Treatise (Zhongguan lun shu). However, none of the texts is available in English.
Three Treatises school ［三論宗］ (Chin San-lun-tsung; Sanron-shū): A school based on three treatises—Nāgārjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way and Treatise on the Twelve Gates, and Āryadeva’s One-Hundred-Verse Treatise. Kumārajīva translated these three treatises into Chinese in the early fifth century. Their doctrines were successively transmitted by Tao-sheng, T’an-chi, Seng-lang, Seng-ch’üan, and Fa-lang, and finally systematized by Chi-tsang (549–623), who is often regarded as the first patriarch of the Chinese Three Treatises, or San-lun, school. The doctrines of the Three Treatises school were transmitted to Japan by three persons during the seventh and early eighth centuries: First, by the Korean priest Hyekwan, known in Japan as Ekan, who went to Japan in 625. He was a disciple of Chi-tsang. Second, by the Chinese priest Chih-tsang, known in Japan as Chizō, who also went to Japan in the seventh century. He studied the Three Treatises doctrines under Ekan at Gangō-ji temple in Nara and returned to China to further his study under Chi-tsang. On his return to Japan, he taught the Three Treatises doctrines at Hōryū-ji temple. Third, by Chizō’s disciple Dōji, who went to China in 702 and returned to Japan in 718 with the Three Treatises doctrines. He lived at Daian-ji temple in Nara. Actually, a priest named Kwallŭk (known in Japan as Kanroku) of the Korean state of Paekche had brought the Three Treatises teachings to Japan in 602, but Ekan established the theoretical foundation of the school. For this reason, Ekan is regarded as the first to formally introduce the Three Treatises doctrine to Japan. The lineage of Chizō’s disciples, carried on by Chikō and Raikō, was called the Gangō-ji branch of the Three Treatises school, and that of Dōji, the Daian-ji branch. The Three Treatises doctrine holds that, because all phenomena appear and disappear solely by virtue of their relationship with other phenomena (dependent origination), they have no existence of their own, or self-nature, and are without substance. The school upholds Nāgārjuna’s “middle path of the eight negations” (non-birth, non-extinction, non-cessation, non-permanence, non-uniformity, non-diversity, non-coming, and non-going), and sees refutation of dualistic or one-sided views in itself as revealing the truth of the Middle Way.
(Jap.). One of the Six Schools of Nara Buddhism during the early history of Buddhism in Japan. The word is a Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese ‘San-lun’, and represented an effort to import the texts and teachings of the Chinese school into Japan. It is said to have been transmitted to Japan by the Korean monk Hyegwan (Jap., Ekan) in 625. Perhaps as many as three other transmissions occurred over the next century, leading to various streams of Sanron thought based in different temples. However, the school, which limited itself to academic study and practice by a handful of clergy, never reached out to the masses of people, and so never became a major force outside the realm of theory and doctrine. The various streams died out one by one, and the last actual Sanron master passed away in 1149.
Jizang. (J. Kichizō; K. Kilchang) (549–623). In Chinese, “Storehouse of Auspiciousness”; Chinese Buddhist monk of originally Parthian descent and exegete within the San lun zong, the Chinese counterpart of the Madhyamaka school of Indian thought. At a young age, he is said to have met the Indian translator Paramārtha, who gave him his dharma name. Jizang is also known to have frequented the lectures of the monk Falang (507–581) with his father, who was also [an] ordained monk. Jizang eventually was ordained by Falang, under whom he studied the so-called Three Treatises (San lun), the foundational texts of the Chinese counterpart of the Madhyamaka school: namely, the Zhong lun(Mūlamadhyamakārikā), Bai lun (*Śataśāstra), and Shi’ermen lun (*Dvādaśamukhaśāstra). At the age of twenty-one, Jizang received the full monastic precepts. After Falang’s death in 581, Jizang moved to the monastery of Jiaxiangsi in Huiji (present-day Zhejiang province). There, he devoted himself to lecturing and writing and is said to have attracted more than a thousand students. In 598, Jizang wrote a letter to Tiantai Zhiyi, inviting him to lecture on the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. In 606, Emperor Yang (r. 604–617) constructed four major centers of Buddhism around the country and assigned Jizang to one in Yangzhou (present-day Jiangsu province). During this period, Jizang composed his influential overview of the doctrines of the Three Treatises school, entitled the San lun xuanyi. Jizang’s efforts to promote the study of the three treatises earned him the name “reviver of the San lun tradition.” Jizang was a prolific writer who composed numerous commentaries on the three treatises, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra, etc., as well as an overview of Mahāyāna doctrine, entitled the Dasheng xuan lun. (“Jizang”. In The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, 395. Princeton University Press, 2014)
The Chinese Buddhist Schools.
Lusthaus, Dan.
Buddhist philosophy, Chinese, 1998, doi:10.4324/9780415249126-G002-1. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis,
In the critical environment that followed Dao’an, two sets of events moved Chinese Buddhism in new directions. First, Kumārajīva, a Mahāyāna Buddhist from Kucha in Central Asia, was brought to Changan, the Chinese capital, in 401. Under the auspices of the ruler, he began translating numerous important works with the help of hundreds of assistants, including some of the brightest minds of his day. Some works, such as the Lotus Sutra, Vimalakīrti Sutra and Diamond Sutra, quickly became popular classics. He also introduced the emptiness philosophy of Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka thought (see Buddhism, Mādhyamika: India and Tibet; Nāgārjuna), which in China came to be called the Three Treatise School (Sanlun) after the three Madhyamaka texts he translated: the Madhyamaka-kārikās, the Twelve Gate Treatise and Āryadeva’s One Hundred Verse Treatise. In a series of famous letters exchanged with a disciple of Dao’an, Huiyuan (344–416), who had mastered most of the Buddhist theory and practice known in China up to that time, Kumārajīva attacked the shortcomings of the current Chinese Buddhist theories and argued persuasively for the preeminence of Madhyamaka in matters of both theory and practice. His leading disciple, Seng Zhao (384–414), further popularized Madhyamaka thought by packaging it in an exquisite adoption of the literary style of Laozi (see Daodejing) and Zhuangzi, both of whom were extremely popular amongst literati at that time. Sanlun thought continued to spread through the fifth through seventh centuries, greatly influencing other Buddhist schools. After Jizang (549–623), who attempted to synthesize Madhyamakan emptiness with the Buddha-nature and tathāgatagarbha thought gaining prominence at his time, the Sanlun school declined, its most important ideas absorbed by other schools.
Second, in 418 Faxian (the first Chinese monk successfully to return to China with scriptures from pilgrimage to India) and Buddhabhadra produced a partial translation of the Mahāyāna Nirvāṇa Sutra. One of the topics it discusses is the icchantika, incorrigible beings lacking the requisites for achieving enlightenment. Daosheng (c.360–434), a disciple of Huiyuan, convinced that all beings, including icchantikas, must possess Buddha-nature and hence are capable of enlightenment, insisted that the Nirvāṇa Sutra be understood in that light. Since that violated the obvious meaning of the text, Daosheng was unanimously rebuked, whereupon he left the capital in disgrace. In ad 421, a new translation by Dharmakṣema of the Nirvāṇa Sutra based on a Central Asian original appeared containing sections absent from the previous version. The twenty-third chapter of Dharmakṣema’s version contained passages declaring that Buddha-nature was indeed universal, and that even icchantikas possessed it and could thus reach the goal. Daosheng’s detractors in the capital were humbled, suddenly impressed at his prescience. The lesson was never forgotten, so that two centuries later, when Xuan Zang (600–64) translated Indian texts that once again declared that icchantikas lacked the requisite qualities to attain enlightenment, his school was attacked from all quarters as promoting a less than ‘Mahāyānic’ doctrine. However, it should be noted that there is no clear precedent or term in Indian Buddhism for ‘Buddha-nature’; the notion probably either arose in China through a certain degree of license taken by translators when rendering terms like buddhatva (‘Buddhahood’, an accomplishment, not a primordial ontological ground), or it developed from nascent forms of the theory possibly constructed in Central Asia. However, from this moment on, Buddha-nature become one of the foundational tenets of virtually all forms of East Asian Buddhism.
“Zen and San-Lun Mādhyamika Thought: Exploring the Theoretical Foundation of Zen Teachings and Practices.”
‘Non-dualism of the Two Truths: Sanlun and Tiantai on Contradictions’,
Deguchi, Yasuo,
What Can’t be Said: Paradox and Contradiction in East Asian Thought (New York, 2021; online edn, Oxford Academic, 18 Feb. 2021), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197526187.003.0004, accessed 23 May 2024.
China possesses a history of over five thousand years. Therefore, if one tries to talk about Chinese culture without touching on Buddhism, one will be in the position of a blind man as told in the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Even though Buddhism had been established some twenty-five centuries ago, it was only transmitted to China during the Chin and Han Dynasties (some five hundred years after the Parinirvana of Sakyamuni Buddha). Even though Buddhism in China had risen and fallen according to the law of constant changes during the past two thousand years, it had been well established in China. The Chinese have been open-minded in their nature and have been capable of absorbing foreign culture. Therefore when Buddhism was introduced into the well-cultured land of China, it has flourished abundantly and developed fruitfully. The golden age of Chinese Buddhism was from the age of the Three Kingdoms to the Tang Dynasty. During this period the various Schools in Buddhism evolved their irreproachable and infallible theories based on the doctrine of Sakyamuni Buddha. Historically speaking the rise and fall of the various schools had been closely connected to the evolution of cultural thoughts and current events in China. A student of Chinese Culture cannot simply neglect Buddhism as his progress will be handicapped like a wheel without an axis. Therefore it is the duty of a lover of Chinese culture to shoulder the responsibility of fostering the study of Buddhism so that the culture will again radiate its splendid light.
The Ten Schools of Chinese Buddhism are as follows: 1. Reality School or Abhidharma School. 2. Satysiddhi School or Cheng-se School. 3. Three Sastra School or San-lun School. 4. The Lotus School or T’ien-t’ai School. 5. The Hua-yen School or Avatamsaka School. 6. Ch’an School or Dhyana School. 7. Discipline School or Vinaya School. 8. Esoteric School or Chen-yen School. 9. Dharmalaksana School or Fa-siang School. 10. Pure-land School or Ching-t’u School.
The principles of all the above schools are based on the partial doctrine of Sakyamuni Buddha. In the beginning there were no such things as schools in Buddhism. The disciples of Buddha, however, took up what had been most beneficial and most practicable for them. Thus ten schools have evolved. This is just a general view of classification on the Buddhist Schools in China. (Source: BDEA & Buddhanet)
Nagarjuna’s Contribution Towards Chinese Buddhism
by Cheng Jianhua Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China
Po: Jizang’s Negations in the Four Levels of the Twofold Truth.
Zhang, E.Y. (2018).
In: Wang, Y., Wawrytko, S. (eds) Dao Companion to Chinese Buddhist Philosophy. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2939-3_9
Abstract
As a synthesizer of the Māhayānic Prajñāpāramitā tradition in the early development of Chinese Buddhism, Jizang (549–623 CE) was one of the most important representatives of the Sunlun School (aka. The Three-Treatises School), whose doctrine centers on emptiness. This paper concerns the unfolding of the deconstructive strategies in Jizang’s rendering of the four levels of twofold truth, demonstrating how Jizang’s method of negation as a form of “critical philosophy” is utilized to correspond to the Sanlun appropriation of the Madhyāmikan understanding of emptiness. According to Jizang, the doctrine of the twofold truth functions as a pedagogical means, aiming to achieve two major purposes: (1) to put forth a critique of both nihilist and absolutist interpretations of emptiness; and (2) to resolve certain obscurities and inconsistencies in the teachings within the Buddhist tradition.
The author submits the idea that the Sanlun philosophy exhibits a more positive attitude toward the conventional through Sinicized conceptualization of the Middle-Way-as-Buddha-Nature, and that the Sanlun thought is more dependence upon affirmative expressions (i.e. kataphasis) than negative ones (i.e. apophasis) to promulgate its thesis. The paper concludes by pointing out that the Jizang’s method of negation has a significant impact on the later development of Chinese Buddhism, such as the Tiantai school’s doctrine of Emptiness-Provision-Middle and the Chan Buddhist teaching of non-abiding.
Notes
The Sanlun School, known as the “School of Emptiness” (Kong Zong 空宗) and the School of Wisdom, (Bore Zong 般若宗) is one of the earliest Buddhist schools in China during Sui and early Tang periods. The Sanlun School is also known as the Chinese representative of the Indian Madhyamaka school of Nāgārjuna. It was introduced to China by a half-Indian missionary-scholar names Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什 344–413 CE) who translated into Chinese three Madhyāmika texts, namely, the Zhong Lun 中論 (Treatise on the Middle Doctrine, Madhyāmika Śāstra) by Nāgārjuna, the Shiermen Lun 十二門論 (Treatise on Twelve Gates, Dvadasamukha Śāstra) by Nāgārjuna, and the Bai Lun 百論 (Treatise on One Hundred Verses, Satasastra Śāstra) by Aryadeva 提婆. See the section on “The Philosophy of Emptiness: Chi-Tsang [Jizang] of the Three Treatise School” in Chan 1973. The five Sanlun precursors whose works influence Jizang’s philosophy include Nāgārjuna, Kumārajīva, Sengzhao 僧肇 (Seng-Chao 364–414 CE), and Falang 法朗 (507–581 CE), Jizang’s mentor. While some scholars have pointed out that there was no Sanlun School existed before Jizang, others contend that the Sanlun thought represented by Kumārajīva and his disciples are called in the Buddhist history of China “The Old Sanlun of Central Gate” (Guanzhong Jiulun 關中舊論) or “The Old Sanlun of West Gate (Guanxi Jiulun 關西舊論). The two names here indicate the places where the group transmitted Mādhyamika. For a more detailed discussion, see Yang 2008: 251–252.
The Sanskrit word bhāva denotes a metaphysical existence which Nāgārjuna rejects. See Kalupahana 1986: 32.
Also see Liu 1994: 140. Liu also contends that Jizang’s negative argument aims at making “nonattachment” the common thread for the Sanlun school in order to ultimately overcoming existence/nonexistence duality.
The citation is from Jingang Bore Shu 金剛般若疏. Also see Shih Chang-Wing 2004: 99.
The quotation is cited from Cheng 1981. The English translation has been modified for the sake of consistency, and those in [] are added by me.
In the article “Once More on the Two Truths: What Does Chi-tsang [Jizang] Mean by the Two Truths as ‘Yueh-chiao [Juejiao]’?” Whalen Lai contends that the distinction between the verbal teaching and a fixed principle is critical for Jizang’s non-attached position on the hermeneutical understanding of the Madhyāmika notion of emptiness. For a detailed analysis, see Lai 1983: 505–521. Also Nagao 1989.
CT here refers to conventional truth and UT refers to ultimate truth.
In his insightful essay “The Non-duality of Speech and Silence: A comparative Analysis of Jizang’s Thought on Language and Beyond,” Chien-hsing Ho points out that there are two kinds of silence implied in Jizang’s notion of silence even though Jizang has not spelt it out explicitly for the sake of avoiding a dualistic distinction. That is, silence as a principle and silence as teaching, and the latter belongs to the level of conventional truth. See Ho 2012: 13.
I need to point out here that the notion of non-conceptual religious/spiritual knowledge qua silence has been the subject of some debate in past decades among scholars. Stephen Katz, for example, questions the claim of a pure, unmediated experience, that is, a non-conceptual, mystical experience maintained by Buddhism. Katz insists that the mystical experience or direct awareness spoken by Buddhism must be conceptually-laden. See Katz 1978: 22–74.
See Ho 2012: 11. In fact, Ho in his essay renders ti as “body” rather than “substance” in order to avoid substantiating Jizang’s position and thus making the principle of the twofold truth dualistic.
The concept of “mutual identity” is another way for Jizang to express his idea of non-duality of the twofold truth.
Jizang sometimes follows traditional interpretations. For example, he takes śāstras (lun論) upon which his own Sanlun theories have formulated as a “zheng” to a variety of inconsistence existent in śutrās (jing 經). This is Jizang’s way of operating panjiao (判教) through which different teachings and doctrinal issues can be harmonized by reclassification.
The terms truth-qua-instruction (jiaodi 教諦) and truth-qua-viewpoint (yudi 於諦) are used to refer to the conventional truth and the ultimate truth by the Sanlun School exclusively. See Hong 2009: 137.
Here the first view, “mental non-existence” (xinwu 心無), refers to the idea that one has noawareness of things, but the things are not non-existent. The second view, “identical with form” (jise 即色), refers to one that identifies emptiness with form (or matter) even though it agrees to the idea that form does not cause itself to form. The third view, “original non-existence” (benwu 本無), refers to a position that takes “non-existence” as the non-existence of existence. All these views are rejected by Sengzhao. See Swanson 1985: 35–36.
Some changes have been made to his translation for the sake of consistence in terms and concepts.
The word “un-negation” here refers to Jizang’s notion of weiwu 非無, a method of negation. At the same time, it has a similar meaning to Derrida’s idea of “de-negation” which I use in the paper as well. It is a method of a negation that “denies itself” rather than a pure negation of negation. See Coward and Foshay 1992: 25.
Here Jizang also uses water and fire metaphors, pointing out that emptiness is like water and the purpose of it is to extinguish fire (of attachment). But “if water itself were to catch on fire, what would one use to distinguish it? Both nihilism and eternalism are like the fire, and emptiness is capable of extinguishing them. But if one persists in becoming attached to emptiness, there is no medicine which can extinguish this.” (T45, 1852: 7a14).
Sanlun Xuanyi. Quotation is from De Bary and Bloom 1999: 438–9. Minor changes in translation are done for the sake of coherence in wording for this paper.
Fox argues that Jizang’s threefold category of being corrective can be recapitulated as three methods of negation: (1) the method of refuting competing points of view in terms of independent criteria; (2) the method of using opponent’s own logic against himself (reduction absurdum), and the method of putting to rest of obsessive intellectualized and discursive discourse. See Fox 1992: 17.
It should be noted that sometimes it is ambivalent that Jizang’s suspicion of concepts is due to their intrinsic limitations or confusions caused by the fact that there is a problem of having a clear definition in Chinese Buddhism. Alan Fox has pointed out the Sanlun tradition, including Jizang, seems to ignore the problem of definitions such as the concept of “self-nature” that so occupied Candrakirti and others in the Indian Madhyāmika tradition. Fox is correct on this difference since the Chinese tradition as a whole does not pay much attention to conceptual definitions. For more detailed discussion on Jizang’s view on language, see Ho 2012: 1–19. Ho insists that Jizang does not hold a clear-cut distinction on conventional speech and sacred silence as one would see in the works of Nāgārjuna.
Although the Hongzhou Ch’an lineage is the subject of some contention, the descended line, namely, the lineage in the order of MazuBaizhangHuangboLinji is traditionally accepted according to the dialogical history of Ch’an Buddhism. For a comprehensive and systematic study of the method of negation in Ch’an, see Wang 2003: 52–80.
For example, before the arising of the Sanlun school, one of the most popular notions of the Buddha-nature is the “Buddha nature of a correct cause” (zhengyin foxing 正因佛性) which puts an emphasis on the existence of a subjective mind. See Yang 2007: 259–260. Yang argues that Jizang in his late life held more affirmative views such as the idea of the Buddha-nature due to his interaction with masters of other schools such as Zhiyi 智顗 (Chih-i 538–597 CE) of the Tiantai School 天台宗). At the same time, Zhiyi’s theory on emptiness-provision-middle-way (kong-jia-zhong 空-假-中) shows the influence of the Sanlun School. For a more comprehensive study of the relationship between the Sanlun School and the Tiantai School with regard to the doctrine of emptiness, see Ng 1993.
Cf. Chap. 7 of this anthology for the discussion of Sengzhao’s Wubuqian Lun.
Also see Chapter Six on Sengzhao in Robinson 1967: 123–155.
Mogliola plays with the Buddhist notion of coming/going, pointing out that emptiness is BETWEEN “easy come and easy go” and “hard to come by.”
It should be noted that whether Nāgārjuna’s ultimate truth in his twofold truth theory points to something absolutely transcendent is a question under the debate. T.R.V. Murti, for example, has pointed out that for Nāgārjuna the ultimate truth transcends discursive thought in a sense that it is unreachable via rationality, either empirical investigation or philosophical speculation. Yet this does not mean that Nāgārjuna is a nihilist or negativistic thinker, for “[t]he dialectic should not be taken, as it is done by the uniformed, as the denial of the Real – Nihilism” See Tuck 1990: 52.
Of course, whether or not Jizang dichotomizes ti and yong is debatable. Wing-Tist Chan argues that in Jizang “substance and function are sharply contrasted” in comparison with Sengzhao who identifies substance with function. See Chan 1973: 358. Aaron K. Koseki holds the same opinion. See Koseki 1982: 58. Ho, on the other hand, shows a different viewpoint. I concur with Ho on this point. I think one of the major differences between Sengzhao and Jizang is that the former tends to use more conjunctions (both…and) whereas the latter more disjunctions (neither…nor), yet both expressions can lend to the idea of nonduality.
For Jizang, “loss” or “non-acquisition” is another word for “emptiness.”
Shih Chang-Qing, who has offered a historical overview of the development of the Sanlun School, points out that Jizang’s emphasis on the relationship between acquisition and loss is due to the influence of Falang, his mentor. To establish the relationship between these two concepts enables Jizang to contend his argument on nonduality between the wisdom of the sage and the mind of the ordinary people. See Shih 2004: 337–338.
When speaking of a Derridean deconstruction, John Caputo makes a remark that deconstruction is a “religion without religion” that points to a moment of transcendence yet not “transcendence” in a traditional sense, since it means “excess,” the exceeding of the stable boarders of the presently possible.” See Caputo 1997: xix. I think that the same thing can be said of Sanlun Buddhists in China.
Scholars like Wing-Tist Chan, however, argues that Sanlun thought is not Chinese enough which accounts for its failure to survive in China. He says, “Ironically, Chi-tsang’s (Jizang) success was at the same time the failure his school, for it became less and less Chinese. As a systematizer and transmitter of Indian philosophy, he brought about no cross-fertilization between Buddhist and Chinese thought.” See Chan 1973: 358.
References
Blyth, R. H. 1966. Zen and Zen Classics, 4. Tokyo: Hokuseido.Google Scholar
Cai, Zongqi. 1993. “Derrida and Seng-Zhao: Linguistic and Philosophical Deconstructions,.” Philosophy East and West 43.3: 389–404.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Caputo, John D. 1997. The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.BookGoogle Scholar
Chan, Wing-Tsit, ed. and trans. 1973 (Fourth edition). A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, Hsueh-Li. 1981. “The Root of Zen Buddhism,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 8.4: 451–478.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Coward, Harold and Toby Foshay, eds. 1992. Derrida and Negative Theology. Albany: State University Press.Google Scholar
De Bary, Theodore, and Irene Bloom, eds. 1999. Sources of Chinese Tradition (I), second edition. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
Fox, Alan. 1992. “Self-reflection in the Sanlun Tradition: Madhyāmika as the Deconstructive Conscience.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 19.1: 1–24.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Herman, A. L. 1976. Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Ho, Chien-hsing. 2012. “The Non-duality of Speech and Silence: A comparative Analysis of Jizang’s Thought on Language and Beyond.” Dao: A Comparative Philosophy 11.1: 1–19.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Hong Xu 弘學. 2009. 中觀學概論 (A Short Introduction to Mādhyamika). Chengdu: Sichuan Chuban Jituan.Google Scholar
Kalupahana, David. J. 1986. Nāgārjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way. Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
Koseki, Aaron K. 1982. “ ‘Later Mādhyamika’ in China: Some Current Perspectives on the History of Chinese Prajñāpāramitā Thought.” The Journal of International Association of Buddhist Studies 5.2: 53–62.Google Scholar
Jizang. Dasheng xuanlun 大乘玄論 (Profound Exposition of Māhayāna). T 45, 1853.Google Scholar
Jizang. Erdi yi 二諦義 (On the Twofold Truth). T 45, 1854.Google Scholar
Jizang. Sanlun xuanyi 三論玄義 (Profound Meaning of Three Treatises). T 45, 1852.Google Scholar
Katz, Stephen. 1978. “Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism.” In Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, edited by Stephen Katz. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 22–74.Google Scholar
Lai, Whalen. 1983. “Once More on the Two Truths: What Does Chi-tsang [Jizang] Mean by the Two Truths as ‘Yueh-chiao [Juejiao]’?” Religious Studies 19.4: 505–521.ArticleGoogle Scholar
LI Shijie 李世傑. 1999. “Jizang 吉藏.” in Zhongguo Lidai Sixianjia 中國歷代思想家 (Great Thinkers in Chinese History). Taibei: Taiwan Shangwu Yinshuguan.Google Scholar
Liebenthal, Walter. 1968 (Second edition). Chao Lun (Book of Chao). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, Ming-wood. 1994. Madhyāmika Thought in China. Leiden: Brill Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
Magliola, Robert. 1984. Derrida on the Mend. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Murti, T.R.V. 1955. The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Nagao, Gagjin. 1989. The Foundational Standpoint of Mādhyamika. Trans. by John P. Keenan. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ng, Yu-kuan. 1993, Tien T’ai Buddhism and Early Mādhyamika. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Richard H. 1967. Early Mādhyamika in India and China, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Shih Chang-Wing. 2004. The Two Truths in Chinese Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publisher (Buddhist Tradition Series, Vol. 55).Google Scholar
Swanson, Paul L. 1985. The Two Truths Controversy in China and Chih-I’s Threefold Truth Concept. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Tuck, Andrew P. 1990. Comparative Philosophy and the Philosophy of Scholarship. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Youru. 2003. Linguistic Strategies in Daoist Zhuangzi and Chan Buddhism. London andNew York: RoutledgeCurzon.BookGoogle Scholar
YANG Huinan 楊惠南. 1991. “Jizang de Zhenliguan yu Fangfalun 吉藏的真理觀與方法論” (On Jizang’s View of Twofold Truth and His Method). Zhexue Pinglun 哲學評論 (The Philosophical Review) 14: 196–209.Google Scholar
YANG Huinan 楊惠南. 2007. “Jizang de Foxinlun yu Xinxingshuo zhi Yanjiu 吉藏的佛性論與心性說之研究” (On Jizang’s Concept of Buddha Nature and the Doctrine of Xin-Xing). Foxue Yanjiu Zhongxin Xuebao 佛學研究中心學報 (Journal of the Center for Buddhist Studies) 12: 257–280.Google Scholar
YANG Huinan 楊惠南. 2008. Fojiao Sixing Fazhan Shilun 佛教思想發展史論 (The Development History of Buddhist Thought), Taibei: Dongda Tushugongsi.Google Scholar
Convergence and Harmony: On the Schools of Chinese Buddhism
Volume 9 of Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy Editors Youru Wang, Sandra A. Wawrytko Edition illustrated Publisher Springer, 2019 ISBN 9048129397, 9789048129393 Length 440 pages
Encyclopedia of Chinese Philosophy
Editor Antonio S. Cua Publisher Routledge, 2013 ISBN 1135367485, 9781135367480 Length 1020 pages
The different Buddhist schools of thought, still operating in the present day, developed after the death of the Buddha (l. c. 563 – c. 483 BCE) in an effort to perpetuate his teachings and honor his example. Each of the schools claimed to represent Buddha’s original vision and still do so in the modern era.
Although Buddha himself is said to have requested that, following his death, no leader was to be chosen to lead anything like a school, this was ignored and his disciples seem to have fairly quickly institutionalized Buddhist thought with rules, regulations, and a hierarchy.
At first, there may have been a unified vision of what Buddha had taught but, in time, disagreements over what constituted the “true teaching” resulted in fragmentation and the establishment of three main schools:
Theravada Buddhism claims to be the oldest school and to maintain Buddha’s original vision and teachings. Mahayana Buddhism is said to have split off from Theravada in the belief that it was too self-centered and had lost the true vision; this school also claims it holds to the Buddha’s original teaching. Actually, however, the two schools may have been established around the same time, just with different focus, and probably emerged from two earlier schools: the Sthaviravada (possible precursor to Theravada) and the Mahasanghika (also given as Mahasamghika, considered by some the earlier Mahayana). The connection between these earlier schools and the later ones, however, has been challenged. Vajrayana Buddhism developed, largely in Tibet, in response to what were perceived as too many rules in Mahayana Buddhism and emphasized living the Buddhist walk naturally without regard to ideas of what one was “supposed” to do and so it, too, claims to be the most authentic.
All three schools maintain a belief in the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path as preached by the Buddha but differ – sometimes significantly – in how they choose to follow that path. Objectively, none are considered any more legitimate than the others, nor are the many minor schools which have developed, although adherents of each believe otherwise while, at the same time, recognizing they are all part of Ekayana (“One Vehicle” or “One Path”) in that all embrace Buddha’s central vision and seek to promote harmony and compassion in the world.
Although Buddhism is often perceived by non-adherents as a uniform belief system, it is as varied as any other in practice but, theoretically at least, a modern-day secular Buddhist can participate in rituals with a religious Buddhist without concern or conflict and all work toward the same essential goals.
Buddha & Buddhism
According to the foundational account of Buddha’s life, he was born Siddhartha Gautama, a Hindu prince, and his father, hoping to prevent him from following a spiritual path instead of succeeding him as king, kept him from any experiences which might have made him aware of suffering and death. The king’s plan succeeded for 29 years until Siddhartha witnessed the famous Four Signs while out riding one day – an aged man, a sick man, a dead man, and a spiritual ascetic – and became aware of the reality of sickness, old age, and death.
He renounced his wealth and position and followed the example of the spiritual ascetic, eventually attaining enlightenment upon recognizing the inherent impermanence of all aspects of life and realizing how one could live without suffering. He developed the concept of the Four Noble Truths, which state that suffering in life is caused by attachment to the things of life, and the Eightfold Path, the spiritual discipline one should follow to achieve release from attachment and the pain of craving and loss. Scholar John M. Koller comments:
The Buddha’s teaching of [the Four Noble Truths] was based on his insight into interdependent arising (pratitya samutpada) as the nature of existence. Interdependent arising means that everything is constantly changing, that nothing is permanent. It also means that all existence is selfless, that nothing exists separately, by itself. And beyond the impermanence and selflessness of existence, interdependent arising means that whatever arises or ceases does so dependent upon conditions. This is why understanding the conditions that give rise to [suffering] is crucial to the process of eliminating [suffering]. (64)
Buddha illustrated these conditions through the Wheel of Becoming which has in its hub the triad of ignorance, craving, and aversion, between the hub and rim the six types of suffering existence, and on the rim the conditions which give rise to duhkha (translated as “suffering”). Ignorance of the true nature of life encourages craving for those things one believes are desirable and aversion to things one fears and rejects. Caught on this wheel, the soul is blinded to the true nature of life and so condemns itself to samsara, the endless repetition of rebirth and death.
Spread & Fragmentation
Buddha preached his vision from the time of his enlightenment until his death at 80 years of age, at which point he requested that his disciples should not choose a leader but that each should lead themselves. He also requested that his remains be placed in a stupa at a crossroads. Neither of these requests was honored as his disciples fairly quickly organized themselves as a group with a leader and divided his remains among themselves, each choosing to place them in a stupa in a location of their choice.
Around 400 BCE, they held the First Council at which they established accepted Buddhist doctrine based on the Buddha’s teachings and, in 383 BCE, they held a Second Council at which, according to the standard account of the meeting, the Sthaviravada school insisted on the observance of ten proscriptions in the monastic discipline which the majority rejected.
At this point, either the Sthaviravada school left the community (known as the sangha) or the majority distanced themselves from the Sthaviravada and called themselves Mahasanghika (“Great Congregation”). All the later schools then developed from this first schism.
These schools had to contend with the more well-established belief systems of Hinduism and Jainism and, in an effort to level the playing field, developed an illustrious foundation story for their founder and attributed to him a number of miracles. Still, Buddhism remained a small sect in India, one among many, until it was championed by the Mauryan king Ashoka the Great (r. 268-232 BCE) who embraced the faith and initiated its spread. He sent missionaries to other nations such as Sri Lanka, China, Korea, Thailand, and Buddhism was accepted in these places far more quickly than in its home country.
Doctrinal differences, however, led to further divisions within the community of adherents. As the belief system became more institutionalized, these differences became more significant. Different canons of scripture developed which were held by some as true while rejected by others and different practices arose in response to the scripture. For example, the Pali canon, which emerged from Sri Lanka, maintained that Buddha was a human being who, although endowed with great spiritual power, still attained enlightenment through his own efforts and, when he died, he was set free from samsara and achieved total liberation from human affairs.
As Buddhism spread, however, the founder was deified as a transcendent being who had always existed and would always exist. Buddha’s death was still understood as his nirvana, a “blowing out” of all attachment and craving, but some adherents no longer saw this as simply an escape from samsara but an elevation to an eternally abiding state; freed from samsara, but still present in spirit. The Mahasanghika school held to this belief as well as many others (such as the claim that the Buddha had never existed physically, only as a kind of holy apparition) which stood in direct contrast to the Sthaviravada and, later, the Theravada schools. Although the central vision of the Buddha was retained by adherents, doctrinal differences like this one led to the establishment of the different schools of Buddhist thought.
Although there were actually many schisms before the establishment of Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana (the Mahasanghika school alone produced three different sects by c. 283 BCE), the division of these schools from the original sangha is said to have been predicted by the Buddha himself in what is known as The Three Turnings. This concept is based on that of the Dharmachakra (wheel of eight spokes, a familiar Buddhist symbol) which represents the Eightfold Path, informed by dharma which, in Buddhism, is understood as “cosmic law”. The Dharmachakra has always been in motion and always will be but, as far as human recognition of it goes, it was set in motion when Buddha gave his first sermon, would then make the first turn with the establishment of Theravada Buddhism, a second with Mahayana, and a third with Vajrayana.
Theravada Buddhism
Theravada Buddhism is said to be the oldest form of the belief system, but this is challenged by modern scholars. Robert E. Buswell, Jr. and Donald S. Lopez, Jr. explain:
Despite the way in which scholars have portrayed the tradition, Theravada is neither synonymous with early Buddhism nor a more pristine form of the religion prior to the rise of the Mahayana. Such a claim suggests a state of sectarian inertia that belies the diversity over time of doctrine and practice within what comes to be called the Theravada tradition. (904)
Even so, many of those who self-identify as Theravada Buddhists do still make the claim that it is the oldest version of Buddhism and the closest to the founder’s vision. It is known as the “Teaching of the Elders” which derives from the same name held by the earlier school of Sthaviravada, and this is sometimes interpreted to mean that its founders were those closest to the Buddha but, actually, the term was commonly used in India to denote any monastic sect, and this applies directly to Theravada.
Adherents focus on the Three Trainings (trisksa):
Sila (moral conduct)
Samadhi (meditation)
Prajna (wisdom)
This discipline is observed as part of the Eightfold Path and is inspired by the central figure of the school, the sage Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) whose name means “Voice of the Buddha” for his ability to interpret and comment upon Buddhist doctrine. They hold the Pali canon to be the most authentic and focus on a monastic interpretation of the Buddhist path in which the individual seeks to become an arhat (saint) and has no obligation to teach others the way toward enlightenment. One may certainly do so if one chooses but, unlike Mahayana Buddhism, the goal is not to become a spiritual guide to others but to free one’s self from samsara.
Theravada Buddhism is divided between a clergy of monks and a congregation of laypeople and it is understood that the monks are more spiritually advanced than the common folk. Women are considered inferior to men and are not thought capable of attaining enlightenment until they are reincarnated as a male. The Theravada school is sometimes referred to as Hinayana (“little vehicle”) by Mahayana Buddhists, but it should be noted that this is considered an insult by Theravada Buddhists in that it suggests their school is not as important as Mahayana.
Mahayana Buddhism
Mahayana Buddhists named themselves the “Great Vehicle” either because they felt they retained the true teachings and could carry the most people to enlightenment (as has been claimed) or because they developed from the early “Great Congregation” Mahasanghika school and wished to distance themselves from it, however slightly. It was founded 400 years after Buddha’s death, probably inspired by the early Mahasanghika ideology, and was streamlined and codified by the sage Nagarjuna (c. 2nd century CE), the central figure of the school. It may have initially been a minor school before interacting with Mahasanghika or, according to some scholars, developed on its own without that school’s influence but, either way, Mahayana is the most widespread and popular form of Buddhism in the world today, spreading from its initial acceptance in China, Korea, Mongolia, Japan, Sri Lanka, and Tibet to points all around the world.
The Mahayana school believes that all human beings possess a Buddha nature and can attain transcendent awareness, becoming a Bodhisattva (“essence of enlightenment”), who can then guide others on the same path. Adherents seek to attain the state of sunyata – the realization that all things are devoid of intrinsic existence, nature, and lasting meaning – a clearing of the mind that enables one to recognize the true nature of life. Having attained this higher state, just as Buddha did, one becomes a buddha. This transcendental state is similar to how gods and spirits were viewed by the Buddha himself – as existing but incapable of rendering any service to the individual – but, as a Bodhisattva, both women and men who have awakened are able to help others to help themselves.
As with Theravada and every other school of Buddhism, the focus is on the self – self-perfection and self-redemption – and no other can do the spiritual work which one needs to do to release one’s self from suffering. Although Buddha is sometimes seen as a deified being by Mahayana Buddhists, the tenets do not encourage one to call on him for help. Following Buddha’s own vision, a belief in a creator god who is attentive to one’s prayers is discouraged because it attaches one to a power outside of one’s self and sets one up for disappointment and frustration when prayers go unanswered.
This is not to say that no Mahayana Buddhists pray directly to the Buddha; the tradition of representing Buddha in statuary and art, of praying to these objects, and considering them holy – observed in Mahayana Buddhism – was initiated by the Mahasanghika school and is among the many compelling reasons to believe the younger school emerged from the older one.
Vajrayana Buddhism
Vajrayana Buddhism (“Diamond Vehicle”) is so-called because of its association of enlightenment with an unbreakable substance. Its name is also given as “Thunderbolt Vehicle”, especially in reference to Tantric or Zen Buddhism, in that enlightenment falls like a thunderbolt after one has put in the required effort at perfecting the self. It is often considered an offshoot of Mahayana Buddhism – is even referenced as a sect of that school – but actually borrows tenets from both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism while adding an innovation of its own.
In both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, one decides to follow the path, accepts the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path as legitimate, and commits to a spiritual discipline which will lead to enlightenment by renouncing unprofitable habits. In Vajrayana Buddhism, it is understood that one already has a Buddha nature – everyone does, just as Mahayana believes – but, in Vajrayana, one only has to realize this in order to fully awaken. An adherent, therefore, does not have to give up bad habits such as drinking alcohol or smoking right away in order to begin one’s work on the path; one only has to commit to following the path and the desire to engage in unhealthy and damaging behaviors will steadily lose their allure. Instead of distancing one’s self from desire, one steps toward and through it, shedding one’s attachment as one proceeds in the discipline.
As with Mahayana Buddhism, the Vajrayana school focuses one on becoming a Bodhisattva who will then guide others. It was systematized by the sage Atisha (l. 982-1054 CE) in Tibet and so is sometimes referred to as Tibetan Buddhism. The Dalai Lama, often referenced as the spiritual leader of all Buddhists, is technically only the spiritual head of the Vajrayana School, and his views are most directly in line with this school of thought.
Other Schools
There are many other Buddhist schools which have developed from these three all around the world. In the West, the most popular of these is Zen Buddhism which traveled from China to Japan and was most fully developed there before arriving in the West. As Zen Masters are fond of saying, “What you call Zen is not Zen; What you do not call Zen is not Zen” meaning that the state of being one wishes to attain cannot be defined; it can only be experienced. One arrives at this state through deep meditation and mental concentration on koans – usually translated as “riddles” – which have no answer, such as the famous “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” – in order to clear the mind, rid the self of attachment, and attain the state of samadhi, a state of psychological and spiritual vision similar to sunyata. Students of Zen Buddhism frequently study with a master who might slap them, shout, or suddenly hit them with a stout stick in order to awaken them from the illusion of who they think they are and what they think they are doing. These sudden attacks without warning are engaged in, like the koans, to snap an adherent out of rational, linear thinking into a higher state of awareness.
Pure Land Buddhism is another which developed from Mahayana Buddhism and its goal is rebirth in a “pure land” of a Buddha Realm which exists on a higher plane. The belief comes from a story in the text known as the Infinite Life Sutra in which the Buddha tells a story of a past buddha named Amitabha who became a Bodhisattva and to whom were revealed the Buddha Realms available to the enlightened. Amitabha’s efforts to save all sentient creatures from suffering resulted in the creation of the realm of Sukhavati, the greatest of all, in which one experiences complete bliss after leaving the body at death. Although Pure Land is its own school, some Mahayana Buddhists observe the same tenets.
An increasingly popular school in the West is Secular Buddhism which rejects all metaphysical aspects of the belief system to focus on self-improvement for its own sake. Secular Buddhism recognizes the Four Noble Truths and Eight-Fold Path but on purely practical and psychological levels. There are no saints, no Bodhisattvas, no Buddha Realms, no concept of reincarnation to be considered. One engages in the discipline as set down by the Buddha in order to become a better version of one’s self and, when one dies, one no longer exists. There is no concept of a reward after death; one’s efforts in being the best person one can be in life is considered its own reward.
Conclusion
It is actually impossible to tell which, if any, of these schools is closest to the original vision of the Buddha. Siddhartha Gautama, himself, wrote nothing down but instead – like many great spiritual figures throughout history whose followers then founded a religion in their name – lived his beliefs and tried to help others in their struggles. Since the earliest Buddhist texts were written centuries after the Buddha lived, and in an era when the events of a famous person’s life were regularly embellished upon, it is unknown whether his so-called “biography” is accurate nor even the dates between which he is said to have lived.
However that may be, and whoever he was, the Buddha established a belief system which attracts over 500 million adherents in the present day and has, for centuries, offered people a path toward peace of mind and inspiration to help others. The Buddhist belief in the sanctity of all life – no matter which school one attaches one’s self to – promotes care for other human beings, animals, and the earth in an effort to end suffering and offer transformative possibilities. In this respect, each school works toward goals that Buddha himself would approve of and differences in how those goals are reached are ultimately irrelevant.
“DOXOGRAPHICAL APPROPRIATION OF NĀGĀRJUNA’S CATUṢKOṬI IN CHINESE SANLUN AND TIANTAI THOUGHT”
It is well known that the cultural development in ancient China from the Eastern Han (25-220 AD) to the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD) was directly and deeply influenced by Indian culture and civilization. The influence was largely achieved through the dissemination of Indian Buddhism. Without this magnificent religious media, it is hard to imagine that a foreign culture with considerably different characters could have made such great influence on the already highly developed and extremely secularized Chinese culture. For this reason, scholars nowadays in China generally tend to consider the influence of Indian culture as resulting from the influence of Indian Buddhism. In this regard, Prof. Ji Xianlin once said, “Without studying the impacts of Buddhism on Chinese culture, it is impossible to write an authentic history of Chinese culture, a history of Chinese philosophy, or even a history of China”. The term “Buddhism” mentioned here does not only refer to the religion per se, but to the whole complex of ancient Indian culture that had been brought by Buddhism into China. One may wonder: how did Buddhism, the carrier of Indian culture, find its way into China? The languages used for transmission of Indian Buddhism and Indian culture are basically from the Indo-European language family, while the Chinese language as the essential vehicle of Chinese culture belongs to the Sino-Tibetan language family. The huge typological gap between Indian and Chinese languages reflects the great underlying difference between Indian and Chinese cultures. Anyone who has some knowledge about this difference is astonished by the fruitful achievements of the communication of these two cultures made in ancient times. A substantial part of the achievements, fairly speaking, owes to the enterprise of translating Buddhist texts into Chinese, which lasted between the early first millennium AD and the early second millennium AD. This enterprise represents perhaps one of the most spectacular examples of intercultural exchange in human history: during nearly ten centuries from the Eastern Han to the Northern Song Dynasty, hundreds of Buddhist masters coming from India or Central Asia to China, along with their Chinese assistants, translated thousands of Indian Buddhist scriptures into Chinese and thereby made known to Chinese people not only Buddhist teachings, but also an extensively rich set of Indian cultural information, which finally even had effects on their daily life. In this sense, it is reasonable to say that without the translation of Buddhist texts into Chinese, there could have neither been the widespread dissemination of Buddhism in China, nor the establishment of Chinese Buddhism, not to mention the profound influence of Indian culture on the Chinese popular culture. Among those honourable Buddhist masters, the most outstanding one is Kumārajīva whom we commemorate today. The present paper consists of three parts: 1) The significance of Chinese Buddhist translations in the history of Chinese Buddhism and the history of Chinese culture; 2) Kumārajīva and his translation activities; 3) The characteristics of Kumārajīva’s translations and their influence on the Chinese culture.
The Figure of Kumarajiva in Chinese Culture History.
Sun, Chang-wu (2009).
Nankai University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 2:44-54.
Wisdom is an essential concern of Buddhism, and “education” in the Buddhist sense should be understood as a process of attaining wisdom or becoming wise-in getting oneself enlightened and ridding oneself of the original ignorance. The teaching of and about wisdom should be considered as part of this process. Since the attainment of wisdom is for Buddhism not a remote possibility but rather a spiritual reality, as evidenced by Buddha himself and so many other bodhisattvas, the answer to questions such as whether or not wisdom is possible is indubitably “yes”. Also, as the final end of Buddhist teaching is to attain enlightenment and to get rid of the original ignorance, the question as to whether wisdom could be taught is also definitively “yes”. Therefore, instead of questioning whether it is possible to teach wisdom, what we should ask here is rather the nature of the Buddhist wisdom and the Buddhist pedagogical process of attaining it. In this chapter I’ll deal with the concept of “wisdom” in three schools of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism: the Sanlun Zong (Three Treatises School), the Weishi Zong (Conscious-Only School) and the Chan Zong (Chan School), which have appeared successively in the history of Chinese Buddhism. We know that Mahayana Buddhism has two major schools in its Indian tradition: Mādhyamika and Yogācāra. They must have contained in themselves such an original generosity to go outside of themselves and the capacity to recontextualize themselves in Chinese culture and become Chinese Mahayana Buddhism. After their spreading and recontextualization in China, the Sanlun School could be seen as the Chinese development of Mādhyamika, whereas the Weishi School should be seen as Yogācāra in its Chinese version. As to the Chan School, which later in its Japanese version was called “Zen”, it should be seen as a properly Chinese Mahayana Buddhism. For reasons of space, we will leave other Chinese Mahayana Buddhist Schools undiscussed, such as Tiantai Zong, which was thus named because of its being built on theMt. Tiantai by Master Zhiyi (538-597), and Huayan Zong, founded by Fazang (643-712) and was thus named because of its focusing on the Huayan Jing(Avatamsaka Sutra, or The Flower Splendor Scripture). In Chinese Mahayana Buddhism, the mostly used term for “wisdom” is the Chinese phonetic translation “bore” of the Sanskrit word “prajñā”. In its Indian tradition, the term “prajñā” means knowledge as well as wisdom, perfect wisdom as well as imperfect wisdom; whereas in Chinese Mahayana Buddhism, “prajñā” is taken to mean only perfect wisdom. It is in this sense that when Xuanzang (596-664), who had launched the biggest project of translation of the Buddhist Scriptures in Chinese intellectual history, set up a system of rules for translation, he showed a particular respect for this term in establishing the wu bu fan (five categories of terms not to be translated), of which the fifth concerns itself with the term prajñā. There, it is said, “the use of the Sanskrit term ‘prajñā’ shows respect, whereas the use of the Chinese term zhihui (wisdom) turns out to be superficial”. Nevertheless, in this chapter, we still have to use the term zhihui (wisdom) to render the meaning of prajñā. This is especially the case in Weishi’s concept of zhuanshi dezhi (transformation of consciousness to obtain wisdom) or zhuanshi chengzhi (transformation of consciousness into wisdom). For the Weishi School, wisdom is based on the marvellous being of the Alaya-consciousness (Alya-vijñāna). But, for the Sanlun School, prajñā would mean the attainment of and the marvellous function of emptiness. In Chan Buddhism, prajñā would mean the immediate self-realization of the Buddhahood in the details of everyday life. One of the major focuses of this chapter is to relate the concept of wisdom (and various ways to learn to be wise) to the relation between the mind (or consciousness) and the multiple others in which it finds itself. My basic idea, to be developed in the following sections, is that both Mādhyamika and Yogācāra in their Indian traditions keep a certain dimension of the other. For example, Yogācāra pays respect to the “textual other” and the “ethical other”, in the sense that wisdom is to be acquired by appropriating the meaning of the Scriptures; and the meaning of life thus acquired is to be put into practice with an unconditional generosity towards multiple others, that is, all sentient beings, without even expecting a return from them. For the Mādhyamika, the dimension of the other becomes that which lies always beyond, in denying or making empty that which one achieves in negative dialectics: to render empty in order to show the nonsubstantial character of the Ultimate Reality. The Middle Path, which is the way wisdom or prajñā takes, consists in understanding the interdependent causation in the sense of non-substantiality. After destroying any dualistic situation in the process of negative dialectics, even the reality of interdependent causation should be denied. Unfortunately, the dimension of the other gradually got lost in Chinese Mahayana Buddhism, through Sanlun and Weishi, finally to be radically abandoned in absolute immanentism without any necessity to refer to the other-in Chan Buddhism.
The Beopseong sect, as the name hints at, attempts to clarify the meaning of various dharmas. The Beopseong sect used the Three Treatises as their primary texts. These three texts are: 1. The Middle Treatise – Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, 2. The Treatise on the Twelve Gates – Dvādaśadvāraśāstra, 3. The Hundred Verse Treatise – Śataśāstra. As a result, the Beopseong sect is also sometimes called the Three Treatises School, or the “Samnon-jong” in Korean.
One of the main focuses of the Samnon-jong sect, which is known as the “Buddha Nature” in English, focuses on how it’s possible for sentient beings to attain the state of a Buddha. This is a central topic in Mahayana Buddhism. So one of the meanings of the term “Buddha Nature” is that all sentient beings contain an enlightened Buddha within themselves. Another approach to the idea of “Buddha Nature” is the idea that allows for the enabling of sentient beings to become Buddhas. Debate continues to this day on what the “Buddha Nature” means, and it plays a major role in doctrinal Mahayana Buddhism.
With this in mind, the Samnon-jong (Buddha Nature) sect sharply criticized the Smaller Vehicle – Hinayana Buddhism. The reason for this is that the Samnon-jong sect believed that the Smaller Vehicle served no purpose. The Samnon-jong sect considered the idea of emptiness found in Prajnaparamita (the Perfection of [Transcendent] Wisdom) as corresponding perfectly to the ultimate end, or “Gugyeong” in Korean. That’s why the Samnon-jong sect is also known as the Emptiness of Nature Sect, or “Seonggong-jong” in Korean.
So how did Samnon Buddhism first develop? In China, during the reign of Emperor Yao Chang (r. 384-394 A.D.) of Later Qin, a monk from Kucha named Kumārajīva (344-413 A.D.) followed Lü Guang (337-400 A.D.) to Liangzhou and reached Changan in 400 A.D. Kumārajīva immediately started to translate Buddhist sutras. Among the 380 sutras that he translated, the Śataśāstra was completed in 404 A.D. And the other two sutras, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the Dvādaśadvāraśāstra, were both completed in 410 A.D. It was from these sutras, and their translations, that a sect was founded. But not only was it founded, but it began to flourish right away, as well. Kumarajiva became the first patriarch of the sect.
With all that being said, it’s unclear how this sect first came to the Korean peninsula. Also, it’s impossible to know the person that first expounded and taught these teachings, as well. However, it can safely be assumed that because of the proximity of Northern China (which is where Sanlun Buddhism was first founded and developed) to the Korean peninsula, that it was transmitted through trade and cultural exchanges. And because Sanlun Buddhism passed through the Korean peninsula to arrive in Japan, which it did as Sanron Buddhism in 625 A.D., Sanlun Buddhism was already present in the Three Kingdoms of Korea (18 B.C. – 660 A.D.) at this time. With this in mind, and without being able to be more specific, Sanlun Buddhism is believed to have first been introduced around the time other sects arrived on the Korean peninsula from Tang China (618–690, 705–907 A.D.) like Huayan and Vinaya Buddhism. Additionally, the Hwaeom-jong sect and Samnon-jong sect were believed to have strong ties. Later, and at the beginning of the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910), the Samnon-jong sect was unified with the Jungdo sect, and it became the Jungsin sect. This sect continued to use the same doctrinal content of the Three Treatises.
Chang, Chung-yuan. “Nirvna is Nameless.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 1 (1974): 247-274.
Cheng, Hsueh-li. “Zen and San-lun Mdhyamika Thought: Exploring the Theoretical Foundation of Zen Teachings and Practices.” Religious Studies 15 (1979): 343-363.
Cheng, Hsueh-li. “Motion and Rest in the Middle Treatises.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 7 (1980): 229-244.
Cheng, Hsueh-li. “Truth and Logic in San-lun Mdhyamika Buddhism.” International Philosophical Quarterly21 (1981): 261-276.
Cheng, Hsueh-li. Empty Logic: Mdhyamika Buddhism from Chinese Sources. New York: Philosophical Library, 1984; reprint ed., Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991.
Cleary, Thomas, and J.C. Cleary, trans. The Blue Cliff Records. Boulder, CO: Shambala, 1978.
Garfield, Jay L., trans. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Ngrjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakrik. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Huntington, C. W. The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Indian Mdhyamika. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989.
Hurvitz, Leon, trans. “Wei Shou, Treatise on Buddhism and Taoism.” In Yun-kang: The Buddhist Cave Temples of the Fifth Centruy A.D. in North China, Vol. 16 (supplement), 25-103. Kyoto: Kyoto University, Institute of Humanistic Studies, 1956.
Ichimura, Shohei. “A Study on the Mdhyamika Method of Refutation and its Influence on Buddhist Logic.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 4.1 (1981): 87-95.
Ichimura, Shohei. “A Determining Factor that Differentiated Indian and Chinese Mdhyamika Methods of Dialectic as Reductio-ad-absurdum and Paradoxical Argument Respectively.” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 33 (March, 1985): 841-834.
Ichimura, Shohei. “On the Dialectical Meaning of Instantiation in terms of Maya-Drstanta in the Indian and Chinese Mdhyamikas.” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 36.2 (March, 1988): 977-971.
Ichimura, Shohei. “On the Paradoxical Method of the Chinese Mdhyamika: Seng-chao and the Chao-lun Treatise.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 19 (1992): 51-71.
Liebenthal, Walter. The Chao Lun: The Treatises of Seng-Chao. 2nd rev. ed. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1968.
Liu, Ming-wood. “Seng-chao and the Mdhyamika Way of Refutation.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 14 (1987): 97-110.
Liu, Ming-wood. Mdhyamaka Thought in China. Sinica Leidensia, Vol. XXX. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994.
Nishitani, Keiji. Religion and Nothingness. Trans. Jan Van Bragt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.
Robinson, Richard H. “Mysticism and Logic in Seng-chao’s Thought.” Philosophy East and West 8.3-4 (1958-1959): 99-120.
Robinson, Richard H. Early Mdhyamika in India and China. New York: Samuel Weiser, 1965; reprint ed., Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978.
Sharf, Robert. Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism: A Reading of the Treasure Store Treatise. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 2001.
Tsukamoto Zenry. A History of Early Chinese Buddhism: From Its Introduction to the Death of Hui-yüan. 2 vols. Trans. Leon Hurvitz. Tokyo, New York, San Francisco: Kodansha International, 1985.
Truth and Logic in San-lun Mādhyamika Buddhism.
Cheng, Hsueh-li (1981).
International Philosophical Quarterly 21 (3):260-275.
The Nonduality of Speech and Silence: A Comparative Analysis of Jizang’s Thought on Language and Beyond.
Abe, Masao. 1985. Zen and Western Thought. Edited by William R. LaFleur. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Arnold, Dan. 2005. Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bailun Shu 百論疏 (A Commentary on the Śata Śāstra). By Jizang. In T, vol. 42, no. 1827.
Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar, E. H. Johnston, and Arnold Kunst, eds. & trans. 1990. The Dialectical Method of Nāgārjuna: Vigrahavyāvartanī. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Cheng, Hsueh-li. 1984. Empty Logic: Mādhyamika Buddhism from Chinese Sources. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
D’Amato, Mario. 2009. “Why the Buddha Never Uttered a Word.” In Pointing at the Moon: Buddhism, Logic, Analytic Philosophy. Edited by Mario D’Amato, Jay L. Garfield, and Tom J. F. Tillemans, 41−55. New York: Oxford University Press.ChapterGoogle Scholar
Dasheng Xuanlun 大乘玄論 (A Treatise on the Profound Teaching of the Mahayana). By Jizang. In T, vol. 45, no. 1853.
De La Vallée Poussin, L., ed. 1992. Mūlamadhyamakakārikās de Nāgārjuna avec la Prasannapadā commentaire de Candrakīrti. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Edgerton, Franklin. 1998. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, vol. 2. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Erdi Yi 二諦義 (The Meaning of the Two Truths). By Jizang. In T, vol. 45, no. 1854.
Garfield, Jay L. 2002. Empty Words: Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ho, Chien-hsing. 2010. “Nāgārjuna’s Critique of Language.” Asian Philosophy 20.2: 159−174.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Jingming Xuanlun 淨名玄論 (A Treatise on the Profound Teaching of Vimalakīrti). By Jizang. In T, vol. 38, no. 1780.
Kajiyama, Yuichi. 1971. The Logic of Emptiness 空の論理, Part I. Edited by Yuichi Kajiyama and Ueyama Shunpei. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten 角川書店.
Lindtner, Chr. 1987. Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nāgārjuna. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Liu, Ming-wood. 1994. Madhyamaka Thought in China. Leiden, New York, and Köln, E J BrillGoogle Scholar
Murti, T. R. V. 1955. The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Nagao, Gadjin. 1989. The Foundational Standpoint of Mādhyamika Philosophy. Translated by John P. Keenan. Albany: State University of New York Press.
_____. 1991. Mādhyamika and Yogācāra. Edited & translated by Leslie S. Kawamura. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Shengman Baoku 勝鬘寶窟 (The Jewel Cave of the Śrīmālā Sūtra). By Jizang. In T, vol. 37, no. 1744.
Siderits, Mark. 1989. “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamaka Anti-realism and Canons of Rationality.” In Rationality in Question: On Eastern and Western Views of Rationality. Edited by Shlomo Biderman and Ben-Ami Scharfstein. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
_____. 2003. “On the Soteriological Significance of Emptiness.” Contemporary Buddhism4.1: 9−23.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Takakusu, Junjirō, and WATANABE Kaigyoku, eds. 1924−34. Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō(abbreviated as T). 85 vols. Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai.
Tanji, Teruyoshi. 2000. “On Samāropa: Probing the Relationship of the Buddha’s Silence and His Teaching.” In Wisdom, Compassion, and the Search for Understanding: The Buddhist Studies Legacy of Gadjin M. Nagao. Edited by Jonathan A. Silk. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra. 2006. In Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: A Sanskrit Edition Based upon the Manuscript Newly Found at the Potala Palace. Edited by Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature, the Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University. Tokyo: Taisho University Press.
Wang, Youru. 2003. Linguistic Strategies in Daoist Zhuangzi and Chan Buddhism: The Other Way of Speaking. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon.BookGoogle Scholar
Weimojie Suoshuo Jing 維摩詰所說經 (The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra). Trans. by Kumārajīva. In T, vol. 14, no. 475.
Westerhoff, Jan. 2009. Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Paul. 1991. “On the Interpretation of Madhyamaka Thought.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 19.2: 191−218.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Zhongguanlun Shu 中觀論疏 (A Commentary on the Middle Treatise). By Jizang. In T, vol. 42, no. 1824.
Zhonglun 中論 (The Middle Treatise). Trans. by Kumārajīva. In T, vol. 30, no. 1564.
Zhuangzi Yinde 莊子引得 (A Concordance to Chuang Tzu). 1956. Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological Index Series, Supplement no. 20. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
The Way of Nonacquisition: Jizang’s Philosophy of Ontic Indeterminacy
Chien-hsing Ho
pp. 397–418. in: Chen-kuo Lin / Michael Radich (eds.) A Distant Mirror Articulating Indic Ideas in Sixth and Seventh Century Chinese Buddhism Hamburg Buddhist Studies, 3 Hamburg: Hamburg University Press 2014
Empty Logic: Mādhyamika Buddhism from Chinese Sources
Author Hsueh-li Cheng Publisher Philosophical Library, 1984 Original from the University of Virginia Digitized Aug 2, 2007 ISBN 0802224423, 9780802224422 Length 220 pages
The study on The Philosophy of Zhao Lun
Yan Li Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing 100083, China
The meaning of the two truths–the worldly or mundane truth samvrtisatya , and the real or supreme truth — was a hotly debated topic among Chinese Buddhists in the 5th and 6th century a.d. From the time of Kumarajiva this issue was discussed in terms of yu and wu . Usually yu was iden- tified with samvrtisatya and wu with paramarthasatya, leading to the mistaken conclusion that the two truths represent two separate realities. The ambiguous meaning of these terms also contributed to the confusion. Yu and wu have both positive and negative conno- tations for Buddhist philosophy. Yu understood as substantial Being is denied by the Buddhist concept of emptiness sunyata , but yu as conventional, conditioned, co-arising dharmas is compatible with the Buddhist concept of pratityasamutpada. Wu understood as a nihilistic nothingness is a misunderstanding of emptiness, but wu as a lack of substantial Being is synonymous with emptiness. The use of these ambiguous terms to interpret the meaning of the two truths prevented a satisfactory resolution of the problem until the issue was dealt with by Chi-tsang, of the Sanlun tradition, and Chih-i, founder of T’ien-t’ai philosophy. ;In this dissertation I outline the debate on the two truths in China from the time of Kumarajiva and Seng-chao, the first appearance of three truth formulations in Chinese apocryphal Sutras, the debate on the two truths led by Prince Chao-ming, Hui-yuan’s discussion in his Ta ch’eng i chang, the positive evaluation of conventional existence by the Ch’eng shih lun scholars, and the contributions of Chi-tsang. Finally I discuss Chih-i’s T’ien-t’ai philosophy and his resolution of the problem by means of his threefold truth concept. Chih-i tran- scends the yu/wu duality by emphasizing the oneness of reality and discussing the issue in terms of emptiness sunyata , conventional existence prajnaptirupadaya , and the middle madhyama . An annotated translation of the pertinent section of the Fa hua hsuan i is included in an Appendix
Sŭng Tonang (僧 道朗) (a.k.a. Sŭngnang (僧朗), fl. 476?-512) from Koguryŏ and his Role in Chinese San-lun
Joerg Plassen
Joerg Plassen is an Assistant Professor of the Department of Ostasienwissenschaften at Ruhr-Universität Bochum.
This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the First World Congress of Korean Studies, Academy of Korean Studies, Sŏngnam, July 18-20, 2002.
International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture February 2005, Vol. 5, pp. 165~198.
Nāgārjuna (c. 150–250 CE) is the founder of the Madhyamaka or Middle Way school of Buddhist philosophy and the most influential of all Buddhist thinkers following the Buddha himself. Throughout his works, Nāgārjuna repeatedly calls for the complete abandonment of all views. But how could anyone possibly abandon all views? And how could a philosopher of Nāgārjuna’s stature resort to using so self-contradictory a form of argumentation as the tetralemma, which openly negates a position, its contrary, both, and neither? Many scholars have attempted to parameterize Nāgārjuna’s paradoxes in an apologetic effort to justify him to mainstream Western philosophers as being irreproachably logical. This book, however, shows not only how Nāgārjuna’s truly radical teaching of no-view or “abelief” makes perfect sense within his Buddhist philosophy but also how it stands at the summit of his religious mission to care for all living beings. Rather than treating any one aspect of Nāgārjuna’s ideas in isolation, here his metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics emerge as forging a single coherent and convincing philosophical-religious system of thought and practice. Overall, this book takes a comprehensive approach to Nāgārjuna’s thought in its Buddhist context, integrating his views on views, belief, and conceptualization; language, mind, and intention; action, attachment, and selfhood; suffering, violence, and peace; and emptiness, nirvāṇa, and Buddhahood. By drawing on Buddhist sources in a way that resolutely strives to move beyond the Christianocentrism and Occidentocentrism still so dominant in scholarship today, this work challenges the very ways in which we think about religion and philosophy.
‘Abandoning All Views: A Buddhist Critique of Belief’,
Stepien, Rafal K.,
Buddhism Between Religion and Philosophy: Nāgārjuna and the Ethics of Emptiness (New York , 2024; online edn, Oxford Academic, 30 Apr. 2024), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197771303.003.0005, accessed 26 May 2024.
Chapter 4 brings preceding discussions of the tetralemma to bear on the central role that abandoning all views plays within Nāgārjuna’s thought as a whole. For Nāgārjuna’s masterwork opens and closes with salutations to the Buddha as one who taught the “cessation of conceptualization” and the “abandonment of all views.” In addition, this and Nāgārjuna’s other texts contain numerous analogous calls for the complete abandonment of views, which are surveyed and explained. Despite these copious, clear, and comprehensive disavowals of views, contemporary scholars almost unanimously interpret such statements as referring only to “false” views. This chapter argues instead that Nāgārjuna’s insistence on the abandonment of all views—including ultimately his own—constitutes his distinctive epistemological means to the metaphysical “exhaustion” characteristic of nirvāṇa, wherein all views are and must be abandoned as so many subtle affirmations of an only ever empty self.
‘Logical, Buddhological, Buddhist: A Critical Study of the Tetralemma’,
Stepien, Rafal K.,
Buddhism Between Religion and Philosophy: Nāgārjuna and the Ethics of Emptiness (New York , 2024; online edn, Oxford Academic, 30 Apr. 2024), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197771303.003.0003, accessed 26 May 2024.
Chapter 2 focuses on the tetralemma or catuṣkoṭi. This fourfold form of discourse typically negates a given position, its contrary, both, and neither, as when, for example, Nāgārjuna states at the very outset of his masterwork that “Not from itself nor from another / Not from both nor without cause // Does any entity whatsoever / Anywhere arise.” The logicalizing approach predominant in contemporary scholarship on the tetralemma is motivated by a desire to demonstrate that, contrary to appearances, Nāgārjuna cannot possibly be serious in denying all four positions. This chapter articulates and dismantles three major iterations of this approach, which are called the Mereological, Modal, and Qualitative Interpretations. An alternative reading is then proposed that is not only just as methodologically legitimate but also better equipped for the hermeneutical endeavor of describing Nāgārjuna’s religiosophical project taken in its entirety.
‘Nāgārjuna’s Tetralemma: Tetrāletheia and Tathāgata, Utterance and Anontology’,
Stepien, Rafal K.,
Buddhism Between Religion and Philosophy: Nāgārjuna and the Ethics of Emptiness (New York , 2024; online edn, Oxford Academic, 30 Apr. 2024), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197771303.003.0004, accessed 26 May 2024.
Chapter 3 turns from the critique of currently prevalent interpretive strategies to the construction of an alternative method. In contradistinction to analyses aimed at demonstrating the logicality of the tetralemma, an interpretation is proposed along what are called paralogical lines. An argument is made for the inadequacy of the dialetheic reading currently preferred, and therefore a new term is proposed—“tetrāletheia”—designed to better represent the four-folded nature of the tetralemma. Subsequent sections of the chapter are devoted to explication of this neologism, together with a reading of the tetralemma as embodied in the archetypal Buddhist figure of the Tathāgata. In the final section, “utterance” is proposed as an alternative descriptor for the totality of the tetralemma, one that is better suited to the paralogical and “anontological” tetralemma than are terms in standard use insofar as it dispenses with their substantialist value(s).
The Fifth Corner of Four: Catuskoti in Buddhist Logic
Key Terms
Logic
Classical Logic
Non Classical Logic
Many Valued Logic
Multi Valued Logic
Three Valued Logic
Four Valued Logic
Catuskoti
Buddhist Logic
Lukasiewicz Logic
Kleene Logic
Intuitionistic Logic
Five Valued Logic
Researchers
Graham Priest
Kreutz, Adrian
Kapsner, Andreas
Jan Westerhoff
Hans Rudolf Kantor
Gunaratne, R. D.
The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi
Source: The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi. By Graham Priest. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. / Matthew T. Kapstein
Source: The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi. By Graham Priest. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. / Matthew T. Kapstein
Source: The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi. By Graham Priest. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. / Matthew T. Kapstein
Source: The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi. By Graham Priest. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. / Matthew T. Kapstein
Source: The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi. By Graham Priest. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. / Matthew T. Kapstein
Source: The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi. By Graham Priest. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. / Matthew T. Kapstein
My Related Posts
You can search for these posts using Search Posts feature in the right sidebar.
Relation and Negation in Indian Philosophy
Hermann Weyl and L.E.J. Brouwer: Intuitive Continuum and Choice Sequences
Charles Sanders Peirce’s Visual Logic: Diagrams and Existential Graphs
The recent literature on Nāgārjuna’s catuṣkoṭi centres around Jay Garfield’s and Graham Priest’s interpretation. It is an open discussion to what extent their interpretation is an adequate model of the logic for the catuskoti, and the Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā. Priest and Garfield try to make sense of the contradictions within the catuskoti by appeal to a series of lattices – orderings of truth-values, supposed to model the path to enlightenment. They use Anderson & Belnaps’s framework of First Degree Entailment. Cotnoir has argued that the lattices of Priest and Garfield cannot ground the logic of the catuskoti. The concern is simple: on the one hand, FDE brings with it the failure of classical principles such as modus ponens. On the other hand, we frequently encounter Nāgārjuna using classical principles in other arguments in the MMK. There is a problem of validity. If FDE is Nāgārjuna’s logic of choice, he is facing what is commonly called the classical recapture problem: how to make sense of cases where classical principles like modus pones are valid? One cannot just add principles like modus pones as assumptions, because in the background paraconsistent logic this does not rule out their negations. In this essay, I shall explore and critically evaluate Cotnoir’s proposal. In detail, I shall reveal that his framework suffers collapse of the kotis. Taking Cotnoir’s concerns seriously, I shall suggest a formulation of the catuskoti in classical Boolean Algebra, extended by the notion of an external negation as an illocutionary act. I will focus on purely formal considerations, leaving doctrinal matters to the scholarly discourse – as far as this is possible.
On the relationship of Advaita Vedānta and Mādhyamika Buddhism
Paradox and Negation in the Upanishads, Buddhism and the Advaita Vedanta of Sankaracarya (India)
Thompson, Heather. California Institute of Integral Studies
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1982. 8400050.
This dissertation explores the uses of Paradox and Negation–in contrast and comparison–through the Upanishads and Buddhism to the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara. Paradox and Negation employed are not of ordinary parlance but are philosophic and dialectic tools indicating a state beyond the world of appearances–the Supreme.The Upanishads indicate the Supreme state by positing the Transcendent Atman–The Transcendent Subjectivity–and the Transcendent Brahman–the Transcendent Existentiality. In both aspects, the Supreme is seen as the antecedent state to the nest of appearances: Its existence supports all phenomena. By juxtaposing two apparently incongruous statements–thus producing a Paradox–the Upanishadic seers pushed the mind beyond its normal boundaries into a meditative insight. Similarly, through Negation, the seers denied the self-sustaining validity of phenomena.The Buddha, in contrast, forwarded a pragmatic’ philosophy, refusing to speculate about the existence or nature of the Supreme. Rather, he examined the conditions of daily life, their cause, their cessation and the route to their cessation. Passing through the nominalist teachers of the Hinayana school to the Mahayana school, a growing use of Paradox and Negation is seen and culminates in the dialectics of Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna pushed Paradox and Negation to extremes in his Catuskoti, four-fold argument, which revealed the logical inadequacies of all concepts. They have only causal or relational validity within the boundaries of the intellect. Outside that boundary, they have no self-nature or existence.Sankara, in his Advaita Vedanta, rising to another level on the spiral of Indian philosophy, takes from the teachings of the previous two traditions and elaborates and develops both. He recognizes that the phenomenal world has reality–but a temporary one. It exists only so long as the mind is held in sway by illusion and ignorance. Once the mind has been restored to its true state–which is a meditatively disciplined one–the phenomenal world is seen as having relative existence only and as totally dependent on the Supreme Brahman.The uses of Paradox and Negation by the three schools will be examined as contrasts and complements to each other.
“Who Understands the Four Alternatives of the Buddhist Texts?”
This thesis is the attempt to find a logical model for, and trace the history of, the catuṣkoṭi as it developed in the Indo-Tibetan milieu and spread, via China, to Japan. After an introduction to the history and key-concepts of Buddhist philosophy, I will finish the first chapter with some methodological considerations about the general viability of comparative philosophy. Chapter §2 is devoted to a logical analysis of the catuṣkoṭi. Several attempts to model this fascinating piece of Buddhist philosophy with the tools of classical logic shall be debunked. A paraconsistent alternative will be discussed but eventually dismissed. As a rejoinder, I shall propose a model for the catuṣkoṭi with the help of speech-acts. The remainder of this chapter will look at Chinese and Japanese forms of the catuṣkoṭi which I shall model in a quasi-recursive system. The third and final chapter will look at the Kyoto School’s soku-hi dialectics which ties together the different threads of this essay. I will criticise an established, classical model of the soku-hi dialectics and offer an alternative with a second-order paraconsistent semantics.
An essential principal to Buddhism is non-dualism. However, the Catuskoti is clearly a system still immersed in dualism. This sort of dualism is more like that of the dual in Tao. Taken by themselves, the two relative states contain within themselves the nature of the absolutes. The only thing which differentiates are the notions both, neither. It is much like the yin and yang symbol. However, more accurately as we go on we see a fractal emerge. Hence, the ultimate truth, one in which we seem to conceptually call the more subtle truth is an illusion. The infinite recursion of this extension hints at an ultimate truth arising at ¥. The conception which takes within it this very fractal nature is truly enlightened. A truth which is free from dualism is either entirely immersed within dualism, or it lacks the distinction of truth all together. The use of the Catuskoti serves the purpose to hint ultimately at a non-truth. Speaking in terms of tautologies and ineffables, we will see the Catuskoti is a conceptual elaboration of traditional dualism, absolute true and false. While this itself is a conceptual elaboration of the union of true and false, Sunyata or 0. Sunyata is a conceptual elaboration of itself, which of course cannot be explained conceptually because then it emerges from non-conceptual Sunyata to conceptual Sunyata of 0. We can hint at it by saying, as a truth space, the non-conceptual Sunyata be U, then the set of ineffables of U and tautologies of U forms the conceptual elaboration of U. It should be clear that careful attention to our use of V4, the Klein 4 group, will be sufficient to realize a conceptual grasp of the non-conceptual Sunyata. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/420
We have not finished with the Neoplatonist tradition yet, but before we continue with it, let us look at Eastern Philosophy, starting in India. Since very early times, the Law of Non-Contradiction has been orthodox in the West. This is not at all the case in India. The standard view, going back to before the Buddha (a rough contemporary of Aristotle) was that on any claim of substance there are four possibilities: that the view is true (and true only), that it is false (and false only), that it is neither true nor false, and that it is both true and false. This is called the catuskoti (four corners), or tetralemma.48Hence, the possibility of a contradiction was explicitly acknowledged. The difference between this view and the orthodox Western view is the same as that between the semantics of classical logic and the four-valued semantics for the relevant logic of First Degree Entailment (as we shall see). In classical logic, sentences have exactly one of the truth values T (true) and F (false). In First Degree Entailment they may have any combination of these values, including both and neither. Just to add complexity to the picture, some Buddhist philosopers argued that, for some issues, all or none of these four possibilities might hold. Thus, the major 2nd century Mahayana Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna is sometimes interpreted in one or other of these ways. Arguments of this kind, just to confuse matters, are also sometimes called catuskoti. Interpreting Nāgārjuna is a very difficult task, but it is possible to interpret him, as some commentators did, as claiming that these matters are simply ineffable.49
The Law of Non-Contradiction has certainly had its defenders in the East, though. It was endorsed, for example, by logicians in the Nyaayaa tradition. This influenced Buddhist philosophers, such as Darmakārti, and, via him, some Buddhist schools, such as the Tibetan Gelug-pa. Even in Tibet, though, many Buddhist schools, such as the Nyngma-pa, rejected the law, at least for ultimate truths.
Turning to Chinese philosophy, and specifically Taoism, one certainly finds utterances that look as though they violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. For example, in the Chuang Tzu (the second most important part of the Taoist canon), we find:50
That which makes things has no boundaries with things, but for things to have boundaries is what we mean by saying ‘the boundaries between things’. The boundaryless boundary is the boundary without a boundary.
A cause of these contradictions is not unlike that in Neoplatonism. In Taoism, there is an ultimate reality, Tao, which is the source and generator of everything else. As the Tao Te Ching puts it:51
The Tao gives birth to the One.
The One gives birth to the two.
The Two give birth to the three —
The Three give birth to every living thing.
It follows, as in the Western tradition, that there is nothing that can be said about it. As the Tao Te Ching puts it (ch. 1):
The Tao that can be talked about is not the true Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
Everything in the universe comes out of Nothing.
Nothing — the nameless — is the beginning…
Yet in explaining this situation, we are forced to say things about it, as the above quotations demonstrate.
Chan (Zen) is a fusion of Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism. As might therefore be expected, the dialetheic aspects of the two metaphysics reinforce each other. Above all, then, Zen is a metaphysics where we find the writings of its exponents full of apparent contradictions. Thus, for example, the great Zen master Dōgen says:52
This having been confirmed as the Great Teacher’s saying, we should study immobile sitting and transmit it correctly: herein lies a thorough investigation of immobile sitting handed down in the Buddha-way. Although thoughts on the immobile state of sitting are not limited to a single person, Yüeh-shan’s saying is the very best. Namely: ‘thinking is not thinking’.
or:53
An ancient buddha said, ‘Mountains are mountains, waters are waters.’ These words do not mean that mountains are mountains; they mean that mountains are mountains. Therefore investigate mountains thoroughly…
Now interpreting all this, especially the Chinese and Japanese writings, is a hard and contentious matter. The writings are often epigrammatic and poetical. Certainly, the writings contain assertions of contradictions, but are we meant to take them literally? It might be thought not. One suggestion is that the contradictions are uttered for their perlocutionary effect: to shock the hearer into some reaction. Certainly, this sort of thing plays a role in Zen, but not in Mahayana Buddhism or Taoism. And even in Zen, contradictions occur in even the theoretical writings.
More plausibly, it may be suggested that the contradictions in question have to be interpreted in some non-literal way. For example, though ultimate reality is literally indescribable, what is said about it gives some metaphorical description of its nature. This won’t really work either, though. For the very reason that ultimate reality is indescribable is precisely because it is that which brings all beings into being; it can therefore be no being (and so to say anything about it is contradictory). At least this much of what is said about the Tao must be taken literally, or the whole picture falls apart.54
The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi
Graham Priest, The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi, Oxford University Press, 2018, 172pp., ISBN 9780198758716.
Reviewed by Mark Siderits, Seoul National University (Emeritus) 2019.05.18
Bharucha, F., and R.V. Kamat. 1984. Syādvāda theory of Jainism in terms of deviant logic. Indian Philosophical Quarterly 9: 181–187.Google Scholar
Bochvar, D.A., and M. Bergmann. 1981. On a three-valued logical calculus and its application to the analysis of the paradoxes of the classical extended functional calculus. History and Philosophy of Logic 2: 87–112.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Ganeri, J. 2002. Jaina logic and the philosophical basis of pluralism. History and Philosophy of Logic 23: 267–281.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Garfield, J., trans. 1995. The fundamental wisdom of the middle way. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halldén, S. 1949. The logic of nonsense. Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska Bokhandlen.Google Scholar
Jayatilleke, K.N. 1963. Early Buddhist theories of knowledge. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kassor, C. 2013. Is Gorampa’s “freedom from conceptual proliferations” dialetheist? A response to Garfield, Priest, and Tillemans. Philosophy East and West 63: 399–410.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Kleene, S.C. 1938. Notation for ordinal numbers. Journal of Symbolic Logic 3: 150–151.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Kleene, S.C. 1952. Introduction to metamathematics. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishers.Google Scholar
Koller, J.M., and P. Koller, eds. 1991. A sourcebook in Asian philosophy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Marconi, D. 1979. La formalizzazione della dialettica. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Matilal, B.K. 1981. The central philosophy of Jainism (Anekānta-Vāda). Ahmedabad: L. D. Institute of Indology.Google Scholar
Ñāṇamoli, Bikkhu, and Bikkhu Bodhi, trans. 1995. The middle length discourses of the Buddha. Somerville: Wisdom Publications.Google Scholar
Oppy, G. 2018. Ontological arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.BookGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 1979. Logic of paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 219–214.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 1995. Beyond the limits of thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Priest, G. 2008. Introduction to non-classical logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.BookGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 2013. Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyakamakārika. Topoi 32: 129–134.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 2014b. Speaking of the ineffable…. In Nothingness in Asian philosophy, ed. J. Lee and D. Berger. London: Routledge. Chapter 7.Google Scholar
Priest, G. 2018. The fifth corner of four. Oxford: Oxford University Press.BookGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 2019. Natural deduction for systems in the FDE family. In New essays on Belnap-Dunn logic, ed. H. Omori and H. Wansing, 279–292. Berlin: Springer.ChapterGoogle Scholar
Raju, P. 1954. The principle of four-cornered negation in Indian philosophy. Review of Metaphysics 7: 694–713.Google Scholar
Sarkar, T. 1992. Some reflections on Jaina Anekāntavāda and Syādvada. Jadavpur Journal of Philosophy 2: 13–38.Google Scholar
Siderits, M., and Katsura, S., trans. 2013. Nāgārjuna’s middle way. Boston: Wisdom Publications.Google Scholar
Stcherbatsky, F.T. 1962. Buddhist logic. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
None of the Above: The Catuṣkoṭi in Indian Buddhist Logic.
Priest, G. (2015).
In: Beziau, JY., Chakraborty, M., Dutta, S. (eds) New Directions in Paraconsistent Logic. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 152. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2719-9_24
Deguchi, Y., Garfield, J., Priest, G.: The way of the dialetheist: contradictions in buddhism. Philos. East West 58, 395–402 (2008)ArticleGoogle Scholar
Garfield, J.: The Fundamental Principles of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamikakārikā. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
Garfield, J., Priest, G.: Nāgārjuna and the limits of thought. Philos. East West 53, 1–21 (2003) (Reprinted as ch. 5 of Garfield’s, Empty Words. Oxford University Press, New York (2002) and as ch. 16 Priest (2002))Google Scholar
Garfield, J., Priest, G.: Mountains are Just Mountains (2009) (ch. 7 of D’Amato, M., Garfield, J., Tillemans, T. (eds.): Pointing at the Moon: Buddhism, Logic, Analytic Philosophy. Oxford University Press, New York)Google Scholar
Kassor, C.: Is Gorampa’s “Freedom from Conceptual Proliferations” dialetheist? A response to Garfield, Priest, and Tillemans. Philos. East West 63, 399–410 (2013)ArticleGoogle Scholar
Priest, G.: Paraconsistent Logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, D. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn, Vol. 6, pp. 287–393. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
Priest, G.: Beyond the Limits of Thought, 2nd edn. Oxford Unversity Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
Priest, G.: The Limits of Language. In: Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, Vol. 7, pp. 156–159. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
Priest, G.: Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
Priest, G.: Jaina logic: a contemporary perspective. History Philos. Logic 29, 263–278 (2008)Google Scholar
Priest, G.: The logic of the Catuṣkoṭi. Comp. Philos. 1, 32–54 (2010)Google Scholar
Radhakrishnan, S., Moore, C. (eds.): A Source Book in Indian Philosophy. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1957)Google Scholar
Raju, P.: The principle of four-cornered negation in Indian philosophy. Rev. Metaphys. 7, 694–713 (1953)Google Scholar
Robinson, R.: Some logical aspects of Nāgārjuna’s system. Philos. East West 6, 291–308 (1956)ArticleGoogle Scholar
Ruegg, D.: The uses of the four positions of the Catuṣkoṭi and the problem of the description of reality in Mahāyāna buddhism. J. Indian Philos. 5, 1–71 (1977)ArticleGoogle Scholar
Tillemans, T.: Is buddhist logic non-classical or deviant? Chap. 9 of Scripture, Logic, Language: Essays on Dharmakīrti and his Tibetan Successors. Wisdom Publications, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
“Doxographical Appropriation of Nāgārjuna’s Catuṣkoṭi in Chinese Sanlun and Tiantai Thought”
Mauricio Osorio1 and Claudia Zepeda2 1 Universidad de las Am ́ericas-Puebla, 2 Benem ́erita Universidad Ato ́noma de Puebla {osoriomauri,czepedac}@gmail.com
Many-valued logics are those logics that have more than the two classical truth values, to wit, true and false; in fact, they can have from three to infinitely many truth values. This property, together with truth-functionality, provides a powerful formalism to reason in settings where classical logic—as well as other non-classical logics—is of no avail. Indeed, originally motivated by philosophical concerns, these logics soon proved relevant for a plethora of applications ranging from switching theory to cognitive modeling, and they are today in more demand than ever, due to the realization that inconsistency and vagueness in knowledge bases and information processes are not only inevitable and acceptable, but also perhaps welcome. The main modern applications of (any) logic are to be found in the digital computer, and we thus require the practical knowledge how to computerize—which also means automate—decisions (i.e. reasoning) in many-valued logics. This, in turn, necessitates a mathematical foundation for these logics. This book provides both these mathematical foundation and practical knowledge in a rigorous, yet accessible, text, while at the same time situating these logics in the context of the satisfiability problem (SAT) and automated deduction. The main text is complemented with a large selection of exercises, a plus for the reader wishing to not only learn about, but also do something with, many-valued logics.
“Many-valued logic and its philosophy.”
Malinowski, Grzegorz.
In The Many Valued and Nonmonotonic Turn in Logic (2007).
Improving the efficiency of using multivalued logic tools.
Suleimenov, I.E., Vitulyova, Y.S., Kabdushev, S.B. et al.
In the West, the general tendency of philosophers has been to understand things as being either real or unreal and to view propositions as either true or false. It is assumed that that which is real or true is opposite and exclusive of that which is unreal or untrue and that there can be no mediating ground. Only rarely does one find a philosopher who attempts to qualify truth and reality, that is, to hold that one thing might be, to some degree, more or less real than another, or to hold that one proposition could be more true than a second, while remaining less true than a third. On the contrary, philosophy in the West has generally been a quest to determine more clearly what is real and true and to contrast it more sharply with what is held to be unreal and untrue.
Often in this quest, however, philosophers display a tendency to qualify truth and reality even while trying to deny or exclude the possibility of such qualification. In Descartes’ writings, this qualification is set forth through his method of radical doubt as exercised in the Meditations. In his search for the real and the true, Descartes proceeds to doubt all of his former, commonsense beliefs. In this process, starting with that which is most easily doubted, that which seems the least ontologically and epistemologically well-grounded, he proceeds to submit to radical doubt beliefs of firmer and firmer ontological and epistemological footing, in search of something indubitable upon which to rebuild the structure of truth and reality. In spite of the fact that this method of radical doubt results in a reassertion of that which Descartes had more naively believed all along, it is instructive to compare the mediating levels observed by Descartes in his method to those of a non-Western philosopher who admits to qualified levels of truth and reality. Thus, while Descartes’ conclusions follow the more general Western pattern of drawing strict lines of demarcation between reality and nonreality, truth and untruth, we will concentrate more on his method, which stratifies and qualifies reality and truth prior to the drawing of these lines. Qualified levels of truth and reality are less of a problem for Indian philosophers. While India, too, has its schools of philosophy which admit to only two ontological or epistemological possibilities, one also finds in other schools a very careful and deliberate grading of reality and truth from levels of varying qualification to a level of ultimacy. Samkara’s Advaita Vedanta is one such school, and it is Samkara that will be considered in a comparison with Descartes. There are, strictly speaking, only one level of full truth and reality and one level· of full untruth and nonreality for Samkara. These extremes, however, are mediated by at least two other levels which are sadasadvilaksana,” other than real and unreal.” The reality or nonreality of these middle levels can only be understood in relation to the highest and lowest levels of reality. This ambiguity in their nature renders them anirvacanTya,” that about which we cannot speak.” For Samkara, there are only two sorts of things which are fully unreal,(1) the
The Problem of Two Truths in Buddhism and Vedānta
Author G.M.C. Sprung Edition illustrated Publisher Springer Science & Business Media, 2012 ISBN 9401025827, 9789401025829 Length 132 pages
The Uses of the Four Positions of the “Catus-koti” and the Problem of the Description of Reality in Mahayana Buddhism
In: Banerjee, M., Seth, A. (eds) Logic and Its Applications. ICLA 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6521. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18026-2_2
Garfield, J.: The Fundamental Principles of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamikakārikā. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
Garfield, J., Priest, G.: Nāgārjuna and the Limits of Thought. Philosophy East and West 53, 1–21 (2003); reprinted as Priest, G.: Beyond the Limits of Thought, 2nd (extended) edn., ch.16. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)ArticleGoogle Scholar
Garfield, J., Priest, G.: Mountains are Just Mountains. In: D’Amato, M., Garfield, J., Tillemans, T. (eds.) Pointing at the Moon: Buddhism, Logic, Analytic Philosophy, ch. 7. Oxford University Press, New York (2009)ChapterGoogle Scholar
Priest, G.: Hypercontradictions. Logique et Analyse 107, 237–243 (1984)Google Scholar
Priest, G.: Paraconsistent Logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, D. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 6, pp. 287–393. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)ChapterGoogle Scholar
Priest, G.: Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: from If to Is. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)BookMATHGoogle Scholar
Priest, G.: The Logic of the Catuṣkoṭi. Comparative Philosophy 1, 32–54 (2010)Google Scholar
Raju, P.: The Principle of Four-Cornered Negation in Indian Philosophy. Review of Metaphysics 7, 694–713 (1953)Google Scholar
Ruegg, D.: The Uses of the Four Positions of the Catuṣkoṭi and the Problem of the Description of Reality in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Journal of Indian Philosophy 5, 1–71 (1977)ArticleGoogle Scholar
Scherbatsky, T.: Buddhist Logic, vol. 1. Matilal Banarsidass, Delhi (1993)Google Scholar
Tillemans, T.: Is Buddhist Logic Non-classical or Deviant? In: Scripture, Logic, Language: Essays on Dharmakīrti and his Tibetan Successors, ch. 9. Wisdom Publications, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
Westerhoff, J.: Nāgārjuna’s Metaphysics: a Philosophical Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
“The Avyākatāni and the Catuṣkoṭi Form in the Pāli Sutta Piṭaka, 2.”
Rigopoulos, Antonio.
East and West 43, no. 1/4 (1993): 115–40.
Published By: ISMEO (International Association for Mediterranean and Oriental Studies)
Cotnoir, A. J. (2015). N¯ag¯arjuna’s logic. In T. Koji, Y. Deguchi, J. Garfield, & P. Graham (Eds.), The moon points back (pp. 176–188). Oxford University Press.
Frege, G. (1892). On Sense and Reference. In P. Geach & M. Black (Eds.), Translation from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 56–78). Blackwell, 1952 . Google Scholar
Garfield, J. L. (1995). The fundamental wisdom of the middle way: N¯ag¯arjuna’s Mu¯lamadhyamakak¯arik¯a. Oxford University Press.
Garfield, J. L., & Priest, G. (2002). N¯ag¯arjuna and the limits of thought. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Empty words (pp. 86–108). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Garfield, J. L., & Priest, G. (2009). Mountains are just mountains. In M. D’amato, J. L. Garfield, & T. J. F. Tillemans (Eds.), Pointing at the moon – Buddhism, logic, analytic philosophy (pp. 71–82). Oxford University Press.
Restall, R. (2005). Multiple conclusions. In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 12th International Congress, Oviedo (pp. 189–206). Kings College Publications. Google Scholar
Rumfitt, I. (2017). The liar without truth. In B. Armour-Garb (Ed.), Reflections on the liar (pp. 191–211). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Sider, T. (2007). Logic for philosophy. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Westerhoff, J. (2009). Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka – a philosophical introduction. Oxford University Press.
Whitehead, A. N., & Russell, B. (1962). Principia mathematica. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
The Deconstructionist Interpretation of Nagarjuna’s Catuskoti∗
Shi, Ruyuan (Chien-Yuan Hsu) PhD candidate, the Dep. of Religious Studies, the University of Calgary, Canada Sessional instructor, Mount Royal University, Canada
Review by: Douglas Dunsmore Daye Philosophy East and West Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 525-535 (11 pages) Published By: University of Hawai’i Press
What Can’t be Said: Paradox and Contradiction in East Asian Thought
Authors Yasuo Deguchi, Jay L. Garfield, Graham Priest, Robert H. Sharf Publisher Oxford University Press, 2021 ISBN 0197526209, 9780197526200 Length 256 pages
To gain a deeper insight into the role that negation played in the Krishnamurti dialogue, I compare it to two well-researched negation-based philosophies. The first is Nāgārjuna’s Buddhist philosophy of the ‘middle way’ (madhyamaka), in particular his most prominent work The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā). The second is the eighth-century Śaṅkara’s Hindu system of Advaita Vedānta, mainly his commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and his independent work A Thousand Teachings(Upadeśasāhasrī). I start by introducing the Buddha’s imponderables and the way that Nāgārjuna developed these segments of the Buddha’s Dharma into the system of the middle way (madhyamaka). In this section, I demonstrate the transformative nature of this system, based on the original text as well as scholarly sources. The next section is dedicated to the presentation of Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta as a negative philosophy and to the ways in which his method corresponds to and stands in contrast to Nāgārjuna’s negation. Finally, I highlight the uniqueness of Krishnamurti’s dialectical negation: while the two classical paragons of the negative approach practised by Nāgārjuna and Śaṅkara are tools for the elimination of metaphysical views and epistemological approaches, Krishnamurti’s is a psychological and post-traditional negation whose aim is to do away with past, knowledge, and authority. More generally, I argue that, as a feature of the transformative dialogue, negation is a spiritual exercise that prepares for a particular experience and facilitates it: the discussant’s ability to perceive reality with naked eyes and a bare mind.
Notes
I shall return to Sañjaya’s form of negation in the following section.
It is worth mentioning that the scriptures that inspired Nāgārjuna’s and Śaṅkara’s practices of negation – the Buddha’s Dharma talks in the Pāli Canon and the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, as well as a significant number of other Upaniṣads – had also been largely narrated in the explicit form of a dialogue.
This reading of the text is supported by Nāgārjuna scholars such as Jay L. Garfield (for example, 1995: 209; Garfield and Priest 2003: 11).
For a contrary view, see Raju (1954: 703), who perceives Nāgārjuna’s and Śaṅkara’s negation (particularly, their use of four-cornered negation) as ‘a principle expressive of ultimate reality’.
See, for instance, the debate between Stafford L. Betty (1983: 123–138, 1984: 447–450) and David Loy (1984: 437–445).
In Śaṅkara’s case, as I will show in the second section, all metaphysical claims but one.
However, the logical gulf separating Indian thought from Western logical traditions seems to be gradually being bridged as a result of efforts initially made by twentieth-century Western philosophers in response to logical paradoxes. Two important developments have been the emergence of paraconsistent logic, which accommodates inconsistency in a controlled way, viewing inconsistent information as potentially informative, and the subsequent modern form of dialetheism (“two-way truth”), which transcends the law of non-contradiction by maintaining that there are indeed true contradictions (Priest et al. 2022a, b).
We know of Sañjaya only through early Buddhist literature which refers to him critically (Jayatilleke 1963: 135).
Jayatilleke (ibid., 138) maintains that this formula was not only Sañjaya’s, but was shared by all classical Indian sceptical schools of thought.
The Brahmajāla Sutta contains a thorough negation of sixty-two views that prevailed among recluses in the time of the Buddha.
Or ‘eel-wrigglers’, a term which should be understood as either denoting verbal jugglery or as an analogy that likens sceptics to eels that constantly squirm about in the water and are difficult to get hold of (Jayatilleke 1963: 122).
.Jones (2016: 13) convincingly unveils the reasoning behind the Buddha’s strategy of negation in the Vacchagotta dialogue.
This brings us back to negation as a practice among mystics who tend to defend their experiences as ‘ineffable’. Blackwood (1963: 202–206) suggests that it is not that mystics argue that all descriptive statements are false, but rather that all descriptive statements are ‘inapplicable or inappropriate’ when it comes to their transcendent realizations. Thus, mystics simply disregard syntactic and logical rules, such as the law of non-contradiction, which are only relevant as long as one wishes to ‘make learning possible’ (ibid., 207–209).
See also Ganeri’s (2013a: 51–53) useful point that the Buddha’s negation in the Vacchagotta dialogue was not to keep secret knowledge in his fist but to ensure that he would not impart knowledge that is unnecessary and therefore ultimately harmful. Thus, using negation he could challenge the premise of the question itself (ibid. 53).
Nāgārjuna clearly deems the refutation of all views the centrepiece of the Buddha’s Dharma, since he concludes his work by praising Gautama Buddha for teaching the ‘true doctrine which leads to the relinquishing of all views’ (XXVII: 30).
In this sense, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is in line with the general tendency of some forms of Indian and Buddhist debate to value reasoning and argumentation not only for their truth-preserving and truth-validating properties, but also for their ability to promote truth (Ganeri 2013a: 125).
With the word ‘trans-logical’ I also indicate that contrary to Betty’s qualm (1984: 448), the ladder of logic is not a mere apparatus that one ought to kick out from beneath oneself after climbing up it, but a form of discriminating wisdom on which one builds.
This is stated cautiously, since certain forms of South Asian argumentation, including four-cornered negation and Nāgārjuna’s use of it, can help Western thought to accept other forms of logic and thus to arrive at broader logical formulas.
In the collective memory of mainstream Hinduism, Śaṅkara is honoured as a philosopher-saint whose efforts to give a coherent structure to disparate Hindu beliefs and practices have safeguarded Hinduism from the challenges posed by the rise of Buddhism (Shearer 2017: xiii). There are also substantial examples of criticism of Buddhist views in Śaṅkara’s works (e.g. Brahmasūtrabhāṣya II.2.18–32).
Shearer (2017: xxiii) considers Śaṅkara’s employment of relentless reasoning, logic, and dialectic a part of his methodological toolkit (upāya, or useful means), which is only utilized to either defend or advance the radical cognitive insight (jñāna) which lies at the core of the Advaitin perspective of non-dualism. Thus, Shearer concludes, Śaṅkara is not a philosopher since he does not maintain a consistent conceptual position and does not believe that truth can be proven or brought about by any of these methodological tools (ibid.). This brings us back to the concept of transformative philosophers.
Raju (1954: 704), who contrasts Śaṅkara’s negation with that of Nāgārjuna, mentions that while śūnya in Sanskrit means both the mathematical and metaphysical zero, another word employed by the Sanskrit writers to describe the mathematical zero is Pūrṇa, which means the full rather than the empty.
Raju (1954: 709–710) effectively classifies Nāgārjuna’s conception of fourfold negation as ‘metaphysical relativism’ and Śaṅkara’s negation as ‘metaphysical absolutism and phenomenal relativism’.
For a supportive view, see King (1957: 112–113), who concludes that Nāgārjuna’s outer scepticism is intended to serve his inner truth.
Since Krishnamurti is not as philosophically coherent as Nāgārjuna and Śaṅkara, this should be stated with reservation: while his dialogical negation generally avoids affirmative assertions about the ultimate truth, Krishnamurti’s diaries, biographies, and public discourses include numerous contradictory descriptions of the nature of the already existing reality (see Chap. 8).
This distinction will be elaborated on in the concluding chapter.
Nevertheless, Krishnamurti mainly abandoned this structure only in his close group discussions and one-on-one conversations. His public discourse generally retained the traditional guru–student dialogue.
Apple, James B. 2010. Can Buddhist Thought Be Construed as a Philosophia, or a Way of Life? Journal of Oriental Philosophy: 191–204.Google Scholar
Betty, Stafford L. 1983. Nāgārjuna’s Masterpiece: Logical, Mystical, Both, or Neither? Philosophy East and West 33 (2): 123–138.ArticleGoogle Scholar
———. 1984. Is Nāgārjuna a Philosopher? Response to Professor Loy. Philosophy East and West 34 (4): 447–450.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bilimoria, Purushottama. 2017. Thinking Negation in Early Hinduism and Classical Indian Philosophy. Logica Universalis 11: 13–33.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Blackwood, R.T. 1963. Neti, Neti: Epistemological Problems of Mystical Experience. Philosophy East and West 13 (3): 201–209.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bodhi, Bhikkhu. 2005. In the Buddha’s Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pāli Canon. Boston: Wisdom.Google Scholar
Bodhi, Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli. 2015. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya. Somerville: Wisdom, in association with the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, Sanghamitra, and Dilip Kumar Mohanta. 1998. Some Reflections on the Relation Between Sankara and Buddhism. Indian Philosophical Quarterly 25: 349–366.Google Scholar
Davidson, Arnold. 1995. Introduction: Pierre Hadot and the Spiritual Phenomenon of Ancient Philosophy. In Philosophy as a Way of Life, Pierre Hadot. Trans. Michael Chase, 1–45. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dura, Ioan. 2018. ‘Defining the Indefinable’: The Hermeneutics of the Upanishadic Negation Neti, Neti in Sankara’s Apophatic Theology. In Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy, 89–94. Charlottesville: Philosophy Documentation Center.ChapterGoogle Scholar
Fiordalis, David, ed. 2018. Buddhist Spiritual Practices: Thinking with Pierre Hadot on Buddhism, Philosophy, and the Path. Berkeley, CA: Mangalam Press.Google Scholar
Ganeri, Jonardon. 2013a. The Concealed Art of the Soul. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
———. 2013b. Philosophy as a Way of Life. In Philosophy as a Way of Life: Ancients and Moderns: Essays in Honor of Pierre Hadot, ed. Michael Chase, Stephen Clark, and Michael McGhee, 116–131. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.ChapterGoogle Scholar
Garfield, Jay L. 1995. The Text and Commentary. In The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Nagarjuna. Trans. Jay L. Garfield, 87–359. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Jiddu. 1996. Questioning Krishnamurti: J. Krishnamurti in Dialogue: Dialogues with Leading 20th Century Thinkers. San Francisco: Thorsons.Google Scholar
Nāgārjuna. 1995. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. Trans. and commentary by J.L. Garfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Andrew. 2015. Dialogue and Genre in Indian Philosophy. In Dialogue in Early South Asian Religions, ed. Brian Black and Laurie Patton, 151–169. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
———. 2007. An Instance of Dependent Origination: Are Krishnamurti’s Teachings Buddhadharma? Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies 3 (9): 85–102.Google Scholar
Śaṅkarācārya. 1950. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Mayavati: Advaita Ashrama.Google Scholar
———. 1960. Brahma-Sūtra-Śaṅkara-Bhāṣya. Trans. V. M. Apte. Mumbai: Popular Book Depot.Google Scholar
———. 1979. A Thousand Teachings. Trans. Sengaku Mayeda. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Shearer, Alistair. 2017. In the Light of the Self: Adi Shankara and the Yoga of Non-Dualism. Hove: White Crow.Google Scholar
Shringy, Ravindra Kumar. 1977. Philosophy of J. Krishnamurti: A Systematic Study. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.Google Scholar
Bhargava, D.: The Jaina Tarka Bhasha of Acharya Yashovijaya. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Limited, Delhi (1973)Google Scholar
Bilimoria, P.: Negation (Abhāva), Non-existents, and a distinctive pramāṇa in the Nyāya-Mīmāṃsa. In: Bilimoria, P., Hemmingsen, M. (eds.) Comparative Philosophy and J L Shaw, Sophia Series, pp. 183–202. Springer, Dordrecht (2016)
Bilimoria, P.: Why is there nothing rather than something? An essay in the comparative metaphysic of nonbeing. Special issue on Max Charlesworth: Crossing the philosophy and religion divide. Sophia 51(4), 509–530 (2012)ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bilimoria, P.: Nietzsche as ‘Europe’s Buddha’ and Asia’s superman. Sophia (Guest Issue on Continental Philosophy of Religion) 47(3) 359–376 (2008)
Bilimoria, P., Vaidya, A., Shaw, J. L.: Absence—An Indo analytic study. Sophia (Special Issue on 25th Anniversary of the Demise of Professor Bimal K Matilal) 55(4) (2016)
Fenner, P.: A study of the relationship between analysis (vicāra) and insight (prajña) based on the Madhyamakāvatāra. J. Indian Philos. 12(2), 139–198 (1984)ArticleGoogle Scholar
Garfield, J.L.: Madhyamaka, Nihilism, and the emptiness of emptiness. In: Lieu, J.L., Berger, D.L. (eds.) Nothingness in Asian Philosophy, pp. 44–54. Routledge, London (2014)Google Scholar
Garfield, J.L., Priest, G.: Nāgārjuna and the limits of thought. J. Indian Philos. 53, 1–21 (2003)Google Scholar
Gunaratne, R.D.: Understanding Nāgārjuna’s Caṭuskoṭi. J. Indian Philos. 36(3), 213–234 (1986)Google Scholar
Inada, K.K.: Nāgārjuna: A translation of his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā with an Introductory Essay. Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi (1993)Google Scholar
Jayatilleke, K.N.: The logic of four alternatives. J. Indian Philos. 17, 69–83 (1967)Google Scholar
Matilal, B.K.: Anekānta: both yes and no. J. Indian Philos. 8, 1–12 (1991)Google Scholar
Matilal, B.K.: Central Philosophy of Jainism : Anekāntavāda. L D Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad (1981)Google Scholar
Matilal, B.K.: Epistemology Logic and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis. Mouton, The Hague (1971)Google Scholar
Pacitti, D.: Negation in Sanskrit: Rig Veda X,129. In: Pacitti, D., The Nature of the Negative. Giardini, Pisa. http://www.pacitti.org/books_00199102.htm (1991). Accessed 25 Feb 2015
Robinson, R.H., Jayatilleke, K.N.: Early Buddhist theory of knowledge. Philos. East West 19, 69–81 (1969)ArticleGoogle Scholar
Robinson, R.H.: Some logical aspects of Nāgārjuna’s system. J. Indian Philos. 6, 291–308 (1957)Google Scholar
Ruegg, D.S.: The uses of the four positions of Catuṣkoṭi and the problem of the description of reality in Mahāyāna Buddhism. J. Indian Philos. 5, 1–71 (1977)ArticleGoogle Scholar
Sebastian, C.D.: The Cloud of Nothingness: The Negative Way in Nāgārjuna and John of the Cross. Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures. Springer, Dordrecht (2016)BookGoogle Scholar
Shaw, J.L.: Austin on falsity and negation. In: Shaw, J.L. (ed.) The Collected Writings of Jaysankar Lal Shaw: Indian Analytic and Anglophone Philosophy, pp. 197–200. Bloomsbury Academic, London (2016)Google Scholar
Shaw, J.L.: Descriptions: contemporary philosophy and the Nyaya. In: Shaw, J.L. (ed.) The Collected Writings of Jaysankar Lal Shaw: Indian Analytic and Anglophone Philosophy, pp. 328–361. Bloomsbury Academic, London (2016)Google Scholar
Shaw, J.L.: The Nyāya on double negation. In: Shaw, J.L. (ed.) The Collected Writings of Jaysankar Lal Shaw: Indian Analytic and Anglophone Philosophy, pp. 224–237. Bloomsbury Academic, London (2016)Google Scholar
Shaw, J.L.: The Nyāya on double negation. J. Indian Philos. 29, 139–154 (1988)Google Scholar
Shaw, J.L.: Negation: some Indian theories. In: Malvania, D., Shah, N.J. (eds.) Studies in Indian Philosophy, pp. 57–78. L D Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad (1981)Google Scholar
Shaw, J.L.: Negation and the Buddhist theory of meaning. J. Indian Philos. 6(1), 59–77 (1978)ArticleGoogle Scholar
Staal, F.J.: Negation and the law of contradiction in Indian thought: a comparative study. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, pp. 52–71, (1962); reprinted in Staal, F. J. Universal studies in Indian logic and linguistics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 112–13 (1988)
Williams, P.: Buddhism Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. Abhidharma and Madhyamaka. Routledge, London (2005)Google Scholar
Zilberman, D.B.: Birth of Meaning in Hindu Thought (Boston Series in Philosophy of Science). D Reidel & Co, Dordrecht (1988)BookGoogle Scholar
Silence and Contradiction in the JainaSaptabhaṅgī
Draft Version Forthcoming in Journal of Indian Philosophy
Semantics of Nothingness: Bhartrhari’s Philosophy of Negation – I
Sthaneshwar Timalsina
sthaneshwar.timalsina@ifrc.in’
The linguistic philosophy of Bhartrhari needs to be addressed in his milieu. His speculations about the nature of language and his analysis of Sanskrit both transcend the boundaries of language and relate to metaphysics, epistemology, and ontology. Indology | 14-12-2017
Bhushan, Nalini, Jay L. Garfield, and Daniel Raveh (eds),
in Nalini Bhushan, Jay L. Garfield, and Daniel Raveh (eds), Contrary Thinking: Selected Essays of Daya Krishna (New York, 2011; online edn, Oxford Academic, 27 May 2015), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199795550.003.0010, accessed 17 May 2024.
NAGARJUNA’S REASONING WITH NON-IMPLICATIVE NEGATIONS
THREE ABSOLUTES AND FOUR TYPES OF NEGATION INTEGRATING KRISHNACHANDRA BHATTACHARYYA’S INSIGHTS?
By Stephen Kaplan Book The Making of Contemporary Indian Philosophy Edition 1st Edition First Published 2023 Imprint Routledge Pages 14 eBook ISBN 9781003153320
STUDY ON FOUR LOGICAL ALTERNATIVES (CATUṢKOṬI AND CATUṢKOṬI-VINIRMUKTA) IN INDIAN MĀDHYAMIKA SCHOOL
Like their European counterparts, the philosophers of classical India were interested in the problem of negative facts. A negative fact may be thought of, at the outset at least, as a state of affairs that corresponds to a negative statement, such as ‘Mr Smith is not in this room.’ The question that perplexed the philosophers of India was: How does someone, say Ms Jones, know that Mr Smith is not in the room? There are essentially four possible metaphysical positions to account for what it is that Ms Jones knows when, after entering a room, she comes to know that her friend is not present there. Each of the positions has been adopted and defended by certain classical Indian philosophers. On the one hand, some take the absence of the friend from the room as a brute, negative fact. Of these, some hold knowledge of this fact to be perceptual, while others hold it to be inferential. On the other hand, some hold that the absence of the friend from the room has no real ontic status at all, and believe that what there really is in the situation is just the sum of all the things present in the office. These latter philosophers hold that knowledge of one’s friend’s absence is just knowledge of what is present, though some believe the knowledge results from perception, while others believe it to result from inference. These four positions were maintained by, respectively, the Nyāya philosopher Jayanta, the Mīmāṃsā philosophers Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and Prabhākara, and the Buddhist Dharmakīrti.
The Negation of Self in Indian Buddhist Philosophy
The logical analysis of Nāgārjuna’s (c. 200 CE) catuṣkoṭi (tetralemma or four-corners) has remained a heated topic for logicians in Western academia for nearly a century. At the heart of the catuṣkoṭi, the four corners’ formalization typically appears as: A, Not A (¬A), Both (A &¬A), and Neither (¬[A∨¬A]). The pulse of the controversy is the repetition of negations (¬) in the catuṣkoṭi. Westerhoff argues that Nāgārjuna in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā uses two different negations: paryudāsa (nominal or implicative negation) and prasajya-pratiṣedha (verbal or non-implicative negation). This paper builds off Westerhoff’s account and presents some subtleties of Nāgārjuna’s use of these negations regarding their scope. This is achieved through an analysis of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Madhyamaka commentarial tradition and through a grammatical analysis of Nāgārjuna’s use of na (not) and a(n)- (non-) within a diverse variety of the catuṣkoṭi within the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.
None of the above: The Catuṣkoṭi in Indian Buddhist logic.
Priest, G. (2015).
In M. C. Jean-Yves Beziau, and Some Dutta (Eds.), New direction in paraconsistent logic (pp. 517–527).London: Springer.
OBJECT CONTENT AND RELATION
Publication Category Philosophers of Modern India Publication Author Kalidas Bhattacharyya Publication Language English Publisher Name Das Gupta & Co.Ltd. Publication Place Calcutta No. of Pages 167
This book by Kalidas Bhattacharyya considers the relation between Consciousness and it’s Object. Once we ask the question “Is there anything intermediate between consciousness and object?”, we come up with the answer “Content”. Now, what is this Content and is there such an intermediate thing between Consciousness and Object? This is a question that needs to be answered. This book explores the relationship between Objectsand Consciousnessvia the idea of Content. The book is divided into two chapters. This first chapter is on “Object and Content”. The second is on “Relation”. The first chapter deals with:
Analysis of Thought and Memory
Analysis of Perception: Idealism and Realism
Analysis of Perception – Illusion as to Judgment
Some Theories of Illusion Examined
Content and Object as Alternatives
Criterion of Reality
Real and Non-Real Appearances
The second chapter deals with
The Notion of Relation
Classification of Relations
The So-called Puzzles of Relation
Relation – Is it Subjective, Objective or Dialectical?
External and Internal Relation
Some Theories of Relation
Two Indian dialectical logics: saptabhangi and catuskoti.
Schang, Fabien (2010).
Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research 27 (1):45-75.
Bahm, A. J. (1957) ‘Does Seven-Fold Predication Equal Four-Cornered Negation Reversed?’, in Philosophy East and West7, 127–130.Google Scholar
Chari, C. T. K. (1954) ‘On the Dialectical Affinities Between East and West II’, in Philosophy East and West3/4, 321–336.Google Scholar
Chari, C. T. K. (1955) ‘Quantum Physics and East-West Rapprochement’, Philosophy East and West5, 61–67.Google Scholar
Chang Chung-yuan (1967) ‘Ch’an Buddhism: Logical and Illogical’, Philosophy East and West17, 37–49.Google Scholar
Chi, R. S. Y. (1974) ‘Topics on Being and Logical Reasoning’, Philosophy East and West24, 295–8.Google Scholar
Ichimura Shohei (1973) ‘Buddhist Thoughts on the Relationship Between Religion and Logical Thinking Especially in Theravāda and Zen’, The Mahā Bodhi 1973, 42–54.Google Scholar
Jayatilleke, K. N. (1950) ‘Some Problems of Translation and Interpretation II’, in University of Ceylon Review7, 45–55.Google Scholar
Jayatilleke, K. N. (1963) Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London: George Allen and Unwin).Google Scholar
Jayatilleke, K. N. (1967) ‘The Logic of Four Alternatives’, in Philosophy East and West17, 69–83.Google Scholar
Kristeva, J. (1969) ∑ημειωτικη Recherches pour une sémanalyse (Paris: Editions du Seuil).Google Scholar
Kull, I. and Mjall, L. (1967) ‘K probleme tetralemmy’, in ∑ημειωτικη Trudy po znakovym sistemam (Tartu) 3, 60–63.Google Scholar
Kunst, A. (1957) ‘The Principle of Excluded Middle in Buddhism’, in Rocznik Orientalistyczny 21, 141–147.Google Scholar
Mäll (Mjall), L. (1965) ‘Nuleboï put’’, in ∑ημειωτικη Trudy po znakovym sistemam (Tartu) 2, 189–191.Google Scholar
Mäll (Mjall), L. (1968) ‘Une approche possible du Śūnyavāda’, in Tel Quel32 (Hiver 1968), 54–62 (French version of ‘Ob odnom vozmožnom podxode k ponimaniju Śūnyavāda’, in Terminologia indica1 [Tartu, 1967] 13–24).Google Scholar
Matilal, B. K. (1971) Epistemology, Logic, and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis(Janua linguarum, Series minor, 111) (The Hague: Mouton).Google Scholar
Nakamura Hajime (1954) ‘Kūkan no kigo-ronrigaku-teki ketsumei’, in Indogaku-Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū5, 219–231.Google Scholar
Nakamura Hajime (1958) ‘Buddhist Logic Expounded by Means of Symbolic Logic’, in Indogaku-Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū7/1, 1–21.Google Scholar
Raju, P. T. (1954) ‘The Principle of Four-Cornered Negation in Indian Philosophy’, in Review of Metaphysics7, 694–713.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. H. (1957) ‘Some Logical Aspects of Nāgārjuna’s System’, in Philosophy East and West6, 291–308.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. H. (1958) ‘Mysticism and Logic in Sêng-chao’s Thought’, in Philosophy East and West8, 99–120.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. H. (1967) Early Mādhyamika in India and China (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
Robinson, R. H. (1969) Review of: K. N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, in Philosophy East and West19, 69–81.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. H. (1972) ‘Some Methodological Approaches to the Unexplained Points’, in Philosophy East and West22, 309–323.Google Scholar
Schayer, St. (1931) Ausgewähle Kapitel aus der Prasannapadā (Kraków: Polska Akademja Umiejętności, Prace Komisji Orjentalistyznej, No. 14).Google Scholar
Schayer, St. (1933) ‘Altindische Antizipationen der Aussagenlogik’, in Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise, Classe de Philologie, 1933, 90–96.
Seyfort Ruegg, D. (1969) La théorie du tathāgatagarbha et du gotra (Publications de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient, volume LXX, Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve).Google Scholar
Seyfort Ruegg, D. (1971) ‘On the Knowability and Expressibility of Absolute Reality in Buddhism’, in Indogaku-Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū20/1, 1–7.Google Scholar
Staal, J. F. (1962) ‘Negation and the Law of Contradiction in Indian Thought’, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies25, 52–71.Google Scholar
Staal, J. F. (1966) ‘Analyticity’, in Foundations of Language2, 89–92.Google Scholar
Staal, J. F. (1975) Exploring Mysticism (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press).Google Scholar
Two Indian Dialectical Logics: saptabhangi and catuskoti
Fabien Schang 2011, Studies in Logic: Logic and Philosophy Today
The Deconstructionist Interpretation of Nagarjuna’s Catuskoti∗
Shi, Ruyuan (Chien-Yuan Hsu) PhD candidate, the Dep. of Religious Studies, the University of Calgary, Canada Sessional instructor, Mount Royal University, Canada
The central thesis of Buddhism is emptiness, a view saying that all entities have no essence Nāgārjuna (c. 150–250 CE), the famous founder of the Madhyamika School, proposed the positive catuṣkoṭi in his seminal work, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: ‘All is real, or all is unreal, all is both real and unreal, all is neither unreal nor real; this is the graded teaching of the Buddha’. He also proposed the negative catuṣkoṭi: ‘“It is empty” is not to be said, nor “It is non-empty,” nor that it is both, nor that it is neither; [“empty”] is said only for the sake of instruction’ and the no-thesis view: ‘No dharma whatsoever was ever taught by the Buddha to anyone’. In this essay, I adopt Gricean pragmatics to explain the positive and negative catuṣkoṭi and the no-thesis view proposed by Nāgārjuna in a way that does not violate classical logic. For Nāgārjuna, all statements are false as long as the hearer understands them within a reified conceptual scheme, according to which (a) substance is a basic categorical concept; (b) substances have svabhāva, and (c) names and sentences have svabhāva.
If Euthyphro and Agrippa secured places in the history of philosophy for the dilemma and trilemma, Nāgārjuna did so for the tetralemma (catuṣkoṭi in Sanskrit). Even though this second-century Indian thinker did not invent the argumentative pattern in which the four alternatives of a position, its negation, both, or neither are considered, it became inextricably linked up with his philosophical approach, and Nāgārjuna (and the philosophical school of Madhyamaka he founded) plays a central role in Graham Priest’s ‘essay on Buddhist metaphysics and the catuṣkoṭi’. The book might remind readers of his landmark 2002 Beyond the Limits of Thought; even though the historical and conceptual scope in the present volume is narrower, many of the key features are still there: a chronological exposition following along with the history of philosophy, a focus on dialetheism in different manifestations, and descriptions of various formal constructions (in the present case drawn primarily from non-classical logic and graph theory) to elucidate complex and often quite obscure ideas of past masters.
Abstract
The book charts the development of Buddhist metaphysics, drawing on texts which include those of Nagarjuna and Dogen. The development is viewed through the lens of the Catuṣkoṭi At its simplest, and as it appears in the earliest texts, this is a logical/metaphysical principle which says that every claim is true, false, both, or neither; but the principle itself evolves, assuming new forms as the metaphysics develops. An important step in the evolution incorporates ineffability. Such things make no sense from the perspective of a logic which endorses the principles of excluded middle and non-contradiction, which are standard fare in Western logic. However, the book shows how one can make sense of them by applying the techniques of contemporary non-classical logic, such as those of First Degree Entailment, and plurivalent logic. An important issue that emerges as the book develops is the notion of non-duality and its transcendence. This allows many of the threads of the book to be drawn together at its end. All matters are explained, as far as possible, in a way that is accessible to those with no knowledge of Buddhist philosophy or contemporary non-classical logic.
Volume 18 of Outstanding Contributions to Logic Editors Can Başkent, Thomas Macaulay Ferguson Publisher Springer Nature, 2020 ISBN 3030253651, 9783030253653 Length 704 pages
Chains of Being: Infinite Regress, Circularity, and Metaphysical Explanation
Author Ross P. Cameron Publisher Oxford University Press, 2022 ISBN 0192596195, 9780192596192 Length 256 pages
A Brief History of the Paradox: Philosophy and the Labyrinths of the Mind
Author Roy Sorensen Publisher Oxford University Press, 2003 ISBN 0190289317, 9780190289317 Length 416 pages
What are Paradoxes?
CHRISTOPHER COWIE
Journal of the American Philosophical Association 2023
History of the Mediæval School of Indian Logic, Volume 6
History of the Mediæval School of Indian Logic, Satis Chandra Vidvabhusana Issue 1 of University studies, University of Calcutta Author Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana Publisher Calcutta University, 1909 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Feb 19, 2008 Length 100 pages
Publications of the University of Pennsylvania Series in Philosophy Series Author Sadajiro Sugiura Editor Edgar Singer Publisher CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2015 ISBN 1514745216, 9781514745212 Length 114 pages
Buddhist logic reveals itself as the culminating point of a long course of Indian philosophic history. Its birth, its growth and its decline run parallel with the birth, the growth and the decline of Indian civilisation. The time has come to reconsider the subject of Buddhist logic in its historical connections. This is done in these two volumes. In the copious notes the literary renderings are given where needed. This will enable the reader to fully appreciate the sometimes enormous distance which lies between the words of the Sanskrit phrasing and their philosophic meaning rendered according to our habits of thought. The notes also contain a philosophic comment of the translated texts. The first volume contains a historical sketch as well as a synthetical reconstruction of the whole edifice of the final shape of Buddhist philosophy. The second volume contains the material as well as the justification for this reconstruction.
Content: Preface, Abbreviations, Introduction, Part I – Reality and Knowledge (pramanya-vada), Part II-The Sensible world, Ch. 1 The theory of Instantaneous being (ksanika-vada),Ch. II Causation (pratitya-samutpada), Ch. III. Sense-Perception (pratyaksam), Ch. IV – Ultimate reality (paramartha-sat), Part III-The constructed world, Ch. I-Judgment, Ch. II – Inference, Ch. III – Syllogism (pararthanumanam), Ch. IV. Logical Fallacies, Part IV – Negation, Ch. I-The negative judgment, Ch. II. – The Law of Contradiction, Ch. III-Universals, Ch. IV. Dialectic, Part V-Reality of the External World, Conclusion, Indices, Appendix, Addenda et corrigenda. Preface, Appendices, Indices, Errata
Introduction to the Non-dualism Approach in Hinduism and its Connection to Other Religions and Philosophies
Sriram Ganapathi Subramanian S2GANAPA@UWATERLOO.CA Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada Benyamin Ghojogh BGHOJOGH@UWATERLOO.CA Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
1. Vidyahhusana, Satis Chandra. A History of Indian Logic: Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern Schools. Calcutta University, 1921. 2. S. S. Barlingay. A Modern Introduction to Indian Logic. Delhi: National Publishing House, 1965. 3. D. C. Guha. Navya Nyaya System of Logic. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979. 4. Nandita Bandyopadhyay. The Concept of Logical Fallacies. Delhi: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 1977. 5. B. K. Matilal. The Navya Nyaya Doctrine of Negation. Michigan: Harvard University Press, 1968. 6. S. R. Bhatt. Buddhist Epistemology. USA: Greenwood Press, 2000. 7. B. K. Matilal. Logic, Language and Reality. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2008. 8. Sastri, Kuppuswami.S. A Primer of Indian Logic: According To Annambhatta’s Tarkasamgraha. Madras: Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute, 1951.
How Do Theories of Cognition and Consciousness in Ancient Indian Thought Systems Relate to Current Western Theorizing and Research?
Peter Sedlmeier1 *and Kunchapudi Srinivas2
Institut für Psychologie, Technische Universität Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Germany, 2 Department of Philosophy, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India
DOI:10.1007/s11841-016-0547-8 Anand Jayprakash Vaidya San Jose State University Purushottama Bilimoria University of California, Berkeley and San Francisco State University Jayshankar L. Shaw
Two of the most important contributions that Bimal Krishna Matilal made to comparative philosophy derive from his (1968) doctoral dissertation The Navya-Nyāya Doctrine of Negation: The Semantics and Ontology of Negative Statements in Navya-Nyāya Philosophy and his (1986) classic: Perception: An Essay on Classical Indian Theories of Knowing. In this essay, we aim to carry forward the work of Bimal K. Matilal by showing how ideas in classical Indian philosophy concerning absence and perception are relevant to recent debates in analytic philosophy. In particular, we focus on the recent debate in the philosophy of perception centering on the perception of absence. In her Seeing Absence, Anya Farennikova (2013) argues for the thesis that we literally see absences. Her thesis is quite novel within the contexts of the traditions that she engages: analytical philosophy of perception, phenomenology, and cognitive neuroscience. In those traditions there is hardly any exploration of the epistemology of absence. By contrast, this is not the case in classical Indian philosophy where the debate over the ontological and epistemological status of absence (abhāva) is longstanding and quite engaging. In what follows, we engage Farennikova’s arguments, and those of John-Rémy Martin and Jérome Dokic in their (2013) response to her work, through the use of classical Indian philosophers and their twentieth century proponents. Using the work of Matilal (1968, 1986), Bilimoria (2015) and Shaw (2016) we show that there are several engaging ideas that can be taken from Indian philosophy into the terrain explored by Farennikova, and Martin & Dokic. Our aim is to provide an updated comparative engagement on absence and its perception for the purposes of enhancing future discussions within analytic philosophy. However, we do not aim to merely show this by focusing on the history of primary texts or on twentieth century commentary on primary texts. Instead, we hope to show that the living tradition of Indian philosophy that Matilal embodied carries forward in his students and colleagues as they revive and extend Indian philosophy.
Negation (Abha¯va), Non-existents, and a Distinctive pramana in the Nya¯ya-Mı¯ma¯ṃsa
January 2016 DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-17873-8_12 Authors: Purushottama Bilimoria University of California, Berkeley and San Francisco State University
Why Is There Nothing Rather Than Something? An Essay in the Comparative Metaphysic of Nonbeing
October 2019 DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-18148-2_13 In book: Considering Religions, Rights and Bioethics: For Max Charlesworth (pp.175-197) Authors: Purushottama Bilimoria University of California, Berkeley
This essay in the comparative metaphysic of nothingness begins by pondering why Leibniz thought of the converse question as the preeminent one. In Eastern philosophical thought, like the numeral ‘zero’ (śūnya) that Indian mathematicians first discovered, nothingness as non-being looms large and serves as the first quiver on the imponderables they seem to have encountered (e.g., ‘In the beginning was neither non-being what nor being: what was there, bottomless deep?’ ṚgVeda X.129). The concept of non-being and its permutations of nothing, negation, nullity, etc., receive more sophisticated treatment in the works of grammarians, ritual hermeneuticians, logicians, and their dialectical adversaries variously across Jaina and Buddhist schools. The present analysis follows the function of negation/the negative copula, nãn, and dialetheia in grammar and logic, then moves onto ontologies of non-existence and extinction and further suggestive tropes that tend to arrest rather than affirm the inexorable being-there of something. (This chapter is to be read in tandem with two aligned papers that have appeared since the first publication of this chapter (see above), namely, ‘Thinking Negation in Early Hinduism and Classical Indian Philosophy’ (Bilimoria 2017); and ‘Negation (Abhāva), Non-existents, and a Distinctive Pramāṇa in the Nyāya-Mīmāṃsā’ (Bilimoria 2016)).
The Transformative Philosophical Dialogue: From Classical Dialogues to Jiddu Krishnamurti’s Method
Volume 41 of Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures Author Shai Tubali Publisher Springer Nature, 2023 ISBN 3031400747, 9783031400742 Length 258 pages
Logic: A Short Introduction
Collection of 6 Youtube Videos on introduction to Logic.
Graham Priest
Professor at CUNY, NYC
History of Indian Philosophy
Routledge History of World Philosophies Editor Purushottama Bilimoria Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher Routledge, 2017 ISBN 1317356179, 9781317356172 Length 638 pages
Chapter 6 – Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika theory of Relation
Reality of Relation Different types of Relation Saṃyoga (Conjunction) Samavāya Viśeṣaṇatā Sambandha (Attributive Relation) Vṛttyaniyāmaka-sambandha (Non-Occurrent-Exacting Relation)
Contributed research papers presented at the National Seminar on Relations in Indian Philosophy, held during 25th-27th March 1991 at the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Poona.
The present volume contains 17 articles presented and discussed at the National Seminar on Relations in Indian Philosophy which was held on 25th to 27th March, 1991, at the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Poona. The papers focusses on nature of a relation, the role played by a relation in generating a cognition, the role played by a relation in creating a precise language of philosophical and logical communication. and the philosophical implication of a relation. Any philosophical analysis requires clear idea about these aspects of a relation. The studies included here cover a very wide range of philosophical and logical literature in Sanskrit. Although the main source of information has been the literature on Pracina-Nyaya and Navya-Nyaya, some articles also have taken into account the position of relation and the problems of relation in other systems of Indian Philosophy. There are views on relation being Ontological facts and also there are views which deny the Ontological reality of a relation. The discussions in this volume in- corporate both the ranges.
Preface
The present volume contains 17 articles presented and discussed at the National Seminar on Relations in Indian Philosophy which was held on 25th to 27th March, 1991 at the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Poona.
It gives me pleasure to present these articles in the hands of scholars of Indology, Logic and Philosophy. Briefly speaking, focus has been put in these papers on the following aspects.
1. Nature of a relation.
2. The role played by a relation in generating a cognition.
3, The role played by a relation in creating a precise language of philosophical and logical communication.
4. The Philosophical implication of a relation.
Any Philosophical analysis requires clear idea about these aspects of a relation. The studies included here cover a very wide range of philosophical and logical literature in Sanskrit. Although the main source of information has been the literature on Pracina Nyaya and Navya-Nyaya, some articles also have taken into account the position of relation and the problems of relation in other systems of Indian Philosophy. As can be seen, there are views on relations being Ontological facts and also there are views which deny the Ontological reality of a relation. The discussions in this volume incorporate both the ranges.
The Navya-Nyaya system of Indian Logic started paying more attention to the problem of relation because it was the necessity of the time. There was a great need for evolving a precise language of communication for logical and philosophical discussions. The Indian logicians realised that this cannot be achieved without introducing the idea of delimitations through property and relations and this is why they had to pay more attention to the discussion on relations. I wish that the readers will read this volume with the perspective presented above.
I thank the Indian Books Centre, New Delhi for undertaking the publication of this volume. I am sure, the scholars in the field will highly appreciate this venture.
Causation was acknowledged as one of the central problems in Indian philosophy. The classical Indian philosophers’ concern with the problem basically arose from two sources: first, the cosmogonic speculations of the Vedas and the Upaniṣads, with their search for some simple unitary cause for the origin of this complex universe; and second, the Vedic concern with ritual action (karman) and the causal mechanisms by which such actions bring about their unseen, but purportedly cosmic, effects. Once the goal of liberation (mokṣa) came to be accepted as the highest value, these two strands of thought entwined to generate intense interest in the notion of causation. The systematic philosophers of the classical and medieval periods criticized and defended competing theories of causation. These theories were motivated partly by a desire to guarantee the efficacy of action and hence the possibility of attaining liberation, partly by a desire to understand the nature of the world and hence how to negotiate our way in it so as to attain liberation.
Indian philosophers extensively discussed a number of issues relating to causation, including the nature of the causal relation, the definitions of cause and effect, and classifications of kinds of causes. Typically they stressed the importance of the material cause, rather than (as in Western philosophy) the efficient cause. In India only the Cārvāka materialists denied causation or took it to be subjective. This is unsurprising given that a concern with demonstrating the possibility of liberation motivated the theories of causation, for only the Cārvākas denied this possibility. The orthodox Hindu philosophers and the heterodox Buddhists and Jainas all accepted both the possibility of liberation and the reality of causation, though they differed sharply (and polemically) about the details.
The Indian theories of causation are traditionally classified by reference to the question of whether the effect is a mode of the cause. According to this taxonomy there are two principal theories of causation. One is the identity theory (satkāryavāda), which holds that the effect is identical with the cause, a manifestation of what is potential in the cause. This is the Sāṅkhya-Yoga view, though that school’s particular version of it is sometimes called transformation theory (pariṇāmavāda). Advaita Vedānta holds an appearance theory (vivartavāda), which is often considered a variant of the identity theory. According to the appearance theory effects are mere appearances of the underlying reality, Brahman. Since only Brahman truly exists, this theory is also sometimes called satkāraṇavāda (the theory that the cause is real but the effect is not).
The other principal theory of causation is the nonidentity theory (asatkāryavāda), which denies that the effect pre-exists in its cause and claims instead that the effect is an altogether new entity. Both adherents of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika and the Buddhists are usually classified as nonidentity theorists, but they differ on many important details. One of these is whether the cause continues to exist after the appearance of the effect: Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika claims it does, the Buddhists mostly claim it does not.
Finally, some philosophers try to take the middle ground and claim that an effect is both identical and nonidentical with its cause. This is the position of the Jainas and of some theistic schools of Vedānta.
“ANĀDITVA OR BEGINNINGLESSNESS IN INDIAN PHILOSOPHY.”
To See the Three Thousand Worlds in a Single Thought Moment (yi-nian san-qian 一念三千)
Three Truths (san-di 三諦)
The One Vehicle (eka-yāna; yisheng 一乘) and Buddha Nature (tathāgata-garbha; rulai zang 如來藏)
Five Times and Eight Teachings (wushi bajiao 五時八教)
Tiantai Buddhism
Source: From Tiantai to Hiei: Transborder and Transcultural Spread of Tiantai/Chontae/Tendai/ Buddhism & East Asian Societies
It would be difficult to find a more influential Chinese Buddhist monk than Tiantai Zhiyi 天台智顗 (538-597). He wrote a seminal treatise about Indian Buddhist meditation practices (e.g., Great Treatise on Concentration (śamatha) and Insight (vipśayanā), Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止觀), advocated for classifying the teachings (panjiao 判教) of the historical Buddha Śākyamuni into the five periods and eight teachings, and he wrote or monumental commentaries to three key Mahāyāna sūtras are attributed to him. These sūtras include the Lotus (Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義 and Fahua wenju 法華文句), Suvarṇabhāsottama (Jinguangming jing xuanyi 金光明經玄義 and Jingguangming jing wenju金光明經文句), and Vimalakīrtinirdeśa (Weimo jing xuanshu 維摩經玄疏 and Weimo jing wenshu 維摩經文疏). Furthermore, by the 9thcentury the temple on Mount Tiantai in present day Zhejiang province which legend says was commissioned immediately after his death by emperor Sui Wendi 隋文帝 (r. 581-604), Guoqing monastery 國清寺, had become the focus of pilgrimage by monks from Japan and Korea. Pilgrims including Saichō 最澄 (767-822), Ennin 圓仁 (794-864), and Enchin 圓珍 (814-191) returned with Zhiyi’s teachings and those from their contemporaries at Guoqing si to establish two of the most enduring monastic institutions in Japan: Enryakuji 延暦寺 on Mount Hiei 比叡山 and Onjōji 園城寺 (alt. Miidera 三井寺).The organizing committee for the international conference on “Tiantai Buddhism and East Asian Societies” cordially invites the submission of related papers. The conference is hosted by the Center for Buddhist Studies at Peking University 北京大學佛教研究中心 in Beijing, China, sponsored by the Cultural Exchange Center of Mount Tiantai 天台山文化交流中心, and co-organized by the From the Ground Up project based at the University of British Columbia (www.frogbear.org). The conference will be held between December 6 and 8, 2019 at Peking University.
Compared with other Buddhist traditions in East Asia, Tiantai/ Chontae/Tendai seems to have maintained particularly intensive and extensive engagement in doctrinal debates, resulting in the increasing deepening and widening of Buddhist teachings and practices as shown, among others, by the rare documents known as “Tōketsu” 唐決 (Authorizing Answers from Tang China). These documents amply demonstrate the multi-directional nature of the impacts between East Asian Buddhist communities and broach the extent to which Chinese Tiantai Buddhist scholiasts were influenced by their counterparts in Korea and Japan.
Tiantai adherents revolutionized the ritual life of Buddhism across China during the 10th and 11th centuries when the Jiangnan 江南 region remained a vibrant crossroads for monastics from across East Asia; Uicheon 義天 (1055-1101) traveled to Song China from Goryeo 高麗 Korea to meet eminent Tiantai and Huayan 華嚴 teachers. For nearly a millennium thereafter, monastics from the Tiantai or Tendai or Chontae traditions in China, Japan, and Korea interacted with members of other Buddhist traditions (esp. Vinaya, Chan, Huayan, or Esoteric Buddhism) and beyond to fundamentally shape religion in East Asia.
This conference seeks to address how Tiantai Buddhism spread throughout East Asia, and to explore how Tiantai teachings and teachers contributed to the multi-dimensional and multi-directional circulation of book culture in East Asia. In particular, we seek to investigate how Tiantai texts were exported from China to the rest of East Asia, and conversely how their re-importation back into China, especially from the Korean peninsula and Japan, transformed not only the intellectual history of East Asian Buddhism, but also how the trade in specifically Tiantai books—not necessarily Buddhist—can be an innovative lens through which to examine the social, economic, institutional, and religious life of East Asia.
Source: Tiantai Buddhism in China
A monk named Zhiyi (538-597; also spelled Chih-i) founded Tiantai and developed most of its doctrines, although the school considers Zhiyi to be either its third or fourth patriarch, not the first. Nagarjuna is sometimes considered the first patriarch. A monk named Huiwen (550–577), who may have first proposed the Three Truths doctrine, is sometimes considered the first patriarch and sometimes the second, after Nagarjuna. The next patriarch is Huiwen’s student Huisi (515-577), who was the teacher of Zhiyi.
Zhiyi’s school is named for Mount Tiantai, which is located in what is now the eastern coastal province of Zhejiang. The Guoqing Temple on Mount Tiantai, probably built shortly after Zhiyi’s death, has served as the “home” temple of Tendai through the centuries, although today it is mostly a tourist attraction.
After Zhiyi, Tiantai’s most prominent patriarch was Zhanran (711-782), who further developed Zhiyi’s work and also raised the profile of Tiantai in China. The Japanese monk Saicho (767-822) came to Mount Tiantai to study. Saicho established Tiantai Buddhism in Japan as Tendai, which for a time was the dominant school of Buddhism in Japan.
In 845 the Tang Dynasty Emperor Wuzong ordered all “foreign” religions in China, which included Buddhism, to be eliminated. Guoqing Temple was destroyed, along with its library and manuscripts, and the monks scattered. However, Tiantai did not become extinct in China. In time, with the help of Korean disciples, Guoqing was rebuilt and copies of essential texts were returned to the mountain.
Source: Tiantai Buddhism / SEP
In this article, the term “Tiantai” will be used to refer to the philosophical ideas developed from the sixth to eleventh centuries by this school, as expounded in the writings of its three most representative figures: Tiantai Zhiyi (538–597), Jingxi Zhanran (711–782) and Siming Zhili (960–1028).
Source: Tiantai / China Connect University
Source: Tiantai / China Connect University
Source: Tiantai / China Connect University
Source: The Ten Worlds of Tiantai Zhiyi within Atiśa’s Stages of the Path.
Source: The Ten Worlds of Tiantai Zhiyi within Atiśa’s Stages of the Path.
Source: Tiantai School
TIANTAI SCHOOL
Often described as the first genuinely Sinitic school of Buddhism, the Tiantai school traces its ancestry back to NĀgĀrjuna (ca. second century c.e.) in India, not by any direct transmission but through the reading of translated texts by its proto-patriarchs, Huiwen (Beiqi zunzhe, mid-sixth century) and Huisi (Nanyue chanshi, 515–577). Very little is known of these two figures. Huiwen in particular is little more than a shadowy presence; traditional biographies report that he was active during China’s Northern Qi dynasty (550–577), stressed strict meditation practice, and initiated the characteristic Tiantai emphasis on triplicity. In particular, Huiwen is reported to have emphasized the “simultaneity of the three contemplations,” namely, the contemplation of each object as emptiness, provisional positing, and the “mean,” as derived from a strong misreading of works attributed to Nagarjuna. Huisi, on the other hand, authored several extant texts, and is credited with combining Huiwen’s “three contemplations” with the teaching of the Lotus SŪtra (SaddharmapuṆḌarĪkasŪtra), to which Huisi was especially devoted. This combination proved to be explosive.
Huisi interpreted the lotus from the title of this sūtra as a metaphor suggesting a special relationship between cause and effect, or practice and enlightenment. The lotus, he noted, is unusual in that it gives no flower without producing a fruit, that the fruit is concealed and copresent in the flower, and a single flower produces many fruits. This suggests that every practice leads to many different results, which are copresent in the practice, and yet unrevealed; every practice, even those that show no orientation toward buddhahood, lead to and are copresent with buddhahood. The translation of the Lotus Sūtra by KumĀrajĪva (350–409/413 c.e.) characterizes “the ultimate reality” (literally, “real mark”) “of all dharmas” in terms of “ten suchnesses” (literally, ten like-this’s). They are:
like-this (suchlike) appearance
nature
substance
power
activity
cause
condition
effect
response
equality of ultimacy from beginning to end.
Huisi developed a special reading of this passage, facilitated by the peculiarity of the Chinese translation, where each phrase referred to every element of experience simultaneously as “empty,” in addition to its literal reference to each as provisionally posited, referring to each specific differentiated aspect (i.e., appearance, nature, etc.). In Zhiyi’s exfoliation of this interpretative move, each was also understood as the “mean.” This bold hermeneutic approach and its threefold implication formed the basis for what would develop into the distinctive Tiantai conception of “the ultimate reality of/as all dharmas.”
The de facto founder of the school, from whose part-time residence—Mount Tiantai in modern Zhejiang—the school gets its name, is Zhiyi (Tiantai Zhizhe dashi, 538–597). It was Zhiyi’s numerous and voluminous works, most of which were transcribed by his disciple Guanding (Zhangan dashi, 561–632) from Zhiyi’s lectures, that become authoritative for all later Tiantai tradition.
Provisional and ultimate truth: The Lotus Sūtra and the classification of teachings
Zhiyi constructed a vast syncretic system of MahĀyĀna thought and practice that aimed at giving a comprehensive overview of all of Buddhism and that found a place for all known modes of practice and doctrine. Confronted with the massive influx of Mahāyāna texts translated into Chinese, many of which directly contradicted one another in matters of both doctrine and practice, Zhiyi was faced with the challenge of accommodating the claim that all these texts represented the authoritative teaching of the Buddha. The solution he arrived at can be described as an insight into the interconnection between two central Mahāyāna doctrines: the concept of upĀya (skillful means), particularly as presented in the Lotus Sūtra, and the concept of ŚŪnyatĀ (emptiness), particularly as developed in the Madhyamaka school. From the synthesis of these ideas, Zhiyi developed a distinctive understanding of the buddha-nature, rooted especially in the universalist exposition given in the NirvĀṆa SŪtra, and the identity between delusion and enlightenment as invoked in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and other sūtras, which entailed a reconfiguring of both upāya and śūnyatā as they had been understood in earlier Mahāyāna Buddhism.
The Lotus Sūtra asserts that the śrāvakas (HĪnayĀna disciples), who had hitherto been regarded as having no aspiration toward bodhisattvahood or buddhahood—indeed, as having explicitly repudiated these goals—are in fact bodhisattvas currently working toward buddhahood, although they are unaware of the real efficacy of their current practice. The text develops the idea that it is possible to be a bodhisattva without realizing it into a claim that in fact all Buddhist disciples are really bodhisattvas, and all who hear the Lotus teaching will finally attain buddhahood. Indeed, it is said in the text that no sentient being really knows what he or she is practicing, what the ultimate karmic efficacy of his or her deeds and cognitions is, nor what his or her own real identity is. Only buddhas know these things, and the real efficacy of all their deeds as thus known by the buddhas is that these deeds allow these beings eventually to become buddhas themselves. The non-bodhisattva practices and teachings are all skillful means provided by the Buddha, sometimes requiring an ignorance of the final goal in order to have efficacy toward reaching that goal. This is the teaching of the first half of the sūtra, which Zhiyi calls the “trace gate.” Another wrinkle is given in the second half of the sūtra, which Zhiyi calls the “root gate.” Here it is claimed that Śākyamuni Buddha did not attain buddhahood at Bodh GayĀ, but had actually been and would continue to be a buddha for countless eons, in spite of his apparent imminent decease. The implication is that while practicing the bodhisattva path, he was in fact already a buddha (leaving ambiguous his own degree of awareness of this fact at the time), and that being a buddha does not mean a transcendence of engagement in the intersubjective work of liberating sentient beings, but the mastering of all possible skillful means by which to accomplish this task, and a ceaseless indefatigable endeavor to do so.
Taken together then, the two halves of the sūtra suggest that all beings are bodhisattvas, and all bodhisattvas are buddhas. And yet this is only so if the division between them, the opacity and ignorance that keeps them from collapsing these identities, remains intact, just as the upāyas work only as long as they are not known as such. This means that the intersubjective liberative relationship between buddhas and sentient beings is primary and always operative, whichever role one may seem to be playing at any time. To be is to be intersubjective, and each being is always both liberating and being liberated by all others, even while also creating karma (action) and duḤkha (suffering). Ontology is here made soteriological: All existence is instructive and revelatory, and can be read as a salvational device put forth by a buddha to liberate sentient beings.
The relation between illusion and reality is thus reconfigured as the relation between provisional and ultimate truth in the Buddha’s teaching. Zhiyi characterizes the Lotus teaching as the “opening of the provisional to reveal the real” (kaiquan xianshi), allowing one to see the provisional truths as both a means to and an expression of the ultimate truth. Provisional and ultimate truth are nondual, even while maintaining their strict opposition. Their relation is similar to that between the set-up and punch line of a joke; the punch line is funny only because the set-up was not, but once the punch line is understood, the set-up too is seen to have always been pervaded with the quality of humorousness, precisely by being contrastingly nonhumorous. On the basis of this doctrine, Zhiyi established a comprehensive system of “classification of teachings,” which categorizes all Buddhist teachings as expressions of ultimate truth tailored to specific circumstances and listeners.
The Madhyamaka doctrine of “two truths” can be understood as asserting that ultimate truth is somehow more real than conventional truth, and indeed that while conventional truth covers both common language (i.e., the everyday use of terms like I, you, cause, effect, and the like) and verbal Buddhist teachings, the metaphysical claims of rival schools (i.e., attempts to make rigorous ultimate truths of causality, selfhood, a first cause, and so on) are not even conventional truth, but are simply falsehoods and errors. Zhiyi reinterprets the Madhyamaka position as implying the “three truths”: emptiness, provisional positing, and the mean, which includes both and signifies their synonymy. The relation between these three is understood on the model of the Lotus Sūtra‘s doctrine of “opening the provisional to reveal the real,” which annuls any hierarchy between conventional and ultimate truth, and also expands conventional truth so as to include any provisionally posited assertion or cognition without exception. Zhiyi’s claim is that these three aspects are not only on precisely equal footing and of equal ultimacy, but that each is in fact simply a way of stating the other two; the three are synonymous.
The three truths and the doctrine of inherent entailment
The reasoning behind the three truths doctrine follows the traditional Buddhist doctrine of pratĪtyasamutpĀda (dependent origination), which holds that every element of experience necessarily appears “together with” other elements, which it depends upon for its existence and determinate character. These other, conditioning, elements, of course, also gain their determinate character only through their dependence on still other elements that simultaneously condition them. But it was this determinate character that was supposed to serve as a determining ground for the first element. If the determiner is not determinate, the determined also fails to be determined. Hence each element is coherent only locally, in relation to a limited set of these conditions; when all of its conditions—including contexts, components, and precedents—are considered, its coherence vanishes. There arises, then, no unambiguous particular element or entity with a univocally decidable nature. Precisely because all are determined in dependence on conditions, they are simultaneously without a fixed, determinate identity. This is the meaning of emptiness.
Sorry, the video player failed to load.(Error Code: 100013)
Elements of experience are normally taken to have definitive identities, to be determinate, to be finite, to have “simple location,” and to have borders or boundaries between themselves and what is outside themselves. Tiantai meditation, however, calls for an inquiry into the borders between being X and not being X, either in time, space, or conceptual space (i.e., the arising of a given state from its qualitatively different antecedents, conceptual contrasts, or efficient causes). To appear in experience at all, X must be “non-all,” must be contrasted to some non-X, and must have an “outside.” But to necessarily have an outside means the outside is not really outside; the relation between the internal and the external is itself internal. One can always ask: Is the border (spatial, temporal, or conceptual) part of the inside or the outside, both, or neither? There is no coherent way to answer these questions if to exist is assumed to mean “simply located.” Hence, the interface always proves unintelligible, and the outside proves paradoxically both ineradicable and impossible, since it always proves to be equally internal, and hence not an outside at all. Therefore, the inside (X) is equally ineradicable and impossible (bukede, bukeshe). Like space, each determinate existent is simultaneously a merely nominal reality, is unobstructed and unobstructing, is beyond being and nonbeing, and is all-pervasive, present equally in the opposite of itself, in contrast to which it was originally defined. Precisely the same analysis applies to the difference between those defining borders that “determine as X” and those that “determine as Y,” which is why Zhiyi goes on to assert that to be determined as X is always at the same time to be determined as Y, and all other possible quiddities.
In sum, what is only locally coherent is thereby globally incoherent. It is what it is only because the horizon of relevant contexts has been arbitrarily limited, but the fact that all being is necessarily contextualized (arises with qualitative othernesses) means that any such limit is ultimately arbitrary, and there are more relevant contexts that can be brought to bear in every case. The “mean” signifies that these two are merely alternate statements of the same fact, which necessarily appears in these two contrasted ways. Determinateness, thought through to the end, turns out to be ambiguity, and vice versa. Hence, ambiguity and determinateness are no longer “other” to one another, and each is itself, just as it is, “absolute” (i.e., free of dependence on a relationship to an outside). Therefore, determinateness is a synonym for ambiguity, and either is a synonym for absoluteness (the ultimate reality and value, “eternal, blissful, self, and pure”). Any of these always signifies all three aspects. Moreover, determinateness is never simply “determinateness as such or in general”: It always means precisely this determinateness and precisely all other possible determinateness, which Zhiyi formulates for convenience as “the three thousand quiddities.” Any possible experienced content is necessarily dependently co-arisen, which is to be provisionally posited as precisely this (like-this appearance, etc.), which is to be empty, which is to be readable equally as provisional positing and as emptiness, which is to be readable as precisely every other possible determinacy.
It is from the “mean” that the Zhiyi deduces the claim that all things are everywhere at once. For if to be definitively X and not definitively X are merely alternate ways of stating the same fact about X, the contrast between the absence and presence of X is annulled, and X is no more present here and now than it is present there and then. It is “simply located” at neither locus, but “virtually located” at both. It pervades all possible times and places to exactly the extent that it is present here at all. It can be read into any experience, and is here and now only because it has been so read into the here and now. X, in other words, is eternal and omnipresent, but only as “canceled,” divested of the putative opacity of its simple location.
As an exfoliation of these claims, Zhiyi develops his theory of “the three thousand quiddities in each moment of experience,” which implies the interinclusion of the ten realms of sentient experience: purgatories, hungry ghosts, asuras, animals, humans, devas, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas. Each realm is a process of causes and effects that inherently entails all the other realms. Each of these realms can at each moment be characterized by the ten “suchnesses” from the Lotus Sūtra. All of these may be understood either in terms of the sentient beings experiencing these realms, the environment conditioning these beings, or these beings considered in terms of their components. Ten realms, each including all the others, makes one hundred; multiplied by the ten suchnesses, one gets one thousand, and multiplied by the three aspects, three thousand. Zhiyi asserts that all of these qualities, which indicate not merely all things as considered from a single perspective, but all processes as simultaneously understood from the perspectives of all the cognitive misperceptions of all sentient beings, are inherently entailed in each moment of experience undergone by any sentient being at any time.
The three tracks and buddha-nature
The three truths are a name for the ultimate reality of all dharmas, or the ultimate reality as all dharmas, since to be is to be determinate as just these particular things, in their ambiguity and conditioning relationships. From various perspectives, the three truths can be renamed as a number of other triads, all of which maintain the same relation of interpervasive identity as difference. Zhiyi calls these parallel triads the “three tracks,” which he characterizes as:
the track of contemplation and awareness (corresponding to emptiness)
the track of conditions for actualization or practice (provisional positing)
the track of the real nature or the absolute as such (the mean)
The triads belonging to these tracks include the three buddha-natures:
buddha-nature as manifesting cause (the awareness that allows the omnipresent buddha-nature to be made manifest)
buddha-nature as conditioning cause (practical and physical conditions that make this awareness possible)
buddha-nature as proper cause (the omnipresent absolute reality to be realized)
but also the three virtues of nirvĀṆa:
prajñā (wisdom)
liberation
dharmakayā
and the three paths:
kleśa (delusion)
karma (activity as cause of suffering)
duḥkha (suffering)
Since all these triads are merely alternate names for the three truths and bear the same internally interinclusive relationship derived from the relation of upāyato ultimate truth, one arrives at the identity between delusion and wisdom, karma and liberation, dharmakāya and suffering. Each of these is eternal and omnipresent, always present in every possible quiddity. In addition, there is the identity between each of these as actualized realities and as potentials, between the virtues of nirvāṇa and the buddha-nature as potential, between buddha-nature and delusion-karma-suffering, and so on. These paradoxical identities between oppositely valued realities come to be the distinctive mark of the Tiantai school, culminating in its unique doctrine of “the evil inherent in the buddha-nature,” the perfect interpervasion of delusion and enlightenment.
Zhanran and the buddha-nature of insentient beings
The Tiantai school fell into decline in the Tang dynasty (618–907), losing its imperial patronage and dominant influence to the newly arisen Huayan school and Chan school. Zhanran (Jingxi zunzhe, 711–782) is credited with revitalizing the tradition, meeting the challenges of the new schools and consolidating and reorganizing Tiantai doctrine. The bulk of his writings concentrate on detailed commentaries to Zhiyi’s works, but he is also responsible for adopting and adapting Huayan terminology into Tiantai doctrine while reasserting the distinctiveness of the Tiantai school, particularly noting the uniqueness of its doctrine of the evil inherent in the buddha-nature.
In his work Jin’gangbei (Diamond Scalpel), his only noncommentarial composition, Zhanran makes a frontal attack on the Huayan and early Chan doctrine that views the buddha-nature as an aspect of sentience, reasserting the Tiantai view that the buddha-nature is necessarily threefold from beginning to end, omnipresent in all three aspects, and impossible to restrict to sentient beings only. In fact, the threefold buddha-nature is another name for the three truths, which are the reality of any content of experience whatsoever, mind or matter, sentient or insentient. To be any one among them is to be all of them, so there can be no division of buddha-nature as the unconditioned essence of sentience and awareness as opposed to the passive inertness of insentient beings. Whenever one being attains buddhahood, all beings are buddha; whenever one entity is insentient, all beings are insentient. This is the interpervasion of all realms as understood in a Tiantai perspective; all possible predicates are always applicable to all possible beings.
The Song dynasty (960–1279) schism
Zhanran had imported certain formulations from Huayan thought into his teaching, most notably an interpretation of mind-only doctrine not found in Zhiyi, including the phrase “unchanging but following conditions, following conditions but unchanging,” as a characterization of the mind and its nature, respectively, as derived from the Huayan patriarch Fazang (643–712). In the Northern Song dynasty, some Tiantai writers later called the Shanwai (i.e., “off-mountain,” or heterodox) began to adopt the privileging of “awareness” (zhi), or mind, that characterizes later Huayan and early Chan thought. Even in Fazang a similar tendency is arguably discernible. Here the mind in its present function is a transcendent category that produces all phenomena, and of which all phenomena are transformations; the mind is in this sense at least conceptually prior to these phenomena, and is their ontological base, although it is not a definite objective entity. Realizing this all-pervasive awareness as all things is equivalent to awakening, and so this mind is also called “ultimate reality.” Praxishere means to see “the three thousand quiddities” as this present moment of mind, which is the transformation of mind, with nothing left out. Mind is the all-embracing “whole” that is uniquely capable of producing, determining, containing, and unifying all differentiated existences.
Zhili (Siming Fazhi fashi, 960–1028) led an attack on this interpretation of Tiantai thought, developing a position that was later called the Shanjia (Mountain Masters, or orthodox) position. Zhili holds fast to the traditional Tiantai interpretation of the claim in the Huayan jing (Sanskrit, Avataṃsaka-sūtra) that “there is no difference between the mind, buddhas, and sentient beings,” holding that this means that each of these three may be considered the creator of the other two, and vice versa. This interpretation rejects the assertion that mind is the real source that is able to create, or manifest itself, as either buddhas or sentient beings (as the Shanwai, Huayan, and Chan putatively claim), depending on whether it is enlightened or deluded. On the latter view, although buddhas and sentient beings could still be said to be “identical” to mind and hence to each other, this identity would be mediated by a one-way dependence relation. Zhili holds that this would not be real “identity,” for mind has at least one quality that the other two lack: It is creator, as opposed to created. In Zhili’s view, each is creator, each is created, and none is more ultimate than the others.
Zhili’s teaching combats a one-sidedly “idealist” interpretation of Tiantai doctrine. He holds that while it is true to say that mind inherently entails all entities, it is equally true to say that form or matter inherently entails all entities, and not merely because matter is actually nothing but mind. Here Zhili is echoing Zhiyi’s teaching that reality can be spoken of equally as mind-only, matter-only, taste-only, smell-only, touch-only, and so on. Zhili also insists that Tiantai meditation is a contemplation of the deluded mind, not directly of the pure or absolute mind that is the source and ground of all existence. The object of contemplation is the deluded process of differentiation itself, which is to be seen as creating the particular determinacies of the experienced world, then as inherently including all these determinacies, then as being identical to them all, and finally as itself determined, hence conditioned, hence empty, hence provisionally posited, hence the “mean.” Once this is done, all other contents are equally seen as the three truths, but the process of transformation must begin with the deluded mind, the mind that mistakenly sees itself as “inside” as opposed to “outside,” which makes arbitrary distinctions, and which is conditioned in a particular manner by particular causes. Only in this way, Zhili thinks, is practice both possible and necessary.
Zhili also reasserts the centrality of the doctrine of inherent evil, as is particularly evident in his teaching of “the six identities as applicable even to the dung beetle.” The six identities were propounded by Zhiyi originally to maintain a balance to the claims of identity between sentient beings and buddhahood. All beings are identical to the Buddha (1) in principle; (2) in name, once they hear of this teaching and accept it intellectually; (3) in cultivation; (4) in partial attainment;(5) in approximation to final identity; and finally (6) when Buddhist practice is completed and one becomes explicitly a buddha. Zhili asserts that these six levels of difference and identity apply not only to the relations between sentient beings and buddhas, but also to the relations between any two sentient beings, any two determinations of any kind, indeed, even between any entity and itself. This means that prior to Buddhist practice one is identical to, say, a dung beetle in principle only, but as one’s practice continues, one finally attains a more and more fully realized identity with the dung beetle, so that all the marks and names associated with dung beetle-hood become increasingly explicit and fully realized as practice continues. Evil, in other words, is not only what is cut off, but also what is more fully realized with practice; all things become more explicit together, and this full realization of their own determinate marks, by virtue of the three truths, is their liberation and transformation. This is the real goal of practice; indeed this is buddhahood itself.
Transmission to and development in Japan and Korea
Much of Zhili’s concern in his polemic against the Shanwai and his defense of the doctrine of “inherent evil” was to maintain the seriousness of Tiantai ritual practice, an evil that he saw threatened by the “sudden” doctrines of Chan and the Shanwai. Zhili and his dharma-brother Zunshi (Ciyun fashi, 963–1032) were instrumental in combining Tiantai contemplation with the practice of the Pure Land schools, particularly the visualizations of AmitĀbha, which were to be done in tandem with Tiantai doctrinal ruminations, “contemplating the image of the Buddha as an inherent aspect of the mind, utilizing the Buddha image to manifest the nature of mind.” This was consistent with Zhili’s general teaching that when any given content is made more explicit, it simultaneously makes all contents more explicit, as well as their interpervasion, the interpervasive three thousand being the realm of enlightenment.
In China, Tiantai and Pure Land practice came to be closely associated. A different development took place in Japan, where Tiantai, or Tendai in the Japanese pronunciation, became closely associated with esoteric Buddhism. Tiantai texts were first brought to Japan by the Chinese vinaya monk Jianzhen (687–763), but did not really take hold until the founding of the Japanese Tendai school by SaichŌ (Dengyo daishi, 767–822). Saichō combined the Tiantai teachings he had studied in Tang China under Zhanran’s disciple Daosui with elements of esoteric and Chan Buddhism. The tradition he founded later split into several rival schools, but Tendai remained for centuries the mainstream of Japanese Buddhism, providing the theoretical foundation of Buddhist practice to a much greater degree than was the case in China, where Huayan and Chan understandings of Buddhist doctrine arguably took a more preeminent position. Later Japanese Tendai contributed distinctive developments to the doctrines of original enlightenment (hongaku) and the buddhahood of inanimate objects, on which it laid special stress. All of the Buddhist reformers who created the new Japanese sects in the Kamakura period, including HŌnen (1133–1212), Shinran (1173–1263), Nichiren (1222–1282), and DŌgen (1200–1253), were trained initially as Tendai monks.
Both Huisi and Zhiyi are said to have had direct disciples hailing from the Korean peninsula, and this tradition of exchange continued for many centuries. But it was not until 1097 that a separate Tiantai (Korean, Ch’ŏnt’ae) school was established there. Its founder, Ŭich’Ŏn (1055–1101), hoped the new school would help reconcile the long-standing conflict in Korean Buddhism between scholastic studies and meditative practice. Ch’ŏnt’ae became one of the two main pillars of Korean Buddhism, together with Chan (Korean, Sŏn). The schools were unified under the auspices of a reconstituted Sŏn school in the early fifteenth century.
Chan, Chi-wah. “Chih-li (960–1028) and the Crisis of T’ien-t’ai Buddhism in the Early Sung.” In Buddhism in the Sung, ed. Peter N. Gregory and Daniel A. Getz, Jr. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999.
Cleary, Thomas, trans. Stopping and Seeing: A Comprehensive Guide to Buddhist Meditation (a partial translation of Zhiyi’s Mohe zhiguan). Boston: Shambhala, 1997.
Donner, Neal. “Chih-i’s Meditation on Evil.” In Buddhist and Taoist Practice in Medieval Chinese Society, ed. David W. Chappell. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1987.
Donner, Neal. “Sudden and Gradual Intimately Conjoined: Chih-i’s T’ien-t’ai View.” In Sudden and Gradual: Approaches to Enlightenment in Chinese Buddhism, ed. Peter N. Gregory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987.
Donner, Neal, and Stevenson, Daniel B. The Great Calming and Contemplation: A Study and Annotated Translation of the First Chapter of Chih-i’s Mo-ho chih-kuan. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993.
Gregory, Peter, and Getz, Daniel, eds. Buddhism in the Sung. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2001.
Hurvitz, Leon. Chih-i (538–597): An Introduction to the Life and Ideas of a Chinese Buddhist Monk. M’elange Chinois et Bouddhiques, vol. 12 (1960–1962). Brussels: Institut Belges Des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1980.
Ng Yu-kwan, T’ien-t’ai Buddhism and Early Mādhyamika. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993.
Stevenson, Daniel. “The Four Kinds of Samādhi in Early T’ient’ai Buddhism.” In Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, ed. Peter N. Gregory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986.
Stone, Jacqueline. Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999.
Swanson, Paul L. Foundations of T’ien-t’ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1989.
Ziporyn, Brook. “Anti-Chan Polemics in Post-Tang Tiantai.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 17, no. 1 (1994): 26–63.
Ziporyn, Brook. Evil and/or/as the Good: Omnicentrism, Intersubjectivity, and Value Paradox in Tiantai Buddhist Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Brook Ziporyn
Source: Tiantai / Britannica
Tiantai
Tiantai, Wade-Giles T’ien-t’ai, Japanese Tendai, rationalist school of Buddhist thought that takes its name from the mountain in southeastern China where its founder and greatest exponent, Zhiyi, lived and taught in the 6th century. The school was introduced into Japan in 806 by Saichō, known posthumously as Dengyō Daishi.
The basic philosophical doctrine is summarized as the triple truth, or jiguan(“perfected comprehension”): (1) all things (dharmas) lack ontological reality; (2) they, nevertheless, have a temporary existence; (3) they are simultaneously unreal and temporarily existing—being the middle, or absolute, truth, which includes and yet surpasses the others. The three truths are considered to be mutually inclusive, and each is contained within the others. Because existence is ever-changing, the phenomenal world is regarded as identical with the world as it really is.
The doctrine of the triple truth was first taught by Huiwen (550–577); but Zhiyi, the third patriarch, is regarded as the founder of the school because of his own great contributions. Zhiyi organized the whole of the Buddhist canon according to the supposition that all the doctrines were present in the mind of Shakyamuni (the historical Buddha) at the time of his enlightenment but were unfolded gradually according to the mental capacities of his hearers. The Lotus Sūtra was considered the supreme doctrine, embodying all of the Buddha’steachings.
In 804 Saichō, a Japanese monk, was sent to China expressly to study the Tiantai tradition. The inclusiveness of the Tiantai school, which arranged all Buddhist learning into one grand hierarchical scheme, was attractive to Saichō. On his return to Japan he attempted to incorporate within the framework of the Tiantai doctrine Zen meditation, vinayadiscipline, and esoteric cults. The Tendai school, as it is called in Japanese, also encouraged an amalgamation of Shintō and Buddhism in the Ichijitsu (“One Truth”), or Sannō Ichijitsu Shintō.
The monastery founded by Saichō on Mount Hiei, near Kyōto, the Enryaku Temple, became the greatest centre of Buddhist learning of its time in Japan. Hōnen, and many other famous monks who later established their own schools, went there for training.
Saichō’s efforts to establish a Tendai ritual of ordination that would be more in keeping with Mahāyāna teachings and independent from the kaidan(“ordination centre”) at Nara bore results only after his death but was an important step in the Mahāyāna development in Japan.
After the death of Saichō, rivalry broke out between two factions of the school, which separated in the 9th century into the Sammon and the Jimon sects, headed by the two monks Ennin and Enchin. A third branch, the Shinsei, emphasizes devotion to the Buddha Amida.
Source: Chinese Foundations / Tendai in China: The Tiantai School
Beginning around the first century CE, Indian and Central Asian Buddhist texts and lineages began to flow into China. Buddhism spread throughout South Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia NOT through conquest or forced conversion, but through intercultural dialogue. With Buddhist cultural diversity came an explosion of new approaches to the Dharma. New traditions, new texts, new teachings, and new practices spread throughout Asia.
It was Mahayana Buddhism that most caught the attention of Chinese Buddhists. The diversity of Mahayana Buddhism, however, posed something of an obstacle. There are hundreds of sutras that sometimes contain radically different teachings. Which ones were correct? How did they fit together? Did they fit together? To answer these questions, Chinese Buddhist thinkers developed doctrinal classification systems (panjiao) and new theories of Buddhist study and practice.
Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597) of Mt. Tiantai
Zhiyi, the founder of the Chinese Tiantai School, Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons
Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597) of Mt. Tiantai was one of the first and most influential scholar-monks in the history of East Asian Buddhism. Today he is regarded as the founder of the Tiantai School of Chinese Buddhism, the parent tradition of the Japanese Tendai School. Zhiyi’s thought also greatly impacted East Asian traditions like Huayan, Chan, Pure Land, and Esoteric Buddhism. Study and Practice: The Two Wings of the Buddha-Dharma Central to Zhiyi’s thought is the notion that meditation and study form the two wings of one’s practice of the Buddha-dharma. If one becomes unbalanced, you will not fly straight. In his day there were some meditation masters who focused exclusively upon meditation and neglected the study of the Buddhist scriptures. Similarly, there were some scholar-monks who were merely Buddhist bookworms who neglected to put into practice what they had learned. Zhiyi practiced what he preached, and during his lifetime he was a widely respected scholar, teacher, and meditation master.
The mind is sometimes compared to a bowl of water. The water in this bowl is murky, and the water is being jostled around. If, however, one were to set the bowl down in a quiet place, and let it sit peacefully, then eventually the ripples would disappear, and the silt would settle to the bottom, leaving behind crystal clear water. Shamatha (pronounced: “sha-ma-ta”) refers to the cultivation and calming of the mind. The Chinese character zhi can actually mean “stop.” This “stopping” leads to clarity and peace, and allows the naturally luminescent quality of one’s very own mind (your “Buddha nature”) to shine through. Shamatha meditation is sometimes described as “calm-abiding.”
Vipashyana (guan觀)
Once one has honed their mind’s ability to reach a state of “calm abiding,” or attentive stillness, then one is able to engage in contemplative or analytical meditation. Vipashyana refers to contemplation or analysis of reality, and the attainment of insight and wisdom into the nature of reality. (For more: Basic Buddhist Teachings and Basic Buddhist practices)
Four-fold Samādhi (si-zhong sanmei 四種三昧)
The Four-fold Samādhi is one of the foundational approaches to meditation devised by Zhiyi in the Mohezhiguan. Four 90-day periods of constant practice: 1) 90 days, Constant Sitting Samādhi 常坐三昧 2) 90 days, Constant Walking Samādhi 常行三昧 3) 90 days, Half-Walking and Half-Sitting Samādhi 半行半坐三昧 4) 90 days, Neither Walking nor Sitting Samādhi 非行非坐三昧Zhiyi drew upon the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sutra (Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經) in developing this meditation practice. In the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sutra, the Buddha recommends both the contemplation of the Buddha Amitābha, and the recitation of his name. Zhiyi also recommended contemplation of this Amitābha, thus influencing the development of Pure Land Buddhism throughout the history of East Asia.
Resources for Further Study
For a more thorough explanation of Tiantai meditation practice, please consult your local Tendai sangha leader and read the following books:
However, the Mohe zhiguan is not merely a guide to meditation, but rather consists of a comprehensive introduction to Buddhism and Zhiyi’s approach to Buddhist thought and practice more broadly.
The One Vehicle (eka-yāna; yisheng 一乘) and Buddha Nature (tathāgata-garbha; rulai zang如來藏)
Zhiyi argued that the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra; Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮華經 ) and the Nirvana Sutra (Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa sutra; Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經) together constituted the ultimate teachings of the Buddha. The Lotus Sutra promotes a universalistic view of Buddhism, arguing that all paths ultimately converge on the same path. This all-inclusive path is called the Eka-yana, “One Vehicle,” a synonym for the Mahayana. Behind the diversity of the many Buddhist paths, there is a unity that binds them. The Nirvana Sutra and Lotus Sutra both promote the idea that all beings have the potential to attain Buddhahood. These two teachings, the unity of the vast Buddha-dharma and the inherent capacity for all beings to attain awakening form the basis for later Chinese Tiantai and Japanese Tendai Buddhism.
Three Truths (san-di 三諦)
Chinese Tiantai was highly influenced by the Indian school of Buddhist philosophy known as Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka thinkers look to Nagarjuna as their founder. Nagarjuna taught that all things are Shunyata, or lacking an inherent unchanging essence. This “ultimate reality” is somewhat at odds with our “conventional reality.” We tend to see the world as we want to see it, not as it truly is. The point of Buddhist practice is see the world as it truly is. For Mahayana Buddhists, influenced by Nagarjuna, we aspire to see the Shunyata in our ordinary “conventional” reality. Nāgārjuna famously said, “for whom Shunyata is possible, all things are possible.” In other words, when you see things as fixed and rigid (“conventional” reality), there is no hope for change. However, when you see things as they truly are, constantly changing and fluid (Shunyata), then anything is possible. The Bodhisattva (enlightening being) perceives this reality, and is therefore free from fear and pain.Chinese Tiantai Buddhist thinkers elaborated on this “Two Truths” view of reality, and posited that there were three truths:
The Truth of Shunyata (kongdi 空諦)
The Truth Conventional Reality (jiadi 假諦)
The Truth of the Middle (zongdi 中諦)
The third truth, the “middle,” signifies the ability to abide in two worlds simultaneously: to function on the level of conventional reality and yet perceive ultimate reality. In other words, both conventional reality and ultimate reality have a kind of reality from different perspectives. The Bodhisattva knows how to put these two views together to more effectively alleviate suffering in the world.
To See the Three Thousand Worlds in a Single Thought Moment (yi-nian san-qian一念三千)
Zhiyi and later Tiantai scholars argued that microcosm and macrocosm are connected. Past, present, and future, and every aspect of reality, all things in existence are interconnected. In other words, the whole is in the part and the part is the whole. In a single moment of thought, all aspects of reality are present. Nothing exists by itself but all things are dependent upon and connected with each other. Even in the ordinary mind, even a single thought, contains the whole of the universe (or “multi-verse” in the case of Mahayana Buddhism).
Five Times and Eight Teachings (wushi bajiao 五時八教)
One of the hallmarks of Zhiyi’s teachings is a comprehensive approach to Buddhism. This comprehensive framework, upon which Zhiyi’s disciples and interpreters elaborated, divides the whole of the Buddha-dharma into “five times and eight teachings.” The Buddha is commonly compared to a doctor who dispensed remedies as appropriate for particular afflictions. For spiritualists the Buddha taught the doctrine of “no-self,” while to the materialists he taught the doctrine of “Buddha nature.” In other words, the truth and even the meaning of a teaching is dependent upon context and audience. Zhiyi developed a comprehensive system encompassing the Mahayana and non-Mahayana teachings delivered by the Buddha throughout his lifetime. Zhiyi organized the teachings into “five times” and “eight teachings.” The five times refers to five time periods in the Buddha’s life during which, Zhiyi believed, the Buddha delivered particular teachings. The eight teachings refers to the differing ways the Buddha taught and the different ways disciples understood the content. For a more detailed overview of the five times and eight teachings, as well as other aspects of Tiantai and Tendai Buddhist thought, see the following resources:
Below is a short summary of the Five Times and Eight Teachings framework with links to available English language resources for further study:
The Five Times 五時
1. Avataṃsaka華嚴 Period
Following his awakening under the Bodhi tree (Life of Buddha), the Buddha preached what came to be known as the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Huayan-jing 華嚴經, “Flower Ornament Sutra”) for 21 days. This teaching was intended for Bodhisattvas of very high attainment, as it presents a complex interconnected view of the universe and the path to awakening.
Realizing that the complexity of the “big picture” as presented in the Avatamsaka would be too much for most people, the Buddha spent 12 years explaining some of the basic insights he had gained, using his skills in upaya, or skillful means. These teachings took place at Deer Park, and were collected in the Āgamas (which roughly correspond to the Nikayas of the Pali Canon of the Theravada tradition).
Next, for eight years the Buddha began to introduce the “expansive” (vaipulya) Mahayana teachings. Some of the sutras taught during this period include, but are not limited to, the following:
Having introduced some of his disciples to the profound teachings of the Mahayana, the Buddha went on to expound “perfection of wisdom” (prajñāpāramitā) for the next twenty-two years. The texts in this division are focused primarily on outlining the Bodhisattva Path and Shunyata (Section in Mahayana Basics)
Lotus Sutra presents the idea that all paths fit together and ultimately lead to Buddhahood. The Nirvana Sutra presents the notion that all beings possess as their fundamental nature Buddhahood. Zhiyi suggested that taken together, the Lotus Sutraand the Nirvana Sutra constitute the pinnacle of the Buddha’s teachings. Zhiyi believed that these teachings were delivered by the Buddha toward the end of his life. Historically the Tiantai tradition has placed somewhat more emphasis on the Lotus Sutra. Popular English Language Translations of the Lotus Sutra
The Lotus Sutra (BDK English Tripitaka, Free Online Version)
Just as the teachings of the Buddha may be organized chronologically, so too may they be organized according to the ways the Buddha accommodated the teachings to the specific needs of his audiences, and the differing approaches the Buddha used to teach different groups of people. Taken together, these constitute what are known as the Eight Teachings:
Four Approaches to Teaching 化儀四教 (huayi sijiao)
Sudden Teaching 頓教: This teaching corresponds to the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, which Zhiyi believed to have been taught by the Buddha immediately (or “suddenly”) upon the attainment of awakening to Bodhisattvas of the highest capacities.
Gradual Teaching 漸教: This teaching includes the gradual revelation of the teachings, progressing from non-Mahayana teachings (the “Deer Park Period”) to the full Mahayana teachings (“Perfection of Wisdom Period”).
Indeterminate Teaching 不定教: The Buddha teaches beings according to their individual capacities. Though beings may hear the same teaching, they derive from that teaching different truths depending on their karmic inclination. This does not refer to a specific set of scripture, but rather serves as a recognition of how beings encounter the Dharma. The teaching is not set in stone, but subjective, or “indeterminate.”
Secret Teachings 祕密教: The so-called secret teachings are also referred to as the “secret indeterminate teaching.” Beings may hear the same teaching, but they comprehend the teaching differently. Because beings are unaware of these subjective differences, some of these indeterminate teachings tare called secret teachings.
Four Ways of Accommodating the Teachings 化法四教
Tripiṭaka Teachings 三藏教: These are the teachings given for the benefit of those who are not yet studying the Mahayana teachings. These include the “Deer Park” period teachings listed above.
Shared Teachings 通教: These are the teachings that are taught for both Mahayana and non-Mahayana Buddhists.
Distinct Teaching 別教: These are the teachings that are designed to speak directly to students of the Mahayana teachings.
Perfect Teachings 圓教: These include teachings of the Lotus Sutra, and other Mahayana sutras to greater or lesser degrees.
Guanding 灌頂 (561–632) and the Tiantai School
Following Zhiyi’s remarkable career, his disciples systematized and promoted his comprehensive approach to the study and practice of Buddhism. It should be remembered that Zhiyi likely did not regard himself as a member of something called “the Tiantai School.” The idea of a Tiantai School was constructed over time by later generations of thinkers who saw themselves as members of Zhiyi’s lineage. Guanding 灌頂 (561–632) was Zhiyi’s close disciple. Most of what we know about Zhiyi comes from documents written by Guanding, and many of Zhiyi’s major works were actually compiled and edited from Guanding’s notes taken during Zhiyi’s many lectures. For more information on Guanding’s foundational role in the creation of the idea of the Tiantai lineage, see: Linda Penkower, “In the Beginning … Guanding 灌顶 (561-632) and the Creation of Early Tiantai”
Source: The Lotus Sutra / James Shields
My Related Posts
You can search for these posts using Search Posts feature in the right sidebar.
Schools of Buddhist Philosophy
Hua Yan Buddhism: Reflecting Mirrors of Reality
What is Yogacara Buddhism (Consciousness Only School) ?
Meditations on Emptiness and Fullness
Consciousness of Cosmos: A Fractal, Recursive, Holographic Universe
Law of Dependent Origination
Dhyan, Chan, Son and Zen Buddhism: Journey from India to China, Korea and Japan
Process Physics, Process Philosophy
Paradoxes, Contradictions, and Dialectics in Organizations
A crucial feature of Tiantai (天台) Buddhist thought certainly is its elaboration on the hidden and visible, called “root and traces” (ben ji 本跡), as the concept of non-duality (bu er 不二) of these opposites is part of what constitutes the highest level of Buddhist doctrine in Tiantai doxography, called “round/ perfect teaching” (yuanjiao 圓教). Such elaboration is inextricably bound up with paradoxical discourse, which functions as a linguistic strategy in Tiantai practice of liberating the mind from its self-induced deceptions.
Observation of paradoxes in the elaboration on the hidden and visible could be called practice qua doctrinal exegesis, because Tiantai masters try to integrate self-referential observation in mind-contemplation (guanxin 觀心) with interpretation of sūtra and śāstra. For Tiantai Buddhists, the ultimate meaning of the Buddhadharma (fofa 佛法) itself is independent from speech and script and only accessible to the liberated mind, yet it cannot fully be comprehended and displayed apart from the transmission of the canonical word. To observe the paradox in non-duality of the hidden and visible is what triggers practice qua doctrinal exegesis and entails liberation (jietuo 解脫) according to the “round/ perfect teaching.”
The article traces the formation of paradoxical discourse in Chinese Madhyamaka, particularly referencing the Tiantai elaboration on the hidden and visible and its diverse sources of inspiration, which includes both Chinese indigenous traditions of thought (Daoism and Xuanxue) and translated sūtraand śāstra literature from India.
Lou, Yulie 樓宇烈 (1992): Wang Bi Ji jiaoshi 王弼集校釋. Taibei 台北: Huazheng shuju 華正書局.Search in Google Scholar
Zhuang Zhou’s 莊周 (fourth century BC) Zhuangzi 莊子and Guo Xiang’s 郭象 (252–312) commentary:Search in Google Scholar
Guo, Qingfan 郭慶藩 (1991): Zhuangzi jishi 莊子集釋. Taibei 台北: Huazheng shuju 華正書局.Search in Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Chen, Jinhua (1999): Making and Remaking History: A Study of Tiantai Sectarian Historiography (Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph; 14). Tokyo: The International Institute of Buddhist Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Deguchi, Yasuo / Garfield, Jay / Priest, Graham (2008): “The Way of the Dialetheist: Contradictions in Buddhism”. Philosophy East and West 57.2: 385–402.10.1353/pew.0.0011Search in Google Scholar
Lynn, Richard (1999): The Classic of the Way and Virtue—A New Translation of the Tao-te Ching of Laozi as Interpreted by Wang Bi. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Steven, Daniel B. / Donner, Neal (1993): The Great Calming and Contemplation: A Study and Annotated Translation of Chih-i’s Mo-ho chih-kuan(Kuroda Institute: Classics in East Asian Buddhism; 3). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Search in Google Scholar
Swanson, Paul (1989): Foundation’s of T’ien-t’ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism. Nanzan Studies in Religion and Culture. Berkeley: Asian Humanity Presss.Search in Google Scholar
Swanson, Paul (2018): T’ien-t’ai Chih-i’s Mo-ho Chih-kuan—Clear Serenity, Quiet Insight—Translation and Commentary by Paul Swanson (Nanzan Studies in Religion and Culture). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wagner, Rudolf (2000): The Craft of a Chinese Commentator—Wang Bi on Laozi. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ziporyn, Brook (2000): Evil and/or/as the Good: Omnicentrism, Intersubjectivity and Value Paradox in Tiantai Buddhist Thought. (Harvard;Yenching Institute Monograph Series; 51). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.1163/9781684170340Search in Google Scholar
Ziporyn, Brook (2004): Being and Ambiguity: Philosophical Experiments with Tiantai Buddhism. Chicago: Open Court.Search in Google Scholar
Ziporyn, Brook (2016): Emptiness and Omnipresence: An Essential Introduction to Tiantai Buddhism. Bloomngton: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
From the early 9th century a new orientation emerged in Japanese Buddhism that emphasized specific Tantric, or Vajrayāna characteristics of both doctrine and practice. While elements of the Vajrayāna (vehicle of the diamond/thunderbolt) Buddhist traditions of mature Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism were present in Japan in the 8th century, it was only in the new Buddhist schools of Tendai and Shingon that related practices recently imported from China were specifically identified as “esoteric” in nature and as different from the other schools of Buddhism that were newly designated as “exoteric” by these schools. The first to promote this distinction was the monk Kūkai, founder of the Shingon school. His contemporary Saichō, who founded the Tendai school, placed himself and several of his disciples under Kūkai’s tutelage to learn what the latter had brought back from an intensive study period in China. Yet Saichō’s approach was to place the esoteric teachings and practices on a par with his Tendai teachings, derived primarily from the Chinese Tiantai school. His difference from Kūkai on this matter drove both an eventual end to their cooperative relationship and, after Saichō’s death, innovations by Tendai school exegetes that aimed to reconcile the differences. The combined force of Tendai esotericism (Taimitsu) and Shingon esotericism (Tōmitsu) impacted greatly the development of subsequent centuries of Japanese Buddhism. The three major schools of Buddhism that dominated during the Nara period (710–794)—Sanron, Hossō, and Kegon—all incorporated esoteric elements into their practice during the Heian period (794–1185). By the time of the Kamakura period (1185–1333), when the new forms of Zen, pure land, and Nichiren Buddhism emerged, the esoteric paradigm was so ingrained in Japanese Buddhist thought that even though esoteric practice was at times explicitly criticized by the new schools, much of its worldview was implicitly affirmed.
Central to Japanese esoteric Buddhism is the understanding that through engaging in the ritual practices of reciting mantra, practicing symbolic hand gestures known as mudra, and imagining one’s self and all beings as being intrinsically awakened (one meaning of the term mandala), one can achieve the enlightened stage of buddhahood within one lifetime. These three are called the “practices of the three mysteries” (sanmitsu gyō三密業), through which a practitioner is able to unite with the enlightened energy of the cosmic buddha’s body, speech, and mind. More than anything else, it was this cosmological framework that influenced the development of many later Buddhist practices. Fundamental to this model was the affirmation that every living being is intrinsically endowed with the latent qualities of buddhahood. This concept of “original enlightenment” (hongaku本覚) framed an immanental, holistic vision that recognized the real presence of nirvāṇa (freedom, liberation) in the midst of one’s experience of saṃsāra (the cyclic world of ignorant suffering). The unfolding of various doctrinal and ritual means of articulating and verifying a practitioner’s intrinsic state of enlightenment spurred novel theological systems, artistic creativity of many forms, as well as sociopolitical opportunities for aristocrats who sought to invoke the buddha’s power for various mundane needs. Tendai and Shingon monks alike contributed to this growth in a myriad of ways.
A Brief History of the T’ien-t’ai School and Tendai Shu
Nichiren was ordained and trained as a Tendai monk, so much of his teachings and arguments are incomprehensible without at least a rudimentary understanding of T’ien-t’ai Buddhism. In this chapter I provide a brief history of the T’ien-t’ai school in China and Japan. In the next two chapters I will cover the T’ien-t’ai teachings relating to the classification of the Buddha’s teachings and the various practices of meditation that Nichiren alludes to throughout Kanjin Honzon-shō.
In the 6th century, the Chinese monk Chih-i (538-597) established a teaching center on Mt. T’ien-t’ai. He was later known as the Great Master T’ien-t’ai, founder of the school of the same name. Chih-i was a great scholar and meditator who wanted to systematize all the seemingly contradictory teachings that had been translated into Chinese. To do this, he classified the Buddha’s teachings into five flavors and eight categories of teaching. Chih-i was a practitioner as well as a scholar. He put equal emphasis on meditation practice and doctrine in order to create a balanced system whereby doctrine would inform practice and practice would actualize doctrine. The concept of the “3,000 worlds in a single thought-moment” that is discussed at the beginning of Kanjin Honzon-shō was part of his explanation of the sudden and perfect method of tranquility and insight meditation. He also spoke of awakening in terms of realizing the unity of the three truths of emptiness, provisional existence, and the Middle Way in order to clarify the true meaning of the teachings of the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras and Nāgārjuna’s (2nd-3rd century) teachings regarding emptiness, causality, and the Middle Way. He derived the unity of the three truths from a line in Nāgārjuna’s major work, Verses on the Middle Way: “Whatever is dependently co-arisen/That is explained to be emptiness./That, being a dependent designation,/Is itself the middle way.” (Garfield, p. 304) Chih-i taught that these three truths could be realized through a “threefold contemplation” cutting through the “three kinds of delusion” and giving rise to the “three kinds of wisdom.” Ultimately, Chih-i taught that the three truths are simply different aspects of the one true nature of reality that can be realized in a single moment of insight.
Chih-i lost his parents when he was seventeen years old, during the turbulent end of the Southern Liang Dynasty (502-557). Soon after, he sought ordination as a Buddhist monk. In 560 CE, Chih-i visited Nan-yüeh Hui-ssu (515-577) on Mount Ta-su, and studied the Lotus Sūtra under him, and, as a result of intense practice, he was said to have attained awaking through this phrase of the “Medicine King Chapter” of the Lotus Sūtra: “The Buddhas of those worlds praised him, saying simultaneously, ‘Excellent, excellent, good man! All you did was a true endeavor. You made an offering to us according to the true Dharma.’” (Murano 1974, p. 301) His awakening was certified by Hui-ssu. With the recommendation of Hui-ssu, Chih-i left Mount Ta-su and went to Chin-ling and stayed at Wa-kuan-ssu where he lectured to clergy and laity over a period of eight years. During this time he greatly impressed the literati and monks whom he came in contact with.
There are several well-known monks that are associated with Chih-i, such as Fa-chi, who was skilled in meditation, Fa-lang, who was the great master in the San-lun tradition, and Pao-ch’iung and Ching-shao, who were distinguished monks in the capital Chin-ling. It is recorded in the Pieh-chuan that these monks either challenged Chih-i with the knowledge of contemplation or with engagement of doctrinal debate, but all of them ended up gaining great admiration and respect for Chih-i’s knowledge and wisdom and his power of contemplation. (Shen Vol. I, p. 14)
However, because of an anti-Buddhist movement by the Northern Chou dynasty, Chih-i retired to Mount T’ien-t’ai in 575 CE at the age of 39. He undertook dhūta practice at the Flower Peak of the mountain, and lectured at Hsiu-ch’an Temple. In 585 CE, at the age of 48, Chih-i returned to Chin-ling, the capital of the Ch’en dynasty, at the request of several district lords and governors. In 587 CE, he gave lectures on the Lotus Sūtra, which were later compiled as The Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sūtra. To avoid the conquest of the Ch’en dynasty by the Sui dynasty, Chih-i stayed at Mount Lu and the town of Ch’ang-sha. In 591 CE, he was invited by Prince Kuang (later known as Yang-ti), and went to Yang-chou. He granted bodhisattva precepts to the prince and received the honorific name “Chih-che” from him. He established Yü-ch’üan Temple in Ching-chou and expounded The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra in 593 CE and The Great Concentration and Insight in 594 CE. He returned to Mount T’ien-t’ai in 595 CE. Two years later, in 597 CE, while he was on the way to see Prince Kuang, he became sick and died.
Chih-i upheld the Lotus Sūtra as the most profound teaching of the Buddha. In terms of practice he emphasized the sudden and perfect method of tranquility and insight, but also utilized elaborate repentance ceremonies and devotional Pure Land practices. In his teachings, Chih-i drew upon the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise attributed to Nāgārjuna that had been translated (or perhaps written) by Kumārajīva, the Larger Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, and the Nirvāna Sūtra in order to expound a comprehensive system of Buddhist teaching and practice. Chih-i’s three major works were the aforementioned Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sūtra, the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra, and the Great Concentration and Insight. These three works were actually based on notes taken from his lectures that were compiled and edited by Chih-i’s disciple Kuan-ting (561-632; aka Chang-an).
Before Chih-i there had been a lot of debate about the true meaning of the Buddha’s teachings due to the contradictions found between the various sūtras and commentaries coming from India. Starting in the late 5th century, various attempts were made to reconcile the many teachings that were being translated. By Chih-i’s time there were the so-called three schools of the south and seven schools of the north that each presented a different system for classifying the sūtras. These were not schools in the sense of sects or monastic orders but rather differing schools of thought propounded by different monks. These schools arranged the sūtras into such categories as sudden, gradual, and indeterminate. Many of these schools favored the Flower Garland Sūtra or the Nirvāna Sūtra as the ultimate teaching of the Buddha. Chih-i critiqued these systems and presented his own system in the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra of the five flavors and eight teachings that showed how the teaching and practice of the other sūtras all led up to the Lotus Sūtra as the definitive expression of the Buddha’s ultimate teaching.
The school Chih-i founded was named the T’ien-t’ai School after the mountain where he resided. Though Chih-i was the founder and first patriarch, Nāgārjuna is sometimes considered the honorary first patriarch because so much of the T’ien-t’ai teachings are based upon the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise. Hui-wen (n.d.), the teacher of Hui-ssu is then considered the second patriarch, Hui-ssu the third, and Chih-i the fourth. Sometimes it is Hui-wen who is considered the honorary first patriarch of the school, making Hui-ssu the second and Chih-i the third. The T’ien-t’ai School declined during the 7th and 8th centuries due to the rise of the Dharma Characteristics, Flower Garland, and Zen schools that overshadowed the T’ien-t’ai School in terms of prestige and royal patronage. The T’ien-t’ai school was briefly revived during the time of Chan-jan (711-782; aka Miao-lê), the school’s sixth patriarch (if Chih-i is considered the first). Chan-jan wrote commentaries on Chih-i’s three major writings that Nichiren quoted almost as often as Chih-i himself. Unfortunately, the persecution of Buddhism by the Emperor Wu-tsung in 845 was the end of the great scholastic schools of Buddhism in China. After that, the Zen and Pure Land Buddhism dominated Chinese Buddhism.
The T’ien-tai teachings were first brought to Japan by Chien-chen (J. Ganjin; 688-763), who was also a T’ien-t’ai monk as well as a Vinaya master. Saicho (767-822; known posthumously as Dengyō) later studied these teachings and was greatly intrigued by them. In 788 Saichō established a temple (later named Enryakuji by Emperor Saga in 823) on Mt. Hiei to study and practice away from the world. The world, however, came to him. In 794 the capital of Japan moved from Nara to Kyoto, right at the foot of Mt. Hiei. In 797, Saichō came to the attention of the emperor and he was given a post at court. Beginning in 798, Saichō gave annual lectures on the Lotus Sūtra at Mt. Hiei that were attended by monks from the Nara schools. His reputation grew and in 802, Saichō was invited to lecture on the three major works of Chih-i at Takaosanji temple in Kyoto attended by 14 prestigious monks of the six schools of Nara. Paul Groner said of this occasion, “The many years which Saichō had devoted to the study of Tendai texts must have enabled him to make a strong and lasting impression at the lectures.” (Groner, p. 36)
In 804, Saichō was able to travel to China to learn more about T’ien-t’ai Buddhism and other teachings and bring back more reliable texts. He could not speak Chinese but was able to read it and had to rely on interpreters. He was able to study with Tao-sui (n.d.), the seventh patriarch of the T’ien-t’ai school, and Hsing-man (n.d.), a monk who had been a student of Miao-lê. From the former, Saichō received the bodhisattva precepts of the Brahma Net Sūtra (allegedly translated by Kumārajīva though many scholars believe it is a Chinese creation). He also received the teachings of the minor Zen branch known as the Ox Head School from a monk named Hsiu-jan (who may or may not have been a disciple of the Zen Master Ma-tsu Tao-i (709-788). He also received esoteric Buddhist initiations and teachings from a monk named Shun-hsiao (n.d.) and other esoteric practitioners, though his study of these teachings was not as deep as he would have liked.
After only eight and a half months, Saichō returned to Japan in 805 and began the establishment of the Tendai Shū on Mt. Hiei. The Tendai Shū was originally set up to be a comprehensive school of Buddhism that utilized all teachings and methods of practice united by the perfect teaching of the Lotus Sūtra as taught by Chih-i. This synthesis of teachings and practices was called “enmitsuzenkai.” “En” means “Perfect” and refers to the perfect teaching of the Lotus Sūtra. “Mitsu” means “esoteric” or “secret” and refers to esoteric Buddhism. “Zen” refers to the practice of meditation. “Kai” means “precepts” and refers to Saichō’s concern with the establishment of the Mahāyāna precepts. Saichō established two tracks of practice: one track was for the practice of esoteric Buddhism, while the other was for the practice of the T’ien-t’ai method of concentration and insight.
Saichō also worked to establish a Mahāyāna precept platform on Mt. Hiei for the conferral of Mahāyāna precepts from the Brahma Net Sūtra on his disciples so that Mahāyāna monastics could have a Mahāyāna precept lineage. Though the Brahma Net Sūtra precepts had been conferred upon monks and householders in both China and Japan before this, they had never been used in place of the Dharmaguptaka precepts, nor had there ever been a separate precept platform (kaidan) for their conferral. This was an unprecedented innovation that aroused the opposition of the six schools of Nara. The controversy raged throughout Saichō’s life, but a week after his death in 822 the court finally granted permission for Mt. Hiei to have a Mahāyāna precept platform and it was finally constructed in 827.
Saichō also got involved in doctrinal controversies with monks of the Nara schools, in particular with a monk named Tokuitsu (c. 780-842) of the Dharma Characteristics School who insisted that the One Vehicle teaching of the Lotus Sūtra was only a provisional teaching whereas the three vehicles teaching was the definitive truth. Tokuitsu’s rationale was based upon the teaching of the “five mutually distinctive natures.” In his view, not all people are capable of attaining buddhahood, so some should settle for the lesser goals of the two vehicles, while those who are able should take up the bodhisattva vehicle. The One Vehicle was taught for those who are able to take any of the three vehicles to encourage them to take up the buddha vehicle. Saichō vigorously argued that this was not the case. The Buddha taught the One Vehicle for all beings because all beings are capable of attaining buddhahood. This debate was carried out in the form of essays and treatises. According to Paul Groner, “Tendai scholars have often claimed that Saichō decisively won the debate.” (Ibid, p. 95)
Something should also be said about the relationship between Saichō and Kūkai (774-835; known posthumously as Kōbō), the founder of the True Word School in Japan. They first met when they were traveling to China together in 804. Kūkai returned to Japan in 806 after having studied and received the authority to teach esoteric Buddhism. He established the Shingon Shū or True Word School on Mt. Kōya in 816. For many years Saichō and Kūkai were friends. In 809, Kūkai had gone to Mt. Hiei to learn about the T’ien-t’ai teachings from Saichō. In turn, Saichō inquired about the esoteric teachings, borrowing texts and even receiving an esoteric initiation from Kūkai in 812. Unfortunately, their relationship soured in later years, as one of Saichō’s disciples defected to the True Word School and Kūkai refused to lend texts and insisted that Saichō become his disciple if he wished to study True Word teachings. They also had fundamental disagreements over the relative importance of the Lotus Sūtra and esoteric Buddhism. Not surprisingly, Kūkai compared the Lotus Sūtra and T’ien-t’ai teachings unfavorably with the True Word sūtras, teachings, and practices. By 816, the two monks were no longer corresponding with each other.
After the passing of both Saichō and Kūkai, the successive patriarchs of the Tendai school on Mt. Hiei developed Tendai esotericism to bolster the popularity of their school. Ennin (794-864; aka Jikaku), the third chief priest, and Enchin (814-891; aka Chishō), the fifth, were particularly responsible for bringing esoteric Buddhism to the fore in the Tendai school and even for making it more important than the Lotus Sūtra. Because of this, Nichiren would in his later years accuse them of having turned the Tendai School into the True Word School in all but name, thus leading to the neglect of the Lotus Sūtra within the Tendai School itself. Nichiren would express his critiques of Kūkai, Jikaku, and Chishō in his later writings such as the Senji-shō (Selecting the Right Time) and Hōon-ō (Essay on Gratitude).
Pure Land Buddhism also developed in the Tendai School. Saichō himself aspired to rebirth in the Pure Land, but it was Ennin who established the Jōgyō Zammai-dō (Hall for Walking Meditation) in 849. This hall was dedicated to the practice of the constant walking meditation taught in the Great Concentration and Insight of Chih-i which featured the chanting of nembutsu. After that, Pure Land devotion became an important part of Tendai Buddhism. By Nichiren’s time, many Tendai temples had become centers for the practice of Hōnen’s (1133-1212) exclusive nembutsu version of Pure Land Buddhism.
Zen Buddhism in Japan also had its origins in Tendai temples. Eisai (1141-1215) was a Tendai monk who tried to propagate Rinzai Zen practice as part of the Tendai School. He established Jufuku-ji in Kamakura in 1200 and Kennin-ji temple in Kyoto. These temples were initially meant to be Tendai temples where Rinzai Zen would be practiced. However, by Nichiren’s day they had become pure Rinzai Zen temples run by monks such as Lan-chi Tao-lung (1213-1278; J. Rankei Dōryū) who had come from Sung China to Japan in 1246 at the invitation of Hōjō Tokiyori (1227-1263) and was installed as the abbot of Kennin-ji in 1259.
In his writings, Nichiren speaks of Chih-i and Saichō defeating their contemporaries in debates. However, rather than engaging in formal debates, Chih-i and Saichō gave lectures and wrote essays and corresponded with fellow monks. They did, nevertheless, win the respect of their contemporaries, both monks and literati, for their insightful scholarship and depth of spiritual cultivation. As a Tendai reformer, Nichiren was alarmed that the Tendai temples were being converted into centers of True Word, Pure Land, and Zen practice. He lamented what he saw as the neglect of the teachings of Chih-i, Miao-lê, and Saichō and hoped to restore the heritage of the T’ien-t’ai School. More importantly, Nichiren was determined to carry forward the legacy of the T’ien-t’ai School by sharing the teaching and practice of the Lotus Sūtra, the Buddha’s highest teaching, with all people.
Sources:
Chappel, David, ed., and Masao Ichishima, comp. Trans. Buddhist Translation Seminar of Hawaii. T’ien-t’ai Buddhism: An Outline of the Fourfold Teachings. Tokyo: Shobo, 1983.
Ch’en, Kenneth. Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.
Garfield, Jay L., trans. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamikakārikā. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Gosho Translation Committee, editor-translator. The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 1999.
Groner, Paul. Saicho: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School. Berkeley: Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series, 1984.
Hori, Kyotsu, comp. Writings of Nichiren Shonin: Doctrine Volume 2. Tokyo: Nichiren Shu Overseas Propagation Promotion Association, 2002.
Hurvitz, Leon. Chih-i: An Introduction to the Life and Ideas of a Chinese Buddhist Monk. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 12 (1960-62): 1-372. Brussels: l’Institute Belge des Hautes Etudes Chinoises.
Kasahara, Kazuo. A History of Japanese Religion. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Co., 2002.
Kashiwahara, Yusen & Sonoda, Koyu. Shapers of Japanese Buddhism. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Co., 1994.
Matsunaga, Alicia & Matsunaga, Daigan. Foundation of Japanese Buddhism Vol. I & II. Los Angeles: Buddhist Books International, 1988.
Mitchell, Donald W. Buddhism: Introducing the Buddhist Experience. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Murano, Senchu. Kaimokusho or Liberation from Blindness. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2000.
Pruden, Leo, trans. The Essentials of the Eight Traditions. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1994.
Shen, Haiyan. The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra: T’ien-t’ai Philosophy of Buddhism volumes I and II. Delhi: Originals, 2005.
Stone, Jacqueline. Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism. Honolulu: Kuroda Institute, 1999.
Swanson, Paul. Foundations of T’ien-tai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1989.
____________, trans. The Collected Teachings of the Tendai School. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1995.
Takakusu, Junjiro. The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978.
Tamura, Yoshiro. Japanese Buddhism: A Cultural History. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Co., 2000.
Williams, Paul. Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. New York: Routledge, 1989.
Wright, Arthur F. Buddhism in Chinese History. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959.
Dhyan, Chan, Son and Zen Buddhism: Journey from India to China, Korea and Japan
Key Terms
Zen Buddhism
Buddhism
Chinese Religion And Philosophy
Japanese Studies
Korean Studies
Dhyan in India
Chan in China
Son in Korea
Zen in Japan
Thien in Vietnam
Soto Zen
Renzai Zen
Koans
Zazen
Sesshin
Platform Sutra
Bodhidharma
Lankavatara Sutra
Meditation
Source: HISTORY OF ZEN BUDDHISM (CHAN = DHYANA)
Precursors
Buddhabhadra (359-429): resided in modern day Xian with the great translator Kumarjiva (d. 413).
Meditation master. Hinayana background, but not sectarian. Known for his siddhi powers.
Sengchao (Seng-Chao)(384-414): greatest disciple of Kumarjiva. Thorough Chinese synthesis of Confucian and Daoist ideas. Wu-wei–Daoist (Logos = Dao) No action = middle way. The Buddha is the Dao. Li is law of nature or Dharma–moral law. Quote p. 59. Chinese translation of the John 11: “In the beginning was the Dao, the Dao was with God, and the Dao was God.”
“On Prajna not being knowledge” inspired by Nagarjuna
“the illuminating power of non-knowledge” Quote p. 59 Heinrich Dumoulin A History of Zen Buddhism.
Human mind–soul as mirror.
Contribution to Zen–immediate experience and use of paradox. Use of proto-koans.
Daosheng (Tao-sheng) (ca 360-434): father of Zen, but no school is founded. Emphasized sudden enlightenment rejects the four jhanas. All beings have li–the Dharma–so all beings are saved. Rejected the Pure Land teachings. Rejects the gradual enlightenment of the Lotus sutra.
Hui-Kuan (d. 443 or 447): proponent of gradual enlightenment. Great debates on this issue in 436 and 460.
BODHIDHARMA (d. 534). First Patriarch
Huige (Hui-ko), Second Patriarch(484-590)
Sengcan (Seng-ts’an), Third Patriarch (d. 606) not much known of him.
Daoxin (Tao-hsin), Fourth Patriarch (580-651)
Hung-ren (jen), Fifth Patriarch (601-674)
Hui-neng (683-713). the Sixth Patriarch Platform Sutra.
Soto School: Bodhidharma is the founder. Yogocara and the Laukavatara and sutra. Metaphysical transcendentalism and gradual enlightenment.
Rinzai School: Sudden enlightenment. Madhyamika Nagarjuna and 6th Patriarch are founders and the Vajracchedika (Diamond cutter-sutra). Reconstructed Buddhist philosophy—rather than linguist/conceptual transcendentalism?
Suzuki: with its pragmatism, simplicity and directness Zen transcends Buddhism entirely? Shen-hsu’s gatha stems from the Soto school. Lanka’s view that all concepts are like dirt that obscures the pure mirror of the mind.
An Aside: Zen literary form inspired by Analects of Confucius.
Proto-koans on p. 232.
The fact that the 5th patriarch taught the Diamond Sutra to Hui-neng indicates a return to earlyu “real” Buddhism.
Abandons absolutist metaphysics. Does it? “The Buddhist nature is always clear and pure.” Is this early Buddhism?
Huineng’s innonence and illiteracy represents rejection of metaphysics.
Zen Buddhism
Yunmen in Context
Setting the Stage for Chan
Long before Buddhism arrived in China around the beginning of the Common Era, Chinese thinkers taught ideas whose orientation was of striking similarity to some central tenets of that foreign religion that had yet to arrive. These teachings, ascribed to the ancient sages Laozi (Lao-tzu) and Zhuangzi (Chuangtzu), are often called “philosophical Daoism,” and originated in China between the fourth and second centuries before the Common Era. They not only contain a fundamental expression of the wisdom of the Chinese and their view of humanity— its beauty, its problematic sides, and its ideals—but are also great works of literary art whose imagery and terminology exerted an unmistakable influence on later religious and philosophical teachings.
In particular, the writings of Zhuangzi, the author of parts of a classic of the same name, and of his followers were to play an important role in facilitating the introduction and acculturation of Buddhism in China some centuries later. Many of Zhuangzi’s stories exude a kind of down-to-earth spirituality that is very similar to that found a thousand years later in Chinese Zen (Chan) texts. For example:
Duke Huan was in his hall reading a book. The wheelwright P’ien, who was in the yard below chiseling a wheel, laid down his mallet and chisel, stepped up into the hall, and said to Duke Huan, “This book Your Grace is reading— may I venture to ask whose words are in it?”
“The words of sages,” said the duke.
“Are the sages still alive?”
“Dead long ago,” said the duke.
“In that case, what you are reading there is nothing but the chaff and dregs of the men of old!”
“Since when does a wheelwright have permission to comment on the books I read?” said Duke Huan. “If you have some explanation, well and good. If not, it’s your life!”
Wheelwright P’ien said, “I look at it from the point of view of my own work. When I chisel a wheel, if the blows of the mallet are too gentle, the chisel slides and won’t take hold. But if they’re too hard, it bites in and won’t budge. Not too gentle, not too hard—you can get it in your hand and feel it in your mind. You can’t put it into words, and yet there’s a knack to it somehow. I can’t teach it to my son, and he can’t learn it from me. So I’ve gone along for seventy years and at my age I’m still chiseling wheels. When the men of old died, they took with them the things that couldn’t be handed down. So what you are reading there must be nothing but the chaff and the dregs of the men of old.”
Such currents of thought had already existed in China for several centuries when Buddhism was gradually imported to China by people traveling the Silk Road. As in many other religions, images or icons initially played a much more important role than texts written in foreign languages. However, beginning in the third century an increasing number of Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures were translated into Chinese. These translations made ample use of terms coined by Zhuangzi and Laozi as well as by their heirs and commentators. The translation process, however, was not limited to the words in scriptures. Rather, the whole Indian religion was given a Chinese face, not unlike the Buddha statues whose facial features gradually changed from Indo-European large noses and eyes to their Chinese equivalents. By the sixth century there were already several forms of Buddhism that were unmistakably Chinese in character. Among them grew the movement that will primarily concern us here: Chan Buddhism.
MEDITATION WAS ALSO AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF CHINESE BUDDHISM FROM AN EARLY PERIOD, AND SEVERAL NOTED TEACHERS AND TEXTS PLACED A STRONG EMPHASIS ON MEDITATIVE CONCENTRATION. THE SANSKRIT TERM FOR SUCH CONCENTRATION WAS DHYĀNA; IMITATING THE SOUND OF THIS WORD, THE CHINESE CALLED IT “CHAN,” USING THE CHINESE CHARACTER THAT THE JAPANESE CAME TO PRONOUNCE AS “ZEN,” THE KOREANS AS “SŎN,” AND THE VIETNAMESE AS “THIỀN.”
Chinese Buddhist Meditation
The Chan movement did not shoot out of the Chinese ground like a bamboo stalk during the rainy season; rather, it grew gradually from soil that had been formed during centuries of extensive adaptation of doctrine and practice to the conditions of China. In the first few centuries, Chinese Buddhist nuns and monks engaged in activities such as building doctrine and rules of monastic discipline, and performing feats of magic. Meditation was also an important aspect of Chinese Buddhism from an early period, and several noted teachers and texts placed a strong emphasis on meditative concentration. The Sanskrit term for such concentration was dhyāna; imitating the sound of this word, the Chinese called it “Chan,” using the Chinese character that the Japanese came to pronounce as “Zen,” the Koreans as “Sŏn,” and the Vietnamese as “Thiền.” The eminent scholar-monk Daoan (312–385), for instance, outlined in one of his prefaces the meditative process that leads from the counting of breaths to a state of pure awareness. The early popularity of meditation practices was in part due to the belief that through such practices various magical powers could be acquired. Thus centuries before we can discern the movement we now label Chan Buddhism, there were numerous monks with meditative (“Chan”) interests gathering around teachers who appeared to have actualized what the texts explain and who concentrated their efforts on leading their students in the same direction.
RECENT RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE EARLY PHASE OF CHAN DID NOT PROCEED AS SMOOTHLY AS LATER AUTHORS WOULD MAKE US BELIEVE; RATHER, IT APPEARS AS A PERIOD MARKED BY NUMEROUS CONTROVERSIES OF DOCTRINAL AND PERSONAL NATURE. THE BEST KNOWN OF THESE DISPUTES DIVIDED CHAN ADHERENTS IN THE SO-CALLED NORTHERN (“GRADUAL AWAKENING”) AND SOUTHERN (“IMMEDIATE AWAKENING”) FACTIONS.
Early Chan
After the first adaptation and translation phase of Indian Buddhism in China (second to fifth centuries) and the gradual formation of meditative circles belonging to various schools of Chinese Buddhism, the movement we now call Chan emerges as an identifiable entity around the seventh century of the Common Era. Stories by later authors assert that the Chan tradition had been founded in the fifth or sixth century by the Indian monk Bodhidharma, whose teachings are said to have been handed down through a succession of patriarchs to the sixth and most famous one: Huineng, the purported author of the Platform Sutra. Recent research shows that the early phase of Chan did not proceed as smoothly as later authors would make us believe; rather, it appears as a period marked by numerous controversies of doctrinal and personal nature. The best known of these disputes divided Chan adherents in the so-called Northern (“gradual awakening”) and Southern (“immediate awakening”) factions. Some themes that were discussed gained broader attention; the sudden/gradual controversy, for example, stood also at the center of the “Council of Tibet,” a famous public controversy at the end of the eighth century involving representatives of early Chinese Chan and Indian Buddhism.
Professor Seizan Yanagida, who after World War II almost single-handedly rewrote the history of early Chan, has pointed out that masters in the sixth to eighth centuries still discussed the nature of Buddhist awakening much in the words of the sutras or holy scriptures of Buddhism scriptures that were thought to reproduce the actual words of the historical Buddha. But gradually more and more importance was given to the words of Chinese masters who had actualized the spirit of these scriptures in themselves—people who had themselves become buddhas, or “awakened ones.” These masters used simple words to explain the essence of awakening and responded in like manner to concrete questions about its realization.
Although the Chan movement did not yet have a clearly discernible monastic organization, its teachings and teaching methods with time became remarkably different from those of other sects. The widespread emergence of illustrious and original Chan teachers marks the onset of the “classical” age of Chan (eighth to tenth centuries) toward whose end Yunmen lived.
The Classical Age of Chan
Around the end of the eighth century a number of masters taught what they took to be the essence of Buddhism in a startlingly direct and fresh way. In examining the sources we have from this period, we notice an extraordinary change in the way masters related to their students and vice versa. Few quotes from scriptures appeared in talks by these masters; instead of repeating the words of the historically remote Buddha or commenting on them, these masters themselves spoke, here and now—and they were not beyond whacking and swearing if the need arose. In place of doctrinal hairsplitting, they demonstrate the teachings in action: shouting and joking, telling stories, and handing out abuse or encouragement as they see fit. The unctuous style of Buddhist sermons and learned scholastic exegesis gave way to colloquialisms and slang: the masters of the classic age of Chan talk so bluntly that to some people their talks must at the outset have been hardly identifiable as Buddhist.
THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CHAN’S MOST FAMOUS MASTERS, INCLUDING MAZU, LINJI, AND ZHAOZHOU, LIVED DURING THE TWO CENTURIES BEFORE THE TURN OF THE MILLENNIUM. MASTER YUNMEN IS THE LAST CHAN TEACHER OF THIS CLASSICAL PERIOD WHO ROSE TO GREAT FAME.
Instead of learned discussions about this or that doctrinal problem of the past, the masters and their students aim directly at the one thing they consider essential: being a buddha oneself, right here and now. In the following example from a classical Chan record, we see Master Linji simply repeating a question of a student, whereupon the student resorts to a physical action that seeks to show that the master is not really an awakened teacher. However, the master quickly gets the better of the questioner. Characteristically, he does this not by asking him a complicated question about Buddhist doctrine but rather by a completely unexpected inquiry about the questioner’s well-being:
One day Lin-chi went to Ho-fu. Counselor Wang the Prefectural Governor requested the Master to take the high seat. At that time Ma-yü came forward and asked, “The Great Compassionate One has a thousand hands and a thousand eyes. Which is the true eye?” The Master said: “The Great Compassionate One has a thousand hands and a thousand eyes. Which is the true eye? Speak, speak!” Ma-yü pulled the Master down off the high seat and sat on it himself. Coming up to him, the Master said: “How are you doing?” Ma-yü hesitated. The Master, in his turn, pulled Ma-yü off the high seat and sat upon it himself. Ma-yü went out. The Master stepped down.
Most of what we know about the teachings of this classic age of Chan stems from later compendia containing biographies and samples of teachings and from the collected sayings of various masters. Such sayings were often recorded by the masters’ disciples and went through the hands of a number of compilers and editors. The instructions and dialogues that are translated in this volume come from a typical example of the “recorded sayings” genre, the Record of Yunmen.
The great majority of Chan’s most famous masters, including Mazu, Linji, and Zhaozhou, lived during the two centuries before the turn of the millennium. Master Yunmen is the last Chan teacher of this classical period who rose to great fame. These teachers and their disciples form the classic core of the Chan tradition within the whole of Chinese Buddhism. The records and compendia of this time are also classic in the sense that they functioned as both the main source and the reference point of Chan teaching ever since, even in Korea, Japan, and now the West. Today’s Chan, Sŏn, and Zen masters constantly refer to their Chinese forebears, and much of the writing about Chan consists—like this book—of translations of the sayings of classical masters.
Collections of the words of masters were treated as prize possessions as early as the ninth century. But this very adulation of old writings was criticized by many masters. In the Record of Linji ( Jap. Rinzai, died 866), for example, we find the following words:
Students of today get nowhere because they base their understanding upon the acknowledgment of names. They inscribe the words of some dead old guy in a great big notebook, wrap it up in four or five squares of cloth, and won’t let anyone look at it. “This is the Mysterious Principle,” they aver, and safeguard it with care. That’s all wrong. Blind idiots! What kind of juice are you looking for in such dried-up bones!
Master Linji’s harsh criticism of collecting and safeguarding the words of masters points toward the central aim of Chan teaching. Since approximately the year 1000, the following quatrain has been used to characterize Chan:
Transmitted outside of established doctrine, [Chan] does not institute words. [Rather,] It points directly to the human being’s heart: Seeing your nature makes you a buddha.
Because of the role that Chan texts and Buddhist scriptures play at Chan monasteries, the meaning of the first two lines of his quatrain has provoked much discussion. To me, they point to what nineteenth-century Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard once said about the Bible. He said that reading it is like looking at a mirror: some may wonder of what material it is crafted, how much it cost, how it functions, where it comes from, etc. Others, however, look into that mirror to face themselves. It is the latter attitude that is addressed in the quatrain above.
The central concern of Chan is nothing other than the thorough seeing of one’s own nature, and the Buddha and the enlightened masters after him tried to guide and prod their students toward this. Many of these masters point out that with such a goal, sutras as well as Chan scriptures can be no more than a finger pointing at the moon. Yet these very observations were written down and soon collected in records comprising the sayings of individual masters.
In addition to such records, compendia appeared that usually furnished the biographical information and selected teachings of numerous masters. These compendia are another sign of the growing awareness on the part of Chan monks that they were members of a single tradition that could be arranged in various lineages. The first major compendium of this kind is the Collection from the Founder’s Hall (Ch. Zutangji, Kor. Chodang chip, Jap. Sodōshū), completed in 952. It appeared just three years after Master Yunmen’s death and stands at the end of the classical age, just as the second major compendium, the Jingde Era Record of the Transmission of the Lamp (Ch. Jingde chuandenglu, Jap. Keitoku dentōroku), published in 1004, marks the beginning of a new period of great expansion and literary and cultural productivity during the Song dynasty (960–1279).
Chan in the Second Millennium
Around the turn of the millennium the first rulers of the Song dynasty ushered in a new political age in which Chan flourished. The religion broadened its influence dramatically and grew into a considerable force both religiously and culturally. During the Song dynasty, the Chan Buddhists not only attracted respect (or criticism) as members of a famous movement, they also created much of what we now call Chan monasticism (monastic rules, rituals, etc.), Chan methodology (especially the systematic use of koans), Chan literature (recorded sayings, koan collections, Chan histories, etc.), and Chan art (painting, calligraphy, etc.). This influence radiated internationally, as some talented Japanese monks such as Eisai and Dōgen studied in China and founded Zen traditions upon their return to Japan.
THE YUNMEN LINE FLOURISHED FOR ABOUT TWO CENTURIES AFTER THE DEATH OF THE MASTER. TOWARD THE END OF THE SONG DYNASTY IT WAS GRADUALLY ABSORBED INTO THE LINJI TRADITION, AS WERE ALL THE OTHER CHAN LINES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CAODONG ( JAP. SŌTŌ).
Although during the classical age lineages were not at all distinct and many monks studied under different masters at different times, the Song editors of compendia and Chan histories made great efforts to reduce the complex historical web to neat linear threads strung from master to successor. Thus they began to speak of five major classical traditions of Chan: those of Guiyang ( Jap. Igyō), Linji ( Jap. Rinzai), Caodong ( Jap. Sōtō), Yunmen ( Jap. Ummon), and Fayan ( Jap. Hōgen). The two most influential traditions during the Song era were the lines of Yunmen and Linji. This is probably due to both the eminence of their progenitors and the presence in these two lines of literarily gifted monks who rewrote Chan history and edited various compendia, chronicles, and records. The best-known representative of the Yunmen line was Xuetou Chongxian (980–1052), the gifted poet and popular Chan teacher who wrote the poetic comments in the Blue Cliff Record. Partly because of monks like him, Yunmen overshadows all other masters with regard to the number of his sayings included in Song-era koan collections. Three major koan collections (the Blue Cliff Record, the Gateless Barrier, and the Record of Serenity) feature Yunmen as protagonist more often than any other master.
A representative of the line of Yunmen who was in many ways typical was Master Qisong (1007–1072), who lived four generations after Yunmen. He was the author of a book entitled Record of the True Tradition of Dharma Transmission, which tried to show that Chan is the most genuine of the traditions of Buddhism. Such texts had considerable influence on the intelligentsia of the time, so much so that the great Neo-Confucianist philosopher Zhuxi (1130–1200) discussed mainly Chan teachings when writing about Buddhism. But this influence went both ways: Master Qisong was also an ardent student of Confucianism and composed a book about one of the four Confucian classics, the Doctrine of the Mean, as well as other works that make an argument for the underlying unity of such different teachings.
The Yunmen line flourished for about two centuries after the death of the master. Toward the end of the Song dynasty it was gradually absorbed into the Linji tradition, as were all the other Chan lines with the exception of Caodong (Jap. Sōtō). During the Yuan dynasty (1260–1367), the Yunmen line vanished altogether. From the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) on, the Linji tradition flourished to such an extent that it became practically synonymous in China with Chan and even Buddhism as a whole. By the beginning of the twentieth century, to be a Linji monk meant little more than to be an ordained Buddhist monk.
The influence of Yunmen’s teaching, however, did not suffer the same fate as his school: it remains omnipresent in Chan to this day.
The word ‘Zen’ is derived from the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese word ‘Chan’. This in turn is derived from the Indian Sanskrit word ‘Dhyana’, which means ‘mental absorption’ or ‘meditation’.
The modern Zen tradition of today is based on a school of Mahayana Buddhism that originated in China during the Tang dynasty, and was known as Chan Buddhism. Some scholars say that Chan Buddhism was first influenced by Taoism, which developed into a distinct school of Chinese Buddhism, and then spread northeast into Korea, and later further east into Japan.
The Chan teachings emphasise strict self-discipline, sitting-meditation, completeness, insight into the Buddha-nature of all beings, and incorporating this insight into daily life in order to be of benefit to all beings, and thus attaining the Bodhisattva-ideal. Hence, it places less emphasis on the scholasticism of the sutras in favour of direct realisation attained through sitting-meditation and dialogue with an accomplished master.
Chan teachings comprise of several important philosophical texts on Mahayana thinking and doctrines, including those of the Yogachara School, and the Tathagatagarbha sutras, but especially those of the Huayan School. In addition, the core philosophies of the Prajnaparamita texts and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka have also been shaped into the central belief-system of Chan Buddhism.
The Six Patriarchs
The Chan lineage was first introduced during the Tang Dynasty, incorporating the teachings of great masters from Indian Buddhism and the Chinese Mahayana tradition. It was then published, and gained wider acceptance towards the end of the Tang period.
This lineage of Chan patriarchs was first mentioned in the inscription on Faru’s tomb (638–689), a master and former disciple of the 5th patriarch, Daman Hongren (601–674). In The Long Scroll of the Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices, as well as The Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, Daoyu and Dazu Huike are the only disciples of Bodhidharma that were explicitly mentioned. The inscription traces the lineage to Bodhidharma as the first patriarch.
In the 6th century CE, biographies of great monks were collected and compiled. These biographies of great monks were meant to be non-sectarian in nature. Naturally, the Chan biographical material intended to establish Chan as an authentic school of Buddhism rooted in Indian origins. These biographies are mainly hagiographies, which meant less emphasis was placed on historical accuracy and heavier emphasis on legends and traditional tales. The complete lineage was probably first published by the 9th Century CE.
According to D. T. Suzuki, the popularity of Chan during the 7th and 8th centuries attracted criticism that claimed there were no records showing Chan teachings having been derived from the Buddha. Hence, the earlier Chan masters re-established Bodhidharma as the 28th patriarch after the Buddha, thereby legitimising the Chan lineage. This early line of ancestry, from Bodhidharma down to Huineng, was called The Six Patriarchs.
Bodhidharma (440 – 528 CE)
Huike (487–593 CE)
Sengcan (?–606 CE)
Daoxin (580–651 CE)
Hongren (601–674 CE)
Huineng (638–713 CE)
Bodhidharma
Bodhidharma was an Indian monk who lived between 5th and 6th Century CE, and was credited to have been the founding father of Chan Buddhism in China. That is why he is the first of the Six Patriarchs of Chan Buddhism.
According to Chinese sources, Bodhidharma originated from the Western Regions, which roughly corresponds to what is now Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Hence, some sources claim that he was a ‘Persian Central Asian’ or ‘the third son of a great South Indian king’.
Throughout Buddhist art, Bodhidharma is depicted as an unruly, bearded, wide-eyed and dark-skinned Indian. He is referred to as ‘The Blue-Eyed Barbarian’ in an earlier description, and some claims have him hailing from within the region of Peshawar in Pakistan but so far, no claim has been able to conclusively prove their case.
There are two accounts that give different dates of his arrival to China. One earlier account claims that he arrived during the Liu Song dynasty (420-479 CE), while the later states that he arrived during the Liang dynasty (502-557 CE). However, he travelled extensively throughout the territories of the Northern Wei (386 – 534 CE), and so many modern scholars officially place the date of Bodhidharma’s travels in China as being early 5th Century CE. While in China, Bodhidharma’s teachings centered on meditation and specifically on the Lankavatara Sutra.
It is said that Bodhidharma achieved enlightenment, and was instructed by Prajnatara, his guru, that he had to travel to China in order to further the Mahayana doctrine there. He set out on an epic three-year voyage by sea before arriving at the coastal city of Canton. He found his way to the imperial court of the ruling Liang Dynasty in Nanjing and gained an audience with Emperor Wu, who proclaimed himself to be one of China’s greatest patrons of Buddhism.
In a famous anecdote, the emperor asked the Indian master the amount of merit that he had earned for ordaining monks, building monasteries, and accomplishing other good deeds. Bodhidharma replied bluntly that he had accumulated no merit. This puzzled the Emperor, who slowly turned to rage. The Indian master beat a hasty retreat and left northwards towards the Shaolin Temple in the state of Wei that he had heard about. His travels brought him to the mighty Yangtze River that he had to cross. According to legend, he crossed the river while balanced atop a tiny reed, which has since been frequently depicted in Chinese art. While at the Shaolin Temple, he sat down to meditate for nine years while facing a wall in a cave, earning the name ‘Wall-Gazing Brahman’.
Bodhidharma’s austere meditation won over a few students, but one of them, Huike, was most famous. According to legend, Huike was said to have stood outside the cave in the snow and waited on the master for a whole week. Then, in sheer frustration, Huike chopped off his left arm and presented it to the master in order to express his determination to attain enlightenment, a scene that is also popularly represented in Chinese paintings. Huike would eventually become Bodhidharma’s successor, and the next patriarch. There were two attempts to poison Bodhidharma, but on the third attempt, the sage decided to take the poison and passed away at the age of 150.
Three years after his passing, a Chinese emissary by the name of Song Yun was on his way back to China from India when he chanced upon Bodhidharma on the road. The master was on his way back to India and the official observed that he was walking barefoot and carrying one shoe in his hand. It was only upon his return to his homeland that he realised that the master had passed away. The master’s grave was exhumed only to discover that his body was missing, and all that remained was one shoe. The Chinese considered this a sign that Bodhidharma had become an immortal, and had merely feigned his own death. He was thus included in the Taoist pantheon of immortals.
According to tradition, Bodhidharma is attributed to be the founder of martial arts at the Shaolin Temple. As the legend goes, Bodhidharma faced the wall for nine years at the Shaolin Temple, and when he departed, he left behind a great chest. When the monks searched the contents of the chest, they discovered two books on martial arts: Marrow Washing Classic (Xi Sui Jing) and Muscle Change Classic (Yi Jin Jing).
His disciple Huike took the first book and it was eventually lost to time, while the second book was treasured by the monastery and was developed into what is characteristically known as the Shaolin martial arts. However, recent historians assert the claim that the text was actually written by Taoist priest Zining of Mt. Tiantai and thereby allaying centuries-old claims that Bodhidharma founded the Shaolin martial arts.
Huike
Dazu Huike (487–593 CE) was the Second Patriarch of Chan Buddhism, and became Bodhidharma’s successor. He is considered the 29th in the lineage that stemmed from Buddha Shakyamuni. According to the Hsu kao-seng chuan, Huike was born in Henan and was given the name Shen-Guang.
Huike was a scholar in both Buddhist and classical Chinese texts, including those of Taoism. He met his teacher Bodhidharma at the Shaolin Monastery in 528 CE when he was about forty years old, and he studied under Bodhidharma for six years (the duration varies according to sources).
There is little surviving information on the lives of Bodhidharma and Huike, and the few accounts of them are semi-mythical in nature. The most famous account was the meeting of Bodhidharma and Huike that occurred during winter, when Huike stood in the snow waiting outside a cave for the master. As an offering to the master, Huike cut off his arm and made his request, “Master, your disciple’s mind has no peace. Please put it to rest.” Bodhidharma responded, “Bring me your mind, and I will put it to rest.” Huike then replied, “I have searched for my mind but I cannot find it.” Bodhidharma finally replied, “Then I have completely put it to rest for you.”
Bodhidharma built the Zhuoxi Spring or Four Springs, situated in front of the Second Ancestor’s Temple at the Shaolin Temple so it would be easier for Huike to fetch water with his remaining arm. Then, Huike travelled to Yedu (modern day Henan) around 534 CE and lived there. When political turmoil engulfed China and Buddhist persecution was rampant in 574 CE, he hid in the area of Yedu and Wei (modern Hebei).
It was during this turbulent period that Huike sought refuge in the mountains near the Yangtze River and this was where he met Sengcan, who would become his successor and the Third Chinese Patriarch of Chan. In 579, Huike returned to Yedu and gave teachings which drew huge crowds. This attracted the envy and hostility of other Buddhist teachers, one of whom, Tao-heng, hired an assassin to have Huike killed, but in a dramatic turn of events, the master converted the would-be assailant.
The Compendium of Five Lamps (Wudeng Huiyan) compiled by Dachuan Lingyin Puji (1179–1253) wrote that Huike lived up to the age of one hundred seven. He was entombed about forty kilometres northeast of Anyang City in the Hebei Province. After his passing, the Tang Dynasty emperor De Zong bestowed on Huike the honorific title Dazu or ‘Great Ancestor’. Some accounts claim that influential Buddhist priests had Huike executed due to complaints about his teachings being heretical. These accounts say that blood did not flow from his decapitated body, but rather, a white milky substance flowed from his neck, astonishing everybody.
One of the most important aspects of the early Chan teachings by Bodhidharma and Huike was that of attaining sudden enlightenment rather than the gradual approach to enlightenment characteristic of the Indian tradition. Huike and Bodhidharma attributed their teachings to the Lankavatara Sutra, which stresses self-realisation and transcending words and thoughts. In his teachings, Huike stressed on meditation as a tool towards understanding the true intent of the Buddha, and that meditation should also be free of dualism or attachment.
Sengcan
Jianzhi Sengcan (6th Century CE) was the Third Chinese Patriarch of Chan following Huike and Bodhidharma, and is considered the thirtieth Patriarch after Buddha Shakyamuni. He is the sole successor of the second Chinese Patriarch, Dazu Huike.
It is said that Sengcan was over forty years old when he first chanced upon Huike in 536 CE, and he remained with his teacher for six years while receiving teachings. It was Huike who gave him the name Sengcan or ‘Gem Monk’. The Transmission of the Lamp gives this exchange between Huike and Sengcan, where Sengcan says, “I am riddled with sickness. Please absolve me of my sins.” Huike responded by saying, “Bring your sins here and I will absolve them for you.” After a long pause, Sengcan finally answered, “When I am looking for my sins, I cannot find them.” Huike then replied, “I have absolved them for you. You should live by the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.” Huike appointed him as his successor by passing down to him the robes of Bodhidharma and Bodhidharma’s Dharma (which is widely believed to be a copy of the Lankavatara Sutra) and thus, Sengcan became The Third Patriarch of Chan.
According to historians, Sengcan fled with Huike up to the mountains due to Buddhist persecution. However, the Lamp Records claim that after giving a Dharma transmission, Huike told Sengcan to live up in the mountains and wait for the time when he could transmit the Dharma to someone else. This instruction was based on an earlier prophecy by Prajnatara that was passed down to Bodhidharma, and this in turn was passed down to Sengcan. Due to the prophecy, Sengcan lived in hiding on Wangong Mountain in Yixian, and then on Sikong Mountain in southwestern Anhui. Thereafter, he wandered with no fixed abode for another ten years.
Sengcan met Daoxin (580-651 CE), a novice monk of just fourteen years old. Daoxin served Sengcan for nine years and received the Dharma transmission when he was just in his early twenties. Subsequently, Sengcan spent two years at Mount Luofu (northeast of Guangtung) before returning to Wangong Mountain. Sengcan is attributed to be the author of the popular Chan poem, Verses on Faith-Mind (Xinxin Ming). This poem has been popular with Chan practitioners for over a thousand years. The poem is said to reveal Taoist influences on Chan Buddhism, as it deals with non-duality and the metaphysical concept of emptiness or Shunyata, which is a central to the doctrine that Nagarjuna (150-250 C.E.) taught.
Sengcan passed away sitting under a tree while giving a Dharma discourse in 606 CE, and he was bestowed with the honorary title Jianzhi or ‘Mirrorlike Wisdom’ by Xuan Zong, the Emperor of the Tang dynasty.
Daoxin
Dayi Daoxin (580–651 CE) came to be regarded as the fourth Patriarch of Chan Buddhism following Jianzhi Sengcan (died 606 CE), and his successor was Daman Hongren (601–674 CE).
Daoxin was first mentioned in the Further Biographies of Eminent Monks (Hsu Kao Seng Chuan) published in 645 CE. Later, he was also mentioned in the Annals of the Transmission of the Dharma-Treasure (Chuan Fa Pao Chi) published around 712 CE, which provided a detailed account of Daoxin’s life. The accounts of these early Chan masters were not particularly accurate and at times, details in one account would contradict another.
However, the following biography is the traditional tale of Daoxin that was brought together from various sources, including the Compendium of Five Lamps (Wudeng Huiyuan) compiled in the early 13th century by the monk Dachuan Lingyin Puji (1179–1253).
Daoxin was born to a family with the surname ‘Si-ma’ in the Yongning County of Qizhou, today known as Wuxue City of the Hubei Province. Daoxin began studying Buddhism at the tender age of seven, and although his first teacher had impure moral conduct, Daoxin was not adversely influenced, secretly maintaining his vows for the next five to six years.
According to the Compendium of Five Lamps , Daoxin encountered Sengcan when he was only fourteen years old. Daoxin made his request at the feet of his master, “I ask for the Master’s compassion. Please instruct me on how to achieve release.” Sengcan asked, “Is there someone who binds you?” Daoxin thought awhile, and answered, “There is no such person.” Sengcan then asked, “Why then seek release when no one restrains you?” It was said that upon hearing these words, Daoxin was said to have become enlightened.
The young Daoxin followed and served Sengcan for the next nine years. When Sengcan decided to travel to Mount Loufu, he forbade Daoxin to follow him. In an account taken from the Chuan Fa Pao Chi, the master said, “The Dharma has been transmitted from Patriarch Bodhidharma to me. I am going to the South and will leave you here to spread and protect the Dharma.”
For the next ten years, Daoxin studied at the feet of the master Zhikai at the Great Woods Temple on Mount Lu. Zhikai was an adept of the Taintai and Sanlun schools, and also chanted the Buddha’s name as part of his practice. These other schools heavily influenced Daoxin’s practice, and he finally received full ordination as a monk in 607 CE.
In 617 CE, Daoxin along with his disciples travelled to the Ji Province and entered a town that was under attack by bandits. In an unprecedented move, Daoxin expounded on the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra so well that the bandits laid down their weapons and abandoned their plans to attack the town. Daoxin continued on his travels and eventually settled at East Mountain Temple on Shuangfeng (Twin Peaks). He continued to teach Chan Buddhism for the next thirty years and attracted a large number of practitioners. According to records, he had five hundred students comprising of lay and ordained monks.
In 643 CE, the Emperor Tai Zong officially invited Daoxin to the capital but Daoxin turned the invitation down. The Emperor sent emissaries on three occasions and each time, Daoxin refused the imperial decree. On the third time, the Emperor, out of frustration, instructed for either Daoxin or his head to be brought to the capital. When the emissary arrived at the monastery, he related this instruction to Daoxin. In response, Daoxin stretched out his neck to allow the emissary to decapitate him. The emissary-official was so shocked that he left and he reported what transpired to the Emperor, who went on to honour Daoxin as an exemplary Buddhist master.
In 651 CE, Daoxin gave instructions for his students to build his funerary stupa in preparation for his death. According to the Further Biographies of Eminent Monks , his disciples requested for the aging master to name a successor. Daoxin replied, “I have made many deputations during my life.” He then passed away and the Emperor Tai Zong honored the late Daoxin with the posthumous title of ‘Dayi’, meaning ‘The Great Healer’.
The Five Gates of Daoxin is a compilation of his teachings, but as this text did not appear until the second decade of the eighth century, after Hongren’s record, its historical accuracy is in doubt. The Chronicle of the Lankavatara Masters , which appeared in the early eighth century, has Daoxin quoting from the Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) and Pure Land Sutras but some scholars do not consider the study of these sutras to be part of Daoxin’s teachings. However, Daoxin was said to have taught extensively on meditation.
The teachings of Daoxin along with his successor, Hongren are known as the East Mountain Teachings, which became the basis of the vein of Chan Buddhism that flourished all over China in the mid of 8th Century CE. A major contributing factor was the fact that Daoxin was the first Chan master to settle at one spot for an extended period of time, and thus developed a stable monastic community that influenced the flourishing of other monastic communities throughout China.
Hongren
Daman Hongren (601 – 674 CE) became the fifth Patriarch of Chan Buddhism. He was said to have received transmission from Daoxin, and he in turn bestowed the bowl and robe to mark the transmission upon Huineng, the sixth and last of the Chan patriarchs.
As with all the early Chan patriarchs, much of Hongren’s life, which was compiled long after his passing, was largely shrouded by time and myth. Hongren was born in Huangmei into the Chou household. According to The Records of the Teachers and Disciples of the Lankavatara (Leng-ch’ieh shih-tzu chih), his father abandoned his family, but Hongren supported his mother thereafter, displaying admirable filial duty in. However, at the age of twelve, Hongren left home to be ordained as a monk and came to study at the feet of Daoxin, the fourth patriarch of Chan.
The meeting between Daoxin and Hongren is recorded in the Japanese text, Transmission of Light (Denkoroku) by Keizan Jokin Zenji (1268-1325 CE), which is a collection of 53 enlightened tales based on the traditional accounts of the Chan or Zen transmissions between successive masters and disciples in the Soto Zen Buddhist lineage. Daoxin initially met Hongren on a road in Huangmei. When Daoxin asked his name, Hongren replied, “I have essence but it is not a common name.” The master then asked, “What is its name?” To which Hongren replied, “It is the essence of Buddhahood.” Daoxin added, “Have you no name?” Hongren then said, “None, because essence is empty.” It is said that Daoxin would pass on the teachings and the robe down to Hongren, thus appointing Hongren as the next Patriarch of Chan Buddhism.
It was said that Hongren remained with Daoxin until his master’s death in 651 CE. It was also said that he was with Daoxin when the master was at Ta-lin Su on Mount Loufu and accompanied him to Mount Shuangfeng, one of the twin peaks of Huangmei. According to a later account, after Daoxin’s death, Hongren decided to move the community of monks towards Dong Shan or the eastern summit of the Twin Peaks. The lineage teachings of Daoxin and especially Hongren became known after this location as East Mountain Teachings (Dong Shan Fa Men).
Daman Hongren
According to the Annals of the Transmission of the Dharma-Treasure (Chuan Fa Pao Chi of 712 CE), Hongren was described as quiet, withdrawn, diligent with his menial tasks, and sat in meditation throughout the night. He was said to have never looked at the Buddhist scriptures, but understood everything that he learned. After ten years of teaching, the record claims that eight or nine of every ten ordained and lay Buddhist practitioners in the country had studied under him.
A Chan scholar asserts that Hongren was probably from a wealthy and prominent family despite an earlier mention that his father abandoned the family. This conclusion was based on some stories that his residence was eventually converted into a monastery, which meant that it was of considerable size. In addition to that, the mention of Hongren performing menial labor in his biography would only be significant if Hongren was from an upper-class family.
In his teachings, Hongren emphasised meditation and extensively taught that the Pure Mind was obscured by discriminating thought pattern, wrong views, and projections. He taught that Nirvana naturally arose when false thoughts were eliminated, and a constant awareness of one’s natural enlightenment can be maintained through that. The Treatise on the Essentials of Cultivating the Mind is a compilation of his teachings, and is the earliest collection of teachings from a Chan master. After Hongren, Chan Buddhism split into two schools, each led by one of his students. Yuquan Shenxiu (606-706) founded the Northern School and Dajian Huineng (638–713 CE) founded the Southern School. Each of these schools regards their elder as the legitimate sixth patriarch of Chan Buddhism.
Huineng
Dajian Huineng is the legendary sixth and final Patriarch of Chan Buddhism and successor of Daman Hongren, the fifth Chan patriarch. Huineng’s life seems to reflect the changing fortunes of Chan Buddhism, from a Chinese provincial form of Buddhism to a major cultural and religious force throughout China and East Asia.
According to various sources, Huineng was uneducated and a ‘barbaric’ youth, but because of his deep insight, he surpassed his fellow senior monks who were great scholars to become Hongren’s successor by receiving special transmission of Chan Buddhism.
Huineng’s story began as an illiterate peasant boy from Xinzhou of the Guangdong province, born to the Lu family. His father was a minor official who had been banished and passed away when he was very young. His mother brought him to southern China and they lived in poverty. When he was old enough, he began chopping and selling firewood to make a living to support his family.
One day, while delivering firewood to a shop, he overheard a man reciting a verse from the Diamond Sutra, “Depending upon nothing, you must find your own mind.” Upon hearing this verse, Huineng was said to have gained realisation. The man who recited this line recommended Huineng to meet the Fifth Chan Patriarch, Hongren, at the Tung Chian Monastery in the Huang Mei District of Xinzhou. He spoke to his mother, and gained her permission to leave home in order to enter a religious life.
From then on, Huineng spent the next few years wandering before ending up with a Buddhist nun who was devoted towards the study, recitation and contemplation of the Nirvana Sutra. She would recite passages from the Sutra every day, and one day, she asked him to recite a passage aloud only to discover that he was illiterate. This surprised the nun and she asked how was he going to learn the Buddha’s teachings if he was unable to read the scriptures. The youth replied that the Buddha nature within all beings does not depend on words, so there was actually no need to read texts. This amazed the nun and she suggested that he take up ordination. Huineng declined and went to a meditation master instead.
Huineng spent three years meditating in a mountain cave before travelling to East Mountain (Dongshan) monastery in Hubei, where he met Master Hongren, the Fifth Chan Patriarch. The master glared at the supplicant and asked where he was from and why did he come. Huineng answered that he was from the south and had come to learn the dharma from him. Hongren was quick to retort that Huineng was a mere barbarian as he was from the south. The master then added, “How could you become a Buddha?” Unfazed by the insult, Huineng responded, “Although my barbarian body and yours differ, what difference is there in our Buddha nature?”
Hongren realised that this was a promising student, although he was a diamond in the rough, and decided to test him further. He finally took Huineng in, but assigned him to the chore of threshing grains. Huineng labored for nine months treading the mill in order to separate rice grains from their husks.
However, the most famous story of Huineng’s life came with a contest. One day, the master Hongren decided to put his monks to the test by getting them to compose a verse that distilled their realisation of their original nature. The master said that he would read each verse and would award Bodhidharma’s robes, begging bowl and the title ‘Sixth Patriarch’ to the student who demonstrated true realisation.
Everybody turned towards the head monk, Shenxiu, who was expected to be the Master’s likeliest successor. However, it was said that he was full of doubt and spent a laborious night composing his verse. Finally, he crept out and wrote his verse anonymously on the wall of the new dharma hall as was required by Hongren’s challenge.
Shenxiu’s verse was as follows: –
The body is a Bodhi tree, The mind a standing mirror bright. At all times polish it diligently, And let no dust alight.
This verse was a direct assertion of the necessity for diligent practice and Shenxiu had hoped that this verse would demonstrate to the Master that he had some realisation. Early the next morning, Hongren walked towards the wall and read out the verse and praised it before the jubilant monks. He offered incense before the verse and ordered the monks to recite it before calling Shenxiu for an audience. In private, he praised Shenxiu for his insight but he said that the verse revealed that he had arrived at the gates of wisdom, but he had yet to place his foot in. He then suggested Shenxiu take a few more days to ponder on another verse that would be worthy to be awarded with his robes.
Meanwhile, Huineng was diligently threshing rice grains when he overheard a novice reciting Shenxiu’s verse. Immediately, Huineng realised that the author of the verse lacked deeper insight. Later, he snuck out to the dharma hall and requested a monk to write his verse on the wall next to Shenxiu’s verse.
Bodhi is originally without any tree; The bright mirror is also not a stand. Originally there is not a single thing- Where could any dust be attracted?
Word spread like wildfire throughout the monastery of the new verse and the news eventually reached Hongren’s ears. The Master himself came out to read the verse and immediately he recognised it to be Huineng’s words and recognised his deep insight. The master pondered and knew that passing his robe to a peasant monk would upset the monastic hierarchy. Thereafter, he was quick to dismiss the verse for lacking understanding and left. That night and under the cover of darkness, Hongren secretly summoned Huineng for an audience in which he bestowed upon him further teachings and transmissions. Passing on his robe, the Master told him to flee for his life and predicted that he would eventually transmit the teachings.
Huineng made hasty preparations and fled south. After several months of pursuit, a band of assassins tracked Huineng to a mountain and with the intent of killing him in order to retrieve the robe. Most of the pursuers turned back after climbing halfway except Huiming, who managed to reach the summit. Somehow, instead of killing the master, he was subdued by the master’s incredible wit and wisdom. After receiving his teachings, the assassin became realised. In fulfilment of his master’s prophecy, Huineng dispatched his new disciple to the north in order to spread the Dharma there.
The famous Chan treatise, Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch or Liuzu Tanjing is attributed to Huineng. Scholars analysing the text say that it was constructed over a long period of time, as it contains many layers of writing. It constitutes some of the earliest Chan teachings, and a great collection of essential teachings that form the backbone of the entire tradition stemming up to the second half of the 8th century CE. The central theme of the treatise is the recognition and realisation of one’s Buddha-nature that is similar to texts attributed to Bodhidharma and Hongren, including the idea that our primordial Buddha-nature is made invisible due to our illusions and delusions.
The Platform Sutra cites and expounds on a wide range of Buddhist scriptures like Lankavatara Sutra, Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, Brahmajala Sutra, Vimalakirti Sutra, Lotus Sutra, Surangama Sutra and Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana. The Platform Sutra became wildly popular in China that some attribute to its paradoxical Taoist’ influence and numerous copies circulated.
Towards the end of 8th century, the ‘Northern’ and ‘Southern’ schools of Chan Buddhism dominated China. Shenhui (684-758) claimed to having studied under Huineng, and he criticised the legitimacy of ‘Northern’ Chan, which had received imperial patronage during the Tang dynasty (618-907) under the leadership of Shenxiu (ca. 606-706) and his heir, Puji (651-739). Shenhui claimed that his teacher Huineng was the true recipient of transmission from Hongren, and he ridiculed Shenxiu’s ‘gradualist’ approach to awakening. Shenhui insisted that Huineng was the true Sixth Patriarch, and thus claimed the title of Seventh Patriarch for himself.
In the ninth century, the ‘Southern’ school with its ‘sudden awakening’ doctrine was finally accepted as the official line. Ironically, both the ‘Northern’ and ‘Southern’ schools died out due to political turmoil of the time. It was only later, after Chan Buddhism had survived the imperial persecutions of 841-845 CE, that other Chan schools reasserted their connection to Huineng and propagated his teachings.
This is the mummified remains of Huineng that is enshrined in Nanhua Temple in Shaoguan of Northern Guangdong Province of China.
Huineng’s legacy continues to impact Chan Buddhism till this day. His teachings span the major themes within Chan Buddhism, and stories of his life continue to provide the archetype of an ideal Chan master.
Source: Approaches to Chan, Sŏn, and Zen Studies
Source: Development of Chan (Zen) in China
Source: Buddhism, Chan / Chánzōng Fójiào 禅 宗 佛 教
Source: Thien/Chan/Zen
Thien/Chan/Zen
Zen is a school of Mahāyāna Buddhism, referred to in Chinese as Chán. Chán is itself derived from the Sanskrit Dhyāna, which means “meditation” (see etymology below). Zen emphasises dharma practice and experiential wisdom—particularly as realized in the form of meditation known as zazen—in the attainment of awakening, often simply called the path of enlightenment. As such, it de-emphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of direct, experiential realization through meditation and dharma practice. The establishment of Zen is traditionally credited to the South Indian Pallava prince-turned-monk Bodhidharma, who is recorded as having come to China to teach a “special transmission outside scriptures” which “did not stand upon words”. The emergence of Zen as a distinct school of Buddhism was first documented in China in the 7th century CE. It is thought to have developed as an amalgam of various currents in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought—among them the Yogācāra and Madhyamaka philosophies and the Prajñāpāramitā literature—and of local traditions in China, particularly Taoism and Huáyán Buddhism. From China, Zen subsequently spread southwards to Vietnam and eastwards to Korea and Japan.
Early history
As noted above, much of Zen history is combined with mythology. The historical records required for a complete, accurate account of early Zen history no longer exist. Chan, as it is generally called when referencing Zen Buddhism in early China, developed from the interaction between Mahāyāna Buddhism and Taoism. Some scholars also argue that Chan has roots in yogic practices, specifically kammaṭṭhāna, the consideration of objects, and kasiṇa, total fixation of the mind. The entry of Buddhism into China was marked by interaction and syncretism with Taoic faiths, Taoism in particular. Buddhist scriptures were translated into Chinese with Taoist vocabulary, because it was originally seen as a kind of foreign Taoism. In the Tang period, Taoism incorporated such Buddhist elements as monasteries, vegetarianism, prohibition of alcohol, the doctrine of emptiness, and collecting scripture into tripartite organisation. During the same time, Chan Buddhism grew to become the largest sect in Chinese Buddhism. The establishment of Chan is traditionally credited to the Indian prince turned monk Bodhidharma (formerly dated ca 500 CE, but now ca early fifth century), who is recorded as having come to China to teach a “special transmission outside scriptures” which “did not stand upon words”. Bodhidharma settled in the kingdom of Wei where he took among his disciples Daoyu and Huike. Early on in China Bodhidharma’s teaching was referred to as the “One Vehicle sect of India”. The One Vehicle (Sanskrit Ekayāna), also known as the Supreme Vehicle or the Buddha Vehicle, was taught in the Lankavatara Sutra which was closely associated with Bodhidharma. However, the label “One Vehicle sect” did not become widely used, and Bodhidharma’s teaching became known as the Chan sect for its primary focus on chan training and practice. Shortly before his death, Bodhidharma appointed Huike to succeed him, making Huike the first Chinese born patriarch and the second patriarch of Chan in China. Bodhidharma is said to have passed three items to Huike as a sign of transmission of the Dharma: a robe, a bowl, and a copy of the Lankavatara Sutra. The transmission then passed to the second patriarch (Huike), the third (Sengcan), the fourth patriarch (Dao Xin) and the fifth patriarch (Hongren). The sixth and last patriarch, Huineng (638–713), was one of the giants of Chan history, and all surviving schools regard him as their ancestor. However, the dramatic story of Huineng’s life tells that there was a controversy over his claim to the title of patriarch. After being chosen by Hongren, the fifth patriarch, Huineng had to flee by night to Nanhua Temple in the south to avoid the wrath of Hongren’s jealous senior disciples. Later, in the middle of the 8th century, monks claiming to be among the successors to Huineng, calling themselves the Southern school, cast themselves in opposition to those claiming to succeed Hongren’s then publicly recognized student Shenxiu. It is commonly held that it is at this point—the debates between these rival factions—that Chan enters the realm of fully documented history. Aside from disagreements over the valid lineage, doctrinally the Southern school is associated with the teaching that enlightenment is sudden, while the Northern School is associated with the teaching that enlightenment is gradual. The Southern school eventually became predominant and their Northern school rivals died out. Modern scholarship, however, has questioned this narrative, since the only surviving records of this account were authored by members of the Southern school. The following are the six Patriarchs of Chan in China as listed in traditional sources: Bodhidharma (बोधिधर्म) about 440 – about 528 Huike 487 – 593 Sengcan ? – 606 Daoxin 580 – 651 Hongren 601 – 674 Huineng 638 – 713
The Five Houses of Zen
Developing primarily in the Tang dynasty in China, Classic Zen is traditionally divided historically into the Five Houses of Zen or five “schools”. These were not originally regarded as “schools” or “sects”, but historically, they have come to be understood that way. In their early history, the schools were not institutionalized, they were without dogma, and the teachers who founded them were not idolized. The Five Houses of Zen are: Guiyang (Japn.,Igyo), named after masters Guishan Lingyou (Japn., Isan Reiy, 771-854) and Yangshan Huiji (Japn., Kyozan Ejaku, 813-890) Linji (Japn., Rinzai), named after master Linji Yixuan (Japn., Rinzai Gigen, died 866) Caodong (Japn., Soto), named after masters Dongshan Liangjie (Japn., Tozan Ryokai, 807-869) and Caoshan Benji (Japn., Sozan Honjaku, 840-901) Yunmen (Japn., Unmon), named after master Yunmen Wenyan (Japn., Unmon Bun’en, died 949) Fayan (Japn., Hogen, named after master Fayan Wenyi (also Fa-yen Wen-i) (Japn., Hogen Mon’eki, 885-958) Most Zen lineages throughout Asia and the rest of the world originally grew from or were heavily influenced by the original five houses of Zen.
Zen teachings and practices
Basis
Zen asserts, as do other schools in Mahayana Buddhism, that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, the universal nature of inherent wisdom (Sanskrit prajna) and virtue, and emphasizes that Buddha-nature is nothing other than the nature of the mind itself. The aim of Zen practice is to discover this Buddha-nature within each person, through meditation and mindfulness of daily experiences. Zen practitioners believe that this provides new perspectives and insights on existence, which ultimately lead to enlightenment. In distinction to many other Buddhist sects, Zen de-emphasizes reliance on religious texts and verbal discourse on metaphysical questions. Zen holds that these things lead the practitioner to seek external answers, rather than searching within themselves for the direct intuitive apperception of Buddha-nature. This search within goes under various terms such as “introspection,” “a backward step,” “turning-about,” or “turning the eye inward.” In this sense, Zen, as a means to deepen the practice and in contrast to many other religions, could be seen as fiercely anti-philosophical, iconoclastic, anti-prescriptive and anti-theoretical. The importance of Zen’s non-reliance on written words is often misunderstood as being against the use of words. However, Zen is deeply rooted in both the scriptural teachings of the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama and in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought and philosophy. What Zen emphasizes is that the awakening taught by the Buddha came through his meditation practice, not from any words that he read or discovered, and so it is primarily through meditation that others too may awaken to the same insights as the Buddha. The teachings on the technique and practice of turning the eye inward are found in many suttas and sutras of Buddhist canons, but in its beginnings in China, Zen primarily referred to the Mahayana Sutras and especially to the Lankavatara Sutra. Since Bodhidharma taught the turning-about techniques of dhyana with reference to the Lankavatara Sutra, the Zen school was initially identified with that sutra. It was in part through reaction to such limiting identification with one text that Chinese Zen cultivated its famous non-reliance on written words and independence of any one scripture. However, a review of the teachings of the early Zen masters clearly reveals that they were all well versed in various scriptures. For example, in The Platform Sutra of the Sixth ancestor and founder Huineng, this famously “illiterate” Zen master cites and explains the Diamond Sutra, the Lotus Sutra, the Vimalakirti Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra. When Buddhism came to China the doctrine of the three core practices or trainings, the training in virtue and discipline in the precepts (Sanskrit Śīla), the training in mind through meditation (dhyana or jhana) sometimes called concentration (samadhi), and the training in discernment and wisdom (prajna), was already established in the Pali canon. In this context, as Buddhism became adapted to Chinese culture, three types of teachers with expertise in each training practice developed. Vinaya masters were versed in all the rules of discipline for monks and nuns. Dhyana masters were versed in the practice of meditation. And Dharma, the teaching or sutra, masters were versed in the Buddhist texts. Monasteries and practice centers were created that tended to focus on either the vinaya and training of monks or the teachings focused on one scripture or a small group of texts. Dhyana or Chan masters tended to practice in solitary hermitages or to be associated with the Vinaya training monasteries or sutra teaching centers. After Bodhidharma’s arrival in the late fifth century, the subsequent dhyana-chan masters who were associated with his teaching line consolidated around the practice of meditation and the feeling that mere observance of the rules of discipline or the intellectual teachings of the scriptures did not emphasize enough the actual practice and personal experience of the Buddha’s meditation that led to the Buddha’s awakening. Awakening like the Buddha, and not merely following rules or memorizing texts became the watchword of the dhyana-chan practitioners. Within 200 years after Bodhidharma at the beginning of the Tang Dynasty, by the time of the fifth generation Chan ancestor and founder Daman Hongren (601-674), the Zen of Bodhidharma’s successors had become well established as a separate school of Buddhism and the true Zen school. The core of Zen practice is seated meditation, widely known by its Japanese name zazen, and recalls both the posture in which the Buddha is said to have achieved enlightenment under the Bodhi tree at Bodh Gaya, and the elements of mindfulness and concentration which are part of the Eightfold Path as taught by the Buddha. All of the Buddha’s fundamental teachings—among them the Eightfold Path, the Four Noble Truths, the idea of dependent origination, the five precepts, the five aggregates, and the three marks of existence—also make up important elements of the perspective that Zen takes for its practice. While Buddhists generally revere certain places as a Bodhimandala (circle or place of enlightenment) in Zen wherever one sits in true meditation is said to be a Bodhimandala. Additionally, as a development of Mahāyāna Buddhism, Zen draws many of its basic driving concepts, particularly the bodhisattva ideal, from that school. Uniquely Mahāyāna figures such as Guānyīn, Mañjuśrī, Samantabhadra, and Amitābha are venerated alongside the historical Buddha. Despite Zen’s emphasis on transmission independent of scriptures, it has drawn heavily on the Mahāyāna sūtras, particularly the Heart of Perfect Wisdom Sūtra, Hredaya Pranyaparamita the Sūtra of the Perfection of Wisdom of the Diamond that Cuts through Illusion, The Vajrachedika Pranyaparamita the Lankavatara Sūtra, and the “Samantamukha Parivarta” section of the Lotus Sūtra. Zen has also itself paradoxically produced a rich corpus of written literature which has become a part of its practice and teaching. Among the earliest and most widely studied of the specifically Zen texts, dating back to at least the 9th century CE, is the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, sometimes attributed to Huìnéng. Others include the various collections of kōans and the Shōbōgenzō of Dōgen Zenji. Zen training emphasizes daily practice, along with intensive periods of meditation. Practicing with others is considered an important part of Zen practice. D.T. Suzuki wrote that aspects of this life are: a life of humility; a life of labor; a life of service; a life of prayer and gratitude; and a life of meditation. The Chinese Chan master Baizhang (720–814 CE) left behind a famous saying which had been the guiding principle of his life, “A day without work is a day without food.”
Zen meditation
Zazen
As the name Zen implies, Zen sitting meditation is the core of Zen practice and is called zazen in Japanese (Chinese tso-chan [Wade-Giles] or zuòchán [Pinyin]). During zazen, practitioners usually assume a sitting position such as the lotus, half-lotus, Burmese, or seiza postures. To regulate the mind, awareness is directed towards counting or watching the breath or put in the energy center below the navel (Chinese dan tian, Japanese tanden or hara). Often, a square or round cushion (zafu) placed on a padded mat (zabuton) is used to sit on; in some cases, a chair may be used. In Japanese Rinzai Zen tradition practitioners typically sit facing the center of the room; while Japanese Soto practitioners traditionally sit facing a wall. In Soto Zen, shikantaza meditation (“just-sitting”) that is, a meditation with no objects, anchors, or content, is the primary form of practice. The meditator strives to be aware of the stream of thoughts, allowing them to arise and pass away without interference. Considerable textual, philosophical, and phenomenological justification of this practice can be found throughout Dōgen’s Shōbōgenzō, as for example in the “Principles of Zazen” and the “Universally Recommended Instructions for Zazen”. Rinzai Zen, instead, emphasizes attention to the breath and koan practice (q.v.). The amount of time spent daily in zazen by practitioners varies. Dōgen recommends that five minutes or more daily is beneficial for householders. The key is daily regularity, as Zen teaches that the ego will naturally resist, and the discipline of regularity is essential. Practicing Zen monks may perform four to six periods of zazen during a normal day, with each period lasting 30 to 40 minutes. Meditation as a practice can be applied to any posture. Walking meditation is called kinhin. Successive periods of zazen are usually interwoven with brief periods of walking meditation to relieve the legs.
Sesshin
Sesshin, literally “gathering the mind”, is a period of intensive group meditation (zazen) in a Zen monastery. While the daily routine in the monastery requires the monks to meditate several hours a day, during a sesshin they devote themselves almost exclusively to zazen practice. The numerous 30-50 minute long meditation periods are interleaved with short rest breaks, meals, and sometimes, short periods of work (Japanese: samu) all performed with the same mindfulness; nightly sleep is kept to a minimum, 7 hours or less. During the sesshin period, the intense meditation is occasionally interrupted by the master giving public talks (teisho) and individual direction in private meetings (which may be called dokusan, daisan, or sanzen) with a Zen Master. In modern Buddhist practice in Japan and the West, sesshins are often attended by lay students, and are typically 1, 3, 5, or 7 days in length. Seven day sesshins are several times a year at many Zen Centers, especially in commemoration of the Buddha’s awakening to annuttara samyak sambodhi. At this Rohatsu sesshin, the practitioners typically strive to quiet the mind’s chatter to the point of either Stopping thought, samadhi, kensho, or satori. One distinctive aspect of Zen meditation in groups is the use of the keisaku, a flat wooden stick or slat used to keep meditators focused and awake.
The Zen teacher
This Japanese scroll calligraphy of Bodhidharma reads “Zen points directly to the human heart, see into your nature and become Buddha”. It was created by Hakuin Ekaku (1685-1768) Because the Zen tradition emphasizes direct communication over scriptural study, the Zen teacher has traditionally played a central role. Generally speaking, a Zen teacher is a person ordained in any tradition of Zen to teach the Dharma, guide students in meditation, and perform rituals. An important concept for all Zen sects is the notion of dharma transmission: the claim of a line of authority that goes back to Śākyamuni Buddha via the teachings of each successive master to each successive student. This concept relates to the ideas expressed in a description of Zen attributed to Bodhidharma:A special transmission outside the scriptures; No dependence upon words and letters; Direct pointing to the human mind; Seeing into one’s own nature and attaining Buddhahood.
John McRae’s Seeing Through Zen explores this assertion of lineage as a distinctive and central aspect of Zen Buddhism. He writes of this “genealogical” approach so central to Zen’s self-understanding, that while not without precedent, has unique features. It is:[R]elational (involving interaction between individuals rather than being based solely on individual effort), generational (in that it is organized according to parent-child, or rather teacher-student, generations) and reiterative (i.e., intended for emulation and repetition in the lives of present and future teachers and students.[citation needed]
McRae offers a detailed criticism of lineage, but he also notes it is central to Zen, so much so that it is hard to envision any claim to Zen that discards claims of lineage. Therefore, for example, in Japanese Soto, lineage charts become a central part of the Sanmatsu, the documents of Dharma transmission. And it is common for daily chanting in Zen temples and monasteries to include the lineage of the school. In Japan during the Tokugawa period (1600–1868), some came to question the lineage system and its legitimacy. The Zen master Dokuan Genko (1630–1698), for example, openly questioned the necessity of written acknowledgment from a teacher, which he dismissed as “paper Zen”, Quite a number of teachers in Japan during the Tokugawa period did not adhere to the lineage system; these were termed mushi dokugo (“independently enlightened without a teacher”) or jigo jisho (“self-enlightened and self-certified”). Modern Zen Buddhists also consider questions about the dynamics of the lineage system, inspired in part by academic research into the history of Zen. Honorific titles used when talking to or about a Zen teacher include, in Chinese: Fashi, Chanshi; in Korean: Sŭnim (Seunim), Sŏn Sa (Seon Sa); in Japanese: Oshō, Rōshi, Sensei; in Vietnamese: Thầy.—Note that many of these titles are not specific to Zen but are used generally for Buddhist priests; some, such as sensei are not even specific to Buddhism. The English term Zen master is often used to refer to important teachers, especially ancient and medieval ones. However, there is no specific criterion by which one may be called a Zen master. The term is less common in reference to modern teachers. In the Open Mind Zen School, English terms have been substituted for the Japanese ones to avoid confusion of this issue. “Assistant Zen Teacher” is a person authorized to begin to teach, but still under the supervision of his teacher. “Zen Teacher” applies to one authorized to teach without further direction, and “Zen Master” refers to one who is a Zen Teacher and has founded his or her own teaching center.
Koan practice
Zen Buddhists may practice koan inquiry during sitting meditation (zazen), walking meditation, and throughout all the activities of daily life. Koan practice is particularly emphasized by the Japanese Rinzai school, but it also occurs in other schools or branches of Zen depending on the teaching line. A koan (literally “public case”) is a story or dialogue, generally related to Zen or other Buddhist history; the most typical form is an anecdote involving early Chinese Zen masters. These anecdotes involving famous Zen teachers are a practical demonstration of their wisdom, and can be used to test a student’s progress in Zen practice. Koans often appear to be paradoxical or linguistically meaningless dialogues or questions. But to Zen Buddhists the koan is “the place and the time and the event where truth reveals itself” unobstructed by the oppositions and differentiations of language. Answering a koan requires a student to let go of conceptual thinking and of the logical way we order the world, so that like creativity in art, the appropriate insight and response arises naturally and spontaneously in the mind. Koans and their study developed in China within the context of the open questions and answers of teaching sessions conducted by the Chinese Zen masters. Today, the Zen student’s mastery of a given koan is presented to the teacher in a private interview (referred to in Japanese as dokusan, daisan, or sanzen). Zen teachers advise that the problem posed by a koan is to be taken quite seriously, and to be approached as literally a matter of life and death. While there is no unique answer to a koan, practitioners are expected to demonstrate their understanding of the koan and of Zen through their responses. The teacher may approve or disapprove of the answer and guide the student in the right direction. There are also various commentaries on koans, written by experienced teachers, that can serve as a guide. These commentaries are also of great value to modern scholarship on the subject.
Chan in China
In the centuries following the introduction of Buddhism to China, Chan grew to become the largest sect in Chinese Buddhism and, despite its “transmission beyond the scriptures”, produced the largest body of literature in Chinese history of any sect or tradition. The teachers claiming Huineng’s posterity began to branch off into numerous different schools, each with their own special emphasis, but all of which kept the same basic focus on meditational practice, personal instruction and personal experience. During the late Tang and the Song periods, the tradition continued, as a wide number of eminent teachers, such as Mazu (Wade-Giles: Ma-tsu; Japanese: Baso), Shitou (Shih-t’ou; Japanese: Sekito), Baizhang (Pai-chang; Japanese: Hyakujo), Huangbo (Huang-po; Jap.: Obaku), Linji (Lin-chi; Jap.: Rinzai), and Yunmen (Jap.: Ummon) developed specialized teaching methods, which would variously become characteristic of the five houses of Chan. The traditional five houses were Caodong, Linji, Guiyang, Fayan, and Yunmen. This list does not include earlier schools such as the Hongzhou of Mazu. Over the course of Song Dynasty (960–1279), the Guiyang, Fayan, and Yunmen schools were gradually absorbed into the Linji. During the same period, the various developments of Chan teaching methods crystallized into the gong-an (koan) practice which is unique to this school of Buddhism. According to Miura and Sasaki, “[I]t was during the lifetime of Yüan-wu’s successor, Ta-hui Tsung-kao (Daie Sōkō, 1089-1163) that Koan Zen entered its determinative stage.” Gong-an practice was prevalent in the Linji school, to which Yuanwu and Ta-hui (pinyin: Dahui) belonged, but it was also employed on a more limited basis by the Caodong school. The teaching styles and words of the classical masters were collected in such important texts as the Blue Cliff Record (1125) of Yuanwu, The Gateless Gate (1228) of Wumen, both of the Linji lineage, and the Book of Equanimity (1223) of Wansong, of the Caodong lineage. These texts record classic gong-an cases, together with verse and prose commentaries, which would be studied by later generations of students down to the present. Chan continued to be influential as a religious force in China, and thrived in the post-Song period; with a vast body of texts being produced up and through the modern period. While traditionally distinct, Chan was taught alongside Pure Land Buddhism in many Chinese Buddhist monasteries. In time much of the distinction between them was lost, and many masters taught both Chan and Pure Land. Chan Buddhism enjoyed something of a revival in the Ming Dynasty with teachers such as Hanshan Deqing, who wrote and taught extensively on both Chan and Pure Land Buddhism; Miyun Yuanwu, who came to be seen posthumously as the first patriarch of the Obaku Zen school; as well as Yunqi Zhuhong and Ouyi Zhixu. After further centuries of decline, Chan was revived again in the early 20th century by Hsu Yun, a well-known figure of 20th century Chinese Buddhism. Many Chan teachers today trace their lineage back to Hsu Yun, including Sheng-yen and Hsuan Hua, who have propagated Chan in the West where it has grown steadily through the 20th and 21st century. It was severely repressed in China during the recent modern era with the appearance of the People’s Republic, but has more recently been re-asserting itself on the mainland, and has a significant following in Taiwan and Hong Kong as well as among Overseas Chinese.
Zen in Japan
The schools of Zen that currently exist in Japan are the Sōtō, Rinzai, and Obaku. Of these, Sōtō is the largest and Obaku the smallest. Rinzai is itself divided into several subschools based on temple affiliation, including Myoshin-ji, Nanzen-ji, Tenryū-ji, Daitoku-ji, and Tofuku-ji. In the year 1410 a Zen Buddhist monk from Nanzen-ji, a large temple complex in the Japanese capital of Kyoto, wrote out a landscape poem and had a painting done of the scene described by the poem. Then, following the prevailing custom of his day, he gathered responses to the images by asking prominent fellow monks and government officials to inscribe it, thereby creating a shigajiku poem and painting scroll. Such scrolls emerged as a preeminent form of elite Japanese culture in the last two decades of the fourteenth century, a golden age in the phenomenon now known as Japanese Zen culture Although the Japanese had known Zen-like practices for centuries (Taoism and Shinto), it was not introduced as a separate school until the 12th century, when Myōan Eisai traveled to China and returned to establish a Linji lineage, which is known in Japan as Rinzai. Decades later, Nanpo Jomyo also studied Linji teachings in China before founding the Japanese Otokan lineage, the most influential branch of Rinzai. In 1215, Dōgen, a younger contemporary of Eisai’s, journeyed to China himself, where he became a disciple of the Caodong master Tiantong Rujing. After his return, Dōgen established the Sōtō school, the Japanese branch of Caodong. The Obaku lineage was introduced in the 17th century by Ingen, a Chinese monk. Ingen had been a member of the Linji school, the Chinese equivalent of Rinzai, which had developed separately from the Japanese branch for hundreds of years. Thus, when Ingen journeyed to Japan following the fall of the Ming Dynasty to the Manchus, his teachings were seen as a separate school. The Obaku school was named for Mount Obaku (Chinese: Huangboshan), which had been Ingen’s home in China. Some contemporary Japanese Zen teachers, such as Daiun Harada and Shunryu Suzuki, have criticized Japanese Zen as being a formalized system of empty rituals in which very few Zen practitioners ever actually attain realization. They assert that almost all Japanese temples have become family businesses handed down from father to son, and the Zen priest’s function has largely been reduced to officiating at funerals. The Japanese Zen establishment—including the Sōtō sect, the major branches of Rinzai, and several renowned teachers— has been criticized for its involvement in Japanese militarism and nationalism during World War II and the preceding period. A notable work on this subject was Zen at War (1998) by Brian Victoria, an American-born Sōtō priest. At the same time, however, one must be aware that this involvement was by no means limited to the Zen school: all orthodox Japanese schools of Buddhism supported the militarist state. What may be most striking, though, as Victoria has argued, is that many Zen masters known for their post-war internationalism and promotion of “world peace” were open nationalists in the inter-war years. And some of them, like Haku’un Yasutani, the founder of the Sanbo Kyodan School, even voiced their anti-semitic and nationalistic opinions after World War II. This openness has allowed non-Buddhists to practice Zen, especially outside of Asia, and even for the curious phenomenon of an emerging Christian Zen lineage, as well as one or two lines that call themselves “nonsectarian”. With no official governing body, it’s perhaps impossible to declare any authentic lineage “heretical,” which would allow one to argue that there is no “orthodoxy” – something that most Asian Zen masters would readily dismiss.
Thiền (Zen) in Vietnam
See also: Buddhism in Vietnam Thiền Buddhism (Thiền Tông) is the Vietnamese name for the school of Zen Buddhism. Thien is ultimately derived from Chan Zong, itself a derivative of the Sanskrit “Dhyāna”. According to traditional accounts of Vietnam, in 580, an Indian monk named Vinitaruci (Vietnamese: Tì-ni-đa-lưu-chi) travelled to Vietnam after completing his studies with Sengcan, the third patriarch of Chinese Zen. This, then, would be the first appearance of Vietnamese Zen, or Thien (thiền) Buddhism. The sect that Vinitaruci and his lone Vietnamese disciple founded would become known as the oldest branch of Thien. After a period of obscurity, the Vinitaruci School became one of the most influential Buddhist groups in Vietnam by the 10th century, particularly so under the patriarch Vạn-Hạnh (died 1018). Other early Vietnamese Zen schools included the Vo Ngon Thong (Vô Ngôn Thông), which was associated with the teaching of Mazu, and the Thao Duong (Thảo Đường), which incorporated nianfo chanting techniques; both were founded by Chinese monks. A new school was founded by one of Vietnam’s religious kings; this was the Truc Lam (Trúc Lâm) school, which evinced a deep influence from Confucian and Taoist philosophy. Nevertheless, Truc Lam’s prestige waned over the following centuries as Confucianism became dominant in the royal court. In the 17th century, a group of Chinese monks led by Nguyen Thieu (Nguyên Thiều) established a vigorous new school, the Lam Te (Lâm Tế), which is the Vietnamese pronunciation of Linji. A more domesticated offshoot of Lam Te, the Lieu Quan (Liễu Quán) school, was founded in the 18th century and has since been the predominant branch of Vietnamese Zen. The most famous practitioner of synchronized Thiền Buddhism in the West is Thích Nhất Hạnh who has authored dozens of books and founded Dharma center Plum Village in France together with his colleague -Bhikkhuni and Zen Master- Chan Khong.
Seon (Zen) in Korea
Seon was gradually transmitted into Korea during the late Silla period (7th through 9th centuries) as Korean monks of predominantly Hwaeom and Consciousness-only background began to travel to China to learn the newly developing tradition. During his lifetime, Mazu had begun to attract students from Korea; by tradition, the first Korean to study Seon was named Peomnang. Mazu’s successors had numerous Korean students, some of whom returned to Korea and established the nine mountain schools. This was the beginning of Chan in Korea which is called Seon. Seon received its most significant impetus and consolidation from the Goryeo monk Jinul (1158–1210), who established a reform movement and introduced koan practice to Korea. Jinul established the Songgwangsa as a new center of pure practice. It was during the time of Jinul the Jogye Order, a primarily Seon sect, became the predominant form of Korean Buddhism, a status it still holds. which survives down to the present in basically the same status. Toward the end of the Goryeo and during the Joseon period the Jogye Order would first be combined with the scholarly schools, and then be relegated to lesser influence in ruling class circles by Confucian influenced polity, even as it retained strength outside the cities, among the rural populations and ascetic monks in mountain refuges. Nevertheless, there would be a series of important Seon teachers during the next several centuries, such as Hyegeun, Taego, Gihwa and Hyujeong, who continued to develop the basic mold of Korean meditational Buddhism established by Jinul. Seon continues to be practiced in Korea today at a number of major monastic centers, as well as being taught at Dongguk University, which has a major of studies in this religion. Taego Bou (1301–1382) studied in China with Linji teacher and returned to unite the Nine Mountain Schools. In modern Korea, by far the largest Buddhist denomination is the Jogye Order, which is essentially a Zen sect; the name Jogye is the Korean equivalent of Caoxi, another name for Huineng. Seon is known for its stress on meditation, monasticism, and asceticism. Many Korean monks have few personal possessions and sometimes cut off all relations with the outside world. Several are near mendicants traveling from temple to temple practicing meditation. The hermit-recluse life is prevalent among monks to whom meditation practice is considered of paramount importance. Currently, Korean Buddhism is in a state of slow transition. While the reigning theory behind Korean Buddhism was based on Jinul’s “sudden enlightenment, gradual cultivation”, the modern Korean Seon master, Seongcheol’s revival of Hui Neng’s “sudden enlightenment, sudden cultivation” has had a strong impact on Korean Buddhism. Although there is resistance to change within the ranks of the Jogye order, with the last three Supreme Patriarchs’ stance that is in accordance with Seongcheol, there has been a gradual change in the atmosphere of Korean Buddhism. The Kwan Um School of Zen, one of the largest Zen schools in the West, teaches a form of Seon Buddhism. Soeng Hyang Soen Sa Nim (b. 1948), birth name Barbara Trexler (later Barbara Rhodes), is Guiding Dharma Teacher of the international Kwan Um School of Zen and successor of the late Seung Sahn Soen Sa Nim.
Source: Linji Chan (Rinzai Zen) Buddhism in China
Linji Chan (Rinzai Zen) Buddhism in China
School of Koan Contemplation
Zen Buddhism usually means Japanese Zen, although there is also Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese Zen, called Chan, Seon and Thien, respectively. There are two major schools of Japanese Zen, called Soto and Rinzai, which originated in China. This article is about the Chinese origins of Rinzai Zen.
Chan is the original Zen, a school of Mahayana Buddhism founded in 6th century China. For a time there were five distinct schools of Chan, but three of those were absorbed into a fourth, Linji, which would be called Rinzai in Japan. The fifth school is Caodong, which is the ancestor of Soto Zen.
Historical Background
The Linji school emerged during a turbulent time in Chinese history. The founding teacher, Linji Yixuan, probably was born about 810 CE and died in 866, which was near the end of the Tang Dynasty. Linji would have been a monk when a Tang emperor banned Buddhism in 845. Some schools of Buddhism, such as the esoteric Mi-tsung school (related to Japanese Shingon) completely disappeared because of the ban, and Huayan Buddhism nearly so. Pure Land survived because it enjoyed broad popularity, and Chan was largely spared because many of its monasteries were in remote areas, not in the cities.
When the Tang Dynasty fell in 907 China was thrown into chaos. Five ruling dynasties came and went quickly; China splintered into kingdoms. The chaos was subdued after the Song Dynasty was established 960.
During the last days of the Tang Dynasty and through the chaotic Five Dynasties period, five distinct schools of Chan emerged that came to be called the Five Houses. To be sure, some of these Houses were taking shape while the Tang Dynasty was at its peak, but it was at the beginning of the Song Dynasty that they were considered schools in their own right.
Of these Five Houses, Linji probably was best known for its eccentric style of teaching. Following the example of the founder, Master Linji, Linji teachers shouted, grabbed, struck, and otherwise manhandled students as a means to shock them into awakening. This must have been effective, as Linji became the dominant school of Chan during the Song Dynasty.
Koan Contemplation
The formal, stylized manner of koan contemplation as practiced today in Rinzai developed in Song Dynasty Linji, even though much of the koan literature is much older. Very basically, koans (in Chinese, gongan) are questions asked by Zen teachers that defy rational answers. During the Song period, Linji Chan developed formal protocols for working with koans that would be inherited by the Rinzai school of Japan and are still generally in use today.
In this period the classic koan collections were compiled. The three best-known collections are:
The Biyan Lu (in Japanese, the Hekiganroku, commonly translated “The Blue Cliff Record”), compiled in its final form by Yuanwu Keqin (1063-1135)
The Congrong Lu (in Japanese, the Shoyoroku, commonly translated “The Book of Equanimity” or “The Book of Serenity”), compiled by Hongzhi Zhengjue (1091-1157). Note that Master Hongzhi actually was of the Caodong school, not Linji.
The Wumenguan (in Japanese, the Mumonkan, commonly translated “The Gateless Gate”), compiled by Wumen Hui-k’ai (1183-1260)
To this day the primary distinction between Linji and Caodong, or Rinzai and Soto, is the approach to koans. In Linji/Rinzai, koans are contemplated through a particular meditation practice; students are required to present their understanding to their teachers and may have to present the same koan several times before the “answer” is approved. This method pushes the student into a state of doubt, sometimes intense doubt, that may be resolved through an enlightenment experience called kensho in Japanese.
In Caodong/Soto, practitioners sit silently in a state of alert mindfulness without pushing themselves toward any goal, a practice called shikantaza, or “just sitting.” However, the koan collections listed above are read and studied in Soto, and individual koans are presented to assembled practitioners in talks.
Myoan Eisai (1141-1215) is thought to be the first Japanese monk to study Chan in China and return to teach it successfully in Japan. Eisai’s was a Linji practice combined with elements of Tendai and esoteric Buddhism. His dharma heir Myozan for a time was the teacher of Dogen, founder of Soto Zen. Eisai’s teaching lineage lasted a few generations but did not survive. However, within a few years a number of other Japanese and Chinese monks also established Rinzai lineages in Japan.
Linji in China After the Song Dynasty
By the time the Song Dynasty ended in 1279, Buddhism in China already was going into a state of decline. Other Chan schools were absorbed into Linji, while the Caodong school faded away in China entirely. All surviving Chan Buddhism in China is from Linji teaching lineages.
What followed for Linji was a period of mixing with other traditions, primarily Pure Land. With a few notable periods of revival, Linji, for the most part, was a pale copy of what it had been.
Chan was revived in the early 20th century by Hsu Yun (1840-1959). Although repressed during the Cultural Revolution, Linji Chan today has a strong following in Hong Kong and Taiwan and a growing following in the West.
Sheng Yen (1930-2009), a third-generational dharma heir of Hsu Yun and a 57th generational heir of Master Linji, became one of the most prominent Buddhist teachers in our time. Master Sheng Yen founded Dharma Drum Mountain, a worldwide Buddhist organization headquartered in Taiwan.
Source: Zen 101: A Brief Introduction to Zen Buddhism
You’ve heard of Zen. You may even have had moments of Zen—instances of insight and a feeling of connectedness and understanding that seem to come out of nowhere. But what exactly is Zen?
The scholarly answer to that question is that Zen is a school of Mahayana Buddhism that emerged in China about 15 centuries ago. In China, it is called Ch’an Buddhism. Ch’an is the Chinese rendering of the Sanskrit word dhyana, which refers to a mind absorbed in meditation. “Zen” is the Japanese rendering of Ch’an. Zen is called Thien in Vietnam and Seon in Korea. In any language, the name can be translated as “Meditation Buddhism.”
Some scholars suggest that Zen originally was something like a marriage of Taoism and traditional Mahayana Buddhism, in which the complex meditative practices of Mahayana met the no-nonsense simplicity of Chinese Taoism to produce a new branch of Buddhism that is today known the world over.
Be aware that Zen is a complicated practice with many traditions. In this discussion, the term “Zen” is used in a general sense, to represent all different schools.
A Very Brief Zen History
Zen began to emerge as a distinctive school of Mahayana Buddhism when the Indian sage Bodhidharma (ca. 470–543) taught at the Shaolin Monastery of China. (Yes, it’s a real place, and yes, there is a historic connection between kung fu and Zen.) To this day, Bodhidharma is called the First Patriarch of Zen.
Bodhidharma’s teachings tapped into some developments already in progress, such as the confluence of philosophical Taoism with Buddhism. Taoism so profoundly impacted early Zen that some philosophers and texts are claimed by both religions. The early Mahayana philosophies of Madhyamika (ca. third century A.D.) and Yogacara (ca. third century A.D.) also played huge roles in the development of Zen.
Under the Sixth Patriarch, Huineng (638–713 A.D.), Zen shed most of its vestigial Indian trappings, becoming more Chinese and more like the Zen we now think of. Some consider Huineng, not Bodhidharma, to be the true father of Zen since his personality and influence are felt in Zen to this day. Huineng’s tenure was at the beginning of what is still called the Golden Age of Zen. This Golden Age flourished during the same period as China’s Tang Dynasty, 618–907 A.D., and the masters of this Golden Age still speak to the present through koans and stories.
During these years, Zen organized itself into five “houses,” or five schools. Two of these, called in Japanese the Rinzai and the Soto schools, still exist and remain distinctive from each other.
Zen was transmitted to Vietnam very early, possibly as early as the seventh century. A series of teachers brought Zen to Korea during the Golden Age. Eihei Dogen (1200–1253) was not the first Zen teacher in Japan, but he was the first to establish a lineage that lives to this day. The West took an interest in Zen after World War II, and now Zen is well established in North America, Europe, and elsewhere.
How Zen Defines Itself
Bodhidharma’s definition:
“A special transmission outside the scriptures; No dependence on words and letters; Direct pointing to the mind of man; Seeing into one’s nature and attaining Buddhahood.”
Zen is sometimes said to be “the face-to-face transmission of the dharmaoutside the sutras.” Dharma refers to the teachings, and sutras, in a Buddhist context, are sacred texts or scriptures, many of which are considered to be transcriptions of the oral teachings of the Buddha. Throughout the history of Zen, teachers have transmitted their realization of dharma to students by working with them face-to-face. This makes the lineage of teachers critical. Genuine Zen teachers can trace their lineage of teachers back to Bodhidharma, and before that to the historical Buddha, and even to those Buddhas before the historical Buddha.
Certainly, large parts of the lineage charts have to be taken on faith. But if anything is treated as sacred in Zen, it’s the teachers’ lineages. With very few exceptions, calling oneself a “Zen teacher” without having received a transmission from another teacher is considered a serious defilement of Zen.
Zen has become extremely trendy in recent years, and those who are seriously interested are advised to be wary of anyone proclaiming to be or advertised as a “Zen master.” The phrase “Zen master” is hardly ever heard inside Zen. The title “Zen master” (in Japanese, zenji) is only given posthumously. In Zen, living Zen teachers are called “Zen teachers,” and an especially venerable and beloved teacher is called roshi, which means “old man.”
Bodhidharma’s definition also says that Zen is not an intellectual discipline you can learn from books. Instead, it’s a practice of studying the mind and seeing into one’s nature. The main tool of this practice is zazen.
Zazen
The meditation practice of Zen, called zazen in Japanese, is the heart of Zen. Daily zazen is the foundation of Zen practice.
You can learn the basics of zazen from books, websites, and videos. However, if you’re serious about pursuing a regular zazen practice, it is important to sit zazen with others at least occasionally; most people find that sitting with others deepens the practice. If there’s no monastery or Zen center handy, you might find a “sitting group” of laypeople who sit zazen together at someone’s home.
As with most forms of Buddhist meditation, beginners are taught to work with their breath to learn concentration. Once your ability to concentrate has ripened (expect this to take a few months), you may either sit shikantaza—which means “just sitting”—or do koan study with a Zen teacher.
Why Is Zazen So Important?
As we find with many aspects of Buddhism, most people have to practice zazen for a while to appreciate zazen. At first you might think of it primarily as mind training, and of course, it is. If you stay with the practice, however, your understanding of why you sit will change. This will be your own personal and intimate journey, and it may not resemble the experience of anyone else.
One of the most difficult parts of zazen for most people to comprehend is sitting with no goals or expectations, including an expectation of “getting enlightened.” Most people do sit with goals and expectations for months or years before the goals are exhausted and they finally learn to “just sit.” Along the way, people learn a lot about themselves.
You may find “experts” who will tell you zazen is optional in Zen, but such experts are mistaken. This misunderstanding of the role of zazen comes from misreadings of Zen literature, which is common because Zen literature often makes no sense to readers intent on literalness.
Does Zen Make Sense?
It isn’t true that Zen makes no sense. Rather, “making sense” of it requires understanding language differently from the way we normally understand it.
Zen literature is full of vexatious exchanges, such as Moshan’s “Its Peak Cannot Be Seen,” that defy literal interpretation. However, these are not random, Dadaist utterings. Something specific is intended. How do you understand it?
Bodhidharma said that Zen is “direct pointing to the mind.” Understanding is gained through intimate experience, not through intellect or expository prose. Words may be used, but they are used in a presentational rather than a literal way.
Zen teacher Robert Aitken wrote in “The Gateless Barrier”:
“The presentational mode of communication is very important in Zen Buddhist teaching. This mode can be clarified by Susanne Langer’s landmark book on symbolic logic called ‘Philosophy in a New Key.’ She distinguishes between two kinds of language: ‘Presentational’ and ‘Discursive.’ The presentational might be in words, but it might also be a laugh, a cry, a blow, or any other kind of communicative action. It is poetical and nonexplanatory—the expression of Zen. The discursive, by contrast, is prosaic and explanatory….The discursive has a place in a Zen discourse like this one, but it tends to dilute direct teaching.”
No secret decoder ring will help you decipher Zenspeak. After you’ve practiced awhile, particularly with a teacher, you may catch on—or not. Be skeptical of explanations of koan study that are found on the internet, which are often peppered with academic explanations that are painfully wrong, because the “scholar” analyzed the koan as if it were discursive prose. Answers will not be found through normal reading and study; they must be lived.
If you want to understand Zen, you really must go face the dragon in the cave for yourself.
The Dragon in the Cave
Wherever Zen has established itself, it has rarely been one of the larger or more popular sects of Buddhism. The truth is, it’s a very difficult path, particularly for laypeople. It is not for everybody.
On the other hand, for such a small sect, Zen has had a disproportionate impact on the art and culture of Asia, especially in China and Japan. Beyond kung fu and other martial arts, Zen has influenced painting, poetry, music, flower arranging, and the tea ceremony.
Ultimately, Zen is about coming face-to-face with yourself in a very direct and intimate way. This is not easy. But if you like a challenge, the journey is worthwhile.
Sources
Aitken, Robert. The Gateless Barrier. North Point Press, 1991.
Source: An Introduction to Koan Study in Zen Buddhism
An Introduction to Koan Study in Zen Buddhism
A kakei, or bamboo spout, at Myoshinji, a Rinzai Zen temple in Kyoto.Masahiro Makino/Getty Images
Zen Buddhism has a reputation for being inscrutable, and much of that reputation comes from koans. Koans (pronounced KO-ahns) are cryptic and paradoxical questions asked by Zen teachers that defy rational answers. Teachers often present koans in formal talks, or students may be challenged to “resolve” them in their meditation practice.
What Is the Sound of One Hand Clapping?
For example, one koan nearly everyone has heard of originated with Master Hakuin Ekaku (1686-1769). “Two hands clap and there is a sound; what is the sound of one hand?” Hakuin asked. The question often is shortened to “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”
By now, most of you probably know that the question is not a riddle. There is no clever answer that glibly puts the question to rest. The question cannot be understood with intellect, much less answered with intellect. Yet there is an answer.
The Rinzai (Or Lin-Chi) School of Zen
In the Rinzai (or Lin-chi) school of Zen, students sit with koans. They don’t thinkabout them; they don’t try to “figure it out.” Concentrating on the koan in meditation, the student exhausts discriminating thoughts, and a deeper, more intuitive insight arises.
The student then presents his understanding of the koan to the teacher in a private interview called sanzen, or sometimes dokusan. The answer may be in words or shouts or gestures. The teacher may ask more questions to determine if the student truly “sees” the answer. When the teacher is satisfied the student has fully penetrated what the koan presents, he assigns the student another koan.
However, if the student’s presentation is unsatisfactory, the teacher may give the student some instruction. Or, he may abruptly end the interview by ringing a bell or striking a small gong. Then the student must stop whatever he is doing, bow, and return to his place in the zendo.
Formal Koan Study
This is what is called “formal koan study,” or just “koan study,” or sometimes “koan introspection.” The phrase “koan study” confuses people, because it suggests that the student hauls out a stack of books about koans and studies them the way she might study a chemistry text. But this is not “study” in the normal sense of the word. “Koan introspection” is a more accurate term.
What is realized is not knowledge. It is not visions or supernatural experience. It is a direct insight into the nature of reality, into what we normally perceive in a fragmented way.
From The Book of Mu: Essential Writings on Zen’s Most Important Koan, edited by James Ishmael Ford and Melissa Blacker:
“Contrary to what some might say on the subject, koans are not meaningless phrases meant to break through to a transrational consciousness (whatever we might imagine that phrase refers to). Rather, koans are a direct pointing to reality, an invitation for us to taste water and to know for ourselves whether it is cool or warm.”
The Soto School of Zen
In the Soto school of Zen, students generally do not engage in koan introspection. However, it is not unheard of for a teacher to combine elements of Soto and Rinzai, assigning koans selectively to students who might particularly benefit from them.
In both Rinzai and Soto Zen, teachers often present koans in formal talks (teisho). But this presentation is more discursive than what one might find in the dokusan room.
Origins of the Word
The Japanese word koan comes from the Chinese gongan, which means “public case.” The main situation or question in a koan is sometimes called the “main case.”
It is unlikely that koan study began with Bodhidharma, the founder of Zen. Exactly how and when koan study developed is not clear. Some scholars think its origins may be Taoist, or that it might have developed from a Chinese tradition of literary games.
We do know that the Chinese teacher Dahui Zonggao (1089-1163) made koan study a central part of Lin-chi (or Rinzai) Zen practice. Master Dahui and later Master Hakuin were the primary architects of the practice of koans that western Rinzai students encounter today.
Most of the classic koans are taken from bits of dialogue recorded in Tang Dynasty China (618-907 CE) between students and teachers, although some have older sources and some are much more recent. Zen teachers may make a new koan any time, out of just about anything.
Well-Known Collections of Koans
These are the most well-known collections of koans:
The Gateless Gate (Japanese, Mumonkan; Chinese, Wumenguan), 48 koans compiled in 1228 by the Chinese monk Wumen (1183-1260).
The Book of Equanimity (Japanese, Shoyoroku; sometimes called the Book of Serenity), 100 Koans compiled Hongzhi Zhengjue (1091-1157).
The Blue Cliff Record (Japanese, Hekiganroku; Chinese, Biyan Lu), 100 koans compiled in 1125 by Yuanwu Keqin (1063-1135).
Mana Shobogenzo, also called the Sambyaku-soku Shobogenzo or the 300-Koan Shobogenzo. Three volumes of 100 koans each compiled by Eihei Dogen(1200-1253).
My Related Posts
You can search for these posts using Search Posts feature in the right sidebar.
Schools of Buddhist Philosophy
Hua Yan Buddhism: Reflecting Mirrors of Reality
What is Yogacara Buddhism (Consciousness Only School) ?
Meditations on Emptiness and Fullness
Consciousness of Cosmos: A Fractal, Recursive, Holographic Universe
The Chan tradition emerged in the Tang Dynasty (618-907) and rose to dominance in the Song period (960-1279). Founded on the notion of “mind-to-mind transmission,” it gave rise to new forms of literary expression, notably the genres of “discourse records” (yulu), “records of the transmission of the lamp” (chuandenglu), and “public case collections” (gong’an). This course will look at the Indian and Chinese intellectual background of Chan, the emergence of new ritual and literary forms, and Chan’s distinctive approach to ongoing philosophical debates. While the Chan tradition is often mischaracterized as hostile to critical analysis and as delighting in incoherent mystical utterances, we will find that, on the contrary, Chan writings cogently engage philosophical controversies that lie at the very heart of both Mahāyāna thought and contemporary Western philosophy, including debates over the nature of cognition, the ontological status of the mind-independent world, the epistemic warrants of our truth claims, and the possibility of freedom.
The course is designed for doctoral students with a background in Buddhist studies, East Asian thought, Chinese literature, Chinese religion, and cross-cultural philosophy. The course consists of lectures, text readings, and discussions and there will be ample time for students to interact and present their own dissertation research. The course is interdisciplinary, drawing from philology, history, ritual studies, philosophy, and so on, and will demonstrate the benefits of combining close historical and textual research with broader methodological and critical reflection. Students will also be exposed to cross-cultural philosophy, as we explore parallels between the arcane issues that galvanised medieval exegetes, and issues that continue to perplex philosophers today. We will end on a critical historicist note, as we explore how “Buddhist modernism” has shaped, if not warped, our appreciation of premodern Buddhist history and thought.
Seeing Through Zen: Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism.
McRae, John. (2004).
10.1525/9780520937079.
21. Paradoxical Language in Chan Buddhism
Chien-hsing Ho
Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy, Academia Sinica, Taiwan
Email: hochg@sinica.edu.tw
In Yiu-Ming Fung (ed.), Dao Companion to Chinese Philosophy of Logic. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 389-404. 2020
With support from the imperial courts of the Northern Dynasties, the saṃgha in northern China established a comprehensive system of monastic officials to administer Buddhist affairs and built a constellation of grottoes at various places such as Datong 大同 in Shanxi Province, Luoyang 洛陽 and Xiangzhou 相州 (present-day Anyang 安陽) in Henan Province, and Yedu 鄴都 (present-day Linzhang 臨漳 in Hebei Province). During the same period, the Buddhist intellectual trend, dominated by the Dilun 地論 tradition (i.e. the Chinese Buddhist tradition based on the Daśabhūmika-bhāṣya [Shidi lun 十地論]), started to boom, leaving a profound impact on the development of various Buddhist traditions such as Tiantai 天台, Huayan 華嚴, Chanzong 禪宗, and Lǜzong 律宗. 北朝佛教在朝廷的支持下，不僅建立了系統完備的僧官制度，還在山西大同、河南洛陽和相州(今河南安陽)、鄴都(今河北臨漳)等地大量興建了石窟。同時，以地論學派為中心的北朝佛教思潮蓬勃發展，深刻地影響了後來的天台、華嚴、禪宗和律宗。
Located in the vicinity of the capital, Luoyang, and roosting upon Mount Song 嵩山, the Shaolin Temple enjoyed a close association with metropolitan Buddhism, as well as with Buddhism as a whole in the Northern Dynasties. Allegedly founded by the South Asian meditation master Buddha (Fotuo 佛陀 [active 525–538]), the temple figured heavily in the landscape of Northern Dynasties Buddhism, serving as the cradle for the Buddhist traditions Dilun, Four-Division Vinaya, and Chan. The historical profundity and importance of the Shaolin Temple call for specialized exploration and discussion. To this end, the Shaolin Temple, the Institute for Ethics and Religions Studies of Tsinghua University, the Center for Buddhist Studies of Peking University, the Institute of Buddhist Culture of China, have decided to jointly sponsor a “Conference on the Shaolin Temple and Buddhism under the Northern Dynasties” at the Shaolin Temple on Mount Song, Henan, between July 31 and August 2, 2017. This conference is part of a summer project conducted by an international and interdisciplinary cluster program led by Kai SHENG (Tsing-hua), which, along with fourteen more clusters, constitutes the multi-year project directed by Jinhua Chen (UBC) and funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) (www.frogbear.org). Selected panelists of the conference may also apply to attend other parts of the cluster program (http://frogbear.org/field-trips/cluster-field-trip-plans/clusters-in-phase-1-2017-2019/). 嵩山少林寺與東京洛陽毗鄰相望，少林寺與洛陽佛教甚至整個北朝佛教有著緊密的聯系。少林寺自印度佛陀禪師(活躍於525-535年)開創以來，成為地論學派、四分律宗和禪宗的發祥地，在北朝佛教中具有極其重要的地位。為了充分挖掘少林寺的歷史底蘊，深入研討少林寺在北朝佛教的重要地位，河南嵩山少林寺、清華大學道德與宗教研究院、北京大學佛學研究中心、中國佛教文化研究所決定於2017年7月31日至8月2號在河南嵩山少林寺聯合舉辦“少林寺與北朝佛教學術研討會”。本研討會屬於清華大學的聖凱教授領導的一個交叉學科的國際性項目所展開的本年度暑期研究案（本項目聯同其他14個項目則構成了一個為期多年的國際性的龐大合作項目，由英屬哥倫比亞大學的陳金華教授領導、加拿大社科研究委員會資助）(www.frogbear.org)。參會者可同時申請參加該暑期研究案的其他內容 (http://frogbear.org/field-trips/cluster-field-trip-plans/clusters-in-phase-1-2017-2019/)。
We cordially invite scholarly contribution in the form of an unpublished paper on a topic pertinent to the themes as suggested below. All conference-related costs, including local transportation, meals, and accommodation during the conference period, will be covered by the conference organizers, who——depending on availability of funding——may also provide a travel subsidy to selected panelists who are in need of funding. Interested scholars are encouraged to submit their proposals and C.V. to vicky.baker@ubc.ca by February 28, 2017. A draft paper is expected by July 1, 2017 and may be written either in English or Chinese, the two working languages for this forum. Fully completed papers are due by the end of 2017, to be included in the conference proceedings scheduled to appear by the end of 2018. 誠邀對北朝歷史與宗教文化有興趣的海內外學者撥冗與會，惠賜在“少林寺與北朝佛教學術研討會”領域的最新研究成果，屆時我們將統一結集論文正式出版。與會的相關費用，包括會議期間的食宿費用，將由會議組織方承擔。會議組織方也將視資金的寬裕度，為部分有需要的與會成員提供部分旅費津貼。有興趣的學者請於2017年2月28日前將論文摘要與簡歷電郵至 vicky.baker@ubc.ca；2017年7月1日之前，將論文發到郵箱，以便交流研討。 供正式出版的論文修正稿則可以延及本年底提交；論文集預計2018年前出版。
Topics for this conference include, but are not limited to 本次研討會所涉及的話題包括但不限於以下幾個方面:
The relationship between the Shaolin Temple and the royal houses of the Northern Dynasties 少林寺與北朝帝室的關系;
The Shaolin Temple and eminent monks under the Northern Dynasties 少林寺北朝高僧派;
The Shaolin Temple and the carving out of Buddhist grottoes and the art of Buddhist statues in the Northern Dynasties 少林寺與北朝石窟開鑿、造像藝術;
The Shaolin Temple and the “pagoda forests” and stele inscriptions in the Northern Dynasties 少林寺與北朝時期的塔林、碑;
The Shaolin Temple and Buddhist translation in the Northern Dynasties 少林寺與北朝譯經事業;
The Shaolin Temple and the Dilun tradition in the Northern Dynasties 少林寺與北朝地論學派;
The Shaolin Temple and studies of the Four-Division Vinaya (i.e. Dharmagupta-vinaya) in the Northern Dynasties 少林寺與北朝四分律學;
The Shaolin Temple and studies of Buddhist meditation in the Northern Dynasties 少林寺與北朝禪學.
An International Conference: From Xianghuan To Ceylon: The Life And Legacy Of The Chinese Buddhist Monk Faxian (337-422)
Professor John McRae, a well-known scholar of Chinese Chan Buddhism, presented a lecture on early Chan history entitled, “Rethinking Bodhidharma and the Beginnings of Chinese Chan/Zen Buddhism,” at the Asian Centre on February 4, 2010. The lecture drew around 50 students and faculty. Professor McRae kept all on their toes, combining careful text analysis with his characteristic wit. Audience members were taken on a journey through Buddhist translation temples, revolts and banditry, and the multiple meanings of Huike’s lost arm. As a student of East Asian Buddhism, John R. McRae is especially interested in ideologies of spiritual cultivation and how they interact with their intellectual and cultural environments. His earliest research on the earliest period of Chinese Chan or Zen Buddhism, was conducted under the guidance of Professor Stanley Weinstein (Yale), with direction from Yanagida Seizan in Kyoto. He has published as The Northern School and the Formation of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism (1986), and a companion volume, Evangelical Zen: Shenhui (684-758), Sudden Enlightenment, and the Southern School of Chinese Chan Buddhism, is now in the final stages of preparation. His work, Chinese Chan tradition: Encounter and Transformation: Genealogy, Self-cultivation, and Monastic Tradition in Chinese Zen Buddhism (2003), has changed how scholars think about the Chan tradition.
A New Chan (Zen) School in Taiwan: Dharma Drum Lineage of Chan Buddhism
How Zen Became Zen takes a novel approach to understanding one of the most crucial developments in Zen Buddhism: the dispute over the nature of enlightenment that erupted within the Chinese Chan (Zen) school in the twelfth century. The famous Linji (Rinzai) Chan master Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) railed against “heretical silent illumination Chan” and strongly advocated kanhua (koan) meditation as an antidote. In this fascinating study, Morten Schlütter shows that Dahui’s target was the Caodong (Soto) Chan tradition that had been revived and reinvented in the early twelfth century, and that silent meditation was an approach to practice and enlightenment that originated within this “new” Chan tradition. Schlütter has written a refreshingly accessible account of the intricacies of the dispute, which is still reverberating through modern Zen in both Asia and the West. Dahui and his opponents’ arguments for their respective positions come across in this book in as earnest and relevant a manner as they must have seemed almost nine hundred years ago.
Although much of the book is devoted to illuminating the doctrinal and soteriological issues behind the enlightenment dispute, Schlütter makes the case that the dispute must be understood in the context of government policies toward Buddhism, economic factors, and social changes. He analyzes the remarkable ascent of Chan during the first centuries of the Song dynasty, when it became the dominant form of elite monastic Buddhism, and demonstrates that secular educated elites came to control the critical transmission from master to disciple (“procreation” as Schlütter terms it) in the Chan School.
According to Yogacara school of Mahayana Buddhism there are eight kinds of discernment: (1) sight-consciousness, (2) hearing-consciousness, (3) smell-consciousness, (4) taste-consciousness, (5) touch-consciousness, (6) mind-consciousness, (7) Mano-consciousness, and (8) Alaya-consciousness.
Alaya-vinnana (storehouse consciousness) refers to a level of subliminal mental processes that occur uninterruptedly throughout one’s life and may continue in to multiple lifetimes and scientists identify this as the sub-conscious.
Source: Yogacara Buddhism / MN Zen Center
Source: Philosophy of mind in the Yogacara Buddhist idealistic school
Source: Philosophy of mind in the Yogacara Buddhist idealistic school
Source: Philosophy of mind in the Yogacara Buddhist idealistic school
Source: Philosophy of mind in the Yogacara Buddhist idealistic school
Source: Philosophy of mind in the Yogacara Buddhist idealistic school
Source: Philosophy of mind in the Yogacara Buddhist idealistic school
Source: Philosophy of mind in the Yogacara Buddhist idealistic school
Indian Yogacara
Maitreya Nath
Gandhara (Afghanistan) Brahmin Boys Asanga and Vasubandhu
Sthiramati
Paramartha
Bodhiruci
Vijñaptimātra
Vijñānavāda
ālayavijñāna
mind only (citta-matra)
idea/impressions (vijñapti-matra)
three self-natures (trisvabhāva)
warehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna)
Storehouse consciousness
overturning the basis (āśrayaparāvṛtti)
the theory of eight consciousnesses
Amalavijñānam
Dignaga
Dhamapala
Silabhadra
Dharma Nature
Tathagatagarbha
Third Turning of Dharma Chakra
Source: Making Sense of Mind Only: Why Yogacara Buddhism Matters
Through engaging, contemporary examples, Making Sense of Mind Only reveals the Yogacara school of Indian Buddhism as a coherent system of ideas and practices for the path to liberation, contextualizing its key texts and rendering them accessible and relevant.
The Yogacara, or Yoga Practice, school is one of the two schools of Mahayana Buddhism that developed in the early centuries of the common era. Though it arose in India, Mahayana Buddhism now flourishes in China, Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, and Japan. While the other major Mahayana tradition, the Madhyamaka (Middle Way), focuses on the concept of emptiness—that all phenomena lack an intrinsic essence—the Yogacara school focuses on the cognitive processes whereby we impute such essences. Through everyday examples and analogues in cognitive science, author William Waldron makes Yogacara’s core teachings—on the three turnings of the Dharma wheel, the three natures, the storehouse consciousness, and mere perception—accessible to a broad audience. In contrast to the common characterization of Yogacara as philosophical idealism, Waldron presents Yogacara Buddhism on its own terms, as a coherent system of ideas and practices, with dependent arising its guiding principle.
The first half of Making Sense of Mind Only explores the historical context for Yogacara’s development. Waldron examines early Buddhist texts that show how our affective and cognitive processes shape the way objects and worlds appear to us, and how we erroneously grasp onto them as essentially real—perpetuating the habits that bind us to samsara. He then analyzes the early Madhyamaka critique of essences.
This context sets the stage for the book’s second half, an examination of how Yogacara texts such as the Samdhinirmocana Sutra and Asanga’s Stages of Yogic Practice (Yogacarabhumi) build upon these earlier ideas by arguing that our constructive processes also occur unconsciously. Not only do we collectively, yet mostly unknowingly, construct shared realities or cultures, our shared worlds are also mediated through the storehouse consciousness (alayavijñana) functioning as a cultural unconscious. Vasubandhu’s Twenty Verses argues that we can learn to recognize such objects and worlds as “mere perceptions” (vijñaptimatra) and thereby abandon our enchantment with the products of our own cognitive processes. Finally, Maitreya’s Distinguishing Phenomena from Their Ultimate Nature (Dharmadharmatavibhaga) elegantly lays out the Mahayana path to this transformation.
Source: ‘Yogācāra: Indian Buddhist Origins’
This chapter provides a historical overview of Yogācāra in India, including its place in Indian Buddhist doxography; its representative thinkers and commentators from the fourth through to the eleventh centuries, as well as important Yogācāra scholars from the Tibetan tradition; the school’s main scriptural sources (Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra; Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra; Abhidharma-samuccaya; Abhidharma-kośa; Mahāyāna-saṃgraha; Madhyānta-vibhāga; Viṃśikā; Triṃśikā); key doctrines (such as buddhahood; seeds; base consciousness; five sense consciousnesses; mental factors; three wheels; three natures; dependent arising; idealism); Yogācāra psychology and meditation theory; and Yogācāra soteriology and hermeneutics.
Source: Some Remarks on the Genesis of Central Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda Concepts.
The present paper is a kind of selective summary of my book The Genesis of Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda. [1.–2.] It deals with questions of origin and early development of three basic concepts of this school, viz., the ‘idealist’ thesis that the whole world is mind only or manifestation only, the assumption of a subliminal layer of the mind, and the analysis of phenomena in terms of the “Three Natures”. [3.] It has been asserted that these three basic concepts are logically inseparable and therefore must have been introduced conjointly. [4.] Still, from Vasubandhu onward treatises have been written in which only one of the three concepts is advocated or demonstrated to be indispensable, without any reference to the other two being made. Likewise, in most of the earlier Yogācāra treatises, the three concepts occur in different sections or contexts, or are even entirely absent, as vijñaptimātra in the Yogācārabhūmi and ālayavijñāna in the Mahāyānasūtrālaṁkāra and Madhyāntavibhāga. [5.] It is therefore probable that the three concepts were introduced separately and for different reasons. [5.1.] As regards the concept of the “Three Natures”, I very hypothetically suggest that it was stimulated by the Tattvārthapaṭala of the Bodhisatvabhūmi. [5.2.1.] In the case of ālayavijñāna, I still think that my hypothesis that the concept originated from a problem emerging in connection with the “attainment of cessation” holds good and has not been conclusively refuted, but I admit that Prof. Yamabe?s hypothesis is a serious alternative. [5.2.2.] An important point is that in the Yogācārabhūmi we come across two fundamentally different concepts of ālayavijñāna, the starting point for the change being, probably, the fifth chapter of the Saṁdhinirmocanasūtra. [5.3.] As for ‘idealism’, we may have to distinguish two strands, which, however, tend to merge. [5.3.1.] The earlier one uses the concept cittamātra and emerges as early as in the Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṁmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra in connection with an interpretation of visions of the Buddha Amitāyus. [5.3.2.] The later strand introduces the concept vijñaptimātra and seems to have originated in the eighth chapter of the Saṁdhinirmocanasūtra in connection with a reflection on the images perceived in insight meditation. [5.3.3.] In texts like the Mahāyānasūtrālaṁkāra, concepts from other Mahāyānasūtra strands become prominent in this connection, and it is only in the Mahāyānasaṁgraha that the use of vijñaptimātra is finally established.
Source: Vasubandhu’s consciousness trilogy: a Yogacara Buddhist process idealism
This work is a philosophical investigation into Vasubandhu’s consciousness trilogy, comprised by the Trisvabhāva-Nirdeśa (“Instruction on the Threefold Own-State-of-Being,”) and the Vijñaptimātra-Kārikas (“Verses on Consciousness-Occasion,”) divided into the Viṃśika-Kārikas (“Twenty Verses”) and the Triṃśika-Kārikas (“Thirty Verses.”) Although early Indian Yogācāra Buddhism was once non-controversially described as a form of absolute ontological idealism, challengers have urged predominately psycho-epistemological readings of Yogācārin works. However, neither an exclusively metaphysical or exclusively epistemological reading is warranted; the more interesting and difficult case is that these themes are necessarily interwoven throughout the early Yogācāra canon, including the consciousness trilogy. While Vasubandhu’s position in the trilogy is indeed idealist and monist, this does not entail a rejection of objectivity. Functions are substituted for substances in ontological discussions. The ālayavijñāna (“storehouse-consciousness”) concept is developed so that it can serve the explanatory function of material cause. In this way much apparent logical tension is diffused, and a more complete picture of Vasubandhu’s Yogācāra emerges.
Source: ‘Buddhism, Yogacara school of’
Yogācāra is one of the two schools of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism. Its founding is ascribed to two brothers, Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, but its basic tenets and doctrines were already in circulation for at least a century before the brothers lived. In order to overcome the ignorance that prevented one from attaining liberation from the karmic rounds of birth and death, Yogācāra focused on the processes involved in cognition. Their sustained attention to issues such as cognition, consciousness, perception and epistemology, coupled with claims such as ‘external objects do not exist’ has led some to misinterpret Yogācāra as a form of metaphysical idealism. They did not focus on consciousness to assert it as ultimately real (Yogācāra claims consciousness is only conventionally real), but rather because it is the cause of the karmic problem they are seeking to eliminate.
Yogācāra introduced several important new doctrines to Buddhism, including vijñaptimātra, three self-natures, three turnings of the dharma-wheel and a system of eight consciousnesses. Their close scrutiny of cognition spawned two important developments: an elaborate psychological therapeutic system mapping out the problems in cognition with antidotes to correct them and an earnest epistemological endeavour that led to some of the most sophisticated work on perception and logic ever engaged in by Buddhists or Indians.
Although the founding of Yogācāra is traditionally ascribed to two half-brothers, Asaṅga and Vasubandhu (fourth–fifth century bc), most of its fundamental doctrines had already appeared in a number of scriptures a century or more earlier, most notably the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra (Elucidating the Hidden Connections) (third–fourth century bc). Among the key Yogācāra concepts introduced in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra are the notions of ’only-cognition’ (vijñaptimātra), three self-natures (trisvabhāva), warehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna), overturning the basis (āśrayaparāvṛtti) and the theory of eight consciousnesses.
The Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra proclaimed its teachings to be the third turning of the wheel of dharma. Buddha lived around sixth–fifth century bc, but Mahāyāna Sūtra did not begin to appear probably until five hundred years later. New Mahāyāna Sūtra continued to be composed for many centuries. Indian Mahāyānists treated these Sūtras as documents which recorded actual discourses of the Buddha. By the third or fourth century a wide and sometimes incommensurate range of Buddhist doctrines had emerged, but whichever doctrines appeared in Sūtras could be ascribed to the authority of Buddha himself. According to the earliest Pāli Sutta, when Buddha became enlightened he turned the wheel of dharma, that is, began to teach the path to enlightenment. While Buddhists had always maintained that Buddha had geared specific teachings to the specific capacities of specific audiences, the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra established the idea that Buddha had taught significantly different doctrines to different audiences according to their levels of understanding; and that these different doctrines led from provisional antidotes (pratipakṣa) for certain wrong views up to a comprehensive teaching that finally made explicit what was only implicit in the earlier teachings. In its view, the first two turnings of the wheel – the teachings of the Four Noble Truths in Nikāya and Abhidharma Buddhism and the teachings of the Madhyamaka school, respectively – had expressed the dharma through incomplete formulations that required further elucidation (neyārtha) to be properly understood and thus effective. The first turning, by emphasizing entities (such as dharmas and aggregates) while ’hiding’ emptiness, might lead one to hold a substantialistic view; the second turning, by emphasizing negation while ’hiding’ the positive qualities of the dharma, might be misconstrued as nihilism. The third turning was a middle way between these extremes that finally made everything explicit and definitive (nīthartha). In order to leave nothing hidden, the Yogācārins embarked on a massive, systematic synthesis of all the Buddhist teachings that had preceded them, scrutinizing and evaluating them down to the most trivial details in an attempt to formulate the definitive Buddhist teaching. Stated another way, to be effective all of Buddhism required a Yogācārin reinterpretation. Innovations in abhidharma analysis, logic, cosmology, meditation methods, psychology, philosophy and ethics are among their most important contributions. Asaṅga’s magnum opus, the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice), is a comprehensive encyclopedia of Buddhist terms and models, mapped out according to his Yogācārin view of how one progresses along the stages of the path to enlightenment.
Chinese Yogacara
Old Yogacara
Northern Dilun
Southern Dilun
Shelun
Later Yogacara
Faxiang
Dharma Characteristics
Weishi (Consciousnesss – Only)
Fa-hsiang school of China
Hsüan-tsang and K’uei-chi
The great monk Genjō (Xuanzang in Chinese; 596–664)
his eminent disciple Kiki, also known as Jion Daishi (Guiji in Chinese; 632–682).
Dignaga
Dhamapala
Silabhadra
Xuanzang (602-664)
Kuiji (632- 682)
Huizho
Zhizhou
Consciousnesss – Shi
Mind – Xin
Meta Consciousness
9th level Consciousness – Amala
One Consciousness Only – Weidushi
Faxiang zong – Zong of Dharma Characteristics
Faxing zong – Zong of Dharma Nature
Source: Yogācāra Buddhism in China
Yogācāra Buddhism in China is divided into two stages. The early stage is represented by the schools of Dilun and Shelun, while the late stage is known as the school of Faxiang (dharma-characteristic) or Weishi (consciousness-only). Besides upholding the traditional Yogācāra teachings of store-consciousness, three natures, and consciousness-only, Chinese Yogācāras also had some interesting contributions to the relationship between the theories of mind and of Buddha-nature, to the analysis of the structure of consciousness, and to the classification of objects.
Source: 4. Indian transplants: tathāgatagarbha and Yogācāra
A dispute at the start of the sixth century presaged a conflict that would take the Chinese Buddhists more than two centuries to settle. Two Indian monks collaborated on a translation of Vasubandhu’s Daśabhūmikasūutra śāstra (Treatise on the Ten Stages Sutra; in Chinese, Shidijing lun, or Dilun for short). The Dilun described the ten stages through which a bodhisattva proceeded on the way to nirvāṇa, and Vasubandhu’s exposition of it highlighted aspects most in accord with the tenets of the Yogācāra school (see Buddhism, Yogācāra school of; Vasubandhu). While translating, an irreconcilable difference of interpretation broke out between the two translators, Bodhiruci and Ratnamati. Bodhiruci’s reading followed a relatively orthodox Yogācāra line, while Ratnamati’s interpretation leaned heavily toward a Buddhist ideology only beginning to receive attention in China, tathāgatagarbha thought. Bodhiruci went on to translate roughly forty additional texts, and was later embraced by both the Huayan and Pure Land traditions as one of their early influences (see §§8, 10). Ratnamati later collaborated with several other translators on a number of other texts. Both sides attempted to ground their positions on interpretations of key texts, especially the Dilun. The Yogācāra versus Yogācāra-tathāgatagarbha conflict became one of the critical debates amongst sixth and seventh century Chinese Buddhists.
Yogācāra focused on the mind and distinguished eight types of consciousness: five sensory consciousnesses; an empirical organizer of sensory data (mano-vijñāna); a self-absorbed, appropriative consciousness (manas); and the eighth, a warehouse consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) that retained the karmic impressions of past experiences and coloured new experiences on the basis of that previous conditioning. The eighth consciousness was also the fundamental consciousness. Each individual is constituted by the karmic stream of one’s own ālaya-vijñāna, that is, one’s karmic conditioning. Since, like a stream, the ālaya-vijñāna is reconfigured each moment in response to constantly changing conditions, it is not a permanent self, although, being nothing more than a sequential chain of causes and effects, it provides sufficient stability for an individual to maintain a sense of continuity. According to classical Yogācāra texts, the mind (that is, ālaya-vijñāna and the mental events associated with it) is the problem, and enlightenment results from bringing this consciousness to an end, replacing it with the Great Mirror Cognition (ādarśa-jñāna); instead of discriminating consciousness, one has direct immediate cognition of things just as they are, as impartially and comprehensively as a mirror. This type of enlightenment occurs during the eighth stage according to the Dilun and other texts.
The term tathāgatagarbha (in Chinese, rulaizang) derives from two words: tathāgata (Chinese, rulai) is an epithet of the Buddha, meaning either ‘thus come’ or ‘thus gone’; garbha means embryo, womb or matrix, and was translated into Chinese as zang, meaning ‘repository’. In its earliest appearances in Buddhist texts, tathāgatagarbha (repository of buddhahood) signified the inherent capacity of humans (and sometimes other sentient beings) to achieve buddhahood. Over time the concept expanded and came to signify the original pristine pure ontological Buddha-ness intrinsic in all things, a pure nature that is obscured or covered over by defilements (Sanskrit, kleśa; Chinese fannao), that is, mental, cognitive, psychological, moral and emotional obstructions. It was treated as a synonym for Buddha-nature, though Buddha-nature dynamically understood as engaged in a struggle against defilements and impurities. In Chinese Buddhism especially, the soteriological goal consisted in a return to or recovering of that original nature by overcoming or eliminating the defilements. The battle between the pure and impure, light and dark, enlightenment and ignorance, good and evil and so on, took on such epic proportions in Chinese Buddhist literature that some scholars have compared it to Zoroastrian or Manichean themes, though evidence for the influence of those religions on Buddhist thought has been more suggestive than definitive (see Manicheism; Zoroastrianism).
In their classical formulations the ālaya-vijñāna and tathāgatagarbha were distinct items differing from each other in important ways – for instance, enlightenment entailed bringing the ālaya-vijñāna to an end, while it meant actualizing the tathāgatagarbha; the ālaya-vijñāna functioned as the karmic mechanism par excellence, while tathāgatagarbha was considered the antipode to all karmic defilements. Nonetheless some Buddhist texts, such as the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, conflated the two. Those identifying the two argued that the ālaya-vijñāna, like tathāgatagarbha, was pure and its purity became permanently established after enlightenment. Those opposing the conflation countered that the ālaya-vijñānawas itself defiled and needed to be eliminated in order to reach enlightenment. For the conflators, tathāgatagarbha was identified with Buddha-nature and with mind (xin) (see Xin). Mind was considered pure, eternal, and the ontological ground of reality (Dharma-dhātu), while defiled thought-instants (nian) that engaged in delusionary false discriminations had to be eliminated. Once nian were eliminated, the true, pure nature of the mind would brilliantly shine forth, like the sun coming out from behind the clouds.
A third view was added when Paramārtha, another Indian translator with his own unique interpretation of Yogācāra, arrived in the middle of the sixth century. For his followers the most important of his translations was the She dasheng lun (Sanskrit title, Mahāyānasaṃgraha), or Shelun, a quasi-systematic exposition of Yogācāra theory by one its founders, Asaṅga. In some of his translations he added a ninth consciousness beyond the usual eight, a ‘pure consciousness’ that would pervade unhindered once the defiled ālaya-vijñāna was destroyed. His translations, which sometimes took liberties with the Sanskrit originals, offered a more sophisticated version of the conflation theory.
Source: Quick Overview of the Faxiang School 法相宗
Called the Weishi 唯識 (Sanskrit, Vijñaptimātra; consciousness-only) school by its Chinese proponents, and the Faxiang 法相 (dharma characteristics) school by its opponents, this was the third major introduction of Yogācāra Buddhism into China. Competing versions of Yogācāra had dominated Chinese Buddhism since the beginning of the sixth century, first with the Northern and Southern Dilun 地論schools, which followed, respectively, the opposing interpretations by Bodhiruci 菩提流支and Ratnamati 勒那摩提 of the Dilun (Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Shidi jing 十地經 [Sanskrit, Daśabhūmika-sūtra] called Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra [Chinese, Shidi jing lun 十地經論], T.26.1522). Thereafter, a different brand of Yogācāra was introduced by the translator Paramārtha 真諦 (499-569) in the mid-sixth century. Disputes between these three schools (the two Dilun schools and Paramārtha’s school), as well as various hybrids of Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha thought, had become so pervasive by the time of Xuanzang 玄奘 (ca. 600-664) that he traveled to India in 629 believing that texts as yet unavailable in China would settle the discrepancies. Instead he found that the Indian understanding of Yogācāra differed in many fundamentals-doctrinally and methodologically-from what had developed in China, and on his return to China in 645 he attempted to narrow the differences by translating over seventy texts and introducing Buddhist logic.
Because the novel teachings Xuanzang conveyed represented Indian Buddhist orthodoxy and because the Chinese emperor lavished extravagant patronage on him, Xuanzang quickly became the preeminent East Asian Buddhist of his generation, attracting students from Korea and Japan, as well as China. Two of his disciples, the Korean monk Wŏnch’ŭk 圓測 (613-696) and the Chinese monk Kuiji 窺基 (632-682), bitterly competed to succeed Xuanzang upon his death, their rivalry largely centering on divergent interpretations of the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (Treatise on Establishing Consciousness-Only), a commentary on Vasubandhu’s Triṃśikā (Thirty Verses) that, according to tradition, Kuiji helped Xuanzang compile and translate from ten Sanskrit commentaries. Kuiji is considered by tradition to be the first patriarch of the Weishi (or Faxiang) school.
Kuiji wrote many commentaries, such as on:
the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra ( 說無垢稱經疏, T.38.1782)
the Heart Sūtra ( 般若波羅蜜多心經幽贊, T.33.1710 – English translation by Heng-ching Shih and Dan Lusthaus, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Heart Sutra, Numata Center, Berkeley, 2001),
the Diamond Sūtra (T.33.1700 and T.40.1816),
the Lotus Sūtra (Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra)( 妙法蓮華經玄贊, T.34.1723),
Amitābha and Maitreya Sūtras (T.37.1757; T.37.1758; T.38.1772),
Vasubandhu’s One Hundred Dharmas Treatise ( 大乘百法明門論解, T.44.1836),
Sthiramati’s Commentary on Asaṅga’s Abhidharmasamuccaya ( 雜集論述記, ZZ.74.603),
and on Buddhist logic ( 因明入正理論疏, T.44.1840);
but his commentaries on the Cheng weishi lun1 and an original treatise on Yogācāra, Fayuan yilin chang 大乘法苑義林章 (Essays on the Forest of Meanings in the Mahāyāna Dharma Garden, T.45.1861), became the cornerstones of the Weishi school.
Hui Zhao 惠沼 (650-714), the second patriarch, and Zhi Zhou 智周 (668-723), the third patriarch, wrote commentaries on the Fayuan yulin chang, the Lotus Sūtra, and the Madhyāntavibhāga; they also wrote treatises on Buddhist logic and commentaries on the Cheng weishi lun.2 After Zhi Zhou, Faxiang’s influence declined in China, though its texts continued to be studied by other schools. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Faxiang enjoyed a revival among Chinese philosophers such as Yang Wenhui (1837-1911), Ouyang Jingwu (1871-1943), Taixu (1890-1947), and Xiong Shili (1883-1968), who sought a bridge between native philosophy and Western philosophy, especially in the field of epistemology.
Faxiang (Korean: Pŏpsang; Japanese: Hossō) was influential in Korea during the Unified Silla (668-935) and Koryŏ dynasties (935-1392), but faded with the decline of Buddhism in the Chosŏn dynasty (1392-1910). Similarly, Hossō, initially transmitted to Japan from China and Korea, was prominent during the Nara period (710-784), but withered under attack in the Heian period (794-1185) from rival Tendai and Shingon schools. The Hossō monk Ryōhen 良逼 (1194-1252) rebutted those attacks in his Kanjin Kakumushō 觀心覺夢鈔 (Précis on Contemplating the Mind and Awakening from the Dream), but Hossō, though surviving, declined nonetheless.
Most East Asian Buddhist schools, along with Faxiang, accepted many standard Yogācāra doctrines, such as the eight consciousnesses, three natures, and mind-only, though each school quibbled about specifics. The two doctrines that drew the most attacks were the Faxiang rejection of tathāgatagarbha ideology for being too metaphysically substantialistic and the Faxiang doctrine of five seed-families (Sanskrit, pañcagotras; Chinese, wu xing 五姓), which held that one’s potential for awakening was determined by the good seeds already in one’s consciousness stream. Practitioners of the Hīnayāna, pratyekabuddha, and Mahāyāna paths, as well as those who were undecided about practice, could fulfill these paths only by bringing the respective seeds of whichever path they contained to fruition. A fifth seed-family, icchantika, being devoid of the requisite seeds, can never and would never desire to achieve awakening. Since the other East Asian Buddhist schools held that all beings possess buddha-nature incipiently as tathāgatagarbha, and thus all have the potential for awakening, they found the icchantika doctrine unacceptable. However, Faxiang did not treat the icchantika as an ontological category or predestination theory; it only referred to someone incorrigible, someone who, in recent lives, remains impervious to the teachings of Buddhism. Anyone desiring enlightenment, by definition, cannot be an icchantika.
Bibliography
Lusthaus, Dan. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and the Ch’eng Wei-shih Lun.. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.
Sponberg, Alan. “The Vijñaptimātratā Buddhism of the Chinese Monk K’uei-chi (A.D. 632-682).” Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver: 1979.
Weinstein, Stanley. “The Kanjin Kakumushō.” Ph.D. diss, Harvard University, 1965.
Notes
1. 成唯識論述記, T.43.1830; 成唯識論掌中樞要, T.43.1831; 成唯識論料簡, ZZ.76.927; and the partially extant 成唯識論別抄, ZZ.77.866.[back]
2. Hui Zhao’s extant work, 成唯識論了義燈 (T.43.1832), a commentary on the Cheng Weishi lun (CWSL), offers details on the feud between Kuiji and Wŏnch’ŭk over interpretation of the CWSL and the right to succeed Xuanzang. Zhi Zhao’s extant writings include:
成唯識論演祕, T.43.1833 (Commentary on the CWSL)
大乘入道次第, T.45.1864 (Introduction to the Mahāyāna Path)
Source: Through the Mirror: The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
Source: Through the Mirror: The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
Source: Through the Mirror: The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
Source: Through the Mirror: The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
Source: Through the Mirror: The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
Source: Through the Mirror: The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
Source: Through the Mirror: The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
Source: Through the Mirror: The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
Source: Through the Mirror: The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
Source: Through the Mirror: The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Source: TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS: YOGACARA THOUGHT IN MODERN CHINA
Japanese Yogacara
One of the eight earliest Buddhist schools, Hossō (Faxiang in Chinese; Dharmalakshana in Sanskrit) was founded by the great monk Genjō (Xuanzang in Chinese; 596–664) and his eminent disciple Kiki, also known as Jion Daishi (Guiji in Chinese; 632–682).
The Todai-ji Temple (meaning Great Eastern Temple) is a key Buddhist landmark of Nara. It dates from the period when Mahayana [1] Buddhism first started to arrive in Japan via China and Korea at the start of the 7th century CE. [2] The most prominent early converts were the Empress Suiko (592-628 CE) and Prince Shotoku (573-621 CE). Nara also witnessed the period of the ‘Six Sects’ covering the debates between the Jojitsu, Kusha, Ritsu, Sanron, Hosso and Kegon sects [3], and this Todai-ji Temple served as the administrative temple covering all six Buddhist schools in Japan.
Source:
Kohfuku-ji is the main temple of the Hossō-shū Buddhist sect, inspired by the Chinese school Weishizong “pure consciousness”, known as Faxiang, introduced in Japan at the end of 7nd or at the beginning of 8nd century. The Hōsso School is based on the doctrine of pure consciousness, the deepest stratum of consciousness that holds the possibility of becoming a Buddha. It aims to perceive the true nature of things whose discovery leads to enlightenment.
Source: “Early Japanese Hossō in Relation to Silla Yogācāra in Disputes between Nara’s Northern and Southern Temple Traditions.”
This paper examines the influence of writings by Silla Yogācāra Buddhists on the formation of orthodox interpretations within the Hossō tradition, Japanese Yogācāra. Part One considers the frequency of citations of Silla masters and their texts in principal Hossō writings and suggests several implications of this. Some of the Silla writings used by Hossō thinkers in support of their views were specifically condemned by the Chinese Faxiang tradition. This contradicts descriptions by Gyōnen and other historians of Hossō as an imported copy of Faxiang. Part Two of the article assesses four points of argument between the Nara Hossō Northern Temple (Kōfukuji) tradition and Nara Hossō Southern Temple (Gangōji) tradition. It is shown that these disputes persisted for centuries in Japanese Yogācāra and that the two traditions used Silla interpretations in opposing ways. Many prominent Hossō authorities relied on Silla texts that challenge Faxiang understandings of epistemology, ontology, and logic.
Source: “Early Japanese Hossō in Relation to Silla Yogācāra in Disputes between Nara’s Northern and Southern Temple Traditions.”
Source: “Early Japanese Hossō in Relation to Silla Yogācāra in Disputes between Nara’s Northern and Southern Temple Traditions.”
Source: “Early Japanese Hossō in Relation to Silla Yogācāra in Disputes between Nara’s Northern and Southern Temple Traditions.”
Source: “Early Japanese Hossō in Relation to Silla Yogācāra in Disputes between Nara’s Northern and Southern Temple Traditions.”
Source: “Early Japanese Hossō in Relation to Silla Yogācāra in Disputes between Nara’s Northern and Southern Temple Traditions.”
One of the Six Schools of Nara Buddhism in Japan.this school consisted of scholar-monks whose primary concern was the texts and doctrines of the Fa-hsiang school of China (of which Hossō is the Japanese pronunciation). Their philosophy was also known as yuishiki, or ‘consciousness-only’, because of its fundamental belief that all of reality, including both the objective world and the subjective mind that regards it, are but evolutions of consciousness according to karma. The school was transmitted to Japan by Japanese clerics who studied in China with Fa-hsiang masters such as Hsüan-tsang and K’uei-chi, and became one of the most powerful of the six Nara schools. See also citta-mātra; yogācāra; vijñapti-mātra.
My Related Posts
Schools of Buddhist Philosophy
Meditations on Emptiness and Fullness
Hua Yan Buddhism: Reflecting Mirrors of Reality
Consciousness of Cosmos: Fractal, Recursive, Holographic Universe
Indira’s Net : On Interconnectedness
Indira’s Pearls: Apollonian Gasket, Circle and Sphere Packing
The GreGreat Chain of Being
Networks and Hierarchies
Boundaries and Networks
Levels of Human Psychological Development in Integral Spiral Dynamics
Key Sources of Research
Living Yogacara: An Introduction to Consciousness-Only Buddhism
Paperback – June 9, 2009 by Tagawa Shun’ei (Author), A. Charles Muller (Translator)
The Yogācāra (practitioners of yoga) school, also known as citta-mātra (mind-only), or vijñānavāda(consciousness school), is one of two major schools of Indian Mahayana Buddhist thought, which flourished in classical India from the 3rd–4th century CE to the 9th century CE. It is important both for the way it synthesized and developed all aspects of contemporaneous Mahāyāna Buddhism, as well as for its historical influence on subsequent forms of Buddhism both inside and outside of India. Its encyclopedic aims led Yogācārins first to outline the “practice of yoga,” which combined Abhidharmic modes of analyzing mental processes with the Mādhyamikan notion of emptiness, and, second, to systematize the Mahayana path system and developing notions of buddhahood. Both of these syntheses—philosophical analyses of mental processes and systematization of the Buddhist path and goal—were very influential in later Chinese, Korean, and Japanese Buddhist history, while only the second—systematizing the Buddhist path and goal—attained similar importance in Tibet. Understanding the whole of Yogācāra is a challenge commensurate with its ambitious aims; accordingly, there are still no comprehensive treatments of Yogācāra in Western languages. Moreover, a huge gulf still exists between works that are relatively accessible to nonspecialists and those written for and by specialists. Academic interest in the school has been increasing since the 1990s, however, partly as a result of increased historical knowledge about and interaction between South and East Asian forms of Buddhism, and partly in response to the many venues for dialogue between Yogācāra and modern thought.
General Overviews
Though Yogācāra is an elaborate scholastic school, it purports to describe everyday experience, however deluded, as well as its transformation through the practice of yoga to the ultimate state of buddhahood. In accessible terms, Nhât Hanh 2006 and Tagawa 2009 show how Yogācāra analyses of mind elucidate everyday experience and their transformations. Davidson 1985 illustrates, more technically, the multiple systems whereby Yogācārins conceived of such transformation, while Nagao and Kawamura 1991 addresses the various philosophical, interpretive, and historical issues these practices raised. Potter 1999 contains useful synopses of most Buddhist texts from the formative period of Yogācāra. Lusthaus (What Is and Isn’t Yogācāra) provides an excellent and succinct outline of classical Indian Yogācāra while arguing against the standard interpretation of Yogācāra as metaphysical idealism—an interpretation whose history in Western scholarship he reconstructs in Lusthaus 1999. General Bibliography on Yogācāra and especially Powers 1991 can be consulted for further sources.
Davidson, R. M. Buddhist Systems of Transformation: Āśraya parivṛtti/parāvṛtti among the Yogācāra. PhD diss., Berkeley: University of California, 1985. The only work that effectively encompasses the various dimensions of classical Yogācāra systems of transformation in its Indian historical milieu. It assumes some background on the part of the reader.
Lusthaus, Dan. “What Is and Isn’t Yogācāra.”A succinct summary of Yogācāra along with the clearest argument against its standard interpretation as a form of metaphysical idealism.
Lusthaus, Dan. “A Brief Retrospective of Western Yogācāra Scholarship in the 20th Century.” Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Chinese Philosophy, Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan, 26–31 July 1999. A useful overview of Western scholarship on Yogācāra during the 20th century. Includes references. Available online.
Nagao Gajin, and Leslie S. Kawamura, trans. Madhyamaka and Yogācāra: A Study of Mahāyāna Philosophies: Collected Papers of G. M. Nagao. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. A collection of seminal essays by one of Japan’s leading Yogācāra specialists. A great place for graduate students to begin, especially those interested in philological issues.
Nhât Hanh, Thich. Understanding Our Mind. Berkeley, CA: Parallax, 2006. A simple, though not simplistic, introduction to the major concepts of Yogācāra from the point of view of a leading Buddhist teacher and monk. Accessible, although somewhat repetitious.
Potter, Karl, ed. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Buddhist Philosophy. Vols. 8–9. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999. A useful collection of detailed outlines of Buddhist philosophical texts from roughly 100 to 350 CE, a period that encompasses the classical texts of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu. It includes a long introduction contextualizing the development of Yogācāra doctrines within the larger world of Indian Buddhist thought.
Powers, John. The Yogācāra School of Buddhism: A Bibliography. ATLA Bibliography Series 27. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1991. The most comprehensive bibliography in English. It includes references to all the important editions of Yogācāra texts in their Sanskrit originals and Tibetan and Chinese translations, their modern critical editions, as well as works by traditional Tibetan and modern scholars from around the globe. Lists no publications beyond 1991.
Tagawa Shun’ei. Living Yogācāra: An Introduction to Consciousness-Only Buddhism.Translated by Charles Muller. Boston: WisdomPublications, 2009. A nontechnical introduction to the basic ideas of Yogācāra, heavily influenced by East Asian perspectives. Accessible and engaging.
Vasubandhu’s “Three Natures” A Practitioner’s Guide for Liberation
This dissertation seeks to locate the place of Taehyon (ca. 8th century CE), a Silla Korean Yogacara monk, within the broader East Asian Buddhist tradition. My task is not confined solely to a narrow study of Taehyon’s thought and career, but is principally concerned with understanding the wider contours of the East Asian Yogacara tradition itself and how these contours are reflected in Taehyon’s extant oeuvre. There are problems in determining Taehyon’s doctrinal position within the traditional paradigms of East Asian Yogacara tradition, that is, the bifurcations of Tathagatagarbha and Yogacara; Old and New Yogacara; the One Vehicle and Three Vehicles; and the Dharma Nature and Dharma Characteristics schools. Taehyon’s extant works contain doctrines drawn from across these various divides, and his doctrinal positions therefore do not precisely fit any of these traditional paradigms. In order to address this issue, this dissertation examines how these bifurcations originated and evolved over time, across the geographical expanse of the East Asian Yogacara tradition. The chapters of the dissertation discuss in largely chronological order the theoretical problems involved in these bifurcations within Yogacara and proposes possible resolutions to these problems, by focusing on the works of such major Buddhist exegetes as Paramartha (499-569), Ji (632-682), Wonhyo (617-686), Fazang (643-712), and, finally, Taehyon.
Into the Mirror is a call to cultivate wisdom and compassion—right within this world of illusion—and an insightful challenge to the rampant materialism of modernity. Andy Karr presents accessible and powerful methods to accomplish this through investigating the way our minds construct our worlds.
Combining contemporary Western inquiries with classical Buddhist investigations into the nature of mind, Karr invites the reader to make a personal, experiential journey through study, contemplation, and meditation. He presents a series of contemplative practices from Mahayana Buddhism, starting with the Middle Way teachings on emptiness and interdependence, through Yogachara’s subtle understanding of nonduality, to the view that buddha nature is already within us to be revealed rather than something external to be acquired.
Quarks of Consciousness and the Representation of the Rose: Philosophy of Science Meets the Vaiśeṣika-Vaibhāṣika-Vijñaptimātra Dialectic in Vasubandhu’s Viṃśikā.
Philadelphia, Pa. : American Theological Library Association ATLA bibliography series ; no.27 ISBN : 0810825023
Being as Consciousness: Yogācāra Philosophy of Buddhism
Authors Fernando Tola, Carmen Dragonetti Editors Fernando Tola, Carmen Dragonetti Publisher Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2004 ISBN 8120819675, 9788120819672 Length 270 pages
Mādhyamika and Yogācāra A Study of Mahāyāna Philosophies
By Gadjin M. Nagao Edited by Leslie S. Kawamura
Subjects: Buddhism Series: SUNY series in Buddhist Studies Paperback : 9780791401873, 304 pages, January 1991 Hardcover : 9780791401866, 304 pages, January 1991
The Problem of Knowledge in Yogācāra Buddhism
Author Chhote Lal Tripathi Publisher Bharat-Bharati, 1972 Original from the University of Virginia Digitized Aug 1, 2007 Length 396 pages
Referents and Objects: A Parallel between General Semantics and Yogācāra Buddhism
Rowe, Thomas
(2018). Institute of General Semantics, ETC: A Review of General Semantics, July/October 2018, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3821619
A striking and specific parallel occurs between the “two crucial negative premises” identified by Alfred Korzybski and the two approaches to emptiness in the Yogācāra school of Buddhism.
Korzybski: Let us repeat the two crucial negative premises as established firmly by all human experience: (1) Words are not the things we are speaking about; and (2) There is no such thing as an object in absolute isolation.
The Yogācāra Emptinesses: 1. An object’s absence of being established by way of its own character as a referent of terminology or of a conceptual consciousness. 2. The emptiness of apprehended-objects and apprehending-subjects existing as different substantial entities.
Readings on Yogacara Buddhism
AUTHOR: A. K. CHATTERJEE PUBLISHER: BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE: SANSKRIT EDITION: 1971
Making Sense of Mind Only: Why Yogacara Buddhism Matters
(Paperback)
By William S. Waldron
ISBN: 9781614297260 ISBN-10: 1614297266 Publisher: Wisdom Publications Publication Date: November 7th, 2023 Pages: 384 Language: English
Xuanzang’s journey to the West — and back to Chang’an
The Buddhist monk Xuanzang covered 10,000 miles on foot and horseback, from China to India, and passed through parts of what are today Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nepal. When he returned home, he received a hero’s welcome.
The Consciousness-Only (vijñapti-mātra) School of Chinese Buddhism is a transmission and development of the Consciousness-Only School of Indian Buddhism. Controversies exist regarding to what extent the Indian version was reshaped in China. Historically speaking, there were three major phases of the transmission of Indian Consciousness-Only doctrines: (1) early 6th century, represented by Bodhiruci; (2) mid-6th century, represented by Paramārtha (499-569); (3) mid-7th century, represented by Xuanzang (602?-664) and his disciples, who compiled the Cheng weishi lun (*Vijñapti-mātratā-siddhi) and were later regarded as orthodox. One of the major differences between the Consciousness-Only doctrine transmitted by Paramārtha and that by Xuanzang lies in their reception of Tathāgatagarbha thought. According to Paramārtha, all sentient beings share the Dharma-body of the Buddha and can be properly designated as “Buddha-containing” (tathāgata-garbha), but Xuanzang recognizes the existence of the icchantika-s, namely, a group of sentient beings who will never be enlightened and become Buddhas.
Gimello 1976 remains a reliable introduction. Lusthaus 2002 is controversial in its interpretation of the Consciousness-Only doctrine of Xuanzang and Kuiji as phenomenology instead of as idealism.
The research explores the interplay between causality and the notion of time in Yogācāra Buddhism. There has been a long debate over whether time is an objective reality with independent ontological status or, in contrast, a subjective experience that is dependent on mind. Until now, the two sides have failed to provide a clear and complete explanation of our temporal conception of things. A similar situation can be identified in the development of the notion of time in Indian philosophy. The concept of time (kāla) in the Indian tradition has evolved from cosmological speculations and the notion of divine power as developed in the Upanisads, where time is identified with Brahman (God), which is postulated as the ultimate ground of existence. On the other hand, in Buddhist philosophy our temporal conception of things is explained with our psychological experience. The limited investigation into the teachings of Yogācāra Buddhism has created a vacuum in our knowledge of the concept of time as understood by this particular Buddhist tradition. The thesis argues that concepts of time in Yogācāra are closely linked with its spiritual practice and its explanation for temporal experience as it occurs in the internal mind. It is the Vijñānavāda theory of causality that mediates between mind and spiritual practice. Here, time is defined as a nominal designation for an uninterrupted series of causal activities. When causality links with the flowing stream of time in the past, present and future, it creates the impression of a linear relation between the cause and the arising of the effect. In this thesis, primary sources in Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese are presented in order to show that there are doctrinal materials to support that it is around this central theme on which Yogācāra discussion on time hinger. The thesis demonstrates that the study of time in Yogācāra is divided into three strata: staring from the soteriological investigation by Maitreya and Asanga then developed into phenomenological inquiry in Vasubandhu’s idealistic position, and completed in the epistemological system of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti. This research is intended to fill a gap in the study of the Buddhist concept of time and to provide a possible resolution to the contemporary debate over the nature of temporal notions by examining it from the religious and philosophical perspectives found in Yogācāra Buddhism.
YOGACARA VASUBANDHU’S PHENOMENOLOGICAL IDEALISM
A BUDDHIST THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS
SHRUTI KAPUR
THIS BOOK IS A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF YOGACARA VASUBANDHU AND THAT OF THE GERMAN PHILOSOPHER EDMUND HUSSERL HAVING THE FOCUS ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEEPLY INNER NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS OR MIND. IT ASSERTS THAT THE YOGACARA PHILOSOPHY IS MUCH RICHER AND COMPREHENSIVE THAN THE WESTERN PHENOMENOLOGY, PARTICULARLY THE HUSSERLIAN PHENOMENOLOGY.
ISBN: 9788124611586 Year Of Publication: 2022 Edition: 1st Publisher: D.K. Printworld Pvt. Ltd.
The Doctrine of Momentariness in Sarvastivada School
Four Kinds of Sarvastivadins
Dharmatrata
Ghosaka
Vasumitra
Buddhadeva
Sautrantika (Darstantika) School
Doctrines Propounded by the Sautrantikas
The Doctrine of Momentariness
The Theory of Seed (Bīja)
A Glance at the Three Different Philosophical Perspectives of Vasubandhu
Vasubandhu: A Sarvastivada–Vaibhasika and Sautrantika
Vasubandhu: A Yogacara–Vijnanavadin
A Philosophical Debate between Yogacara Vasubandhu and the Buddhist Realists
Preamble
Objection 1: Spatial Regularity (Desa-niyama)
Reply
Objection 2: Temporal Regularity (Kala-niyama)
Reply
Objection 3: Public Shareability and Causal Continuity (Santana-niyama)
Reply
Objection 4: Functional Causal Action
(Krtya-kriya-niyama)
Reply
An Evaluation of Vasubandhu’s Arguments
Vaibhasika’s Realist Response
Yogacara Vasubandhu’s Response
Vaibhasika’s Realist Response
Yogacara Vasubandhu’s Response
Vaibhasika’s Realist Response
Yogacara Vasubandhu’s Response
Vaibhasika’s Realist Response
Yogacara Vasubandhu’s Response
Sautrantika Position
Yogacara Vasubandhu’s Objection
Sautrantika Reply
Yogacara Vasubandhu’s Response
Sautrantika Reply
Yogacara Vasubandhu’s Response
Upapadukasattvadesana
Abhipraya
Prayojana
Badhaka-pramana
Agama Badha
Yukti Badha
Discourse on the Twelve Sense Spheres (Ayatana) Abhipraya
Sautrantika Questions
Vasubandhu Explains Ayatana Desana
Vijnaptimatrata Desana
Nature and Modes of Consciousness in the Trimsika
Introduction
Significant Key Questions
Meaning and Classification of Consciousness (Vijnana) Traditional Buddhist Classification: Early Abhidharma Classification of Consciousness by Yogacarin Asanga and Vasubandhu
Three-layered Structure of Consciousness
Storehouse Consciousness (Alaya-vijnana): The First Transformation
Etymological Roots of Alaya
Various Translations of Alaya-vijnana
Three Interpretations of Alaya-vijnana
Four Aspects of Alaya
Nature of the Five Omnipresent Factors
Svarupa/Svabhāva of Alaya-vijnana
Contribution of Alaya-vijnana Principle to Vijnanavada
Alaya-vijnana: Its Active and Passive Modes
Cessation (Nivr̥tti) of Alaya-vijnana
Alaya-Vijnana vs Absolute Flow of Consciousness
Thinking Consciousness (Mano–nama-vijnana): The Second Transformation
Four Aspects of Ego Consciousness
Cessation (Nivrtti) of Klista-manovijnana
Active Consciousness (Pravr̥tti–vijnana): The Third Transformation
Mind and Mental Concommitants (Citta and Caitta or Caitasika)
Metaphors of “River” and “Ocean”
Reciprocal Relationship between Alaya–vijnana and Pravrtti–vijnana
The Internal Consciousness (Manovijnana)
Refutation of Eternalism (Sasvatanta)
Criticism of Externalist Realist
Refutation of Annihilationism
(Ucchedanta, Apavadanta)
Vasubandhu’s Theory of Trisvabhava
Introduction
The Three Natures of Consciousness (Trisvabhāva)
The Imagined Nature (Parikalpita Svabhava)
The Dependent Nature (Paratantra Svabhava)
The Consummate Nature (Pariniṣpanna Svabhava)
Interrelatedness between the Three Natures of Consciousness
Theory of Trilaksana in the Sandhinirmocanasutra
Simile of the Classical Indian Roadside Magic Show
Vasubandhu Explains Nihsvabhavata
Vasubandhu’s Tri-nihsvabhava Theory
The Path of Purification or Perfection (Ksanti)
Laksana Nihsvabhavata
Utpatti Nihsvabhavata
Paramartha Nihsvabhavata
5.Variety of Idealism: Western and Indian
What Is idealism?
Mind-boggling Views of Idealism
Plato’s Idealism
Descartes’ Problematic Idealism
Metaphysical Theory
Privileged Epistemic Position of Mind
Wax Analogy: Melting of the External Object
Representation Theory of Sense Perception
External Things: “A Great Propensity to Believe” Argument
Berkeley’s Idealism
What Is the Treatise All About?
Argument against Materialism
The Master Argument
Rejection of the Theory of Abstraction
Kant’s Transcendental Idealism
Kant’s Refutation of Idealism
Husserl’s Direct Realism-cum-Transcendental Idealism
Realist-Idealist Controversy about Husserl
Transcendental Idealism of Vedanta
Synthesis of Realism and Idealism in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad
Sankara’s Strong Sense of Philosophical Idealism
Phenomenology of Consciousness: A Comparative Study of Yogacara Vasubandhu and Husserl
Is Yogacara Vasubandhu a Phenomenologist?
What Does Phenomenology Mean?
Human Life as an Embodied Consciousness
Vasubandhu’s Thought-continuity and Methodology
Denial of the Duality within Experience
Two-tiered Hermeneutic Strategy
Vijnapti Matra and Nirvanic Freedom
The Problem of Temporal Synthesis and Continuity
Vasubandhu
Phenomenological Modes of Consciousness
Husserl on Temporal Synthesis and Continuity
Conclusion: A Critical Estimate
Bibliography
Index
IS IT ALL IN MY HEAD? AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MIND-ONLY SCHOOL, PART 1: MIND-ONLY IN CONTEXT
Yogacara Buddhism has frequently been mislabelled by scholars as a form of philosophical idealism. Hence it is usually asserted that Yogacara claims that mind or consciousness is the only reality and that the aim of Yogacara practice is the transformation of a defiled, empirical mind/consciousness into a true mind. This interpretation totally distorts Yogacara’s actual intent, which is summarized in the Sanskrit term vijnapti-matra . I seek to demonstrate that vijnapti-matra does not mean that mind alone is real, but rather that all human problematics are produced by and in the closure of psycho-linguistic conditioning; mind is the problem, not the solution. ;Since proper understanding of Yogacara depends on correctly contextualizing its doctrines, the evolution of key concepts–such as karma, the privileging of the cognitive domain , the ‘closured-actuality’ and ‘exceeding-reference-actuality’ , etc.–has been traced from early Buddhism through the development of Mahayana, to the interpretation given these notions in the Yogacara schools. A strong epistemological affinity between Yogacara and the Phenomenologies of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty is also discussed and analyzed. ;When, during the seventh century, Hsuan-tsang composed the Ch’eng Wei-shih lun, a compilation and translation into Chinese of ten Sanskrit commentaries on Vasubandhu’s Trimsika , he intended it as a corrective on the errant interpretations of Yogacara then prevalent in China. In order to recover the authentic Yogacara position, sections of the text have been translated and analyzed. Appendices include charts of the seventy-five and one-hundred dharmas, and a translation of the first chapter of the Madhyanta Vibhaga
Transforming Consciousness: Yogacara Thought in Modern China
The Western roots of many aspects of modern Chinese thought have been well documented. Far less well understood, and still largely overlooked, are the influence and significance of the main exemplar of Indian thought in modern China: Yogācāra Buddhist philosophy. This situation is all the more anomalous given that the revival of Yogācāra thought among leading Chinese intellectuals in the first three decades of the twentieth century played a decisive role in shaping how they engaged with major currents in modern Chinese thought: empirical science; “mind science” or psychology; evolutionary theory; Hegelian and Kantian philosophy; logic; and the place of Confucian thought in a modernizing China. The influence and legacy of Indian thought have been ignored in conventional accounts of China’s modern intellectual history. This volume sets out to achieve three goals. The first is to explain why this Indian philosophical system proved to be so attractive to influential Chinese intellectuals at the very moment in Chinese history when traditional knowledge systems and schemes of knowledge compartmentalization were being confronted by radically new knowledge systems introduced from the West. The next goal is to demonstrate how the revival of Yogācāra thought informed Chinese responses to the challenges of modernity, in particular modern science and logic. The third goal is to highlight how Yogācāra thought shaped a major current in modern Chinese philosophy: New Confucianism.
‘Teaching Yogācāra Buddhism Using Cognitive Science’,
Waldron, William S.,
in Todd Lewis, and Gary deAngelis (eds), Teaching Buddhism: New Insights on Understanding and Presenting the Traditions, AAR Teaching Religious Studies (New York, 2016; online edn, Oxford Academic, 20 Oct. 2016), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199373093.003.0003, accessed 10 July 2023.
In his Madhyamakāvatāra, Chandrakirti also offered refutations of a number of Buddhist views such as those of the vijñānavāda (“consciousness doctrine”) or yogācāra school. Chandrakirti understood this tradition as positing a kind of subjective idealism. According to Chandrakirti, the yogācāra school fails to fully understand the empty nature of consciousness since they ontologically privilege consciousness over its objects. However, according to Chandrakirti, both are equally empty and neither have any ontological primacy or ultimate existence. Thus, for Chandrakirti, yogācāra fails to appreciate how everything, including consciousness, is conditioned and empty.
Chandrakirti also examines and refutes the basic theories of yogācāra, including the theory of the three natures and the theory of the storehouse consciousness. Chandrakirti cites the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra in order to argue that the storehouse consciousness is a provisional teaching of indirect meaning (neyartha). He also critiques the yogācāra denial of an external object (bāhyārtha, bahirartha) of knowledge and the yogācāra theory of ‘self-awareness’ (svasamvedana, svasamvitti).
Furthermore, Chandrakirti interprets the various statements in the Mahayana sutras which seem to promote idealism in a different way than the yogācāra school. According to Chandrakirti, sutra teachings which state that “all is mind” and the like were taught by the Buddha as a way to counter the idea that our sufferings are caused by external forces and actors. According to Chandrakirti, to counter this wrong view and to help people understand that suffering mainly arises due to the way we understand our experience, the Buddha taught that all is mind (citta-matra) or idea/impressions (vijñapti-matra). Chandrakirti argues that it is a mistake to take this literally as an ontological statement and to conclude that only consciousness exists.
Vasubandhu’s consciousness trilogy: a Yogacara Buddhist process idealism
the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia Doctor of Philosophy Thesis By MELANIE K. JOHNSON-MOXLEY Dr. Bina Gupta, Dissertation Supervisor MAY 2008
The Western roots of many aspects of modern Chinese thought have been well documented. Far less well understood, and still largely overlooked, is the influence and significance of the main exemplar of Indian thought in modern China: Yogacara Buddhist thought. This situation is all the more anomalous given that the revival of Yogacara thought amongst leading Chinese intellectuals in the first three decades of the twentieth century played a decisive role in shaping major currents in modern Chinese thought. Furthermore, the legacies of the revival of Yogacara thought in key areas of contemporary thought (New Confucianism, in particular) are ongoing. This Project has three broad aims: 1. It will explain why this Indian philosophical system proved to be so attractive to influential Chinese intellectuals at the very moment in Chinese history when traditional knowledge systems and schemes of knowledge compartmentalization were being confronted by radically new knowledge systems introduced from the West. 2. It will demonstrate how the revival of Yogacara thought informed early Chinese responses to the challenges of modernity and shaped major currents in modern Chinese thought and philosophy. 3. It will show how the legacies of sustained critical engagement with Yogacara thought in contemporary China “New Confucianism, in particular” remain vibrant, ongoing and ripe with possibility. The Project undertakes to achieve these aims this by coordinating and drawing on the combined resources of a unique body of expertise in a highly innovative collaborative undertaking. The Project involves the collaboration of a network of twelve specialists around the globe: Australia, the Netherlands, Taiwan, USA, Canada and China. It brings together the expertise of scholars of Buddhism (covering Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, Korean and Japanese traditions of Buddhism) and scholars of Chinese intellectual history. A specialist of modern Japanese ethics has been added to provide a point of comparison helping the team to contextualize its findings within a larger East Asian Framework.
An Outline of the Yogacara-Vijñanavada School of Indian Buddhism Part One.
Source: Through the Mirror: The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
References
Arnold, Dan. 2012. Brains, Buddhas, and Believing: The Problem of Intentionality in Classical Buddhist and Cognitive-scientific Philosophy of Mind. New York: Columbia University Press.BookGoogle Scholar
Coseru, Christian. 2012. Perceiving Reality: Consciousness, Intentionality, and Cognition in Buddhist Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.BookGoogle Scholar
Dignāga 陳那. Ālambanaparīkşā, On the Insight of the Condition of the Perceived 觀所緣緣論. Trans. by Xuanzang 玄奘. T.31, No. 1624. (see Takakusu et al. 1924–1932)
Gallagher, Shaun. 2001. “The Practice of Mind: Simulation or Interaction.” In Between Ourselves: Second-Person Issues in the Study of Consciousness, edited by Evan Thompson. Charlottesville: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. 2006. Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.BookGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Tao. 2006. Contexts and Dialogue: Yogācāra Buddhism and Modern Psychology on the Subliminal Mind. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Kuiji 窺基. Commentary of the Perfection of Consciousness-only 成唯識論述記. T.43, No. 1830. (see Takakusu et al. 1924–1932)
______. The Handbook of the Gist of the Perfection of Consciousness-only 成唯識論掌中樞要. T.43, No. 1831. (see Takakusu et al. 1924–1932)
______. Commentary of the Perfection of Consciousness-only 成唯識論述記. T.43, . Commentary of the Twenty Verses on Consciousness-only 唯識二十論述記. T.43, No. 1834. (see Takakusu et al. 1924–1932)
La Vallée Poussin, Louis de, trans. 1928. Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi: la Siddhi de Hiuan-Tsang. Paris: P. Geuthner.
Lin, Chen-Kuo. 2009. “Object of Cognition in Dignāga’s Ālambanaparīkṣāvṛtti: On the Controversial Passages in Paramārtha’s and Xuanzang’s Translation.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 30.1: 117–138.Google Scholar
Lusthaus, Dan. 2002. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and the Chʼeng Wei-shih Lun. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lü, Cheng 呂澂. 1986. The Collected Writings of LÜCheng on Buddhism, Vol. 1 呂澂佛學論著選集(一). Jinan 濟南: Qilu Shushe 齊魯書社.
MacKenzie, Matthew. 2017. “Luminous Mind: Self-Luminosity versus Other-Luminosity in Indian Philosophy of Mind.” In Indian Epistemology and Metaphysics, edited by Joerg Tuske. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Paramārtha 真諦. On the Turning Consciousness 轉識論. T.31, No. 1587. (see Takakusu et al. 1924–1932)
Perrett, Roy. 2017. “Buddhist Idealism and the Problem of Other Minds.” Asian Philosophy27.1: 59–68.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Schmithausen, Lambert. 2005. On the Problem of the External World in the Ch’eng Wei Shih Lun. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.
Takakusu, Junjirō 高楠順次郎, WATANABE Kaikyoku 渡辺海旭, ONO Genmyō 小野玄妙, and Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai 大正一切経刊行会, eds. 1924–1932. Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. CBETA Database, www.cbeta.org (last accessed on May 30, 2019).
Taylor, Charles. 1985. Human Agency and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.BookGoogle Scholar
______. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thompson, Evan. 2015. Waking, Dreaming, Being: New Light on the Self and Consciousness from Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Tzohar, Roy. 2016. “Imagine Being a Preta: Early Indian Yogācāra Approaches to Intersubjectivity.” Sophia 3.1: 1–18.Google Scholar
Xuanzang 玄奘. On the Perfection of Consciousness-only 成唯識論. T.31, No. 1585. (see Takakusu et al. 1924–1932)
Yao, Zhihua. 2005. The Buddhist Theory of Self-cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zahavi, Dan. 2005. Subjectivity and Selfhood: Investigating the First-Person Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.BookGoogle Scholar
______. 2008. “Simulation, Projection and Empathy.” Consciousness and Cognition 17.2: 514–522.
______. 2010. “Empathy, Embodiment and Interpersonal Understanding: From Lipps to Schutz.” Inquiry 53.3: 285–306.
Source: Yogācāra Buddhism in China / Zhihua Yao
Dhammajoti, K.L. 2007. “ Sarvāstivāda, Vaibhāṣika, Dārṣṭāntika, Sautrāntika and Yogācāra.” In his Abhidharma Doctrines and Controversies on Perception, 5– 40. Hong Kong: Centre of Buddhist Studies, The University of Hong Kong.
Muller, A. Charles. 2011. “Woncheuk () on bimba () and pratibimba () in His Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana–sūtra.” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū), 59: 1272– 1280.
Radich, Michael. 2016. “Pure Mind in India: Indian Background to Paramārtha’s *Amalavijñāna.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 39: 249– 308.
Ruegg, D.S. 1976. “The Meaning of the Term ‘Gotra’ and the Textual History of the Ratnagotravibhāga.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 39 (2): 341– 363.
Schmithausen, Lambert. 2009. Plants in Early Buddhism and the Far Eastern Idea of the Buddha-nature of Grasses and Trees. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute.
An Introduction to Japanese Buddhist Sects (inc. History; Development of Mahayana Buddhism; Ancient Sects Jojitsu & Sanron; Kusha; Hosso; Ritsu; Kegon; Tendai; Shingon; Nichiren; Zen ]; etc)
Armstrong, R C ( Robert Cornell ); Preface By Ketha A Armstrong; Introduction By John Line
Published by Canada (likely Regina, SK.) Privately Printed for Mrs Robery Cornell Armstrong (printer – The Hunter Rose Co. ), 1950, 1st Edition, First Printing, Regina, Saskatchewan, 1950
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE TWELVE JAPANESE BUDDHIST SECTS.
TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL JAPANESE BY BUNYIU NANJIO, M. A. OXON; MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, LONDON; LECTURER ON THE SANSKRIT LANGUAGE IN THE IMPERIAL UNIVERSITY. TOKYO.
“This temple is the Shingon sect in Japan!!” “Because this temple is the Jodo sect of Buddhism, the principal idol is Amida Nyorai (Amitabha Tathagata).”
Have you not watched such a sentence in guide sites? (I also write such a sentence frequently in this Blog.)
However, do you know the sects and the characteristic of the Japanese chaitya well?
I didn’t know that…
This is no good.
Therefore, I checked the sects of the Buddhism of Japan and these characteristic.
Contents:
A sect and characteristic of the Japanese Buddhism
Characteristic of each sects
1.A sect and characteristic of the Japanese Buddhism
Attention : Also note that the views and impressions here are those of individuals.
A denomination of representative Buddhism called “13 sects of Japanese Buddhism” was in Japan by 1940 before the Religious Corporation Act promulgation. (It becomes “18 sects of Japanese Buddhism” now.)
I made the list of the characteristic of each denomination.
2.Characteristic of each sects
The large classification of the denomination of the Japanese Buddhism is the following six denominations.
Nara Buddhism line(Nanto Rokushu, or the Six Sects of Nara)
Esoteric Buddhism line
Jodo line
Zenshu (Zen Buddhism) line
Hokke(Nichiren) Buddhism line
Other
●Nara Buddhism line(Nanto Rokushu, or the Six Sects of Nara)
Nanto Rokushu’ (also called ‘Nanto Rikushu’) is the general term of the six Buddhist sects which flourished mainly in Heijo-kyo (the capital of Japan in the Nara period) in the Nara period.
Sanron sect
Jojitsu sect
Hosso sect
Kusha sect
Kegon sect
Ritsu sect
Shotoku Sect
・Sanron sect
・Thought that the essence of all existence is “空(Ku)”. (空:くう, 梵: śūnyatā) ・”空(Ku)” is thought of Buddhism regarded as “This world continues changing.”. (a belief in Buddhism in which everything is regarded as relative)
・Thought that the essence of all existence is “空(Ku)”. (空:くう, 梵: śūnyatā) ・”空(Ku)” is thought of Buddhism regarded as “This world continues changing.”. (a belief in Buddhism in which everything is regarded as relative)
Theory of this sect : “We can enter Nirvana by doing long ascetic practices”. Theory of this sect : “to practice various kinds of Buddhistic austerities”.
・A theory of this sect is a philosophical, difficult theory. (For example, “One is others, and others are one”) ・The theory of this sect is not to think but to feel.
・This sect attaches great importance to religious precepts of the Buddhism called “律(Ritsu)”. ・”律(Ritsu)” is a way of thinking called “a rule of the group are important”. (This attitudes parallel a current Japanese education in many points.)
The esoteric Buddhism means “secret teaching”. And this denomination is generally a denomination of the secret religion of the Mahayanist Buddhism.
Tendai sect
Shingon sect
・Tendai sect
・This sect is the position of the university of the Japanese Buddhism. ・This sect produced the initiator of many other denominations. ・This sect thinks that “Mikkyo(Esoteric Buddhism)” is the same as “Kenkyo(exoteric Buddhism)”. ・Nara has few temples of the Tendai sect. This is because Saicho which is an initiator of this sect was on bad terms with a temple of Nara.
・This sect is the position of the college of the Japanese Buddhism. ・This sect thinks that “Mikkyo(Esoteric Buddhism)” and “Kenkyo(exoteric Buddhism)” are different. ・This sect thinks that a sect except this sect is a part of this sect.
Jodo-kyo is a teaching for people to become Buddha in the Land of Bliss of Amitabha Buddha.
Yuzu-Nenbutsu sect
Jodo sect
Jodo-Shinshu sect
Ji sect
・Yuzu-Nenbutsu sect
・Theory of this sect : “All for one and one and one for all” ・The word of “融通(Yuzu)” have a meaning as “helps each other”. ・Theory of this sect : Let’s make the action of chanting a prayer to Amida Buddha ten times in a day.
・Theory of this sect : We can go to Paradise if we advocate a prayer to Buddha (Namu Amida Butsu). ・This sect attaches great importance to a prayer to Buddha very much. ・I think that it is influence of this sect and Jodo-Shinshu sect that a Japanese advocates a prayer to Buddha frequently.
伝来(Introduction)：1175 本山(Head Temple)：Chion-in Temple (Kyoto) 宗祖(Sect founder)：Honen 主な本尊(Main principal idol)：Amida Nyorai(Amitabha Tathagata) 経典(Main Sutra)：Jodosanbu-kyo(Three Sutras of the Pure Land)
・Jodo-Shinshu sect
・Theory of this sect : Even if we do not demand the help, Buddha helps us. ・This is a way of thinking of Tarikihongan (salvation by faith in Amitabha). (Therefore let’s advocate a prayer to Buddha to thank Buddha.)
伝来(Introduction)：1224 本山(Head Temple)：- 宗祖(Sect founder)：Shinran 主な本尊(Main principal idol)：Amida Nyorai(Amitabha Tathagata) 経典(Main Sutra)：Jodosanbu-kyo(Three Sutras of the Pure Land)
・時宗
・Theory of this sect : We must not advocate a prayer to Buddha to demand a result. (Let’s advocate a prayer to Buddha earnestly without thinking anything.) ・A thought that all the everyday life is the end of the life. (Therefore let’s always advocate prayers to Buddha not to be sorry.)
伝来(Introduction)：1274 本山(Head Temple)：Shojoko-ji Temple (Kanagawa) 宗祖(Sect founder)：Ippen 主な本尊(Main principal idol)：Amida Nyorai(Amitabha Tathagata) 経典(Main Sutra)：Jodosanbu-kyo(Three Sutras of the Pure Land)
●Zenshu (Zen Buddhism) line
The Zen Buddhism is a denomination of Buddhism training ourselves using the Zen meditation.
Rinzai sect
Soto sect
Fuke sect
Obaku sect
・Rinzai sect
・Theory of this sect : to reach the stage of spiritual awakening after getting a delusion out of one’s head (State of the Zen) ・The way of thinking that all life coexists. (Therefore the principal idol is not appointed in this sect in particular.)
伝来(Introduction)：1191 本山(Head Temple)：Myoshin-ji Temple (Kyoto) and others 宗祖(Sect founder)：Minnan Eisai 主な本尊(Main principal idol)：None Specified 経典(Main Sutra)：None Specified
・Soto sect
・Theory of this sect : We must not advocate a prayer to Buddha to demand a result. ・We must not be particular about a spiritual awakening.
・The basic theory of this sect is the same as “Rinzai sect”. ・This sect has a custom to advocate a prayer to Buddha in Chinese. ・An initiator of this sect is the person who introduced kidney beans to Japan.
Hokkeshu(Nichiren) sect is one of the denomination of Buddhism. Its fundamental sutra is only Lotus Sutra.
Nichiren sect
・Nichiren sect
・This sect regarded the Lotus sutra as the supreme dharma. (Other sects are not recognized.) ・It is a commoner in the world of the Buddhism even if it is the Emperor.
伝来(Introduction)：1253 本山(Head Temple)：Kuon-ji Temple (Yamanashi) 宗祖(Sect founder)：Nichiren 主な本尊(Main principal idol)：Shaka Nyorai(Gautama Buddha), Great Mandala(Maha Mandala) 経典(Main Sutra)：Lotus Sutra
●Other
Shugenshu sect(Shugendo sect)
・Shugenshu sect(Shugendo sect)
・This sect was developed as an mountain religion unique to Japan through incorporation of Shinto religion, Buddhism, Taoism, and so forth. ・The practitioner of austerities of this sect is called Yamabushi (Buddhist monk). ・Yamabushi is a practitioner of Shugendo (Japanese mountain asceticism/shamanism incorporating Shinto and Buddhist concepts) who earnestly walks in the mountains as an ascetic practice.
伝来(Introduction)：Nara period 本山(Head Temple)：Kimpusen-ji Temple (Nara) and others 宗祖(Sect founder)：En no Gyoja(En no Ozunu) 主な本尊(Main principal idol)：Zao Gongen 経典(Main Sutra)：None Specified
How did you like it?
The Japanese Buddhism is really profound.
Have a nice trip! XD
<Let’s search the sightseeing information of Kansai in Japan on ‘Japan’s Travel Manual‘!!> <This site introduces the easiest way to get Japanese (Kansai) sightseeing spots to you.>
:focal(300x226:301x227)/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer_public/51/2a/512a9f6e-c113-4d24-8d3c-3ecb0be41189/tempio_buddhista600.jpg)
/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer_public/e9/c1/e9c15919-8a57-4e02-ac39-252b17953dba/acropolis.jpeg)
Baizhang
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/nanzenji-56a0c4335f9b58eba4b3a28c.jpg)
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-115446364-56a0c52e5f9b58eba4b3ac04.jpg)
) on bimba (
) and pratibimba (
) in His Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana–sūtra.” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū), 59: 1272– 1280.
Viewpoints which Matter 
